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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2 December, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennison (US 7013760) in view of Chang (US PGPub 2007/0144313) and Perry et al. (US 6148697, "Perry").
1. Kennison teaches an apparatus (10) for use with an electrically, hydraulically and/or pneumatically driven torque tool (32) for tightening, loosening or both tightening and loosening of threaded assembly fasteners including:
a drive extension assembly (shaft 34, see Kennison fig. 3);
a reaction assembly (combination of shaft housing 26, adaptor body 18, and alignment body 20, see Kennison figs. 1-3);
a socket assembly (36, see Kennison figs. 1-2),
the reaction assembly having a reaction tube (26) and a reaction plate (combination of 18 and 20, see Kennison fig. 3), the drive extension assembly having a drive extension formed between a drive connector and a driver (shaft 34 has end configured to connect to nut driver 32 and an end configured to connect to socket 36, see Kennison figs. 2-3 and 3:14-20) and that the socket assembly has a drive socket which accepts the fastener and the driver (socket 36 has end to accept spindle nut 37 and end secured to shaft 34, see Kennison fig. 3 and 3:14-20);
the drive extension assembly having a shroud support sleeve (outer portion of sleeve 26 shrouds any shaft support, see Kennison fig. 3) within the reaction tube;
the reaction plate having a plurality of reaction engagements for a plurality of nearby fasteners (plate 20 has two nests 14 configured to engage with nearby studs, see Kennison fig. 2); and
the socket assembly having a fastener engagement means (socket 36 has a hex-shaped end for engaging with fastener 37, see Kennison fig. 3).
Kennison does not teach that the driver is a drive extension hex ball, that the socket assembly has a drive socket which accepts the drive extension hex ball, a fastener-engaging portion of the drive socket configured to receive the fastener; a ball flex joint formed between the drive extension hex ball at an end of the drive extension and an interior cavity of the drive socket such that the drive extension hex ball can articulate relative to the socket assembly while transmitting torque to the fastener; and a ball retention structure including inner and outer socket retaining rings configured to captively retain the drive extension hex ball in the drive socket during the tightening, loosening or both., or that the drive extension assembly having a drive guide bushing supported by the shroud support sleeve to support and keep concentric the drive connector and the drive extension within the reaction tube.
However, Chang teaches a tool including a drive extension (40) and a socket (10), wherein the drive extension has a hex ball as a driver (hex ball 32) and the socket has a drive socket (13) that accepts the hex ball (see Chang figs. 1-4), a fastener-engaging portion (11) of the drive socket configured to receive a fastener (Chang [0020]);
a ball flex joint (see Chang fig. 4) formed between the drive extension hex ball (32) at an end of the drive extension and an interior cavity (13) of the drive socket such that the drive extension hex ball can articulate relative to the socket assembly while transmitting torque to the fastener (socket and ball 32 may move relative to each other while transmitting a torque, see Chang figs. 2-4 and [0025]); and
a ball retention structure including inner and outer socket retaining rings configured to captively retain the drive extension hex ball in the drive socket during the tightening, loosening or both (inner socket retaining ring 18 cooperates with a ring-shaped portion at end 14 of the socket defining a wall of groove 17 to retain hex ball 32, see Chang fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of a hex-ball drive from Chang into the apparatus of Kennison such that the driver is a drive extension hex ball and the socket assembly has a drive socket which accepts the drive extension hex ball, the socket assembly having a fastener-engaging portion of the drive socket configured to receive the fastener; a ball flex joint formed between the drive extension hex ball at an end of the drive extension and an interior cavity of the drive socket such that the drive extension hex ball can articulate relative to the socket assembly while transmitting torque to the fastener; and a ball retention structure including inner and outer socket retaining rings configured to captively retain the drive extension hex ball in the drive socket during the tightening, loosening or both, as doing so would enhance the usability of the tool in narrow working spaces (Chang [0010]).
Kennison as modified by Chang does not explicitly disclose the drive extension assembly having a drive guide bushing supported by the shroud support sleeve to support and keep concentric the drive connector and the drive extension within the reaction tube.
However, Perry teaches the use of a bushing (24) in a torque extender tool (10, see Perry fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of a bushing located in a sleeve into the device of Kennison and Chang such that it included a drive guide bushing supported by the shroud support sleeve to support and keep concentric the drive connector and the drive extension within the reaction tube, as including such an element would help hold the shaft coaxial with the sleeve (Perry 6:1-13).
4. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 including:
the reaction assembly having a retaining ring (28 keeps sleeve 26 on the reaction assembly, see Kennison figs. 3-4), protection sleeves for the plurality of nearby fasteners (nearby fasteners 38 are inserted into sleeves 14 and would be protected insofar as they are contained therein, see Kennison fig. 2) and a dirt shield (plate 20 is capable of at least partly shielding dirt from being transmitted backwards from the site of rotation, see Kennison fig. 2); and
the socket assembly having a retaining ring (Chang teaches the use of a retaining ring 18 to retain the hex head 32 in the socket 15, see Chang figs. 1-3 and [0021]).
Kennison as modified does not teach the socket assembly having a plurality of retaining rings. However, Courts have held that the "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Applicant has not demonstrated that the change of one retaining ring to two would lead to some new and unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the apparatus of Kennison as modified to include additional retaining rings, as doing so represents the mere duplication of parts.
5. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 including two reaction engagements for two nearby fasteners (two receptacles 14 for wheel studs, see Kennison fig. 1).
6. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 3. Kennison teaches the presence of two reaction engagements rather than four (two receptacles 14 for wheel studs, see Kennison fig. 1), but does not teach four reaction engagements for four nearby fasteners. However, Courts have held that the "mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced." see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Applicant has not demonstrated that the change of two reaction engagements to four leads to some new and unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the apparatus of Kennison as modified to include additional reaction engagements, as doing so represents the mere duplication of parts.
7. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 wherein the reaction tube and the reaction plate are coupled via a spline connection means (tube 26 is coupled to plates 18 and 20 via splines 22 and 24, see Kennison fig. 3 and 2:65-3:20).
8. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 3 wherein coupling of the drive extension hex ball and the ball retention structure of the socket assembly allows for engagement of the fasteners at a plurality of angles (Chang teaches that the hex ball coupling may be engaged at different angles, see Chang fig. 3; so the device of Kennison as modified would be capable of engaging fasteners at a plurality of angles).
9. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the drive extension assembly is substantially disposed inside the reaction assembly (shaft 34 is inserted in housing 26, see Kennison fig. 3), and wherein the drive extension assembly and the reaction assembly are coupled together with a mechanism that allows such assemblies to be cooperatively and relatively rotated in opposite directions during operation (drive shaft 34 is rotated independently of reaction assembly formed by 18,20, and 26 such that the assemblies may be rotated in opposite directions during operation, see Kennison 2:65-3:20).
10. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches an electrically, hydraulically and/or pneumatically driven torque tool for either tightening, loosening or both tightening and loosening of threaded fasteners including an apparatus according to any of claims 1 and 9 (electric nut runner 32 is used in conjunction with apparatus 10, see Kennison fig. 2 and 3:51-60).
11. Kennison in view of Chang and Perry teaches a system for fastening objects including:
a threaded fastener (spindle nut 37, see Kennison fig. 3 and 4:1-5); and
a tool according to claim 10 (see Kennison fig. 2 and 3:51-4:12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only 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 reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's remaining arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723