This is a Final office action for serial number 19/144836.
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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant should clarify whether the “12r” within the equation 12r < R < 16r represent 12 times (r) or does it represent the reference number 12 and (r); also clarify whether “16r” within the equation 12r < R < 16r represent 16 times (r) or does it represent the reference number 16 and (r).
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “2,5mm” should be --2.5 mm-- and the specification should be corrected where appropriate to correct any other units of measurements that include a “,” therefore deleting the “,” and replacing the comma as a decimal separator and replacing it with a --.-- (period) , to comply with the standard in the United States and removing the standard in the European notation as discussed in the applicant’s arguments.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert et al (Gebert) CH562980. Gebert discloses:
(Claim 1) A pipe clip comprising an annular clip body (1, 2) for accommodating a pipe, the annular clip body having at least one pair of opposing flanges (3, 4) adapted to be pulled together by a tightening screw (5) to clamp the pipe clip around the pipe, wherein the annular clip body is adapted to accommodate the pipe and has a central axis parallel to a width direction of the clip body (1, 2) , wherein the flanges (3, 4) extend under an angle outwardly with respect to a circumferential direction of the annular clip body, whereby a transition zone having an angular portion is formed between the annular clip body and the flange (3, 4), characterized in that the annular clip body at the transition zone has a curvature in the width direction, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature, wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges (3, 4) are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body with a bending axis substantially parallel to the central axis, wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius about the bending axis,
(Claim 3) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature which is constant across the width of the clip body.
(Claim 5) The pipe clip according to claim 1 wherein a chord (see figure below) can be defined between the two lateral edges of the clip body at the curvature in the width direction at the transition zone, wherein the maximum chord to arc distance is smaller than 1/3 R.
(Claim 6) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges (3, 4) are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body (1, 2) with a bending axis substantially parallel to the central axis, wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius about the bending axis and the strip material has a thickness.
(Claim 7) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein at the transition zone the radius of curvature is different from a radius of curvature at the remainder of the annular clip body.
(Claim 8) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body comprises two semi-annular body parts (1, 2), each having one of the flanges (3, 4) at least one end of the semi-annular body part, wherein each flange (3, 4) of the two semi-annular body parts in use is positioned opposite the other and form at least one pair of opposing flanges (3, 4).
(Claim 9) The pipe clip according to claim 8, wherein the two semi- annular body parts have one of the flanges (3, 4) at each end of the semi-annular body part.
(Claim 10) The pipe clip according to claim 8, wherein the semi- annular body parts are substantially semi-circular (1, 2).
(Claim 11) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the flanges (3, 4)of the at least one pair of opposing flanges (3, 4) are spaced apart from each other when the annular clip body (1, 2) is in use clamped around the pipe.
(Claim 12) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body is made from a metal strip (column 1, lines 35 and 36).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Chord )][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
684
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Radius of curvature
Flange (3, 4), End Flange (3,4))][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Transition zone)]
PNG
media_image1.png
684
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Bending axis)]
PNG
media_image2.png
580
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range
12r< R <16r. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 1) for the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range 12r<R<16r, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 The curvature of the annular clip body acts like a reinforcement rib or conventional curvature which strengthens the band to prevent bending which is well known and conventional in the art as taught by Gebert therefore the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for (Claim 4) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the clip body has a width, wherein the radius of curvature is within a range of 0.7B to 10B. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 4) for the wherein the clip body has a width, wherein the radius of curvature is within a range of 0,7B to 10B, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for the (Claim 6) the strip material has a thickness s, and wherein the bending radius (r) is within a range s< r<5s. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have (Claim 6) the strip material has a thickness s, and wherein the bending radius (r) is within a range s< r<5s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05 The curvature of the annular clip body acts like a reinforcement rib or conventional curvature which strengthens the band to prevent bending which is well known and conventional in the art as taught by Gebert therefore the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebert CH562980.
Gebert discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the annular clip body is made from a plastic or composite material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to (Claim 13) The pipe clip according to claim 1, wherein the annular clip body is made from a plastic or composite material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a pipe clip comprising an annular clip body for accommodating a pipe, wherein the annular clip body at the transition zone has a curvature in the width direction, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body with a bending axis (x1) substantially parallel to the central axis (x), wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius (r) about the bending axis (x1), and wherein the radius of curvature (R) is within a range 12r < R < 16r.
The Examiner alleges that Gebert discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 except for the claimed range of 12r < R < 16r, and that it would have been obvious to arrive at this range because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, citing In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 and MPEP § 2144.05. The Examiner has further alleged that the curvature of the annular clip body acts like a reinforcement rib or conventional curvature which strengthens the band to prevent bending. Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Examiner's characterization of the claimed invention and the teachings of Gebert. 1. Gebert does not disclose the claimed R/r relationship As a threshold matter, Gebert does not disclose a radius of curvature R of the curvature in the width direction at the transition zone, nor a bending radius r at the transition zone, nor any relationship between them. The Examiner acknowledges this: Gebert "discloses all of the limitations of the claimed invention except for... the radius of curvature (R) within a range 12r < R < 16r." Gebert's Fig. 2 shows a concave profile of the clip halves in the width direction, but this profile serves an entirely different functional purpose - it is designed to receive removable plastic insert bands (9, 10) that act as spacers in "sliding clamp" (Gleitschelle) mode, and to allow the sharp inner edges to grip plastic pipe surfaces in "fixing clamp" (Fixschelle) mode.
Gebert does not disclose, suggest, or measure any specific radius of curvature R, any bending radius (r) at the transition zone, or any relationship between them. The Examiner's annotated version of Gebert's Fig. 2 in the Office Action identifies features labelled "radius of curvature" and "transition zone", but these labels are applied by the Examiner to a schematic drawing that is not drawn to scale and from which no dimensional relationship can be derived.
the examiner makes the following remarks. The examiner contends that the prior art Gebert teaches all of the structural limitations found in the claim except for the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range 12r< R <16r. Gebert is silent to this exact radius of curvature however, the rejection is based on a 103 optimum range motivation. As stated above, where the band’s (1) curvature meets the flange’s (3) curvature, an intersection is formed which acts as a reinforcement rib therefore strengthening the band in that area to prevent bending within that intersection as is well known and conventional in the art. Therefore, applying the optimum or workable ranges for the radius of curvature resulting in strengthening or reinforcing the intersection/transition zone merely involves motivation or a suggestion within the level of one having ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention and does not include knowledge gleaned from the applicant's disclosure resulting in a proper obviousness rejection. The applicant’s specification/disclosure does not provide any testing or evidence of how the range of curvature as claimed is critical to the invention other than merely stating that the range of curvature is desired for strengthening, which is well known in a transition zone as a design choice. Gebert does disclose that the flange is used to receive removable plastic bands this does not negate the fact that Gebert teaches and shows combining the angular bends (flange curvature (r)) and the width-direction curvature (band curvature (R)) will inherently increase the bending resistance at the intersection/transition zone as is well known in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05. See MPEP 2144.05 section II.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Intersection/transition zone of band curvature and flange curvature (r))]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Band curvature (R))][AltContent: textbox (Flange curvature (r))][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
580
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
684
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s arguments that,
The In re Aller doctrine does not apply - no motivation to optimize R/r
Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's reliance on In re Aller and MPEP § 2144.05 is misplaced. The In re Aller principle applies only where a skilled person would naturally select and vary the relevant parameter to find an optimum. Importantly, the optimization of ranges rationale applies only where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. That is: the critical premise is that the prior art must disclose the general conditions such that optimization of the specific parameter would be the obvious next step. That premise fails here for at least the following reason: the prior art field is crowded with fundamentally different structural approaches to the same problem of strengthening the transition zone between the annular clip body and the radial flanges.
As can be seen, a skilled person faced with the problem of preventing flange deformation at the transition zone had at least six structurally distinct, well-established solutions available in the prior art. None of these solutions involves controlling or optimizing any relationship between a bending radius r and a radius of curvature R in the width direction. In such a crowded field of competing alternatives, there is no basis for the proposition that a skilled person would have singled out the R/r relationship as the parameter to optimize, let alone arrived at the specific claimed range 12r < R < 16r.
The In re Aller doctrine presupposes a clear path from the prior art to the claimed range; where no such path exists because the skilled person had no reason to focus on the relevant parameter at all, the doctrine does not apply: In re Aller applies where "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art" - here, the general condition of an R/r relationship is not disclosed in Gebert at all. Accordingly, there is no basis in Gebert for9
optimizing the claimed range of 12r < R < 16r because Gebert does not disclose the parameters (R and r) that define this range.
3. The purpose of the curvature in Gebert is fundamentally different The concave profile of Gebert's clip halves serves a dual functional purpose tied specifically to the use of removable plastic insert bands: in sliding clamp mode the profile accommodates the insert, and in fixing clamp mode the sharp inner edges grip the pipe. Gebert does not refer anywhere to strengthening or stiffening as a function of the concave profile.
In contrast, in the present invention, the curvature at the transition zone is specifically designed to create a double curvature - combining the angular bend (bending radius r) with the width-direction curvature (radius R) - to increase bending resistance at the transition zone and prevent flange deformation under tightening loads. That is, the claimed range of 12r < R < 16r is not merely an arbitrary optimization but rather reflects a specific structural relationship that achieves the technical effect of increased bending resistance at the transition zone. This is a different technical purpose served by a different geometric configuration. A skilled person reading Gebert would have no incentive to modify the concave profile in the direction of the claimed R/r relationship, because Gebert's design requirements (retaining inserts, gripping pipe surfaces) would actually constrain the profile geometry in ways incompatible with the claimed range.
Accordingly, Gebert fails to disclose or suggest at least a pipe clip comprising
an annular clip body for accommodating a pipe, the annular clip body having at least one pair of opposing flanges adapted to be pulled together by a tightening screw to clamp the pipe clip around the pipe, wherein the annular clip body is adapted to accommodate the pipe and has a central axis (x) parallel to a width direction of the clip body, wherein the flanges extend under an angle outwardly with respect to a circumferential direction of the annular clip body, whereby a transition zone having an angular portion is formed between the annular clip body and the flange, characterized in that the annular clip body at the transition zone has a curvature in the width direction, wherein the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the pipe clip is made of strip material wherein the flanges are bent outwardly with respect to the circumferential direction of the annular clip body with a bending axis (x1) substantially parallel to the central axis (x), wherein the bend at the transition zone has a bending radius (r) about the bending axis (x1), and wherein the radius of curvature (R) is within a range 12r < R < 16r,
essentially as claimed in Claim 1.
Accordingly, it is respectfully asserted that claim 1 and its respective pending
dependent claims are patentable and nonobvious over the contents of Gebert for at least the above reasons.
4. Dependent claims 4 and 6
The separate rejections of claims 4 and 6 incorrectly relies on the same In re Aller rationale now being applied to the claimed 0.7B-1OB range (relating R to the clip body width B in claim 4) and being applied to the s < r < 5s range in claim 6 (relating bending radius r to strip thickness s).
The rejection of claims 4 and 6 is based, in part, on the Examiner's contention that Gebert discloses or suggests the features of claim 1 from which these claims depend.
However, it is clear that this is legally deficient, since, at the very least, as explained above, Gebert fails to disclose or suggest the features of claim 1.
Indeed, this rejection of claims 4 and 5 is improper for at least the reasons presented above explaining why the In re Aller doctrine has been misapplied.
In addition, for claim 6, note that the bending radius r at the transition zone is a manufacturing parameter that is constrained by the strip thickness and the forming process, not a free variable that a designer would optimize independently. The range s < r < 5s reflects practical manufacturing constraints for strip material bending, not an optimization of a parameter already taught by Gebert.
,the examiner’s remarks are as follows. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to by design choice make the curvature has a radius of curvature (R), wherein the radius of curvature is within a range 12r< R <16r, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the knowledge is generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, since within Gebert the band’s (1) curvature meets the flange (3) curvature at an intersection/transition zone being formed which acts as a reinforcement rib therefore strengthening the band in that area to prevent bending within that intersection is well known and conventional in the art. Therefore, applying the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art since it only takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a motivation is proper. In addition, when forming a structure where two bending portions or sections meet within a bend intersection/transition zone it is commonly known to result in a reinforcement area. Please note there is no specific reasoning in the applicant’s specification or disclosure that the range as claimed is anything more than a design choice since, no testing or evidence has been provided by the applicant to prove the desired range is critical, therefore the applicant’s desired range of curvature as claimed is only a design choice. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05. See MPEP 2144.05 section II.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KIMBERLY T WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-6826. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 9:00am-5:30pm flexible schedule.
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 (571) 272-8227. 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.
/KIMBERLY T WOOD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights