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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 objected to because of the following informalities: spelling errors – pressurised to be pressurized, characterised to be characterized, mould to be mold, and colours to be colors; claim recitation should be amended to recite substantially C-shaped. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 objected to because of the following informalities: claim recitation “A “C” shaped” should be amended – “The “C” shaped”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is being objected to being an unnecessary recitation that was repeated by the applicant in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 & 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear what part of the invention the Applicant is claiming as flexible ears. The specification discloses no plural ears. It only discloses one flexible flange using reference numeral 1, while in claim 2 it call the flexible ears to be numeral 1 on Fig.1 drawing and in claim 4 the flexible flange is indicated as numeral 1 on Fig.1 drawing.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is unclear how the recesses assist in locking to each other (cable/pipes) disclosed in the figure the surface of pipe would be prevented further insertion by the raised flanges along the recess (Paragraph 0014, Fig.4 #3), the term “perfectly lock” is unclear in how the device actually locks the two cables/pipes. It is also unclear how the smaller diameter is defined, numeral 3 is the shaped recess, the recitation is unclear if it is the pipes being smaller than the recess, device or other pipes.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for material, does not reasonably provide enablement for high strength material. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. One would not know what strength can be defined a high strength.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" and “etc.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention, “etc.” makes the recitation indefinite due to being unclear what is included or excluded from the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 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. It is unclear whether the Applicant intend to positively require hydraulic elements and hydraulic system or whether the invention is configured to be used at the connection point of the hydraulic element
Regarding claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), the recitations “Flexible” and “Rigid” are indefinite because anything would flex if enough pressure is applied. The examiner suggests to recite the comparison, for example the structure is more rigid than the flexible ears. Without a comparison the claim would be rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), the phrase "shaped like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), is being rejected under 35 USC 112(b) because it recited the step of using the product within the apparatus claim.
Regarding claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), is indefinite due to it being unclear in what limitations high strength entails. In other words, one would not know at what strength the infringement would occur.
All claims will be examined as best as can be seen by specification.
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 (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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1,4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunina (WO 2022131956 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Bunina teaches, A "C" shaped lockless connection clip (Fig.1 #1) used at the connection points of hydraulic elements in hydraulic systems operating with pressurised and hot water, such as combi boilers/room heaters etc., characterised in that it is a lockless connection clip made of thermoplastic polymer raw material (Abstract) in a C" shape.
Regarding claim 4 Bunina teaches, characterised in that it is mounted by stretching (The device use is in pipe fastening and would be well known that it would need to stretch to attach with a C-shape lockless structure), with its upper part shaped like a flexible flange (Fig.1 #10), does not require a lock (Fig.1), has a lockless structure by means of its "C" profile section structure (Fig.1 #1), flexible flange (1), recess (Paragraph 0006), and clawed end structure (Fig.1 #1).
Regarding claim 5, a structure that can be assembled and disassembled by hand without the need for a tool by means of the fact that all edge parts have a radius (In translated document: Paragraph 0010 lines 6-8, 0011 lines 27-29 also, see Fig. 1 for configuration).
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunina (WO 2022131956 A1) in view of Kato (US 20060186279 A1).
Regarding claim 2 Bunina teaches that it is made of thermoplastic polymer raw material (Bunina: Abstract), and ears that stretch in the direction of assembly (Bunina: Fig.1 #4). However, Bunina does not explicitly teach a rigid structure in the direction of strength by means of its flexible ears
Regarding claim 2 Kato teaches a rigid structure in the direction of strength by means of its flexible ears (Kato: abstract, Paragraph 36, Fig.2 #10).
Bunina and Kato are both designed to be fastening devices. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bunina in view of Kato to incorporate the flexibility of Katos ears on the ears of Bunina. Doing so would help with use of the c clamp when applying pressure to spread the device over a pipe and remove it from said pipe.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunina (WO 2022131956 A1) in view of McGrath (US 4380103 A).
Regarding claim 3 Bunina doesn’t teach a "C" shaped lockless connecting clip, characterised in that it has a "C" profile section with a ribbed core structure to provide resistance to the separation of the hydraulic equipment it connects from each other.
Regarding claim 3 McGrath teaches a profile section with a ribbed core (McGarth: Fig.1 #16b) structure to provide resistance to the separation of the hydraulic equipment it connects from each other(intended use).
Bunina and McGarth are in the same field of endeavor, Human necessities. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bunina in view of McGarth to incorporate the teachings of McGarth to provide a ribbed core to increase the surface area in contact so that there is no separation of the device/part that the clamp is attached to.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunina (WO 2022131956 A1) in view of Gazda (US 3916488 A).
Regarding claim 6, Bunina teaches the connecting clip. However, Bunina does not explicitly teach that it can be produced in different colours to identify the pipe types being installed and has a structure that can be produced without a movable core that can be stretched out of the mould.
Regarding claim 6, Gazda teaches that it can be produced in different colours (Gazda Col.8 lines 1-4) a structure that can be produced without a movable core that can be stretched out of the mould (Gazda Col.2 line 34-38).
Bunina and Gazda are within the same field of endeavor: Cross-sectional Technologies. It would been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bunina in view of Gazda to incorporate the teachings of Gazda to provide the device different colors during production of the device along with that the device produced without a movable core that can be stretched out of the mold. Doing so would offer different colors for the clamps that can be associated with different piping/uses at a job site, and with being made from a mold the device can be mass produce at a higher rate and improve the consistency and precision of the device when being made to improve the manufacturing and consumer experience.
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunina (WO 2022131956 A1) in view of Gazda (US 3916488 A), further in view of McGrath (US 4380103 A) further in view of Nakanishi (JP 2005147186 A).
Regarding claim 7, Bunina teaches flexible clip for assembly (Bunina Paragraph 0016), with a claw end structure on its outer surface (Bunina Fig.1 #1).
Regarding claim 7, Gazda teaches high strength (Gazda Col.4 Lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 7, McGarth teaches radius ribs shaped parallel to the body structure at the corner points (McGarth: Fig.1 #16b).
Regarding claim 7, Nakanishi teaches specially shaped recesses on its inner surface to perfectly lock the smaller diameter pipes passing through (Nakanishi Fig.1 #41).
Bunina, Gazda, Mcgarth and Nakanishi are all devices to hold/secure objects in place. It would been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bunina in view of Gazda, Mcgarth and Nakanishi to incorporate their teachings to provide the device: high strength (Gazda), radius ribs shaped parallel to the body structure at the corner points (McGarth), and specially shaped recesses on its inner surface (Nakanishi). By providing High strength it allows the device to endure more stress before breaking and/or deforming, increasing the life of the device. By adding radius ribs shaped parallel to the body structure at the corner points provides a higher load capacity to the device, increasing its rigidity, distributes the force applied onto the device from its center and spreads the force outward on its circumference. By adding a specially shaped recesses on its inner surface increases the use of the device allowing it to be used on rigid connection points on pipes, Reduces the risk of the clamp slipping, and allows fastener adjustment when clamp is applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE JONATHAN PEAZEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/K.J.P./ Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
