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
Claims 16 and 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, lines 10, “the bolt flange” appears to refer to the same part as “the outwardly extending bolt flanges”.
Claim 20, line 1, “a liquid” appears to refer to the same part as “a liquid” in claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 recites wherein the lubricant is a liquid, which is the second to last line of the newly amended claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read (GB 352114) in view of Dhanasekaran (10711920), Miles (7467767), and Komasa (US-Pub 2020/0376638).
Regarding claim 1, Read discloses a method of assembling a tube assembly comprising the steps of: providing a saddle clamp (fig 2) having a first clamp half (1, fig 2) extending for less than 50 percent of a circumference of a tube (5, fig 1), and a second clamp half (4, fig 2) extending for more than 50 percent of the circumference of the tube; placing the tube on the first clamp half, resting on a static structure (page 1, lines 25-32), and then bringing the second clamp half onto the tube (fig 1), and then driving a first fastener (fastener 3 exists on both sides, so one fastener would be the first side, and the opposite side fastener would be the second, fig 2) to secure the first and second clamp halves, where there are a pair of the bolt flanges (6, fig 2) on opposed sides of the tube for each of the first and second clamp halves, wherein the first fastener being initially driven into the bolt flanges on one side of the tube, and then a second fastener being driven through the bolt flanges on the other side of the tube (using conventional tools, a person would need to drive a first fastener first, then a second fastener), wherein each of the first and second halves having a metal underlying structure (page 2, lines 4-16) with outwardly extending bolt flanges (6, fig 1) and a supporting section (2, 9, fig 1) and the first and second fasteners extending through the bolt flanges.
Read does not disclose inner and outer grommets, and wherein lubricant is applied to the laterally inner surface of the second clamp half, wherein the lubricant is a liquid.
Miles teaches a clamp (2, fig 1) for securing a conduit (4, fig 1), wherein the clamp has a first (28, fig 2) and second (52, fig 2) clamp half having a metal underlying structure, with both comprising metal underlying structure (col 2, lines 23-30) and a grommet (20, 22, fig 1), wherein the first clamp half has a circumferential portion supporting a portion of the tube (20, fig 2, Miles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp disclosed by Read by having a grommet structure on the first and second clamp half based on the teachings of Miles. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the usage of a grommet extends the life of the clamp by protecting a high-wear surface.
Dhanasekaran teaches a clamping member (188, fig 7) for a tube for a fluid (138, fig 7) of a gas turbine which teaches applying a lubricant to a laterally inner surface of part of the clamp (col 10, lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp disclosed by Read by applying a lubricant to the laterally inner surface of the second clamp half based on the teachings of Dhanasekaran. Doing so would reduce material fretting (col 11, lines 1-2) as suggested by Dhanasekaran.
Read as modified by Dhanasekaran discloses the claimed invention except for the part having the lubrication being the second clamp half. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second clamp be the part with the lubrication, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, it has been held that the fact that a combination was obvious when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.1.E. In the instant case, where Dhanasekaran teaches using lubricant on only part of a clamp, there are finite possible lubricant locations, of which placing lubricant on only one of the clamp halves was an obvious solution and thus placing it on just the second half was an obvious predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Komasa teaches treating a clamp with a lubricant wherein the lubricant for a cable clamping mechanism can be a liquid (par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid lubricant disclosed by Read as modified by Miles and Dhanasekaran by using a liquid lubricant based on the teachings of Komasa. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these two as being equivalent alternate embodiments which can be chosen based on design requirements and material accessibility.
Regarding claim 5, Read discloses wherein the bolt flanges on the second clamp half rests on the bolt flanges of the first clamp half (fig 1, they rest on top of each other when connected).
Regarding claim 6, Read as modified by Dhanasekaran discloses wherein the lubricant is only placed on the inner surface of the second clamp half (see the modification under claim 1 above).
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miles in view of Dhanasekaran, Read, and Komasa.
Regarding claims 16 and 20, Miles discloses a clamp (2, fig 1) for securing a conduit (4, fig 1) of a gas turbine engine (col 1, lines 1-10), wherein the clamp has a first (28, fig 2) and second (52, fig 2) clamp half having a metal underlying structure, with both comprising metal underlying structure (col 2, lines 23-30) and a grommet (20, 22, fig 1), wherein the first clamp half has a circumferential portion supporting a portion of the tube (20, fig 2, Miles).
Miles does not disclose a saddle clamp with a first clamp half extending for less than 50 percent of a circumference of a tube, and a second clamp half extending for more than 50 percent of the circumference of the tube, each of the first and second half having a metal underlying structure with outwardly extending bolt flanges and a supporting grommet; the tube supported on the grommets of the first and second clamp halves, with the bolt flange of the first clamp half resting on a static structure, and bolts extending through each of the plurality of outwardly extending bolt flanges of the first and second clamp halves to secure the first and second clamp halves together, the gas turbine having a compressor, combustor, and turbine, wherein the lubricant is a liquid.
Read teaches a tube assembly having a saddle clamp (fig 2, whole figure) with a first clamp half (1, fig 2) extending for less than 50 percent of a circumference of a tube (5, fig 1), and a second clamp half (4, fig 2) extending for more than 50 percent of the circumference of the tube, each of the first and second half having a metal underlying structure with outwardly extending bolt flanges (6 parts of 1 connected to 6, fig 2) and a supporting grommet (9, fig 1); the tube supported on the grommets of the first and second clamp halves, with the bolt flange of the first clamp half resting on a static structure (page 2, lines 70-95), and bolts (3, fig 1) extending through each of the plurality of outwardly extending bolt flanges (7, fig 2) of the first and second clamp halves to secure the first and second clamp halves together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp disclosed by Miles by using a saddle clamping mechanism based on the teachings of Read. Doing so would allow for quick assembly or removal (page 1, line 20-25) as suggested by Read.
Dhanasekaran teaches a clamping member (188, fig 7) for a tube for a fluid (138, fig 7) of a gas turbine with a compressor (102, fig 1), a combustor (104, fig 1), and a turbine (106, fig 1), which teaches applying a lubricant to a laterally inner surface of part of the clamp (col 10, lines 47-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp disclosed by Miles and Read by applying a lubricant to the laterally inner surface of the second clamp half based on the teachings of Dhanasekaran. Doing so would reduce material fretting (col 11, lines 1-2) as suggested by Dhanasekaran.
Miles as modified by Dhanasekaran and Read discloses the claimed invention except for the part having the lubrication being the second clamp half. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second clamp be the part with the lubrication, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, it has been held that the fact that a combination was obvious when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.1.E. In the instant case, where Dhanasekaran teaches using lubricant on only part of a clamp, there are finite possible lubricant locations, of which placing lubricant on only one of the clamp halves was an obvious solution and thus placing it on just the second half was an obvious predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Komasa teaches treating a clamp with a lubricant wherein the lubricant for a cable clamping mechanism can be a liquid (par. 0064).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the solid lubricant disclosed by Miles as modified by Read and Dhanasekaran by using a liquid lubricant based on the teachings of Komasa. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these two as being equivalent alternate embodiments which can be chosen based on design requirements and material accessibility.
Regarding claim 17, Miles as modified by Read discloses where there are a pair of the bolt flanges on opposed sides of the tube for each of the first and second clamp halves (fig 3, each of the sides have a bolt flange, Read).
Regarding claim 19, Miles as modified by Dhanasekaran discloses wherein the lubricant is only placed on the inner surface of the second clamp half (See claim 16 above).
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Read as modified by Dhanasekaran and Miles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deardorf (3232569).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Read does not explicitly disclose wherein the fastener secures the saddle clamp to the static structure.
Deardorf teaches a conduit clamp similar to read wherein first and second fasteners (52, 53, fig 8) used to connect the first (44, fig 8) and second (49, fig 8) clamp halves via a bolt flange (51, 45, fig 8) also connects the saddle clamp to the static structure (fig 8, the line that the bottom of the clamp is against is the static structure it is connected to such as 18 in fig 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamp fastening method disclosed by Read as modified by Dhanasekaran by using the fasteners to fasten the clamp to the static structure as well as to the other saddle clamp half based on the teachings of Deardorf. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize doing so would reduce the part count and thus manufacturing costs of the clamp.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 5/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 112b have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that while Read has one clamp half extending over 50% of a circumference of the tube and the other extending over less than 50%, when modified by Miles it no longer carries this structure. This argument is not persuasive, as the modification being made is adding a grommet to the first and second clamp halves, not modifying the shape of the clamp halves. Applicant further argues that applicants specification cites a surprising benefit to using a liquid, however, the only benefit claimed is a lower coefficient of friction vs non lubricated surfaces in par. 0059, which is the primary benefit of all lubricants and thus this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SEAN V MEILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9229. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-5pm.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/SEAN V MEILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights