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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 09/08/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 16, 18, 21-22, 25, 30, and 40-41 are pending for examination.
Claims 1-15, 17, 19-20, 23-24, 26-29 and 31-39 are canceled.
Claims 16 and 21 are currently amended.
Claim 41 is new.
Specification and Drawing:
Amendments to the specification and Drawing have been submitted with the amendment filed on 09/08/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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.
Claims 16, 18, 21-22, 25, 30, and 40-41 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16 and 41, the claim recites in part “wherein, upon coupling of the one or more wrench heads to the handle portion”, renders the claim indefinite because it appears only one of the wrench heads can be coupled to the handle portion at a time. There is no provision for coupling more than one wrench head to the same handle portion. Clarification is required. The claim will be interpreted as wherein, upon coupling of the one of the one or more wrench heads to the handle portion.
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16, 18, 21, 25, 30, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picone (US 20050243553 A1) in view of Hsieh (US 7066059 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Picone discloses a motorized wrench system (30), comprising: a handle portion (32), including:
an external housing (34);
a drive gear (46; Gearbox);
a motor (44) in mechanical communication with the drive gear (46);
a switch (41) configure to control operation of the motor (44); and at least one through-hole (38’; Fig. 3C) disposed in the external housing (34),
one or more wrench heads (50) removably couplable to the handle portion ([0039]),
wherein the one or more wrench heads (50) include:
a geared wrench (52/58) having an opening configured to receive and engage a nut (Opening between 53 and 52);
two or more cooperating (66, 64) gears in mechanical communication with the geared wrench (52/58); and
at least one spring clip (39) configured to engage the at least one through-hole (38’) to couple the one or more wrench heads (50) to the handle portion (32; Fig. 3A),
wherein, upon receiving the spring clip (39) within the through-hole (38’) in the external housing of the handle portion (32), at least a portion (“round knurled knob shown in FIG. 3B”; and/or pull-ring Fig. 6-[0109]) of the spring clip (39) projects outside of the external housing of the handle portion (32; Fig. 3A), and
wherein, upon coupling of the one or more wrench heads (50) to the handle portion (32), the drive gear (46; Gearbox) of the handle portion is brought into mechanical communication with at least one cooperating gear (66, 64) of the one or more wrench heads (50/57).
Picone does not explicitly disclose the spring clip being located on the wrench head.
Heish in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide an elastic coupling unit comprising spring clip on a wrench head (wrench head, 2 having coupling means comprising spring 211; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Wrench, as disclosed by Picone, to incorporate coupling unit comprising spring clip on a wrench head, as taught by Heish, allowing for a quick release functionality. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse locations of the spring clip of Picone such that the spring clip is on the wrench head and engages a through-hole in the handle, as this is a mere reversal of parts that does not produce unexpected results and is a recognized obvious variant in mechanical tools. This modification would maintain the same quick-release configuration while allowing for equivalent secure coupling.
Picone as modified further teaches:
Regarding claims 18, wherein the handle portion (32) includes a battery (42 of Picone).
Regarding claims 21, wherein each of the plurality of wrench heads (50 of Picone) further comprises; a housing (body of 52 of Picone), a channel (54 of Picone) formed in the housing (body of 52 of Picone) and defining at least a first surface (left side surface of 54 of Picone), a second surface at least partially parallel (right side surface of 54 of Picone) to the first surface, (left side surface of 54 of Picone) and a third surface (top surface of 54-viewing from top-down direction, the surface making contact with 58) connecting the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 3A and 5A), the third surface being at least partially orthogonal to the first surface, the second surface, the channel portion (54 of Picone) being configured to receive at least a portion of the geared wrench (58).
Regarding claim 25, wherein the drive gear (46; Gearbox of Picone) is configured to transfer rotational motion to the plurality one or more of cooperating gears (66, 64 of Picone; [0104]-[0112]).
Regarding claim 30, wherein the plurality of wrench heads (50 of Picone) each having a geared wrench of a different size (([0018] and [0102] of Picone) includes: a plurality of wrench heads each configured to receive and engage a nut of a different size ([0018] and [0102] of Picone).
Regarding claim 40, wherein the one or more wrench head (50 of Picone) includes: a plurality of wrench heads each having a geared wrench of a different size ([0102] of Picone).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picone (US 20050243553 A1) in view of Hsieh (US 7066059 B1), and in further view of Hsu et al. (US 20080190246 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Picone as modified discloses all the limitations according to claim 21, including the one or more channels as explained above but is silent regarding wherein at least one pad disposed on at least one of the first surface, the second surface, or the third surface of the channel portion.
Hsu in a related invention teaches that it is old and well known to dispose at least one pad (146) in channel of a wrench tool ([0026] “a pad 146 is configured between the planetary gears 166 and the locating ring 144, so as to avoid the planetary gears 166 and the locating ring 144 to be direct contact to further affect the rotation of the planetary gears.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Wrench, as disclosed by Picone as modified, to dispose a pad in a channel of the tool, as taught by Hsu, so as to avoid affecting the rotation of the gears ([0026] of Hsu). Note; the pad can be disposed on any of the inner surfaces of the housing of Picone forming the channel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picone (US 20050243553 A1) in view of Hsieh (US 7066059 B1), and in further view of Sroka (US 20120103142 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Picone discloses a motorized wrench system (30), comprising: a handle portion (32), including:
an external housing (34);
a drive gear (46; Gearbox);
a motor (44) in mechanical communication with the drive gear (46);
a switch (41) configure to control operation of the motor (44); and
one or more wrench heads (50) including: a geared wrench (52/58) having an opening configured to receive and engage a nut (Opening between 53 and 52);
two or more cooperating (66, 64) gears in mechanical communication with the geared wrench (52/58); and
one or more spring clips (39) configured to reversibly couple the one or more wrench heads to the handle portion (32; [0011]: “connect and disconnect wrench heads”),
wherein, upon coupling of the one or more wrench heads (50) to the handle portion (32) via the one or more spring clips (39),
Picone does not explicitly disclose the spring clip being located on the wrench head.
Heish in a related invention teaches it is old and well known to provide an elastic coupling unit comprising spring clip on a wrench head (wrench head, 2 having coupling means comprising spring 211; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Wrench, as disclosed by Picone, to incorporate coupling unit comprising spring clip on a wrench head, as taught by Heish, allowing for a quick release functionality. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse locations of the spring clip of Picone such that the spring clip is on the wrench head and engages a through-hole in the handle, as this is a mere reversal of parts that does not produce unexpected results and is a recognized obvious variant in mechanical tools. This modification would maintain the same quick-release configuration while allowing for equivalent secure coupling.
Picone as modified does not teach a gear teeth of the drive gear of the handle portion are brought into contact and interlock with gear teeth of at least one cooperating gear of the one or more wrench heads.
Sroka in a related invention teaches a motorized wrench system (Fig.1), a drive gear (56), a wrench head (28), wherein, a gear teeth (teeth 58) of the drive gear (58) of the handle portion (26) are brought into contact and interlock with gear teeth of at least one cooperating gear (62, 64, 70) of the one or more wrench heads (28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the Wrench, as disclosed by Picone, to substitute the drive gear and cam coupling in the handle of Picone with the bevel gear of Sroka such that the drive gear is brought into direct tooth contact with the teeth of one cooperating gears of the wrench head in order to provide a reliable, slip-resistant direct meshed tooth contact for enhanced torque transmission, enabling precise and continuous rotational motion transfer. This substitution of one known drive mechanism (bevel gear meshing) for another (cam coupling) yields predictable result of improved mechanical efficiency and alignment upon coupling.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 16 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant has amended claim 16, therefore the Sroka in view of Picone reference no longer applies. Application of Picone in view of Hsieh is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter of claim 16. Please see the new rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 15 December 2025