DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Continuing Obligations
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,453,101 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information referred to in the information disclosure statement filed on September 26, 2024 has been considered as to the merits.
Maintenance Fees
Applicant is reminded the 3.5 year maintenance fee is currently due. The payment window opened on September 27, 2025, the surcharge begins on March 28, 2026 and the last day to pay is September 28, 2026. The reissue will not publish if the maintenance fee is not paid before the payment period expires.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 – Oath/Dec
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
MPEP 1414 II. (B) states that "in identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase or expression in the specification or in an original claim and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative." The error statement must specifically identify an error by referencing at least one patent claim and specific claim language within the patented claim wherein the error lies. Applicant’s error statement fails to reference specific patented claim language. Applicant states “New independent Claims 21 and 28 do not include such limitations and recite a “pipe clamp””. The phrase “such limitations” is not sufficiently specific and does not constitute specific patented claim language that has been excluded or broadened.
Claims 1-2, 7, 16-17, 19 and 21-33 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: caster swivel (91). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 7, 16-17, 19, 22-24 and 28-33 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 28: The text “1s” should be replaced with the word - - is - -.
Claim 22, line 2: It appears as if the word - -is- - should be inserted between the words “and” and “shaped” for the sake of clarity.
Claim 24, line 4: It appears as if the word “be” should be replaced with the word - - the - -.
Claim 28, line 11: It appears as if the phrase - - contact a - - should be inserted between the word “to” and “second.”
Claim 21, line 21: It appears as if the word - - is - - should be inserted between the words “and” and “shaped” for the sake of clarity.
Claims 24 and 30, line 4: It appears as if the word “be” should be replaced with the word - - the - -.
Claim 28, line 11: It appears as if the phrase - - contact a - - should be inserted between the words “to” and “second.”
Claims not specifically addressed are objected to as dependent upon an objected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 16-17, 19 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “A pipe clamp” in the preamble. The claim further claims “a workpiece” and “a pipe jack.” It is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the pipe clamp alone, or a system comprised of a work piece, a pipe jack and a pipe clamp. Clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites “the guide is shaped to enable contact on an upper surface of the workpiece and includes a plurality of different sizes to contact a plurality of different sizes of the workpiece that are supporting on the pipe jack” in lines 19-21. It is not clear how “the guide” includes “a plurality of different sizes.” It appears as if Applicant is trying to describe how the guide is selected from a set of guides, each of the guides within the set of guides is a different size configured to contact different sized workpieces that are supported on the pipe jack. Clarification is required.
Claims 22 and 29 each recite the phrase “the curvilinear portion has a continuous radius from a focal point.” It is not clear what is meant by the phrase “continuous radius.” Clarification is required. It appears Applicant might be trying to describe how each point along the curvilinear portion is equidistant from a focal point. Clarification is required and a complete reply should identify where support for such language is provided in Applicant’s original disclosure.
The following words/phrases lack sufficient antecedent basis:
the movable member (claim 1, line 4)
the interior (claim 1, line 16)
the top (claim 19, line 2)
the apex (claim 21, line 13)
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell (5,863,035) in view of Williams (8,608,143).
With respect to claim 21, Howell discloses a pipe clamp for securing a workpiece (122) to a cradle (unlabeled) of a pipe jack (120), the pipe clamp comprising: a brace (112) having an angularly contoured portion (112C)(112A)(112C) terminating in a first end (unlabeled) and an opposing second end (unlabeled), wherein the brace is a unitary member with a uniform thickness as shown in Figure 1, the brace comprising: a first angled portion (112D) extending downward and inward from the first end of the angularly contoured portion and configured to contact a cradle (unlabeled) of a pipe jack (120); a second angled portion (112D) extending downward and inward from the opposing second end of the angularly contoured portion and configured to contact the cradle of the pipe jack; an aperture extending through the brace at a center of a top portion (112A) thereof; a stationary nut (112B) comprising internal threads (see column 5, lines 1-3) affixed to an upper side of the angularly contoured portion; and a clamp vertical adjustment (114)(116)(118) coupled to the brace, the clamp vertical adjustment comprising: a rod (114) having a first end and a second end and extending through the aperture and through the stationary nut (112B), a handle (116) coupled to the first end of the rod on one side of the brace and a guide (118) coupled to the second end of the rod on another side of the brace, the guide configured to enable contact with an upper surface of a workpiece (122).
Regarding claim 23, the first end and opposing second end of the brace are disposed at nearly diametric opposing sides of the angularly contoured portion.
With respect to claim 28, Howell discloses a pipe clamp for securing a workpiece (122) to a cradle (unlabeled) of a pipe jack (120), the pipe clamp comprising: a brace (112) having angularly contoured portion (112C)(112A)(112C) terminating in a first end (unlabeled) and an opposing second end (unlabeled), wherein the brace is a unitary member with a uniform thickness as shown in Figure 1, the brace comprising: a first angled portion (112D) extending downward and inward from the first end of the angularly contoured portion and configured to contact a first lower surface of a V-shaped cradle (unlabeled) of a pipe jack (120); a second angled portion (112D) extending downward and inward from the opposing second end of the angularly contoured portion and configured to contact a first lower surface of a V-shaped cradle of the pipe jack, and the brace is a unitary member; an aperture extending through the brace at a center of a top edge (112A) thereof; a stationary nut (112B) comprising internal threads (see column 5, lines 1-3) affixed to an upper side of the angularly contoured portion; and a clamp vertical adjustment (114)(116)(118) coupled to the brace, the clamp vertical adjustment comprising: a rod (114) having a first end and a second end and extending through the aperture and through the stationary nut, a handle (116) coupled to the first end of the rod on one side of the brace and a guide (118) coupled to the second end of the rod on another side of the brace, the guide configured to enable contact with an upper surface of a workpiece (122). Howell discloses changing the size of the brace based upon the size of the workpiece (see embodiment in Figure 2, alternative embodiment in Figure 3 and description in column 6, lines 8-14).
Howell does not disclose the brace having a curvilinear portion as required by claims 21 and 28, the curvilinear portion having a continuous radius from a focal point and being shaped like a semi-circle as required by claims 22 and 28-29 or a swivel attachment in the form of a caster swivel as required by claims 24-26 and 30-31.
Williams teaches a pipe clamp device with a brace having a curvilinear portion (102). The curvilinear portion is in the shape of a semi-circle with diametrically opposed first and second ends. As best understood, the curvilinear portion taught by Williams has a “continuous radius” from a single focal point. Angled portions (101) extend from each end of the curvilinear portion (102) for contact with an underside of cradle (382) of a pipe jack stand (380). Each end of the curvilinear portion (102) are disposed at nearly diametrically opposing sides. Further, Williams teaches a guide (123) that is a “swivel vee” which swivels about the second end (122) of rod (see column 5, lines 56-67) and constitutes a caster swivel.1
It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of filing of the application to modify the shape of the angularly contoured portion (112C)(112A)(112C) disclosed by Howell to be curvilinear as taught by Williams. Howell discloses that a change of size is an obvious modification to facilitate work pieces of different sizes. It would have been further obvious to a PHOSITA to change the shape of the brace to facilitate larger work pieces. Experimentation with a curvilinear shaped brace would provide the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating larger work pieces while providing a structure capable of withstanding greater compressive forces. Curved shapes are well known to be capable of distributing compressive loads evenly along the curved surface thereby helping prevent bending and potential failure. It would have been further obvious to a PHOSITA to add a swivel attachment between the guide and the rod disclosed by Howell as taught by Williams since such a provision eases alignment of the guide with respect to the workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 7, 16-17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 26-27 and 32-33 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Headrick (3,211,446); Moody (7,004,682); Lagsdin (5,564,871); Wietrzyk (4,139,189); Schaefer (3,345,061); Leming (2,371,831).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH B. MCPARTLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6854. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Eileen Lillis can be reached at 571-272-6928. 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.
/SARAH B MCPARTLIN/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:
/JOSHUA KADING/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 The claim limitation “caster swivel” is being interpreted to equate to any swivel that would enable the guide to “swivel like a caster wheel” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation is any swivel that would enable the guide to rotate in either direction.