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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the phrase “can be” in that the recitation that an element “can” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0020240 to Boudreau in view of US 7,201,351 to Stigler.
Regarding claim 1, Boudreau ‘240 discloses a clamp ring 10 for fastening a pipe, the clamp ring 10 comprising: a first portion 16 for fastening the clamp ring to a mount, and a second portion 14 that can be pivoted relative to the first portion 16 to selectively enclose the pipe between them (para 0021), in which the first portion 16 and the second portion 14 each comprise a respective engagement member 24/22 connected to them to enable the engagement members 24/22 to resiliently engage the pipe enclosed between the first portion and the second portion (para 0155).
Boudreau ‘240 is silent as to the engagement member being connected in a spaced apart relation by a plurality of flexible joints.
However, Stigler ‘351 teaches a plurality of flexible joints 16 to enable an engagement member 17 (top portion that engages pipe 7 – Fig. 1) to resiliently engage the pipe.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement member taught in Boudreau ‘240 with the flexible joints taught in Stigler ‘351 in order to improve resilient engagement of the pipe.
Regarding claim 2, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses wherein the engagement members comprise a first engagement member 24 connected to the first portion 16 in a spaced apart relation by at least three flexible joints (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18) and a second engagement member 22 connected to the second portion 14 in a spaced apart relation by at least three flexible joints (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 3, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the flexible joints (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18) connecting the first engagement member 24 to the first portion 16 are angled in a radial direction (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 4, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the flexible joints (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18) connecting the second engagement member 22 to the second portion 14 can be angled in the radial direction in the opposite direction to the flexible joints (see joints 16, as modified by Stigler ‘351 – Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 14-18) connecting the first engagement member 24 to the first portion 16, such that the flexible joints associated with the first and second clamp portions extend in opposite radial directions relative to the pipe.
Regarding claim 5, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the first portion 16, the second portion 14 and their engagement members 24/22 are in the shape of a half-ring (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the second portion 14 is joined to the first portion 16 by a living and/or flexible hinge (para 0021 – “ … at least one hinge element may also be integrated in the integral and/or monolithic component, e.g., as a flexible portion, e.g., a crease, a living hinge and/or a similar structural feature…” and para 0022 – “… integrated at least partially in at least one of the clamp segments …”).
Regarding claim 7, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, comprising a first fasteners 84 (upper and lower portions of 84 – Fig. 8) and a second fasteners 82 (upper and lower portions of 82 – Fig. 8) provided respectively on the first portion 16 and the second portion 14 for fastening the clamp ring 10 around the pipe (para 0170).
Regarding claim 8, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the fasteners 84/82 are in the form of a pair of opposing hooks that engage each other (Fig. 8, para 0170).
Regarding claim 9, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the first portion 16 comprises a connector 50 for connecting the clamp ring 10 to a mount (para 0163, Figs. 10-12).
Regarding claim 10, Boudreau ‘240, as modified, discloses, wherein the clamp ring 10 is made in one integrally molded piece (para 0021 – “ … the clamp segments may be configured as a single integral and/or monolithic component…” - thereby providing a clamp ring made in one integrally molded piece).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and will be used in subsequent office action rejections, as applicable.
The list of supports is as follows: US-11565143-B2 OR US-7712708-B2 OR US-10232804-B2 OR US-7520475-B2 OR US-7328724-B2 OR US-4744535-A OR US-5113717-A OR US-6669150-B2 OR US-5039040-A OR US-7669807-B2 OR US-5448809-A OR US-4958791-A OR US-8664544-B2 OR US-4881705-A OR US-6126119-A OR US-6164604-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA E MILLNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7507. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4:00pm.
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.
/MONICA E MILLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights