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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A in the reply filed on 06/15/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/15/26.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 14, 20-21, 24-25, 30, 33 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitaker et al (US 9,004,545).
As to claim 1, Whitaker et al discloses a clamp comprising: a first gland member comprising a first joint portion (Figs. 1 and 2), a first locking portion (118), and a first clamping portion (112) disposed between the first joint portion and the first locking portion; a second gland member comprising a second joint portion (Figs. 1 and 2), a second locking portion (126), and a second clamping portion (114) disposed between the second joint portion and the second locking portion; wherein the first and second joint portions are connected for movement of the first and second gland members between an open position and at least one clamping position (Figs. 1 and 2); wherein the first locking portion is configured to interlock with the second locking portion to secure the first and second gland members in the at least one clamping position (Fig. 2); and wherein the first and second locking portions further include corresponding first and second user manipulable release portions (124, 132), independently operable for disengagement of the corresponding one of the first and second locking portions from the other of the first and second locking portions to permit movement of the first and second gland members to the open position.
As to claim 2, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein the first and second joint portions, the first and second locking portions, and the first and second clamping portions of the first and second gland members are substantially identical. Refer to Figs. 3 and 4.
As to claim 3, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein the first and second gland members are substantially identical. Refer to Figs. 3 and 4.
As to claim 4, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein the first and second clamping portions define first and second inner peripheral recesses (138, 168) for receiving edge portions of outer radial flanges when the clamp is assembled with the outer radial flanges.
As to claim 5, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 4, wherein the first and second inner peripheral recesses are shaped to accommodate circular outer radial flanges.
As to claim 6, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein the first joint portion comprises a first hinge portion (140) and the second joint portion comprises a second hinge portion (142), the first and second hinge portions being connected for pivotable movement of the first and second gland members between the open position and the at least one clamping position (Figs. 1 and 2).
As to claim 14, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein the first and second locking portions each include a flexible wall portion carrying at least one detent (120, 128) configured to interlock with the other of the first and second locking portions to secure the first and second gland members in the at least one clamping position, wherein each of the first and second release portions is operable for movement of the corresponding flexible wall portion, for flexing disengagement of the at least one detent from the locking portion of the other of the first and second gland members to permit movement of the first and second gland members to the open position. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 20, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 14, wherein the at least one detent of each of the first and second gland members is configured to interlock with a rigid wall portion of the locking portion of the other of the first and second gland members. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 21, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 14, wherein the at least one detent of each of the first and second gland members projects radially inward. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 24, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 14, wherein the first and second release portions each comprise a lever portion extending from the corresponding flexible wall portion. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 25, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 24, wherein the lever portion of each of the first and second gland members projects radially outward. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 30, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein when the first and second gland members are moved to the at least one clamping position, a longitudinally extending projection of one of the first and second locking portions is slidingly received into a longitudinally extending cavity of the other of the first and second locking portions to secure the first locking portion against radial movement with respect to the second locking portion. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 33, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 1, wherein user operation of both of the first and second user manipulable release portions is required to enable movement of the first and second gland members from the at least one clamping position to the open position. Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
As to claim 44, Whitaker et al discloses a clamp comprising: a first gland member comprising a first joint portion (Figs. 1 and 2), a first locking portion (118) and a first clamping portion (112) extending longitudinally between the first joint portion and the first locking portion; a second gland member comprising a second joint portion (Figs. 1 and 2), a second locking portion (126) and a second clamping portion (114) extending longitudinally between the second joint portion and the second locking portion; wherein the first and second joint portions are connected for movement of the first and second gland members between an open position and at least one clamping position (Figs. 1 and 2); wherein when the first and second gland members are moved to the at least one clamping position: an interlock feature (120) of the first locking portion interlocks with an interlock feature (122) of the second locking portion to secure the first and second gland members in the at least one clamping position; and a longitudinally extending projection (118) of the first locking portion is slidingly received into a longitudinally extending cavity (137) of the second locking portion to secure the first locking portion against radial movement with respect to the second locking portion.
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.
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) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker et al in view of Heckethorn et al (US 4,772,561).
As to claim 10, Whitaker et al discloses the clamp of claim 6, except for further comprising a third gland member having a first end portion hingedly connected to the first hinge portion a second end portion hingedly connected to the second hinge portion.
However, Heckethorn et al teaches a segmented clamp comprising three hinged segments (11, 12, 13), and contemplates using only two hinged segments, or even four hinged segments (col. 2, ll. 35-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Whitaker et al to include three hinged segments, instead of two, as taught by Heckethorn et al. Because Heckethorn demonstrates that two, three and four hinged segments are art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute three hinged segments for the two in Whitaker.
As to claim 11, Whitaker et al in view of Heckethorn et al discloses the clamp of claim 10, wherein the third gland member includes a third clamping portion disposed between the first and second end portions. Refer to Fig. 1 in Heckethorn.
As to claim 12, Whitaker et al in view of Heckethorn et al discloses the clamp of claim 11, wherein the first, second, and third clamping portions each form approximately one third of a full peripheral channel. Refer to Fig. 1 in Heckethorn.
As to claim 13, Whitaker et al in view of Heckethorn et al discloses the clamp of claim 10, wherein the first and second end portions of the third gland member each include one of laterally opposed arcuate receptacles and laterally extending pin portions, and the first and second hinge portions each include the other of the laterally opposed arcuate receptacles and laterally extending pin portions, wherein the laterally extending pin portions are received in the laterally opposed arcuate receptacles for hinged connection therebetween.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitaker et al in view of Korgaonkar (US 4,373,235).
As to claim 34, Whitaker et al discloses a clamp comprising: a first gland member comprising a first hinge portion (140), a first locking portion (118), and a first clamping portion (112) disposed between the first hinge portion and the first locking portion; a second gland member comprising a second hinge portion (142), a second locking portion (126), and a second clamping portion (114) disposed between the second hinge portion and the second locking portion; wherein the first and second hinge portions are connected for pivotable movement of the first and second gland members between an open position and at least one clamping position (Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the locking portion of each of the first and second gland members is configured to interlock with the locking portion of the other of the first and second gland members to secure the first and second gland members in the at least one clamping position (Figs. 1 and 2).
Whitaker et al fails to teach the first hinge portion including a first pin portion disposed on a first lateral side of the clamp and a first socket portion disposed on a second lateral side of the clamp, and the second hinge portion including a second socket portion disposed on the first lateral side of the clamp and receiving the first pin portion, and a second pin portion disposed on the second lateral side of the claim and received in the first socket portion.
However, Korgaonkar teaches a pipe clamp wherein each hinge portion includes a pin portion (22) and a socket portion (20). Refer to Figs. 1 and 2.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Whitaker et al such that the first hinge portion including a first pin portion disposed on a first lateral side of the clamp and a first socket portion disposed on a second lateral side of the clamp, and the second hinge portion including a second socket portion disposed on the first lateral side of the clamp and receiving the first pin portion, and a second pin portion disposed on the second lateral side of the claim and received in the first socket portion, as taught by Korgaonkar, in order to provide an alternative hinge configuration that may be more preferable, due to its simple structure, simple production and packaging operation and it being more convenient to use (see abstract, Korgaonkar).
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Snyder et al discloses a hinged pipe clamp having grip tabs and a ratcheting locking mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights