DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the apostrophes on numeral 508 should be removed (Fig. 5B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig (US20210222800), in view of Oetiker (US5195788] and Weinhold (US5074600).
Claim 1 Koenig discloses a molded insert assembly 3 for use with a frac hose clamp 1,2 [Koenig only includes numerals 1,2 on the Figs. 1 and 3 embodiments, but such numbers are indicative of the clamp and clamp halves in the Fig. 4 embodiment discussed in this rejection, Koenig only includes numeral 3 on the Fig. 2 embodiment, but such number is indicative of the insert halves in the Fig. 4 embodiment discussed in this rejection], the molded insert assembly comprising a pair of molded insert portions 4 [Fig. 4; para. 0030-0034], each insert portion comprising:
a forward end [e.g., the northeast on Fig. 4] and an opposed rear end [e.g., the southwest on Fig. 4], extending along an extension axis [would run SW-NE on Fig. 4], as well as a first lateral side [e.g., to the NW] and a second lateral side [to the SE on Fig. 4] opposed along a lateral axis orthogonal to the extension axis [Fig. 4];
a pair of contact surfaces spanning along either lateral side, wherein the contact surfaces extend along a contact plane [e.g., the surfaces of the insert halves which are flush when the insert halves are joined; Fig. 4];
each contact surface comprising a tab-receiving groove Fig. 4; adjacent the clamp portion 2 center ridge 27; para. 0032] having an open end defined along the corresponding lateral side [e.g., the groove along the entire width of each insert half];
a hose-receiving surface extending 42 [Koenig only includes numeral 42 on the Fig. 2 embodiment, but such number is indicative of the hose receiving surface in the Fig. 4 embodiment discussed in this rejection], between the pair of contact surfaces [Fig. 4], and further extending between the forward and rear ends [Fig. 4], wherein the hose-receiving surface has a cross-sectional concave profile extending from the contact plane and along a traverse axis [Fig. 4].
Koenig discloses that the insert portions 4 can be made from a thermoplastic elastomer, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (1) one or more sloped members, extending from the rear end, each of the sloped members disposed at an angle to the surface, (2) that the hose is a frac hose, nor (3) that the insert portions are molded.
For a hose clamp Oetiker disclose one or more sloped members 21, extending from a rear end of an insert 20, each of the sloped members disposed at an angle to a surface for a hose clamp 40 [Figs. 1-3; col. 5, line 25 – col. 6, line 58].
Similarly, for a hose clamp Weinhold discloses clamp halves 6 being flanged at the end into a widened portion 13 so that the clamp does not contact the hose with a sharp edge [Figs. 7,8; col. 3, lines 48-57].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Koenig to include (a) one or more sloped members, extending from the rear end of each insert portion 4, each of the sloped members disposed at an angle to the surface, as disclosed for a clamp insert by Oetiker, and (b) one more flanged members, extending from the rear end of each clamp portion 2, positionally and angularly corresponding to the foregoing sloped members, each of the flanged members disposed at an angle to the surface, as disclosed for a clamp half by Weinhold. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the hose would be safely positioned over a distance from the insert half rear end when the hose is displaced from direct alignment with the extension axis, i.e., bending, the clamp half flanged portion supporting the insert portion sloped members.
Koenig otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (2) that the hose is a frac hose, nor (3) that the insert portions are molded. However, it has been held that the 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Koenig otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose (3) that the insert portions are molded.
This process step results in the insert portion of this claim. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. The insert portion of this claim is anticipated by Koenig, as modified by Oetiker. The process by which the filter pipe is made is not a patentable distinction. MPEP 2113.
Claim 2 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the insert halves 3 are made from a thermoplastic elastomer, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the thermoplastic elastomer is polyurethane. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen polyurethane as the thermoplastic elastomer, 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.
Claim 3 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the molded insert portions assemble together in opposing configuration to form the molded insert assembly [para. 0031],wherein in the assembled state, the pair of contact surfaces in the molded insert portions engage each other, and the front and rear ends of each molded insert portion are oriented in the same direction along the extension axis [Fig. 4].
Claim 4 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 3, discloses that extension axis of each of the molded insert portions 3 are arranged in parallel orientation [Fig. 4].
Claim 5 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that in the assembled state, the hose-receiving surface of each of the molded insert portions 3 define a hose insertion aperture for receiving the frac hose [Fig. 4].
Claim 6 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the hose-receiving surface has a semicircular cross-sectional profile.
Claim 7 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 6, discloses that in the assembled state, the hose-receiving surface of each of the molded insert portions define a cylindrical hose insertion aperture for receiving the frac hose [Fig. 4].
Claim 8 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 7, discloses that the hose insertion aperture has a diameter substantially equal to the diameter of the frac hose such as to provide a fitting engagement between the frac hose and the molded insert assembly .
Claim 9 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the one or more sloped members 22 provide an angled surface [Oetiker Figs. 1,3], for supporting a bending of the frac hose [as discussed at claim 1 herein].
Claim 10 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the frac hose clamp comprises a pair of clamp members 2, and each molded insert portion 4 is molded to the shape of an inner volume of a corresponding one of the clamp members [at least as shown by the mating of 27 into the groove in Fig. 4].
Claim 11 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 10, discloses that each molded insert portion 4 is couplable to a clamp member in a coupled position [Fig. 4].
Claim 12 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 11, discloses that in the coupled position, the tab-receiving groove on each molded insert portion 4 receives a corresponding tab member 27 of the clamp member 2 to secure the molded insert portion to the clamp member [e.g., the insert assembly being prevented from being pulled from the clamp assembly by such tab in the groove; Fig. 4]. The examiner notes that the Koenig combination would not disclose using the tab member and tab-receiving groove to positively secure each insert portion to a respective clamp member prior coupling the clamp members to one another.
Claim 13 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 10, discloses that in the coupled position, the sloped members overlay dented elements of the clamp member [e.g., the flanged ends in the combination of claim 1, as discussed herein].
Claim 14 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 13, discloses that the sloped members, of each molded insert portion, have a sloping angle and interspacing that is substantially the same as a sloping angle and interspacing of the dented elements in corresponding clamp member [in that, claim 1 includes only one sloped member per insert portion, e.g., the Oetiker construction of one continuous sloped member, when positioned on each of the Koenig insert portions 4, would create interspacing at the adjacent positioning of such insert portions when coupled together, and, analogously, the Weinhold construction of one flanged/dented member per clamp half, would also create interspacing at the adjacent positioning of such clamp halves when coupled together, such that the interspacing is substantially the same.]
Claim 15 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the molded insert assembly has a thickness dimension that fills a negative space between an inner surface of the hose clamp and an outer casing of the frac hose [e.g., the flush positioning of 4 with respect to 2 as shown in Fig. 4].
Claim 18 As discussed with respect to claim 1, Koenig, as modified, discloses a pair of molded insert portions 4 having the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a method of assembling a frac hose clamp 1 with the molded insert portions 4 [such steps not necessarily being performed in the order listed herein], comprising:
coupling a pair of molded insert portions 4, according to claim 1, to a corresponding pair of clamp members of the frac hose clamp [as will be the case upon tightening the clamp portions 2 using screws in the bore 25 numbered only on Fig. 1 but indicative of the same function for the Fig. 4 embodiment; para. 0028];
overlaying a frac hose along the hose-receiving surface 42 of one of the coupled molded insert portions 4 [occurs when the hose is within the insert portion 3 prior to tightening the clamp screws, the hose then overlaying both of such surfaces]; and
assembling the clamp members 2 to form the clamp 1 with a molded insert assembly therein, wherein in an assembled state, the frac hose extends through a hose insertion aperture of the molded insert assembly [necessarily the case for a hose clamp when the insert assembly is aligned with the clamp with respect to the hose being clamped].
Claim 19 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 18, discloses that the assembled state, the clamp members engage together along corresponding engagement surfaces [e.g., the opposing surfaces on the clamp portions 2, the surfaces each having the hole corresponding to bores 25, the surfaces being planar such that the surfaces will engage when the clamp portions are screwed together].
Claim 20 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 19, discloses fastening together the clamp members [para. 0028].
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig, in view of Oetiker, and further in view of Muller et al. (US5392694).
As discussed with respect to claim 1, Koenig, as modified, discloses insert portions 4 having all the limitations of claim 1, the insert portions being made from thermoplastic elastomers, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a molded insert assembly used with a frac hose clamp, the method comprising: (1) filling a pair of cavity molds with polyurethane, wherein each cavity mold is designed with a cavity shaped to form a molded insert portion according to claim 1; and (2) curing the polyurethane in each cavity mold to form a pair of molded insert portions.
Muller discloses that thermoplastic elastomer parts can be manufactured a low cost and can be easily formed in molds [col. 4, lines 5-14].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have manufactured the thermoplastic elastomer insert portions of Koenig, as modified, such portions corresponding, but not identical, by filling a pair of cavity molds with a thermoplastic elastomer, wherein each cavity mold is designed with a cavity shaped to form one of the claimed molded insert portions, the manufacture of thermoplastic elastomer parts using such molds being disclosed by Muller. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the thermoplastic elastomer insert portions would be manufactured easily and at low cost.
Koenig, as modified, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the thermoplastic elastomer is polyurethane. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have chosen polyurethane as the thermoplastic elastomer, 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.
Claim 17 Koenig, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses removing the molded insert portions from the cavity molds [necessary in order to assemble with the hose and clamp].
Conclusion
This Office action has an attached (see Attachment A) requirement for information under 37 CFR 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Timmons (US4768813) discloses clamp portions enclosing insert portions for positioning on a tube [Figs. 1-3]. Echols et al. (US5480193) discloses clamp portions enclosing insert portions for positioning on a tube [Figs. 1-3]. Smith et al. (US6305719) discloses clamp portions enclosing insert portions for positioning on a tube [Figs. 1,2]. Mathey (US1970050) discloses preventing sharp clamp edges from damaging the nose by at least flaring the rear end of the clamp [Fig. 3].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
Attachment A
Requirement for Information
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 CFR 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application, 19/176,683.
I. In response to this requirement, please agree or disagree to the stipulation of each of the following assertions of facts:
a. With regard to the “frac hose clamp” offered by Liberty Energy Services for which photographs were provided in the IDS filed 1/8/2026:
1. The insert is in two portions and each portion is individually attached to a separate one of the two clamp portions. AGREE DISAGREE
2. The insert is in two portions, each made of polyurethane. AGREE DISAGREE
3. The insert is in two portions, each having a sloped member extending from an end of the insert portion at an angle to the hose receiving surface of the insert portion. AGREE DISAGREE
4. The frac hose clamp was in public use prior to the effective filing date of the present application. AGREE DISAGREE
5. The frac hose clamp was publicly disclosed in a printed publication prior to the effective filing date of the present application. AGREE DISAGREE
6. The frac hose clamp was for sale prior to the effective filing date of the present application. AGREE DISAGREE
II. In response to this requirement, please provide answers to each of the following interrogatories eliciting factual information:
a. With regard to the “frac hose clamp” offered by Liberty Energy Services for which photographs were provided in the IDS filed 1/8/2026:
1. Please provide the date the photographs were taken.
2. Please identify the insert material.
3. Please specifically identify all sources, with information enabling access, from which the examiner might obtain better photographs of the frac hose clamp.
4. Please specifically identify all sources, with information enabling access, from which the examiner might obtain additional photographs of the frac hose clamp.
5. Please identify all known public disclosures, publications, and sales of the frac hose clamp.
III. The information is required to identify products and services embodying the disclosed subject matter of claim 1 and identify the properties of similar products and services found in the prior art.
IV. The fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of the requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 CFR 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 CFR 1.97 where appropriate.
V. The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 CFR 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
VI. This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
VII. It is suggested that an interview be conducted prior to the applicant’s reply to this and the associated office action in an effort to obviate the need for a reply to this requirement for information.
Prosecution Insights