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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application 19/128,723, for a PIPE CLIP, filed on 5/9/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the respective" and “the said pipe clip assembly” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2-15 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-9 and 15 recite the limitation regarding “the base portion,” however, claim 1 references a base portion of both a pipe clip and another pipe clip so it is unclear to which base portion the term refers. Appropriate clarification is requested. Claims 2-15 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example (e.g.)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-15 are rejected for the same reasons as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the transition" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the assembled state" and “the respective” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 11 and 15 recite the limitation regarding “an additional passage,” however, claim 1 references an additional passage so it is unclear whether the term refers to the same additional passage or a different additional passage. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the bore,” "the end," “the thicker rib portion,” “the rib” and “the edge” therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claims. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the respective" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate clarification is requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPub 20180266588, 2014/0053938, 6,109,569 (interlocking pipe clamps).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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 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 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 June 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights