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 .
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 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.
Double Patenting
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of US patent number 12104726B2, (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, upon careful review, examiner submits that claim 1 of reference patent recites same features and limitations of a portion of claim 1 of instant application, while claim 2 of instant application recites same features and limitations of a portion of claim 1 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 3, examiner submits that claim 3 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 2 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 4, examiner submits that claim 4 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 3 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 5, examiner submits that claim 5 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 4 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 6, examiner submits that claim 6 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 5 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 7, examiner submits that claim 6 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 6 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 9, examiner submits that claim 9 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 8 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 10, examiner submits that claim 10 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 9 of reference patent.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, upon careful review, examiner submits that claim 10 of reference patent recites same features and limitations of a portion of claim 11 of instant application, while claim 12 of instant application recites same features and limitations of a portion of claim 10 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 13, examiner submits that claim 13 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 11 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 14, examiner submits that claim 14 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 12 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 15, examiner submits that claim 15 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 13 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 16, examiner submits that claim 16 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 14 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 17, examiner submits that claim 17 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 15 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 18, examiner submits that claim 18 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 16 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 19, examiner submits that claim 19 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 17 of reference patent.
Regarding claim 20, examiner submits that claim 20 of instant application recites same features and limitations as claim 18 of reference patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blackburn (US 1789997, hereinafter referred to as “Blackburn”).
Regarding claim 1, Blackburn discloses a lockable pipe shield (Figs 2 and 3, cable seat 14) comprising: a substantially curved shield body (Fig 1, cable seat 14 is curved) defining a first upper shield edge and a second upper shield edge opposite the first upper shield edge (Figs 1 and 2, edges 20, 21 are first and second upper shield edges); a first lock tab (Figs 1-3, tab 23) formed monolithically with the shield body at the first upper shield edge (Figs 1 and 2, tab 23 formed monolithically with pipe shield 14 at edge 20) and bent relative to the shield body to extend in a first direction (Figs 1-3, tab 23 bent relative to pipe shield 14), a first hanger engagement channel (Figs 2 and 3, channel (22)) defined between the first lock tab and shield body (Figs 2 and 3, channel 22 defined between 23 and 14); and a second lock tab (col. 2, line 28-33, “may construct both ends alike”, implying of having a second tab same as first tab 23 at the other side) formed monolithically with the shield body at the second upper shield edge (Figs 1 and 2, duplicate tab same as 23 which is formed monolithically with 14 at edge 20) and bent relative to the shield body to extend in a second direction substantially opposite the first direction (col. 2, line 28-33, tongue which is bent), a second hanger engagement channel defined between the second lock tab and the shield body (Figs 2 and 3, channel (22) can be duplicated on other side, col. 2, line 28-33).
Regarding claim 9, Blackburn discloses further comprising: a third lock tab at the first upper shield edge and bent relative to the shield body to extend substantially in the second direction towards the first lock tab (col. 2, lines 15-27: hangers supplied with these wide cable seats ….. “lineman need only supply the cable seat to one or two hangers on either side of the pole”; Figs 2 and 3, thus cable seat 14 can be duplicated to form second cable hanger on either side of the pole, which is same as the one shown in Fig 1 since the cable shown by dotted lines can be extending over a relatively long distance, which would require more than one cable hanger to support; so that a third lock tab can be duplicate of first tab 23, being disposed on the second cable hanger extending towards first tab 23; Figs 1-3, tab 23 bent relative to 14); and a fourth lock tab at the second upper shield edge and bent relative to the shield body to extend substantially in the first direction towards the second lock tab (col. 2, lines 15-27 and col. 2, line 28-33, and cable seat 14 can be duplicated for another cable hanger of the one shown in Fig 1 since the cable in dotted line can extend over a long distance, which requires more than one cable hanger, see also col. 2, lines 15-27; meanwhile, fourth lock tab can also be duplicate of second tab and extending towards second tab; Figs 1-3, tab 23 bent relative to 14).
Regarding claim 11, Blackburn discloses a pipe support assembly (Fig 1) comprising: a substantially U-shaped pipe hanger (see annotated figure below, U-shaped portion at 8) defining a first side edge and a second side edge opposite the first side edge (see annotated figure below, side edges of two hanger arms 9, 10), the pipe hanger comprising a front hanger arm and a rear hanger arm opposite the front hanger arm (see annotate figure below, arms 9, 10); and a lockable pipe shield comprising a shield body (see annotated figure below), a first lock tab (see annotated figure below), and a second lock tab (see annotated figure below, alternatively see col. 2, line 28-33, may construct both ends alike, implying having a second tab same as first tab 23), wherein the first lock tab is bent around the front hanger arm at the first side edge and the second lock tab is bent around the rear hanger arm at the second side edge to secure the lockable pipe shield to the pipe hanger (see annotated figure below, tab 23 is bent around arm 10 at side edge, to secure pipe shield to pipe hanger); wherein an outer shield surface of the lockable pipe shield confronts an inner hanger surface of the pipe hanger (see annotated figure below, outer shield surface of pipe shield 14 confronts/directly contacts inner hanger surface of pipe hanger at 8 in Figs 1 and 2).
Annotated Figure A taken from Blackburn
PNG
media_image1.png
696
763
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Blackburn discloses wherein the lockable pipe shield further comprises a third lock tab bent around the front hanger arm at the second side edge and a fourth lock tab bent around the rear hanger arm at the first side edge (col. 2, lines 15-27: hangers supplied with these wide cable seats ….. “lineman need only supply the cable seat to one or two hangers on either side of the pole”; and col. 2, line 28-33, Figs 2 and 3, thus cable seat 14 can be duplicated for another cable hanger of the one shown in Fig 1, and also since the cable shown in dotted lines can extend over a long distance, which requires more than one cable hanger for support; meanwhile, third lock tab can be duplicate of first tab 23, on the second cable hanger extending towards first tab 23; Figs 1-3, tab 23 bent relative to 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-8, 10, 12-17, 19 and 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Blackburn fails to disclose “wherein: the first lock tab is movable from a first position, wherein the first lock tab is substantially flush with shield body, to a second position, wherein the first lock tab is bent relative to the shield body to extend in the first direction; and the second lock tab is movable from a first position, wherein the second lock tab is substantially flush with shield body” of claim 2, “wherein the first lock tab overlaps the third lock tab and wherein the second lock tab overlaps the fourth lock tab” of claim 10, and “the front hanger arm confronts the first tab spacing; and the rear hanger arm confronts the second tab spacing” of claim 20. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schmitt (US 20210278027) discloses a pipe hanger assembly. OH (US 8840071) discloses a cable hanger with tabs. Botsolas (US 6283158) discloses a pipe hanger with pipe insulation shield with bent corners. Lee (US 20140175230) discloses a conduit hanger with retention member. Juzak (US 20200271241) discloses a pipe support structure. Botsolas (US 6582655) discloses a insulation protection shield for clevis hanger with particular bent corners at the upper shield edge. Moore (US 8915110) discloses method for fabricating insulation protection shield for piper hanger. Lee (US 8919704) discloses insulation shield for pipe hanger with retention members.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632