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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment to the claims filed on 6/ does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because:
the indicated status;
claims 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 21 contain text or markings contrary to that which was previously presented in the claims of 9/26/2024; and
labeled p. 13 contains text that is not part of the claims (i.e., a sheet that contains the text of the claims contains another part of the amendment).
Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
The claims are being further examined as presented. The text including and following 'Remarks on Claim Amendments' on labeled p. 13 is not considered to be claim language or part of the claims. Further such errors may cause replies to be found non-responsive. Applicant is respectfully requested to review and properly list, identify, and mark all claim amendments. Prior changes should not be indicated. Only new changes should be indicated going forward.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 27-29 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/16/2023. Applicant's request for reinstatement of claims 27-29 (see Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 14) is denied because the requirement for restriction and reasons therefor, as set forth in the Restriction Requirement of 9/26/2023, are still relevant and are maintained.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because:
claim 7, line 5 recites "a pivot" (however, claim 1 previously sets forth "a pivot" in line 7, such that claim 7 should either recite "the pivot" or "a second pivot" or be otherwise clarified);
claim 10, line 2 recites "a the first length" (instead of "the first length");
claim 11 recites "11. (Currently Amended)" and "The two-shafted multi-" in reverse order;
claim 15 recites "The two-shafted multi- The two-shafted multi-tool..." ("The two-shafted multi-" has been added);
claim 16 begins "tool of claim 14..." ("The two-shafted multi-" has been deleted); and
claim 21 recites "The two-shafted multi- The two-shafted multi-tool..." ("The two-shafted multi-" has been added)
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested in carefully reviewing the disclosure and correcting any further errors of which Applicant may become aware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite "a first adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to the primary shaft; and a second adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to the secondary shaft." Claim 4 (from which claim 5 depends) previously recites "at least one adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to either the primary shaft or the secondary shaft." The specification describes "at least one adjustable shaft handle" and "a first adjustable shaft handle ... and a second adjustable shaft handle" in different embodiments. (See Specification, labeled para. 0005.) The specification also describes shaft handles 112 as adjustable (see labeled para. 0024), but the drawings only show embodiments having two such handles (see Figs. 1 and 4). The original disclosure fails to describe or show an embodiment having three adjustable shaft handles (i.e., at least one adjustable shaft handle, a first adjustable shaft handle, and a second adjustable shaft handle) as required by claim 5. Thus, claim 5 contains new matter. Therefore, claim 5 fails the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 has been amended to recite "a first adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to the primary shaft; and a second adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to the secondary shaft." However, claim 4 (from which claim 5 depends) previously recites "at least one adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to either the primary shaft or the secondary shaft." It is unclear if claim 5 is introducing two additional adjustable shaft handles, if "a first adjustable shaft handle" or "a second adjustable shaft handle" in claim 5 is "at least one adjustable shaft handle" in claim 4, or if claim 5 should depend from claim 1 rather than claim 4. As such, the metes and bounds of the adjustable shaft handles in claim 5 cannot be determined. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 5 is being further examined as though it depends from claim 1 (instead of claim 4).
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10-12, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski et al. (US 2020/0171644) in view of Rutledge (US 4,787,661).
Regarding claim 1, Piotrowski discloses a two-shafted multi-tool comprising:
a primary shaft (90) having a tool connector (means for fixing a blade, which is described as being fixed at an end in para. 0028) at one end and a primary shaft coupler (including or of 120) of a rotating connector substantially adjacent to the tool connector ("substantially adjacent" is sufficiently broad to be considered to be met by 120 being positioned in a middle portion as shown in Fig. 1; further para. 0029 describes the structure including 120 being attached along the shaft as desired); and
a secondary shaft (including 144) having a secondary shaft coupler (including or of 140) of the rotating connector at one end, and
wherein the primary shaft coupler is configured to permit 360 degree rotation of the primary shaft about a central axis of the primary shaft (see A in Fig. 1, which is described to "rotate freely" in para. 0039, and further, Piotrowski describes "some embodiments" having constrained rotation in para. 0040, which implies other embodiments having unconstrained rotation), and
wherein a pivot (including 130) connects the primary shaft coupler and the secondary shaft coupler of the rotating connector which couples the secondary shaft to the primary shaft substantially adjacent to the tool connector and wherein the pivot is configured to permit changes in angle between the secondary shaft relative to the primary shaft (see B in Fig. 1); and
wherein the rotating connector is configured to permit 360 degree rotation of the pivot and secondary shaft about the primary shaft (see A in Fig. 1) and permit 360 degree rotation of the secondary shaft about a central axis of the secondary shaft (see C in Fig. 1, which is shown without constraints) and at any angle of the secondary shaft relative to the primary shaft (at any angle set about 130); and
wherein a length of the secondary shaft is configured to enable a user to position the secondary shaft underneath an arm to increase leverage on the secondary shaft (when positioned as such in an intended use, wherein 144 and 160 are capable of positioned underneath an arm for 160 to function as a fulcrum to increase leverage on the secondary shaft).
Piotrowski does not explicitly disclose the primary shaft having a first length and the secondary shaft having a second length, wherein the second length is longer than the first length. However, Rutledge teaches a two-shafted tool comprising:
a primary shaft (including 38 and 40) having a first length (see Fig. 1) having a tool (including 12) at one end; and
a secondary shaft (including 22 and 26) having a second length that is longer than the first length (see Fig. 1; further, Rutledge describes the lengths being adjustable as desired in col. 3, lines 46-54),
wherein the second length of the secondary shaft is configured to enable a user to position the secondary shaft underneath an arm to increase leverage on the secondary shaft (when positioned as such in an intended use, wherein 26 and 54 are capable of positioned underneath an arm for 54 to function as a fulcrum to increase leverage on the secondary shaft).
Rutledge is analogous because Rutledge discloses a two-shafted hand tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the tool of Piotrowski with the shaft length variability as taught by Rutledge in order to decrease exertion and reduce stress on a user. (See Rutledge; col. 1, line 45 - col. 2, line 17.)
Regarding claim 2, Piotrowski discloses a handle on the primary shaft (90) at an end opposite from a tool (see para. 0028). Piotrowski does not explicitly disclose the handle being a D-handle. However, Rutledge teaches a two-shafted tool comprising a D-handle (including 56) on a primary shaft (including 38 and 40) at an end opposite from a tool (12).
Rutledge is analogous because Rutledge discloses a two-shafted hand tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the D-handle means as taught by Rutledge in order to grip the tool transversely to the primary shaft. Providing the above combination with the D-handle means as taught by Rutledge is:
a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the primary shaft of Piotrowski and the D-handle of Rutledge) according to known methods to yield predictable results, and
a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the D-handle of Rutledge) for another (i.e., the generic handle of Piotrowski) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 3, Piotrowski discloses a D-handle (160) on the secondary shaft (including 144) at an end opposite from the rotating connector (including 120 and that of 140).
Regarding claim 4, Piotrowski does not explicitly disclose at least one adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to either the primary shaft (90) or the secondary shaft (including 144). However, Rutledge teaches a two-shafted tool comprising at least one adjustable shaft handle (including 54 and/or 56) that is releasably couplable (via 62) to either a primary shaft (including 38 and 40) or a secondary shaft (including 22 and 26).
Rutledge is analogous because Rutledge discloses a two-shafted hand tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the adjustable handle means as taught by Rutledge in order to replace the handle. Providing the above combination with the adjustable handle means as taught by Rutledge is:
a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the primary shaft of Piotrowski and the adjustable handle of Rutledge) according to known methods to yield predictable results, and
a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the adjustable handle of Rutledge) for another (i.e., the fixed handle of Piotrowski) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 5, Piotrowski does not explicitly disclose an adjustable shaft handle that is releasably couplable to either the primary shaft (90) or the secondary shaft (including 144). However, Rutledge teaches:
a first shaft handle (including 56) being releasably couplable (via 62) to a primary shaft (including 38 and 40); and
a second adjustable shaft handle (including 54) being releasably couplable (via 62) to a secondary shaft (including 22 and 26).
Rutledge is analogous because Rutledge discloses a two-shafted hand tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the adjustable handle means as taught by Rutledge in order to replace the handle. Providing the above combination with the adjustable handle means as taught by Rutledge is:
a combination of prior art elements (i.e., the primary shaft of Piotrowski and the adjustable handle of Rutledge) according to known methods to yield predictable results, and
a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the adjustable handle of Rutledge) for another (i.e., the fixed handle of Piotrowski) to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 8, Piotrowski discloses the rotating connector comprising at least one bushing (including 122 and/or 126).
Regarding claim 10, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Rutledge teaches the first length of the primary shaft (including 38 and 40) being adjustable (via 42).
Regarding claim 11, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 1, Rutledge teaches the second length of the secondary shaft (including 22 and 26) being adjustable (via 28).
Regarding claim 12, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 2, Rutledge teaches the D-handle (including 56) having a curved portion configured to fit partially around a user's arm (as the grip of 56 is grasped). It is noted that a user's arm includes the user's hand.
Regarding claim 25, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 4, Rutledge teaches a rotatable connector (including 62) that couples the at least one adjustable shaft handle (including 54 and/or 56) to either the primary shaft (including 38 and 40) or the secondary shaft (including 22 and 26).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pritchett (US 9,763,371) and Martin (US 2002/0170134).
Regarding claim 6, neither Piotrowski nor Rutledge explicitly discloses a rotating connector comprising at least one rolling-element bearing. However, Pritchett teaches a two-shafted tool comprising:
a primary shaft (including 125) having a tool at one end; and
a secondary shaft (including 110) having a rotating connector at one end,
wherein the rotating connector couples the secondary shaft to the primary shaft (see Figs. 1, 2), and
wherein the rotating connector comprises at least one ball bearing (including 130).
Pritchett is analogous because Pritchett discloses a two-shafted hand tool having a rotating connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the bearing means as taught by Pritchett in order to allow the second shaft to rotate about the primary shaft (as set forth by Pritchett in col. 3, lines 59-64) and to reduce friction and wear therebetween. Further, providing the above combination with the bearing means as taught by Pritchett is a combination of prior art elements (e.g., the primary shaft coupler of Piotrowski and the bearings of Pritchett) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Pritchett explicitly discloses a rotating connector comprising at least one roller bearing. However, Martin teaches a hand tool (see Fig. 1) having a rotating connector, wherein the rotating connector comprises at least one roller bearing (including 30), which Martin teaches as interchangeable with a ball bearing (see para. 0017 and claim 3 of Martin).
Martin is analogous because Martin discloses a hand tool having a rotatably connected handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with roller bearing means as taught by Martin for increased radial load capacity and for better performance under shock and impact loading. Further, providing the above combination with the roller bearing means as taught by Martin is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the ball bearing of the above combination) for another (i.e., the roller bearing of Martin) to obtain predictable results (as Martin specifically teaches the roller bearing being interchangeable with a ball bearing). See MPEP § 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Piotrowski discloses a pivot (including 130) coupling the primary shaft coupler (including or of 120) and the secondary shaft coupler (including or of 140), wherein the primary shaft coupler is coupled to the primary shaft (90), and wherein the secondary shaft coupler is coupled to the secondary shaft (including 144). Neither Piotrowski nor Rutledge explicitly discloses a primary shaft coupler comprising a rolling-element bearing coupled to a primary shaft. However, Pritchett teaches a two-shafted tool comprising a primary shaft (including 125), a secondary shaft (including 110), a rotating connector, wherein the rotating connector comprises a primary shaft coupler comprising a first roller bearing (including 130) coupled to the primary shaft, and a pivot (including 115) coupling the first roller bearing and the secondary shaft (see Fig. 5).
Pritchett is analogous because Pritchett discloses a two-shafted hand tool having a rotating connector. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the bearing means as taught by Pritchett in order to allow the second shaft to rotate about the primary shaft (as set forth by Pritchett in col. 3, lines 59-64) and to reduce friction and wear therebetween. Further, providing the above combination with the bearing means as taught by Pritchett is a combination of prior art elements (e.g., the primary shaft coupler of Piotrowski and the bearings of Pritchett) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Pritchett explicitly discloses a rotating connector comprising at least one roller bearing. Further, Piotrowski discloses the secondary shaft (including 144) rotating about a central axis of the secondary shaft relative to an end-mounted coupler (i.e., the secondary shaft coupler, including or of 140). Neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Pritchett explicitly discloses a rolling element bearing for such an end-mounted coupler. However, Martin teaches a hand tool (see Fig. 1) having a rotating connector, wherein the rotating connector comprises a shaft coupler including at least one roller bearing (including 30), which Martin teaches as interchangeable with a ball bearing (see para. 0017 and claim 3 of Martin). Further, Martin teaches the hand tool comprising a shaft (24) having the shaft coupler (including 30) of the rotating connector at one end, wherein the rotating connector is configured to permit 360 degree rotation of the shaft about a central axis of the shaft and wherein the shaft coupler comprises the roller bearing (including 30).
Martin is analogous because Martin discloses a hand tool having a rotatably connected handle. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with roller bearing means and end-mounted bearing means as taught by Martin for increased radial load capacity and for better performance under shock and impact loading. Further, providing the above combination with the roller bearing means as taught by Martin is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the ball bearing of the above combination) for another (i.e., the roller bearing of Martin) to obtain predictable results (as Martin specifically teaches the roller bearing being interchangeable with a ball bearing), and providing the above combination with the end mounted bearing means as taught by Martin is a combination of prior art elements (e.g., the secondary shaft coupler of Piotrowski and the bearings of Martin) according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fredrickson (US 5,799,996).
Regarding claim 13, neither Piotrowski nor Rutledge explicitly discloses a releasable tool connector. Fredrickson teaches a multi-tool comprising a shaft (including 22) having a tool connector (including 24) at one end, wherein the tool connector is a releasable tool connector (see cols. 4-6, wherein various implements are described being secured to the tool with 24).
Fredrickson is analogous because Fredrickson discloses a multi-tool having an elongated shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the releasable tool connecting means as taught by Fredrickson in order to configure the tool to the performance of a desired function. (See Abstract of Fredrickson.)
Regarding claim 14, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 13, Fredrickson teaches a multi-tool implement that is releasably attachable to the releasable tool connector on the shaft (see cols. 4-6, wherein various implements are described being secured to the tool with 24).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 14, Fredrickson teaches the multi-tool implement being a hoe (see Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 16, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 14, Fredrickson teaches the multi-tool implement being a rake (see Figs. 5-8).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Middleton (US 5,496,085).
Regarding claim 17, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a mop. Middleton teaches a two-shafted multi-tool comprising a mop (see col. 4, line 62 - col. 5, line 23; and col. 8, lines 26-40).
Middleton is analogous because Middleton discloses a two-shafted multi-tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with mopping means as taught by Middleton for floor cleaning. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a mop, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Regarding claim 18, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a broom. Middleton teaches a two-shafted multi-tool comprising a broom (see col. 2, lines 30-34; and col. 4, lines 7-20 and lines 49-61).
Middleton is analogous because Middleton discloses a two-shafted multi-tool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with broom means as taught by Middleton for sweeping. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a broom, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Claims 19, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Touchette (US 7,694,392).
Regarding claims 19 and 23, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being an axe or a Pulaski axe. Touchette teaches a hand tool comprising a multi-tool implement, wherein the multi-tool implement is a Pulaski axe (see Figs. 7-11). Touchette also shows another axe in Fig. 6.
Touchette is analogous because Touchette discloses a hand tool having an elongated shaft and a multi-tool implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the axe means as taught by Touchette for firefighting. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a Pulaski axe, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Regarding claim 20, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a sledgehammer. Touchette teaches a hand tool comprising a multi-tool implement, wherein the multi-tool implement is a sledgehammer (see Figs. 1-5).
Touchette is analogous because Touchette discloses a hand tool having an elongated shaft and a multi-tool implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with sledgehammer means as taught by Touchette for demolition or for driving spikes. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a sledgehammer, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cordell (US 9,493,221).
Regarding claim 21, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a paddleboard paddle. Cordell teaches a hand tool comprising a multi-tool implement, wherein the multi-tool implement is a paddle (see Fig. 4) of the type used on paddleboards.
Cordell is analogous because Cordell discloses a hand tool having an elongated shaft and a multi-tool implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with paddle means as taught by Cordell for moving water and/or moving relative to water. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a paddle, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Slauf (US 6,705,654).
Regarding claim 22, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a pool cleaning net. Slauf teaches a hand tool comprising a multi-tool implement, wherein the multi-tool implement is a pool cleaning net (6C).
Slauf is analogous because Slauf discloses a hand tool having an elongated shaft and a multi-tool implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the pool cleaning means as taught by Slauf for removing debris from water. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a net, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Piotrowski in view of Rutledge in view of Fredrickson as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Langan (US 2012/0098282).
Regarding claim 24, neither Piotrowski, Rutledge, nor Fredrickson explicitly discloses the multi-tool implement being a pry bar. Langan teaches a hand tool comprising a multi-tool implement, wherein the multi-tool implement is a pry bar (see Fig. 3).
Langan is analogous because Langan discloses a hand tool having an elongated shaft and a multi-tool implement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the prying means as taught by Langan for removing nails. Additional motivation would have been to have a multi-tool connectable to a variety of different tools, such as a pry bar, and thereby maximize usage and benefit of the multi-tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Piotrowski fails to teach 360 degree rotation of the primary shaft about its central axis, the pivot and secondary shaft about the primary shaft, and the secondary shaft about its own central axis at any angle. (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 14-17.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Piotrowski teaches structure that is "configured to permit 360 degree rotation" as claimed, as set forth in the rejections. That Piotrowski constrains rotation in certain specified embodiments (i.e., "some embodiments" and that of dependent claim 9 in Piotrowski) does not limit rotation in all embodiments.
Applicant argues: "... 'substantially adjacent' means close proximity (e.g., inches from the tool connector) to a POSITA in tool design, sufficient to enable articulation and torque control at the tool head ([0024])." (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 17.) And Applicant argues that Piotrowski does not meet the "substantially adjacent" limitation in claim 1. (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 18-19.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, as set forth in the rejections, "substantially adjacent" is sufficiently broad to be considered to be met by that shown in Fig. 1 of Piotrowski, and para. 0029 of Piotrowski describes the structure including 120 being attached along the shaft as desired. Applicant's argument that "as desired" is vague and lacks enablement for blade-proximate placement (see Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 18) is unfounded.
In response to Applicant's argument that "shaft handle" is particularly defined such that the term is not met by the prior art (see Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 19-21), Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in light of the specification. Although handle elements (i.e., shaft handles 112 and D-handles 200) are found as examples or embodiments in the specification, they were not claimed as shown or argued. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification by a lexicographical statement as per MPEP § 2111.01, subsection IV to require these elements or limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be importing into the claims to give meaning to the disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Further, to require specific details not positively recited in the claims would require improperly imparting limitations from the specification into the claims, in direct contradiction of para. 0018 in the instant specification.
Applicant argues that Rutledge teaches away from articulation as set forth in claim 1. (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 21-22.) In particular, Applicant argues: "... Rutledge explicitly discourages Claim 1's 360° rotation and dynamic articulation." (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 21.)
Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because, although Rutledge discusses drawbacks of "unrestrained movement" and "the lack of means for rigidly securing the handle together in a preselected angular position" in col. 1, lines 34-41, this discussion does not equate to teaching away from permitting 360 degree rotation and/or dynamic articulation. For instance, "restrained movement" and "means for rigidly securing the handle" can be provided while still permitting 360 degree rotation and dynamic articulation. Further, "dynamic articulation" is not claimed.
Applicant argues that Rutledge does not teach positioning underneath an arm as set forth in claim 1. (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 22-24.) Further, Applicant argues that neither Piotrowski nor Rutledge teach claim 1's function. (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 28.)
Applicant's arguments are unpersuasive because the claimed positioning and functionality (i.e., "wherein the second length of the secondary shaft is configured to enable a user to position the secondary shaft underneath an arm to increase leverage on the secondary shaft") is accomplished by "a user" in an intended use of the claimed device. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. With respect to Piotrowski and Rutledge, the structures taught by these references are capable of performing use (and functioning therein) as claimed.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues: "Rutledge's so-called 'phantom' extension lines are not identified by any reference numeral in the drawings and are never described in the specification. Under Phillips V. AWH and MPEP § 2164, only those elements in the figures that are expressly numbered and discussed in the written description can serve as support for a claim limitation. Because the dashed lines in Rutledge lack both a reference number and any corresponding disclosure in the text, they cannot be relied upon to teach a secondary shaft longer than the primary shaft (L2 > L1)." (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 24-25.)
First, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because MPEP § 2164 addresses enablement for an application itself under 35 U.S.C. 112, not the use of references in prior art rejections. Second, Applicant's argument is unpersuasive because Rutledge expressly discusses the phantom lines: "FIG. 1 is a side view of the double handled adjustable shovel of the invention which shows the adjustment of a handle in phantom line;" (see col. 2, lines 49-51) and "Hand grips 54 and 56 are rotatable to a desired position as seen in the phantom portion of grip 54 in FIG. 1, and then releasably securable." (See col. 4, lines 17-19.)
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 argues: "Rutledge fails to meet Claim 1's fulcrum requirement." (See Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 27.)
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive because the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., a "fulcrum" or "fulcrum requirement") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, the prior art teaches the claimed positioning and functionality as explained above.
Applicant's arguments and declaration that the disclosed embodiments and design add up to something that is not known in the prior art and has results and functions that are synergistic, unexpected, and meet a long-felt need are unpersuasive because these arguments fail to establish a relationship between these results/functions and the claimed invention. The Declaration of 6/13/2025 broadly relates unexpected synergistic results to "the combination of features" and "the integration of the rotating connector structure (claims 27-29) with the overall two-shafted design (claim 1)," on labeled p. 39. Additionally, Applicant's arguments that the subject of the disclosed application has results and functions that are synergistic and unexpected are unpersuasive because Applicant fails to show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent. See MPEP § 716.02(a). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant's assertion of long-felt need in the Declaration of 6/13/2025 (see Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled p. 39, which states: "... that solves fundamental biomechanical problems that have existed for millennia.") is unpersuasive because there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem. See MPEP § 716.04.
Applicant's assertion of commercial success in the Declaration of 6/13/2025 (see Remarks of 6/13/2025, labeled pp. 36-17, '7. Reception by Users and Industry') is unpersuasive because there is no showing that objective evidence of commercial success is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
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 Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/1/24/26
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671