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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on April 27, 2026. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claim(s) 9, 15-16 and 21 were previously cancelled. Claims 10-14 and 17-20 are presently withdrawn being non-elected pursuant a previous restriction. Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges that no amendments were included with the April 27, 2026 filing.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-15, filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
102/103 Rejections: The examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments but has not found them persuasive.
Per the applicant’s specification, a “compressive residual stress layer” on a given surface of the claimed ratchet tool is as described as being produced via a cold working process ([0004], [0007], [0015], [0027], [0028], [0031]), and the range of depth it may occupy within a tool surface/structure. In pursuit of interpreting the claims in light of MPEP 2173.01.I, the examiner must the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The limitation of “compressive residual stress layer” does not appear to fall within the metes and bounds of being given a special definition, as the spec provides it’s a layer formed through a cold work process. Applying a metallurgy process in order to increase a device’s robustness is known within the art (please see new evidentiary references US-20140109730-A1, US-20130340574-A1, US-2691316-A, and US-1628467-A wherein entire tools are put through strengthening processes in order to mitigate cyclical stresses and stave off catastrophic tool failure).
The applicant argues on page 6 that the “compressive residual stress layers…are structural features.” However, other than having a depth, the claims fail to describe what said stress layers comprise. If the applicant were to claim, with support, that the stress layers are denser or more compact than the than the un-compressed, that structurally distinct from the prior art as it defines what the layer is, as opposed to how it is made.
Applicant’s fig. 5 appears to seemingly allude to this, but it remains unclear. [0029] of the applicant’s specification states “An example of residual stress plotted as function of depth is illustrated in FIG. 5. The plot shows the compressive residual stress at various depths from a surface…” The graph also includes two different lines, dotted and solid, and it’s unclear which each is plotting.
To examiner’s best understanding, a residual stress (not defined within the specification) is internal stress that remains after the cause of the initial stress has been removed (machine tool creation involves stress, either heating, molding, forging, cold working, pressing, etc. Forming tool components will create internal stress; even further, simply manipulating a tool, holding/grasping imparts a stress and would leave residual stress). So, as an example, a claimable structural distinction, giving degree and magnitude to this internal residual stress could be, “wherein the residual stress of said compressive residual stress layer is -225 psi at 0.002 in depth (as seemingly displayed within fig. 5).” Alternatively, reciting more succinctly that “a surface layer comprises a residual stress of -225 psi at 0.002 in depth” would also be effective in providing the structural nature of this invention. The specification ties the language of “residual compressive stress layer” directly to the cold working process.
The applicant’s arguments on pages 8-13 that the examiner has reduced the claim to a gist, as opposed to a whole are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that a tool exposed to manipulation will have stresses imparted upon it, and therein result in the presence of a stress layer.
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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Chiang (US Patent No. 7587961), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. as obvious further in view of Prevey et al. (US Patent No. 7159425), Runton (US Patent No. 3903761), Pulley et al. (US Patent No. 6164880), and Olson (US Patent No. 5038869).
In regards to claim 1, Chiang discloses
A ratchet tool comprising:
a head portion (head 11, fig. 1, 2) including an interior wall portion (at least chamber 12, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) forming a cavity (compartment 13, fig. 2) adapted to at least partially enclose components (abstract: A reversible ratchet tool includes a rotary member received in a housing and having a number of teeth, a cover secured to the housing and having three depressions located around an axle, two pawl members mounted in the housing and each having one or more teeth for being biased to engage with the rotary member),
wherein the interior wall portion (at least chamber 12, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) includes an interior wall portion surface (see annotated fig. 2); and
a ratchet gear (wheel gear or rotary member 20, fig. 20) rotatably disposed (abstract: A reversible ratchet tool includes a rotary member received in a housing and having a number of teeth) in the drive cavity portion (chamber 12, fig. 2) and having a drive portion (driving stem 21, fig. 2) that projects outwardly from the cavity (at least chamber 12, compartment 13, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) and a toothed portion (teeth 22, fig. 2), wherein surfaces of the ratchet gear (wheel gear or rotary member 20, fig. 20) include a layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Chiang fails to disclose the surfaces of the interior wall portion “include a first compressive residual stress layer”, this limitation within the tool falls under the domain of “product by process.”
Furthermore, pursuant of MPEP 2113(I), it has been held that "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." A tool side wall with a compressive stress layer (since it is resultant from shot peening or cold working process) would be obvious in view of a tool side wall.
However, in arguendo, in search and consideration, the application of a cold working process to create a compressive stress layer within a tool has been found obvious.
Prevey teaches “The shot peening method and apparatus (FIG. 13) of the present invention utilizes control of the shot peening coverage to provide higher surface compression and comparable depth of compression to conventional 100% coverage peening but with reduced cold working providing improved thermal stability and reduction in shot peening time and cost (Abstract).” Prevey also teaches “There was no systematic trend with coverage in these reductions although the reductions decreased with depth from the surface, and initial cold work level, to about 0.05 mm (0.002 in.) for all coverage levels. Beyond 0.05 mm depth, where the initial cold work level was less than nominally 5%, there were no significant changes in residual stress or cold work. It should now be apparent to one skilled in the art that cold work from shot peening, even at less than 100% coverage, is sufficient to induce significant residual stress relaxation in surface and near surface layers at modest temperatures. Accordingly, where such reduction cannot be tolerated, surface enhancement techniques, such as low plasticity burnishing, laser shock, or coverage controlled shot peening to provide adequate compression with minimum or controlled levels of cold working may be used (column 7 line 56 – column 8 line 9).” See also fig. 4 showing affected range between 0 inches and 0.016 inches.
Chiang is analogous to the claimed apparatus as it is in the same field of endeavor, relating with ratcheting hand tools. Prevey is analogous as it pertains to the same problem, which is applying a cold working method to yield improved structure.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiang to incorporate the teachings of Prevey to apply shot peening to the surface of a tool given resulting in a residual compressive layer in order to increase the durability and longevity of the tool.
Chiang fails to disclose the surfaces of the ratchet gear “have a second compressive residual stress layer”. However, Pulley teaches “Many strategies are known for increasing bending strength of a gear without altering the general gear design, including, but not limited to, use of better materials, hardening methods, and shot peening (column 1 lines 18-22).”
Chiang and Pulley are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they fall within the art of gears undergoing stress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiang to incorporate the teachings of Pulley and apply the shot peening process to the surface of the ratchet gear, resulting in a compressive residual stress layer, in order to increase the bending strength (column 1 lines 18-19).
Chiang fails to disclose the surfaces of the driving portion “have a second compressive residual stress layer”. However, Olson teaches a drive engaging portion, see column 6 lines 16-23, “It is preferable that the entire spindle end 12 (except distal end 33), be hardened in accordance with standard metallurgical practice. This practice may include gas carburizing, austenitizing, quenching and tempering. In addition, shot peening of the male tang 30 and transition portion 42 can be used to create residual compressive surface stresses in the finished product. These residual stresses are known in the art to extend fatigue life.”
Chiang and Olson are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they fall within the art tools with driving portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiang to incorporate the teachings of Olson and provided a drive portion that has undergone shot peening to in order to extend fatigue life (Olson column 6 line 23).
In regards to claim 2, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second compressive residual stress layer has a depth of about 0.002 to 0.02 inches (see Prevey fig. 4)
In regards to claim 3, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second compressive residual stress layers is created by shot peening (see rejection of claim 1).
In regards to claim 4, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 1, wherein the interior wall portion (at least chamber 12, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) includes a sidewall (wall of chamber 12, fig. 2) forming a periphery of the cavity (compartment 13, fig. 2), and the sidewall (wall of chamber 12, fig. 2) includes the first compressive residual stress layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
382
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Note: As claim 1 recites “surfaces of the cavity” include a “compressive residual stress layer”, and that the cavity sidewall would constitute a surface of the sidewall, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the sidewall a surface capable of being improved through shot peening, therein would be anticipated by the teachings under the 103 rejection established in claim 1. Please note this understanding is considered applicable to claim 5 as well.
In regards to claim 5, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 1, wherein the interior wall portion includes (at least chamber 12, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) a head portion surface (see annotated fig. 2 below) that encloses one side of the cavity (compartment 13, fig. 2), and the head portion surface (see annotated fig. 2 below) includes the first compressive residual stress layer (see rejection of claim 1 and examiner’s note of claim 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
382
552
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 1, wherein the interior wall portion (at least chamber 12, curved recesses 14, orifice 15, fig. 2) includes a head portion surface (see annotated fig. 2 from rejection of claim 5) that encloses one side of the cavity (compartment 13, fig. 2), a drive cavity sidewall portion (chamber 12, fig. 2), a pawl cavity sidewall portion (recesses 14, fig. 2).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang (US Patent No. 7587961) in view of, Prevey et al. (US Patent No. 7159425), Runton (US Patent No. 3903761), Pulley et al. (US Patent No. 6164880), Olson (US Patent No. 5038869) and in further view of Reed (US Patent No. 4674365).
In regards to claim 7, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 6, wherein a drive cavity edge portion (see annotated fig. 2 below) that is substantially at an intersection of the drive cavity sidewall portion (chamber 12, fig. 2) and the head portion surface (see annotated fig. 2 of claim 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
382
552
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chiang as modified fails to explicitly disclose that the drive cavity edge portion that is substantially at an intersection of the drive cavity sidewall portion and the head portion surface “includes the first compressive residual stress layer”.
However, Reed teaches “A method for extending the life of a cutting tool includes shot peening the surface of the tool, including all cutting edges thereof, with substantially spherical shot peening media of glass beads. Maximum life extension is achieved by optimizing the parameters of the peening process, including the Almen intensity and the shot size and uniformity. Cutting tools, especially steel tools, shot peened in accordance with the present method display many-fold increases in life (abstract).” Though Chiang doesn’t explicitly disclose an edge, to someone that is of ordinary skill in the art, it would be understood that the edge of a surface would be included in the surface. As Reed teaches the application of shot peening to adjust properties of tools results in improved performance, someone of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to apply shot peening to any surface or edge that would benefit from increased strength and durability.
Chiang and Reed are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they fall within the art of tools that undergo stress while in use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiang to incorporate the teachings of Reed and create a residual compressive layer on the edge of the surface to increase the life of the tool (abstract).
In regards to claim 8, Chiang as modified discloses
The tool of claim 6, wherein a pawl cavity edge portion (see annotated fig. 2 below) is substantially at an intersection of the drive cavity sidewall portion (chamber 12, fig. 2) and the head portion surface (see annotated fig. 2 of claim 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
382
552
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chiang as modified fails to explicitly disclose that then pawl cavity edge portion that is substantially at an intersection of the drive cavity sidewall portion and the head portion surface “includes the first compressive residual stress layer”.
However, Reed teaches “A method for extending the life of a cutting tool includes shot peening the surface of the tool, including all cutting edges thereof, with substantially spherical shot peening media of glass beads. Maximum life extension is achieved by optimizing the parameters of the peening process, including the Almen intensity and the shot size and uniformity. Cutting tools, especially steel tools, shot peened in accordance with the present method display many-fold increases in life (abstract).” Though Chiang doesn’t explicitly disclose an edge, to someone that is of ordinary skill in the art, it would be understood that the edge of a surface would be included in the surface. As Reed teaches the application of shot peening to adjust properties of tools results in improved performance, someone of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to apply shot peening to any surface or edge that would benefit from increased strength and durability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chiang to incorporate the teachings of Reed and create a residual compressive layer on the edge of the surface to increase the life of the tool (abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights