DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a FINAL office action on the merits. Claims 1, 3-7 and 10-11, as filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “41”, “43”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6 and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eitel (US 2020/0378542) further in view of Gartner (DE 4437699).
Regarding claim 1, Eitel discloses an apparatus formed from a band (1) with two overlapping ends (4, 5), comprising a housing (10) with a locking element (11) and a spring element (13) wherein:
the locking element is movably arranged in a chamber of the housing and is operatively connected to the spring element (Fig. 2 as shown), and wherein:
the locking element engages a row of teeth (8) arranged on the band through an opening (7) in the chamber to lock the band in one direction of movement (Examiner notes the structure of the band, row of teeth, etc. do not appear to be positively claimed. However, as demonstrated herewith, the prior art appears to disclose these structures nevertheless.).
Eitel fails to disclose an adhesive reservoir is included, containing an adhesive that can be released to permanently bond the locking element to the chamber and/or to the row of teeth using the adhesive, thereby permanently securing the sealing cuff, and the adhesive reservoir is arranged on the outer side of the housing of the locking element facing the interior of the sealing cuff, and wherein the adhesive reservoir has a closure that opens when a predetermined opening pressure is exceeded, allowing the adhesive stored in the adhesive reservoir to flow into the chamber and/or surround the locking element and row of teeth.
Gartner teach a band (40) comprising adhesive reservoirs (50) filled with an adhesive (49) for securing the ends (51/52) of the band together wherein the adhesive reservoir is arranged on the outer side of the housing of the locking element facing the interior of the sealing cuff, and wherein the adhesive reservoir has a closure (membrane/coating shell of 50 as shown) that opens when a predetermined opening pressure is exceeded (Paragraph 38 of Gartner describes the reservoirs as being burst with increased pressure), allowing the adhesive stored in the adhesive reservoir to flow into the chamber and/or surround the locking element and row of teeth (locating the reservoirs as described above adjacent to the chamber would allow the adhesive to flow to pertinent structures).
From this teaching of Gartner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to include adhesive filled reservoirs positioned between the overlapped ends to fill the locking element of Eitel. Adhesives would allow for permanent fixation of the flanges once the band is securely in place. Adhesives would prevent unwanted and accidental loosening of the band.
Regarding claim 3, the combination device of Eitel and Gartner fails to teach the opening pressure for releasing the adhesive is at least 0.1N, preferably at least 1N, particularly preferably 5N, and most preferably a maximum of 100,000N, and/or at least 0.1 bar, preferably at least 0.5 bar. However, Gartner does describe the release of the adhesive when a threshold of pressure is surpassed as determined by the sufficient expansion of an inner air bag (Paragraph 38 of the translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the strength characteristics of the adhesive reservoir to achieve these ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, the combination device of Eitel and Gartner further teach the opening pressure for opening the closure is provided by moving the band when adjusting the inner diameter or by applying pressure from the inside of the sealing cuff to the outer side of the adhesive reservoir (Paragraph 38 describes wherein the expansion of an air bag is used to apply pressure from the inside). Gartner fails to explicitly state the adhesive reservoir is particularly made from an elastic material. Instead, Gartner describes wherein the “coating” bursts. This behavior implies elastic properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an elastic material for the coating since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 6, the combination device of Eitel and Gartner further teach the opening pressure is provided by pressing the cuff against an inner wall of a channel, particularly by expanding the sealing cuff (Paragraph 38 describes wherein expansion of an air bag presses the cuff by expanding the cuff).
Regarding claim 10, Eitel further discloses the use to fix an inner diameter of an adjustable sealing cuff (Fig. 1 as shown).
Regarding claim 11, Eitel further discloses the use according to claim 10 in pipeline rehabilitation (Abstract lines 1-2 describe use for sealing a leak).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eitel and Gartner as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Uhrig (DE 9313379U1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Eitel and Gartner disclose the invention except for wherein the adhesive reservoir comprises two chambers separated by a partition wall, with each chamber containing a component of a 2-component adhesive, wherein both chambers are operatively connected to the closure, and the adhesive components flow from the two chambers through the closure and mix under the opening pressure.
Uhrig teach a pipe sealer wherein two adhesive components are separated for mixing when mixed through pressure (Paragraph 21 and Paragraph 37).
From this teaching of Uhrig, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the single chambered reservoir taught by Gartner with a two chambered, 2 component adhesive reservoir. Epoxies provide heat and chemical stability advantages useful in pipe repair applications. Epoxies would also provide enhanced stability and curing advantages.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eitel and Gartner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2008/0017263).
Regarding claim 7, the combination device of Eitel and Gartner disclose the invention except for wherein the adhesive has a viscosity range at 20°C between 20,000 mPas and 1,000,000 mPas, preferably between 40,000 mPas and 800,000 mPas, or between 50,000 mPas and 500,000 mPas, and more preferably between 60,000 mPas and 600,000 mPas, for reliable bonding of the locking element. Robinson et al. teach adhesives in pipe repair within the claimed ranges (Paragraph 80 and 124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use resins with the claimed range of viscosities since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes the drawing objection regarding missing reference characters was not addressed and is maintained above. Regarding Applicant’s remarks about the closure of the reservoir, the lack of any structural detail of the closure allows for the membrane material of the reservoir disclosed in the prior art still reads on the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JACK W LAVINDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights