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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 of claim 4 recites “to engage and upper jaw surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 of claim 16 recites “the first notch at least partially the clamp channel.” It appears that a word is missing in above feature (Note: Specification in [0069] lines 6-7 recites “upper notch 440 partially defining the clamp channel 142”). Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”).
Regarding claim 1, Delingpole discloses a brace clamp (Fig 1, coupler for connecting two scaffold tubes together in perpendicular relationship) comprising: a first jaw (Figs 1, 3, jaw(9)); a second jaw pivotably coupled to the first jaw (Figs 1 and 3, jaw 23 pivotly coupled via a pin 25 to first jaw (9)), wherein a clamp channel is defined between the first jaw and the second jaw (Fig 1, clamp channel defined for holding a horizontal tube 30), the clamp channel configured to receive a sway brace pipe therethrough (Fig 1, clamp channel configured for receiving tube 30); and a clamp fastener coupled to the first jaw (Fig 1, a clamping bolt 18 with a clamping nut 20 and a bolt head 17 coupled to jaw (9)); wherein the brace clamp is configurable in a disengaged configuration (Fig 3) and an engaged configuration (Fig 1); and wherein, in the disengaged configuration (Fig 3), the first jaw is pivoted away from the second jaw (jaw (9) pivoted away from jaw(23)) and the clamp fastener is disengaged from the second jaw (Fig 3, clamp fastener (17/18/20) disengaged from jaw (23)), and in the engaged configuration (Fig 1), the first jaw is pivoted towards the second jaw (jaw (9) pivoted towards jaw (23)) and the clamp fastener is engaged with the second jaw (Fig 1, clamp fastener (17/18/20) engaged with jaw (23)).
Regarding claim 2, Delingpole discloses wherein the brace clamp (Figs 1 and 3) defines a front clamp end and a rear clamp end, the second jaw is pivotably coupled to the first jaw proximate to the rear clamp end (Fig 3, jaw (23) pivotly coupled to jaw (9) near end at 12/26), and the clamp channel defines an open channel end at the front clamp end in the disengaged configuration (Fig 3, open channel end at between 21/13).
Regarding claim 3, Delingpole discloses wherein a fastener opening extends through the first jaw proximate to the front clamp end (Figs 1 and 2, open mouth recess 16 extends through bolt hinging lug 13 of jaw (9)), and wherein the clamp fastener is received through the fastener opening (portion of clamp fastener (17) received through 16).
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 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.
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) 4-9, 11, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”).
Regarding claim 4, Delingpole discloses wherein the clamp fastener comprises a threaded clamp bolt (Fig 1, clamping bolt 18 is threaded), the threaded clamp bolt (18) comprising a bolt head (17) and a threaded bolt shaft (stem 18a and threaded portion combined) extending from the bolt head (17).
However, Delingpole fails to disclose the bolt head configured to engage and upper jaw surface of the first jaw.
However, Goodman teaches the clamp fastener (Fig 2, bolt 130 and nut 146) … (comprising) the bolt head ([0022] lines 16-17: locking bolt has a head end) configured to engage and upper jaw surface of the first jaw (Figs 1 and 3, head of locking bolt engage in the depression 140 at upper jaw surface of first jaw (104));
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Goodman based on the rationale that the ridge 144 combined with depression 140 taught by Goodman permits secure engagement/locking of bolt head to the upper jaw of clamp assembly in the locking/closed position to prevent rotation of the bolt 130 during tightening of the nut 146. On the other hand, Delingpole is relying on the two ends 17a of the elongated cylindrical bolt head 17 resting against recessed area of the lugs 13 for engagement shown in Fig 1, but appears to still have some slight spacing for play or tendency for some back and forth rotating freedom of the clamping bolt 18. Meanwhile, referring to [0025] last 6 lines, the ridge 144 of Goodman serve to “partially protect the head” of the locking bolt when the locking bolt is in the lockable position. On the other hand, according to teachings from Delinpole, there is no such protection feature to protect clamping nut 20 of Delingpole upon locking. Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Goodman to arrive at a brace clamp configured for secure sway brace pipe support during seismic events; and second, there must have been a reasonable expectation of success because the pipe clamp of Delingpole and the pipe clamp of Goodman are similar in principle of operation and intended use.
Regarding claim 5, Delingpole fails to disclose wherein the upper jaw surface comprises at least one of a fastener recess or a fastener notch adjacent to the fastener opening, and wherein the bolt head is configured to engage the at least one of the fastener recess or the fastener notch.
However, Goodman and Delingpole combined teach wherein the upper jaw surface comprises at least one of a fastener recess or a fastener notch (Goodman: Fig 1, upper jaw surface at 120 forms a fastener recess (ridge 144 and depression 140 combined) adjacent to the fastener opening (Delingpole: Figs 1 and 2, open mouth recess), and wherein the bolt head is configured to engage the at least one of the fastener recess or the fastener notch ([0008] last 6 lines, and [0025] last 6 lines, Fig 3, clamp assembly is in closed/locked position).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Goodman based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 4 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 6, Delingpole fails to discloses wherein the at least one of a fastener recess or a fastener notch defines a substantially concave first recess shoulder and a substantially concave second recess shoulder.
However, Goodman teaches wherein the at least one of a fastener recess or a fastener notch defines a substantially concave first recess shoulder and a substantially concave second recess shoulder (Fig 1, upper jaw surface at 120 forms a fastener recess (ridge 144 and depression 140 combined), while portions of the curved concave shaped part of the ridge 144 can be the substantially concave first and second recess shoulders, see annotated partial view of Fig 2 below, notice the slot 132 forms the dividing feature for the two first and second recess shoulders).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Goodman based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 4 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Annotated partial view of Fig 2 of Goodman
PNG
media_image1.png
628
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Delingpole discloses wherein: the second jaw defines a threaded opening; the threaded bolt shaft threadedly engages the threaded opening in the engaged configuration (Page 1 specification lines 25-28: “…. T shaped clamping bolt, the threaded stem of which carries a nut for engaging with the other and free end of one of the two jaws”, thereby implying presence of threaded opening at free end of one jaw (so as to be engaging with stem and nut) for engaged configuration in Fig 1); and the threaded bolt shaft is disengaged from the threaded opening in the disengaged configuration (Fig 3, bolt stem threaded portion is disengaged from opening at 21).
Regarding claim 8, Delingpole discloses wherein: a fastener slot extends into the second jaw at the front clamp end (Figs 1 and 2, a fastener slot would be extending into jaw 23 at free end portion 21 to allow passing through of threaded end of threaded bolt 18, same as the other fastener slot at 22), an intermediate portion of the threaded bolt shaft is received through the fastener slot in the engaged configuration (Fig 1, a middle part of threaded bolt shaft of 18 is received through fastener slot at 21 adjacent 20a); and the threaded bolt shaft is disengaged from the fastener slot in the disengaged configuration (Fig 3, threaded bolt shaft of 18 is disengaged from fastener slot at 21 of jaw 23 in the disengaged configuration).
Regarding claim 9, Delingpole discloses wherein: the threaded bolt shaft further defines a distal shaft end opposite the bolt head (Figs 1 and 3, end of threaded section of bolt (proximal to nut 20) is opposite the bolt head 17); the intermediate portion is disposed between the distal shaft end and the bolt head (Figs 1 and 3, a middle part of threaded bolt shaft of 18 disposed between end of threaded portion of 18 and bolt head 17); the clamp fastener further comprises a clamp nut threadedly mounted on the distal shaft end (Fig 1 and 3, clamp nut 20 threaded mounted on thread shaft end of 18); and the clamp nut is tightened toward the intermediate portion in the engaged configuration (Fig 1, nut 20 tightened towards middle part of 18 in engaged configuration).
Regarding claim 11, Delingpole discloses wherein the second jaw (23) is pivotably coupled to the first jaw (9) at a hinge (Figs 1-3, arms 26 and pin 25), the hinge (26 and 25) comprising a first hinge opening (Fig. 2, hole through 12 to allow passage of pin 25) formed through the first jaw (9), a second hinge opening formed through the second jaw (Figs 1-3, hole through second jaw (23) to allow pin 25 to pass through), and a hinge pin (25) received through each of the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening (Figs 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Delingpole discloses wherein: the second jaw defines a base and a pair of jaw sidewalls extending from the base towards the first jaw (Figs 2-3, jaw 23 appears to have sidewalls at 26, towards jaw 9 at 12, and a base at 23a); and each of the jaw sidewall defines an upper wall end distal to the base (Figs 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Delingpole discloses wherein the first jaw defines a first notch facing the second jaw, the first notch at least partially the clamp channel (Figs 1 and 3, notch in dashed line formed at end of jaw 9 at 16, facing jaw 23).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”), and further in view of Kusama (US 6041823A, hereinafter referred to as “Kusama”), and further in view of Budziszek (US 20220057021A1, hereinafter referred to as “Budziszek”).
Regarding claim 10, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein at least one positioner tab extends from a lower jaw surface of the second jaw adjacent to the fastener slot, and wherein the at least one positioner tab engages the clamp nut in the engaged configuration to prevent rotation and removal of the clamp nut.
However, Kusama teaches wherein at least one positioner tab extends from a lower jaw surface of the second jaw adjacent to the fastener slot, and wherein the at least one positioner tab engages the clamp nut in the engaged configuration to prevent rotation and removal of the clamp nut (see annotated figure A below taken from Kusama, positioner tab extending from a jaw surface of jaw (2) adjacent to fastener slot near 12, positioner tab engages nut 12 in engaged configuration of Fig 6 to prevent rotation of nut 12).
Annotated Figure A taken from Fig 6 of Kusama
PNG
media_image2.png
671
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Delingpole by Kusama in view of Goodman and Budziszek based on the rationale that the positioner tab taught by Kusama permits engagement of positioner tab to the clamp nut in the engaged configuration to prevent rotation and removal of the clamp nut. Meanwhile, the flat bottom portion of the jaw (1) of Kusama improve upon the curved surface of the bottom of the jaw of Delingpole, so as to improve upon adaptability for mounting to flat first end 114 and second 116 of hanger strap 112 of pipe hanger 110 of Budziszek. Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Kusama in view of Budziszek and Goodman to arrive at a brace clamp configured for secure sway brace pipe support during seismic events; and second, there must have been a reasonable expectation of success because the pipe clamp of Kusama and the pipe clamp of Delingpole are similar in principle of operation and intended use.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”), and further in view of Romano (FR 2614657A, hereinafter referred to as “Romano”).
Regarding claim 12, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein the hinge is a multi-position hinge, and wherein: a third hinge opening is formed through the first jaw; in a first position, the hinge pin engages the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening; and in a second position, the hinge pin extends through the third hinge opening and the second hinge opening.
However, Romano teaches wherein the hinge is a multi-position hinge (Figs 1 and 2, articulated link 5 comprising sets of multiple holes for pins 14, 15, thereby providing multiple position hinge, Fig 3, two pairs of holes 12, 13), and wherein: a third hinge opening is formed through the first jaw (Figs 1-3, at least pair of hinge openings 9 formed in jaw 3); in a first position, the hinge pin engages the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening (Fig 1, pin 14 engage farther hole for jaw 3 ); and in a second position, the hinge pin extends through the third hinge opening and the second hinge opening (Fig 2, hinge pin 14 extends through nearer hole for jaw 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Romano in view of Goodman based on the rationale as taught in english translation copy of Romano in page 1: “there has been an increasing trend towards the diversification of tubes with a view to optimizing the frame characteristics (rigidity, lightness, etc.). The object of the present invention is to produce a locking device of the type specified above, which can be adapted to frame elements of different dimensions. To solve this problem, the subject of the invention is a blocking device of the type defined above, characterized in that at least one member forming part of the articulated connection comprises a plurality of holes for selectively receiving a hinge pin carried by another member of the joint, so that the locking device can be adapted to frame elements of different dimensions.” Thus the advantage of the multi-position hinge achieved by Romano over the single-position hinge of Delingpole and Goodman, respectively, serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Romano and second, there must have been a reasonable expectation of success because the pivot clamp for tube/pipe with locking fastener for both Delingpole and Romano are very similar in principle of operation and intended use.
Regarding claim 13, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein the hinge is a multi-position hinge, and wherein: a third hinge opening is formed through the second jaw; in a first position, the hinge pin engages the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening; and in a second position, the hinge pin extends through the first hinge opening and the third hinge opening.
However, Romano teaches wherein the hinge is a multi-position hinge (Figs 1 and 2, articulated link 5 comprising sets of multiple holes for pins 14, 15, thereby providing multiple position hinge, Fig 3, two pairs of holes 12, 13 ), and wherein: a third hinge opening is formed through the second jaw (Figs 1-3, at least pair of hinge openings 10 formed in jaw 4); in a first position, the hinge pin engages the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening (Fig 1, pin 15 engage farther hole for jaw 4); and in a second position, the hinge pin extends through the first hinge opening and the third hinge opening (Fig 2, hinge pin 15 extends through nearer hole for jaw 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Romano in view of Goodman based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 12 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”), and further in view of Glarks clevis pin assortment kit sold on amazon.com dated 08/31/2020, (hereinafter referred to as “Glarks”).
Regarding claim 14, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein the hinge pin comprises a clevis pin defining a distal pin end, and wherein the hinge further comprises a cotter pin coupled to the distal pin end of the clevis pin to retain the clevis pin in engagement with the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening.
However, Glarks teaches wherein the hinge pin comprises a clevis pin defining a distal pin end, and wherein the hinge further comprises a cotter pin coupled to the distal pin end of the clevis pin to retain the clevis pin in engagement with the first hinge opening and the second hinge opening (clevis pin assortment kit shown in roll over images; 7th roll over image shows cotter pins for assembled with clevis pins).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Glarks in view of Goodman based on the rationale that the sets of different clevis pins and cotter pins offered by Glarks allows for quick release and installation and disassembly capability for secure holds for pivot pins for the hinge of Delingpole and Goodman. Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Glarks in view of Goodman.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”), and further in view of Theunissen (WO 2015040012A1, hereinafter referred to as “Theunissen”).
Regarding claim 17, Delingpole discloses wherein: the second jaw defines a second notch facing the first jaw (Figs 1 and 2, notch along dashed line formed at end of jaw 23 at 21, facing jaw 9, to permit passage of threaded bolt 18); the first notch and the second notch together defines the clamp channel (Figs 1 and 3, clamp channel is formed at 16 and 21 to allow passage of threaded bolt 18 for clamping by 17);
However, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach the second notch comprises a first lower notch defined by the upper wall end of a first one of the pair of jaw sidewalls and a second lower notch defined by the upper wall end of a second one of the pair of jaw sidewalls.
However, Theunissen teaches the second notch comprises a first lower notch defined by the upper wall end of a first one of the pair of jaw sidewalls and a second lower notch defined by the upper wall end of a second one of the pair of jaw sidewalls.
(see annotated figure B below)
Annotated Figure B taken from Theunissen
PNG
media_image3.png
768
639
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Theunissen based on the rationale that the substantially flat pipe engagement portion of inner surfaces 7a, 7b of jaws of brace clamp of Theunissen allows for improvement as discussed in english translation copy of page 6 of Theunissen, reproduced herein below: “In the case of a combination of a polygonal cross section tube with the gripping means according to the invention, once the tube is tightened in the jaw, a catch between the tube and the gripping means is ensured so that the rotational movement of the tube or the gripping means along the longitudinal axis of the tube t is blocked. Thus, when mounting on the gateways of heavy accessories (cameras, light spots) which, under the effect of gravity which is a driving force of the tube, tend to put the tube in rotation movement, this rotation is thwarted since the driving force is preferably entirely compensated by the pressure acting on each of the contact surfaces formed between the outer surface E of the tube t and the inner surface of the jaw.” Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Theunissen when using a brace clamp configured for securing polygonal-profile brace pipe support during seismic events for sake of improving upon blocking of unintended rotational motions; and second, there must have been a reasonable expectation of success because the brace clamp of Delingpole and Theunissen are similar in principle of operation and structures.
Regarding claim 18, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein the upper wall end of each of the pair of jaw sidewalls defines a substantially flat pipe engagement portion.
However, Theunissen teaches wherein the upper wall end of each of the pair of jaw sidewalls defines a substantially flat pipe engagement portion (Figs 1 and 2, jaws for brace clamp (3) has upper wall end at sidewalls at 7a, 7b defining substantially flat pipe engagement portion for engaging a tube with hexagonal shape).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Theunissen based on the rationale that the substantially flat pipe engagement portion of inner surfaces 7a, 7b of jaws of brace clamp of Theunissen allows for improvement as discussed in english translation copy of page 6 of Theunissen, reproduced herein below: “In the case of a combination of a polygonal cross section tube with the gripping means according to the invention, once the tube is tightened in the jaw, a catch between the tube and the gripping means is ensured so that the rotational movement of the tube or the gripping means along the longitudinal axis of the tube t is blocked. Thus, when mounting on the gateways of heavy accessories (cameras, light spots) which, under the effect of gravity which is a driving force of the tube, tend to put the tube in rotation movement, this rotation is thwarted since the driving force is preferably entirely compensated by the pressure acting on each of the contact surfaces formed between the outer surface E of the tube t and the inner surface of the jaw.” Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Theunissen when using a brace clamp configured for securing polygonal profile brace pipe support during seismic events for sake of improving upon blocking of unintended rotational motions; and second, there must have been a reasonable expectation of success because the brace clamp of Delingpole and Theunissen are similar in principle of operation and structures.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton Delingpole (GB 1393094, hereinafter referred to as “Delingpole”) in view of Goodman (US 20020070317A1, hereinafter referred to as “Goodman”), and further in view of Dixonvalve clever clamp® youtube video dated 10/05/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Dixonvalve”).
Regarding claim 19, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein each of the jaw sidewalls is angled outward and away from the other one of the jaw sidewalls to define an obtuse angle between the base and each of the jaw sidewalls.
However, Dixonvalve teaches wherein each of the jaw sidewalls is angled outward and away from the other one of the jaw sidewalls to define an obtuse angle between the base and each of the jaw sidewalls (see screen capture at 0:55 min reproduced herein below, the angles between jaw sidewall and base are both obtuse angle for the clever clamp ®).
PNG
media_image4.png
684
897
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Dixonvalve based on the rationale that the interior structure of the jaws of the brace clamp of Delingpole when modified to be shaped in the form of the interior structures of jaws of clever clamp® of Dixonvalve would permit clamping and support of not just singular straight pipe or brace pipe, but also allows for secure clamping and support of multiple ferrule pipe fittings using gasket seal. Thus, there would be teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Delingpole by Dixonvalve when adapting the brace clamp to be used for secure clamping support of multiple ferrule pipe fittings.
Regarding claim 20, Delingpole and Goodman fails to disclose or teach wherein: the base defines a lower base surface; a mount positioning groove is formed in the lower base surface and extends from an inward-facing side of the second jaw towards an outward-facing side of the second jaw; and the mount positioning groove defines a groove stop surface proximate to the outward-facing side.
However, Dixonvalve teaches wherein: the base defines a lower base surface; a mount positioning groove is formed in the lower base surface and extends from an inward-facing side of the second jaw towards an outward-facing side of the second jaw (inward-facing side of jaw can be the inner surface forming mount positioning groove, while outward-facing side of jaw can be the outer surfaces of second jaw in annotated figure C below); and the mount positioning groove defines a groove stop surface proximate to the outward-facing side (refer to annotated figure C below, groove stop surface can be the contacting sloped interior surfaces adjacent to the lower base surface with respect to pipe fitting ferrule).
Annotated figure C taken from Dixonvalve
PNG
media_image5.png
789
1284
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delingpole by Dixonvalve based on the same rationale previously discussed for claim 19 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lipinski (WO 2013057692A1) discloses a scaffold clamp with openable jaw, nut and bolt. Kirschner (US 8070113B1) discloses a sway brace with a sling strap. Kirschner (US 7523895B1) discloses a sway brace with a U-shaped strap. Kendrick (WO 2021245231A1) discloses a releasable clamp for pipes having pivoting jaws and multiple pivot pins and a latch clevis pin. Osborne (US 20110017880A1) discloses a lateral seismic brace and sway brace fitting clamp with a pair of hooks. Thorn boat bimini rail mount sold on amazon discloses a tube clamp having a pivot and two rotating jaws with fasteners for locking. Lozome high-pressure sanitary clamp sold on amazon discloses a tube clamp fitting with locking nut and bolt sets. Elliot (GB2352475A) discloses a jaw clamp having a nut and set assembly along jaws. Heath (US 20040031887A1) discloses a sway cable brace clamp.
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. xaminer 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 on 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