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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s claims filed 4/17/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claim 19 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. It is unclear how the system of claim 19 can be both configured to interlock as required by claim 19 and spaced apart as required by claim 14.
Claim 20 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. It is unclear how the system of claim 20 can be both configured to connect as required by claim 20 and spaced apart as required by claim 14.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Any claims that depend upon claims rejected above are also considered rejected via dependency.
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hollaender et al. (US 4,188,679).
Regarding claim 1, Hollaender discloses:
A float system for a conduit, the float system comprising: a first float element (see fig 2 – left element) configured to attach to the conduit; and a second float element (see fig 2 – right element) configured to attach to the conduit adjacent the first float element, the first float element and the second float element configured to restrict a bending angle of the conduit (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 2, Hollaender discloses:
The bend float system according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one fastener configured to fasten the first float element to the second float element (see col 3, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 4, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 1, wherein the first float element is configured to define a first interior space, and the second float element is configured to define a second interior space (see fig 1).
Regarding claim 6, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 4, wherein the first interior space is filled with a buoyant material, and the second interior space is filled with the buoyant material (see abstract).
Regarding claim 7, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 6, wherein the buoyant material is a foam plastic (see abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 1, wherein the first float element includes a first engagement surface that extends transverse to a longitudinal direction of the conduit, when the first float element is attached to the conduit, the first engagement surface configured to form an angle with a plane that is perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the conduit (see figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Hollaender discloses:
A float system for a conduit, comprising: a first float member configured to attach to the conduit; and a second float member configured to attach to the conduit adjacent the first float member, the first and second float members configured to interact to prevent a reduction of flow through the conduit (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 9, wherein a portion of the first float member is configured to contact a portion of the second float member to prevent the reduction of flow through the conduit (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 12, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 9, wherein the first and second float members are configured to prevent a substantial reduction in an internal area of the conduit (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 13, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 9, wherein the first float member includes a first engagement surface that extends transverse to a longitudinal direction of the conduit, when the first float member is attached to the conduit, and the second float member includes a second engagement surface that extends transverse to the longitudinal direction of the conduit, when the second float member is attached to the conduit, the first and second engagement surfaces configured to be separate when the conduit is straight and configured to engage when the conduit is in a curved configuration (see figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 14, Hollaender discloses:
A float system for a conduit, the float system comprising: a plurality of float members (see fig 3), each float of the plurality of float members including a first float element and a second float element (see fig 2), the first float element and the second float element being configured to be attached together (see fig 2), the plurality of float members being attachable to the conduit so as to be spaced apart by a prescribed distance (the rings are able to be attached at a prescribed distance) and configured to limit bending of the conduit to a prescribed bend radius (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of float members includes a first float member and a second float member, and a portion of the first float member is configured to contact a portion of the second float member to limit bending of the conduit to the prescribed bend radius (see fig 3).
Regarding claim 16, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 15, wherein the first float member includes a first engagement surface that extends transverse to a longitudinal direction of the conduit, when the first float member is attached to the conduit, and the second float member includes a second engagement surface that extends transverse to the longitudinal direction of the conduit, when the second float member is attached to the conduit, the first and second engagement surfaces configured to be separate when the conduit is straight and configured to engage when the conduit is in a curved configuration (see figs 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 18, Hollaender discloses:
The float system according to claim 14, wherein the plurality of float members are configured to prevent a substantial reduction in an internal area of the conduit (see fig 3).
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.
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 of this title, 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 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollaender et al. (US 4,188,679) in view of Benedetti (US PG Pub 2011/0053444).
Regarding claim 3, Hollaender discloses the device of claim 2, but does not disclose:
wherein when attached, the first float element and the second float define a central opening, and the at least one fastener is configured to be capable of adjusting a size of the central opening by tightening and loosening the at least one fastener.
Benedetti teaches a similar device wherein when attached, the first float element and the second float define a central opening, and the at least one fastener is configured to be capable of adjusting a size of the central opening by tightening and loosening the at least one fastener (see figs 7 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the adjustability of Benedetti on the device of Hollaender yielding the predictable result of providing a device to fit multiple sized pipes.
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollaender et al. (US 4,188,679) in view of Cook et al. (US 3,729,756).
Regarding claim 5, Hollaender discloses the device of claim 4, but does not disclose:
wherein the first interior space is filled with air, and the second interior space is filled with air. Cook teaches a similar device having an interior space filled with air (see col 2, lines 11-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the air filling of Cook with the device of Hollaender yielding the predictable result of providing a lighter filling for the interior space).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollaender et al. (US 4,188,679) in view of Noble et al. (US PG Pub 2019/0186208).
Regarding claim 19, Hollaender discloses the device of claim 14, but does not disclose:
wherein the first float member is configured to interlock with the second float member. Noble teaches a similar system wherein the first float member is configured to interlock with the second float member (see fig 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the interlocking configuration of Noble with the system of Hollaender yielding the predictable result of providing a radius restriction system that is integrally connected (see abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Hollaender discloses the device of claim 14, but does not disclose:
wherein each of the first and second float members includes a first section and a second portion, and the first and second float members being configured to connect together by having the second portion of the first float member being accommodated within the first section of the second float member. Noble teaches a similar system wherein each of the first and second float members includes a first section and a second portion, and the first and second float members being configured to connect together by having the second portion of the first float member being accommodated within the first section of the second float member (see fig 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the interlocking configuration of Noble with the system of Hollaender yielding the predictable result of providing a radius restriction system that is integrally connected (see abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm EST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights