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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-5 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent claims 1 and 9, each recites that the output shaft has a hexagonal external profile. However, claims 4-5 (dependent on claim 1 directly and indirectly) and similarly claims 12-13 (dependent on claim 9 directly and indirectly) recite that the output shaft is polygonal and includes six sides. However, the term “hexagonal” recited in claims 1 and 9 by definition is considered as a polygon with six sides. Therefore, it is unclear how claims 4-5 and 12-13 would further limit the subject matters of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thoman (US 8,747,353).
As applied to claim 1, Thoman teaches a hand tool (408, col. 40, lines 34-38, embodiment in Figs. 37A-B) comprising an input shaft comprising a handle (left side/end to midpoint of Figure 37A can be grabbed and used as handle) having a hardness (aluminum) configured to receive a torque (manual tool for application of torque to an object, abstract); and an output shaft (right side/end to midpoint of Figure 37A) having the hardness (same aluminum hardness since made of same tube) and having a hexagonal external profile that is configured to directly contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert (intended use limitation but capable to contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert); wherein the input shaft and the output shaft are connected to each other and define a cylindrical internal tube along a longitudinal axis of the hand tool (Figs. 37A-B), the defined internal tube having a constant diameter along an entire length of the defined internal tube and extending from a proximal end region of the hand tool to a distal end region of the hand tool through the entirety of the handle and the output shaft (Figs. 37A-B); and wherein the input shaft comprises a hexagonal cross-section and the input shaft has curved corners and edges (Figs. 37A-B).
As applied to claim 2, Thoman teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool is monolithic (made of extruded aluminum, col. 40, lines 34-38).
As applied to claim 3, Thoman teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool has radial symmetry (see Fig. 37B).
As applied to claims 4 and 5, Thoman teaches the invention cited including wherein the output shaft is polygonal and includes six sides (see Fig. 37A-B).
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) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoman (US 8,747,353).
As applied to claim 9, Thoman teaches a fastening system comprising a hand tool (41B, embodiment in Figs. 7A-7I) including an input shaft comprising a handle (left side/end to midpoint of 41B with circular outer surface in Figure7G can be grabbed and used as handle) configured to receive a torque (manual tool for application of torque to an object, abstract), and having a hardness (made of aluminum); and an output shaft (right side/end to midpoint of 41B in Fig. 7G) having the hardness (same aluminum hardness since made of same tube); wherein the input shaft and the output shaft are connected to each other and define a cylindrical internal tube along a longitudinal axis of the hand tool (Figs. 7G and 7I), the defined internal tube having a constant diameter and extending from a proximal end region of the hand tool to a distal end region of the hand tool (Figs. 7G and 7I); wherein the output shaft has a circular external profile (Figs, 7F-FI) that is configured to directly contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert (intended use limitation but capable to contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert); wherein the input shaft comprises a circular cross section (Figs. 7F-7I); and a cylindrical insert (62, Figs. 7G and 7I) defining a receiving tube (Fig. 7G), the receiving tube configured to receive the output shaft (intended use limitation however, receiving tube 62 receives output shaft 41B on the right as shown in Figs. 7G and 7I, 62 is press fit into end of 41B and as such receives the interior 41B on the exterior of 62), wherein the input shaft abuts against the output shaft (col. 28, lines 47-60).
Thoman embodiment of Figs. 7E-7I teaches the external profile of the output shaft and cross section of the input shaft are circular and as such, does not explicitly teach the output shaft has hexagonal external profile and input shaft has a hexagonal cross-section.
However, Thoman teaches a variety of different embodiments wherein the exterior profiles of the input/output shafts of the hand tool could have a variety of different shapes including the embodiment in Figures 37A and 37B to provide comfortable grip. Thoman teaches a hand tool (408, col. 40, lines 34-38, embodiment in Figs. 37A-B) comprising an input shaft comprising a handle (left side/end to midpoint of Figure 37A can be grabbed and used as handle) having a hardness (aluminum, manual tool for application of torque to an object, abstract); and an output shaft (right side/end to midpoint of Figure 37A) having the hardness (same aluminum hardness since made of same tube) and having a hexagonal external profile; wherein the input shaft and the output shaft are connected to each other and define a cylindrical internal tube along a longitudinal axis of the hand tool (Figs. 37A-B), the defined internal tube having a constant diameter along an entire length of the defined internal tube and extending from a proximal end region of the hand tool to a distal end region of the hand tool through the entirety of the handle and the output shaft (Figs. 37A-B); and wherein the input shaft comprises a hexagonal cross-section and the input shaft has curved corners and edges (Figs. 37A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute the input/output shafts with circular exterior profile of one embodiment of Thoman (Figs. 7F-7I) with the input/output shafts with hexagonal external profile of another embodiment of Thoman (Figs. 37A-B) as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143. Rationale “B”). The resulting apparatus would predictably produce a hand tool having the claimed input/output shafts with hexagonal cross section and hexagonal external profile with comfortable grip in a conventional manner without the modification of the principles of operation of the hand tool of the embodiment of Figs. 7F-7I of Thoman.
As applied to claim 10, the modified system of Thoman teaches the invention cited including Thoman, in both embodiments of 7F-7I and 37A-B, teach the hand tool is monolithic (unitary integral body).
As applied to claim 11, the modified system of Thoman teaches the invention cited including Thoman, in both embodiments of 7F-7I and 37A-B, teach the hand tool has radial symmetry (See Figs. 7F-7I and 37A-B).
As applied to claims 12 and 13, the modified system of Thoman teaches the invention cited including wherein the hexagonal output shaft is polygonal and includes six sides.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 7,874,233).
As applied to claim 1, Taylor teaches a hand tool (26, Figs. 1-2) comprising an input shaft comprising a handle (input end 30 with exterior handle 34) having a hardness (any tool has a hardness) configured to receive a torque (abstract); and an output shaft (output end 28 with exterior surface 36) having the hardness (same hardness since made of same unibody) and having a square external profile that is configured to directly contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert (intended use limitation but capable to contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert); wherein the input shaft and the output shaft are connected to each other and define a cylindrical internal tube (32) along a longitudinal axis of the hand tool (Figs. 1-2), the defined internal tube having a constant diameter and extending from a proximal end region of the hand tool to a distal end region of the hand tool; and wherein the input shaft comprises a hexagonal cross-section and the input shaft has curved corners and edges (considering the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, due to manufacturing tolerances, the edges of external handle 34 should have some radius and curvature, Figs. 1-2).
Taylor teaches that the output shaft’s exterior surface 36 has a square profile (Figs. 1-2) and thus, fails to explicitly teach the claimed hexagonal profile. However, Taylor further teaches that with respect to the disclosed invention, it is to be realized that the optimum dimensional relationships for the parts of the invention, to include variations in size, materials, shape, form, function and manner of operation, assembly and use, are deemed readily apparent and obvious to one skilled in the art, and all equivalent relationships to those illustrated in the drawings and described in the specification are intended to be encompassed by the present invention.
Furthermore, the instant specification, discloses that the multi-use insert 208 may be multi-faceted. For example, a cross-section of the multi-use recess 608 may be hexagonal, rectangular, or triangular and the multi-use recess 608 may be configured to receive a tool for imparting torque on the multi-use insert 208 (paragraph [0038]). Furthermore, the external surface of the output shaft 806 may be hexagonal, rectangular, or triangular to engage a recess of the insert 122 (i.e., a recess of any of the inserts 204, 206 or 208, paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exterior profile of the output shaft of Taylor to any shape including hexagonal shape, as a matter of design choice depending on the shape and profile of the recess of the insert that becomes engaged with the output shaft of the tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the square external profile of Taylor’s output shaft with a hexagonal profile, as an effective means of matching the interior profile of the recess of the insert that is being engaged with thus, resulting in an enhanced engagement between the output shaft and the insert in order to transmit the adequate torque to the insert.
As applied to claim 2, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool is monolithic (Fig. 2).
As applied to claim 3, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool has radial symmetry (Figs. 1-2).
As applied to claims 4 and 5, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the output shaft with hexagonal exterior profile is polygonal and includes six sides (see Fig. 1-2).
As applied to claim 6, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the input shaft has a first outer diameter (diameter of modified surface 34), the output shaft has a second outer diameter (diameter of 36), and the first outer diameter is greater than the second outer diameter (Figs. 1-2).
As applied to claim 9, Taylor teaches a fastening system comprising a hand tool (26, Figs. 1-2) including an input shaft comprising a handle (input end 30 with exterior handle 34) configured to receive a torque (abstract), and having a hardness (any tool has a hardness); and an output shaft (output end 28 with exterior surface 36) having the hardness (same hardness since made of same unibody); wherein the input shaft and the output shaft are connected to each other and define a cylindrical internal tube along a longitudinal axis of the hand tool (32, Figs. 1-2), the defined internal tube (32) having a constant diameter and extending from a proximal end region of the hand tool to a distal end region of the hand tool (Figs. 1-2); wherein the output shaft has a circular external profile (Figs. 1-2) that is configured to directly contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert (intended use limitation but capable to contact and transmit torque to a recess of an insert); wherein the input shaft comprises a hexagonal cross section (Figs. 1-2); and a cylindrical insert (18, Fig. 1) defining a receiving tube (square recess 20, paragraph bridging cols. 3-4, Fig. 1), the receiving tube configured to receive the output shaft (intended use limitation however, receiving tube 20 receives output shaft 36 such that the exterior profile of the output shaft directly engages the interior surface of the receiving tube 18 to apply torque and rotate the insert, col. 4, lines 10-25), wherein the input shaft abuts against the output shaft (Figs. 1-2).
Taylor teaches that the output shaft’s exterior surface 36 has a square profile (Figs. 1-2) and thus, fails to explicitly teach the claimed hexagonal profile. However, Taylor further teaches that with respect to the disclosed invention, it is to be realized that the optimum dimensional relationships for the parts of the invention, to include variations in size, materials, shape, form, function and manner of operation, assembly and use, are deemed readily apparent and obvious to one skilled in the art, and all equivalent relationships to those illustrated in the drawings and described in the specification are intended to be encompassed by the present invention.
Furthermore, the instant specification, discloses that the multi-use insert 208 may be multi-faceted. For example, a cross-section of the multi-use recess 608 may be hexagonal, rectangular, or triangular and the multi-use recess 608 may be configured to receive a tool for imparting torque on the multi-use insert 208 (paragraph [0038]). Furthermore, the external surface of the output shaft 806 may be hexagonal, rectangular, or triangular to engage a recess of the insert 122 (i.e., a recess of any of the inserts 204, 206 or 208, paragraph [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the exterior profile of the output shaft of Taylor to any shape including hexagonal shape, as a matter of design choice depending on the shape and profile of the recess of the insert that becomes engaged with the output shaft of the tool. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have substituted the square external profile of Taylor’s output shaft with a hexagonal profile, as an effective means of matching the interior profile of the recess of the insert that is being engaged with thus, resulting in an enhanced engagement between the output shaft and the insert in order to transmit the adequate torque to the insert.
As applied to claim 10, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool is monolithic (Fig. 2).
As applied to claim 11, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the hand tool has radial symmetry (Figs. 1-2).
As applied to claims 12 and 13, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the output shaft with hexagonal exterior profile is polygonal and includes six sides (see Figs. 1-2).
As applied to claim 14, the modified Taylor teaches the invention cited including wherein the input shaft has a first outer diameter (diameter of modified surface 34), the output shaft has a second outer diameter (diameter of 36), and the first outer diameter is greater than the second outer diameter (Figs. 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 09/26/2025