DETAILED ACTION
In view of the appeal brief filed on 16 February 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New/modified grounds of rejection set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
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) 1, 2, 7-10, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thewes (1,727,623) in view of and Dein (2008/0276762), Smith-Petersen et al. (2,629,279; to be referred to hereinafter as SP) and Wheeler (2,959,996).
Regarding claim 1, Thewes discloses a pipe wrench comprising: a head (6) including an aperture (8), the aperture defined by a front wall and a back wall, the aperture defining a central axis; a handle (1) integrally formed with the head, the handle including a proximal end portion and a distal end portion, the distal end portion adjacent the head and the proximal end portion opposite the distal end portion; a first jaw (2) coupled to the head, the first jaw including a plurality of teeth that define a first contact region; a second jaw (3/4) partially extending through the aperture of the head, the second jaw including a threaded portion (3) and a plurality of teeth that define a second contact region, the second contact region extending beyond the first contact region in a direction parallel to side surfaces of the head (clearly seen in Figs. 1 and 2, extending toward the left side of the page); a biasing mechanism (9-13) located within the aperture to align the threaded portion of the second jaw with the central axis of the aperture (as shown in resting position in Fig. 2), the biasing mechanism supports the second jaw between the front wall and the back wall such that a distal end of the second jaw tilts within the aperture when the handle is rotated and the second jaw engages a workpiece (the biasing mechanism of Thewes clearly shows space between front and rear walls of the aperture, such that any rotation of the handle while a workpiece or any other external object exerts a force on the second jaw that overcomes the biasing force in either direction, will inherently result in rotation of the second handle within the aperture, in the same manner as the current invention); and an actuator (7) including threads engaged with the threaded portion of the second jaw such that rotation of the actuator moves the second contact region of the second jaw relative to the first contact region of the first jaw. However, Thewes fails to disclose a bore in the proximal end of the handle or extension handles for connection thereto. Dein discloses a different type of wrench, and teaches that a proximal end (opposite the head) of the handle may include a bore (590b) to allow for optional connection of removable handles and Dein teaches that a plurality of different interchangeable handles may be provided in a wide range of different lengths (as shown in Figs. 6a-e, 7a-d, 10a and 10b, including the possibility of providing plural handle lengths connected to one another to form the second handle, such as portions 1000 and 1050 connected to one another), which would clearly provide the advantage of allowing a user to select the most applicable handle length, including longer handles when higher torque is necessary to be applied to a fastener or smaller handle when less torque is required and a smaller handle will allow for easier handling of the tool and/or access to fasteners in limited spaces. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the wrench of Thewes, disclosed as having a removable handle, with a plurality of handles each having different lengths, as taught by Dein, to allow the user to optionally select the most desirable handle length for different applications. Thus, there will be at least one first shorter handle having a length that is less than at least one second longer handle and wherein the variety of lengths for the handles would further make obvious a wider range of ratios between the width of the second contact region and the length formed by at least one of the longer handles when joined with the head to form a second length and wherein the longer the handle, the greater mechanical advantage will be given to a user, such that at least plural handles with longer lengths than shown by Thewes would provide variable mechanical advantage.
Regarding the newest limitation of claim 1 (added to the claims 26 December 2024), Thewes shows the angled formed between the first and second contact regions to fall within the claimed range of 5-15 degrees (measured on paper to be approximately 10-11 degrees; although drawings are not to be relied upon for specific dimensions, the relative angular orientation shown would be recognized one of ordinary skill in the art as being very near scale of a common size and shape that is very well-known in the art for pipe wrenches, and falls within the claimed range) but Thewes does not specifically disclose the angle between the jaws. SP and Wheeler both disclose similar pipe wrenches, also having an angle formed between the first and second contact regions of the jaws, with SP teaching that it is customary in pipe wrenches for the angle between jaws to be approximately eight degrees before any rocking or tilting of the movable jaw (Col. 3, lines 55-59) and Wheeler teaches that an angle between jaw faces is desirably 0-20° and preferably 12° (Col. 2, lines 5-9 and lines 62-64). Therefore, the prior art teaches that the angle between jaws in wrenches similar to Thewes is well known in the art and customary to be within the range of 0-20°, with desirable and known angles of 8° and 12°, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the pipe wrench of Thewes with similar known angles between the jaws, being known to be common and desirable, to ensure that the pipe wrench grips in a similar manner as well-known wrenches.
Regarding claim 2, Thewes further discloses that the biasing mechanism includes first and second biasing members located on opposing sides of the second jaw to bias the second jaw in two different directions.
Regarding claim 7, Thewes further discloses that the second jaw includes a thumb release portion (distal end of threaded portion 3) located distally from the second contact region, the thumb release portion is inherently capable of being depressed to misalign the second jaw with the central axis of the aperture in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Thewes further discloses equivalent structure for the jaws, aperture and spring as disclosed and previously claimed, such that when the thumb release portion is depressed, the second contact region moves away from the first contact region in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Thewes further discloses that the front and back walls converge toward each other (from top to bottom, as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Thewes further discloses that the aperture includes a bottom end a top end, and wherein the bottom end is positioned closer to the actuator than the top end, and wherein the front and back walls converge toward each other from the top end toward the bottom end (as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of handles discussed for claim 1 would also read on the claimed first extension handle defines a first length and the second extension handle defines a second length, and wherein the second length is greater than the first length.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed supra, as discussed supra, SP teaches one commonly known angle of 8°, which may be considered to read on the claimed value of “about 9 degrees”. Further, the structure disclosed by Thewes, having the biasing elements (9/13) biasing the orientation of the second jaw within the head aperture, is designed to allow the upper jaw to tilt relative to the lower jaw, resulting in at least a slight variation in the angle between the two jaws due to tilting in a forward or rearward direction, which would obviously allow for some variation in the angle between the jaws, when provided with the angle of 8° taught by SP, that would obviously be capable of moving even closer to, or overlapping the claimed value of about 9°. Thus, the combination of Thewes with SP makes obvious the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (3,188,894) in view of Thewes (1,727,623), Dein (2008/0276762), Johnson et al. (2,656,751), Ingwer et al (2,302,633), Smith-Petersen et al. (2,629,279; to be referred to hereinafter as SP) and Wheeler (2,959,996).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuoka discloses a pipe wrench comprising: a head (upper end of 1) including an aperture (2), the aperture defined by a front wall and a back wall, the aperture defining a central axis; a handle (1) integrally coupled to the head; a first jaw (12) coupled to the head, the first jaw including a plurality of teeth that define a first contact region; a second jaw (3/4) partially extending through the aperture of the head, the second jaw including a threaded portion (3) and a plurality of teeth that define a second contact region (16), the second contact region extending beyond the first contact region in a direction parallel to side surfaces of the head (clearly seen in Fig. 1, with jaw 16 extending further toward the bottom of the page than jaw 12); a biasing mechanism (17/17’) located within the aperture to bias the second jaw within the aperture, the biasing mechanism supports the second jaw between the front wall and the back wall such that a distal end of the second jaw tilts within the aperture when the handle is rotated and the second jaw engages a workpiece (the biasing mechanism of Matsuoka clearly shows space between at least the rear wall of the aperture, such that any rotation of the handle while a workpiece or any other external object exerts a force on the front of the second jaw and overcomes the biasing force of spring 17, will inherently result in rotation of the second handle within the aperture, in the same manner as the current invention); and an actuator (not numbered) including threads engaged with the threaded portion of the second jaw such that rotation of the actuator moves the second contact region of the second jaw relative to the first contact region of the first jaw. However, Matsuoka fails to disclose that the biasing mechanism is configured to align the threaded portion of the second jaw with the central axis of the aperture, but Matsuoka does disclose that the spring (17) on a rear side of the head is provided with a screw (19) to adjust the tension of spring (17), which will be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to allow adjustment of the position of the second jaw within the aperture (i.e., reducing the tension of spring 17 will result in the second jaw shifting toward the rear wall as a result of the tension on opposing spring 17’ remaining constant). Further, each of Thewes (with the handle structures taught by Dein for claim 1 above), Johnson and Ingwer disclose similar wrenches, also having front and rear biasing members to position a second jaw within an aperture of a head, and all of which showing the second jaw substantially aligned with the central axis of the aperture, which would also be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to allow tilting of the second jaw in either forward or rearward direction, which will allow the jaws to adapt to different sized workpieces when engaging them. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the spring 17 of Matsuoka may desirably be adjusted, via screw 19, to a position that would effectively align the second jaw with the central axis of the aperture, as taught by Thewes, Johnson and Ingwer, to allow for tilting of the second jaw in forward or rearward directions in a similar manner, to adapt to larger or smaller workpieces than the size that the jaws are set to prior to engagement.
Regarding the new limitation of claim 1 (added to the claims 26 December 2024), Matsuoka shows the angled formed between the first and second contact regions to fall within the claimed range of 5-15 degrees (measured on paper to be approximately 8 degrees; although drawings are not to be relied upon for specific dimensions, the relative angular orientation shown would be recognized one of ordinary skill in the art as being very near scale of a common size and shape that is very well-known in the art for pipe wrenches, and falls within the claimed range) but Matsuoka does not specifically disclose the angle between the jaws. SP and Wheeler both disclose similar pipe wrenches, also having an angle formed between the first and second contact regions of the jaws, with SP teaching that it is customary in pipe wrenches for the angle between jaws to be approximately eight degrees before any rocking or tilting of the movable jaw (Col. 3, lines 55-59) and Wheeler teaches that an angle between jaw faces is desirably 0-20° and preferably 12° (Col. 2, lines 5-9 and lines 62-64). Therefore, the prior art teaches that the angle between jaws in wrenches similar to Matsuoka is well known in the art and customary to be within the range of 0-20°, with desirable and known angles of 8° and 12°, such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the pipe wrench of Matsuoka with similar known angles between the jaws, being known to be common and desirable, to ensure that the pipe wrench grips in a similar manner as well-known wrenches.
Regarding claim 2, Matsuoka further discloses that the biasing mechanism includes first and second biasing members located on opposing sides of the second jaw to bias the second jaw in two different directions.
Regarding claim 3, Matsuoka further discloses that the first and second biasing members are coil springs.
Regarding claim 4, Matsuoka discloses that the biasing mechanism includes an intermediate member (5) located between the second jaw and the coil springs, wherein the coil springs directly engage the intermediate member.
Regarding claim 5, Matsuoka further discloses that a plurality of recesses (18/18’) are formed in the head and positioned adjacent the aperture, each of the plurality of recesses receives a coil spring.
Regarding claim 6, Matsuoka further discloses that the coil springs are nonconcentric relative to each other (17’ located closer to upper end than 17).
Regarding claim 7, Matsuoka further discloses that the second jaw includes a thumb release portion (distal end of threaded portion 3) located distally from the second contact region, the thumb release portion is inherently capable of being depressed to misalign the second jaw with the central axis of the aperture in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Matsuoka further discloses equivalent structure for the jaws, aperture and spring as disclosed and previously claimed, such that when the thumb release portion is depressed, the second contact region moves away from the first contact region in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Matsuoka further discloses that the front and back walls converge toward each other (from top to bottom, as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuoka further discloses that the aperture includes a bottom end a top end, and wherein the bottom end is positioned closer to the actuator than the top end, and wherein the front and back walls converge toward each other from the top end toward the bottom end (as seen in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of handles discussed for claim 1 would also read on the claimed first extension handle defines a first length and the second extension handle defines a second length, and wherein the second length is greater than the first length.
Regarding claim 17, as discussed supra, as discussed supra, SP teaches one commonly known angle of 8°, which may be considered to read on the claimed value of “about 9 degrees”. Further, the structure disclosed by Matsuoka, having the biasing elements (17/17’) biasing the orientation of the second jaw within the head aperture, is designed to allow the upper jaw to tilt relative to the lower jaw, resulting in at least a slight variation in the angle between the two jaws due to tilting in a forward or rearward direction, which would obviously allow for some variation in the angle between the jaws, when provided with the angle of 8° taught by SP, that would obviously be capable of moving even closer to, or overlapping the claimed value of about 9°. Thus, the combination of Matsuoka with SP makes obvious the claimed invention.
Claims 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuoka (3,188,894) in view of Thewes (1,727,623), Dein (2008/0276762), Johnson et al. (2,656,751), Ingwer et al (2,302,633) and the non-patent literature (NPL) internet publications from Amazon (Grizzly and Titan pipe wrench sets) and Lowes (different length pipe wrenches available).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Matsuoka, Thewes, Johnson and Ingwer, as discussed supra, provide all structure set forth in claim 11, which only includes structure set forth in claims 1-4.
Regarding the newest limitations of claim 11 (added 26 December 2026), the second contact region of Matsuoka defines a width, as seen in Fig. 2, but fails to disclose any specific ratio of the width to a second length extending from an end of the second extension handle to an end of the second jaw. The variety of different length extension handles provided by Dein, as discussed supra, would further make obvious a wide range of ratios between the width of the second contact region and the length formed by at least one of the handles when joined with the head. Regarding the specific ratio set forth in claim 11, the examiner previously took official notice (in parent application 14/835,767), which was traversed by the applicant, that it is very old and well known for pipe wrenches to be formed in a wide range of overall sizes for different applications, including different sized jaws for gripping different elements. For further support of the examiner’s statement, the internet publications are provided as evidence that it is very well known in the art to form pipe wrenches similar to the claimed invention and the Matsuoka reference in a range of lengths and sizes with corresponding different widths and lengths to the jaws depending on the size of the wrench (Titan and Grizzly tool sets clearly showing smaller length and width to both jaws corresponding with smaller sizes). Additionally, the precedent in MPEP 2144.04, IV-A regarding obviousness of change of size provides additional motivation to modify the overall size of the wrenches, as is known in the art to accommodate different applications, wherein the applicant has not provided any evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the claimed length or width of the contact region, overall length of the tool or ratio between the contact region width and the overall length. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the size, including the width, of the contact region and overall (second) length of the wrench will vary depending on the size of the wrench as a whole such that the second contact region could obviously vary in width and the overall length of the wrench may further vary depending on the length of the selected extension handle from the plurality of handles taught by Dein as well as the selected location of the second jaw relative to the first jaw, such that the second length may be anywhere in the range including lengths of about 19 or 24 inches (and overlapping the 18.9-24.2 inch range of claim 16), which are both known options disclosed by the NPL documents, with the 18 inch wrench capable of being set to 19 inches with second jaw open 1 inch. For further evidence of commonly known jaw sizes, the examiner has directly measured personally owned standard pipe wrenches that were commercially available prior to the filing priority of the current application, with a Kobalt brand pipe wrench (purchased approximately 2010) having a jaw width of 0.8125 inches and maximum length of 15 inches, and Trimont Mfg. Co having a patent date on the jaw of 1889 having a jaw width of 1 inch and maximum length of 20 inches, providing known jaw widths in the art between 0.8125-1 inch, and a ratio of 0.054-0.05. Using the Kobalt dimensions as an example, the ratio would meet the claimed value of 0.03 with the existing jaw if/when the handle were extended to provide a maximum overall length of 27 inches. Thus, a 12 inch extension, which is well within known prior art for improved leverage, would provide the claimed ratio. Thus, the prior art commercially available wrenches provide a stock ratio that is very close to the claimed ratio of 0.03, along with the known variation of jaw sizes (effecting contact region width and length), along with the adjustable length (by jaw adjustment) configuration taught by Matsuoka and plural different length handles taught by Dein, will also further provide a range of ratios between the second contact region width and the overall length, wherein the directly measured prior art wrenches, when provided with an extension handle to increase overall length of the wrench for increased leverage, as is well known in the art, would be obviously capable of providing a range of about 0.03, particularly with longer handles providing greater leverage.
In summary of the rejection above relating to the claimed ration between the width of the second jaw and a second length of the overall wrench when provided with a second handle, it is very well known for the width of the jaws to vary depending on the size of the wrench, which will affect the ratio, that is inherent to all wrenches. Moreso, the known variation of handle length, as taught by Dein, will obviously provide a range of lengths that would be capable of meeting the claimed ratio, with some adjustment of the handle length and the spacing between jaws.
Regarding claim 12, Matsuoka further discloses that the aperture comprises a front wall; a back wall; a first recess (18’) defined in the front wall; and a second recess (18) defined in the back wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Matsuoka further discloses that the first recess is offset (toward the top of the aperture) relative to the second recess.
Regarding claim 14, Matsuoka further discloses that the first recess is positioned a first distance (B) from a distal end (A) of the aperture and the second recess is positioned a second distance (C) from the distal end of the aperture, and wherein the first distance is less than the second distance.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the known lengths taught by the NPL internet publications and Kobalt and Trimont wrenches, as discussed for claim 11, the overall length of the wrench may further vary depending on the length of the selected extension handle from the plurality of handles taught by Dein, while the jaw width may vary to a smaller value that would still maintain the claim ration of about 0.03 (for instance with a smaller overall wrench size than either of the Kobalt or Trimont wrenches, thus having a narrower jaw width, but also having extension handle(s) as taught by Dein). Specifically, Dein discloses the potential for connection of handles (1000 and 1050 together) along with any of the handles of Figs. 7a-d, providing a greatest disclosed possible length of (195mm of Fig. 7a, 195mm of Fig. 10a and 100mm of Fig. 10b; totaling 490mm = 19.29in, which overlaps the claimed 18.9-24.2 inch range).
Regarding claim 18, as discussed supra for claim 11, relating to the NPL internet publications, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the size, including the length, of the first contact region and will vary depending on the size of the wrench as a whole, with the Kobalt and Trimont wrenches measuring 1.25 and 1.5 inches, respectively, such that the first contact region could obviously fall within the claimed range of 1-1.8 inches long, which is well within the standard length of common wrenches having the claimed range of 18-24 inches long.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Appeal Brief on 16 February 2026 against the prior art rejections are solely directed to the newest limitations of claims 1 and 11. All new limitations have been addressed above with the new SO and Wheeler references specifically teaching jaw angles within the claimed range. Further, the examiner maintains that the combination of known adjustable length handles taught by Dein, as well as different sized wrenches disclosed on Amazon and Lowes, which were also cited in parent application 14/835,767, as well as direct measurements from existing prior art products would, together, make obvious the claimed ratio set forth in claim 11. Again, the current application provides no evidence of criticality or unexpected results to the claimed ratio, known prior art provides measured ratios very close to the claimed ratio, and variations in the length of the handle would vary the prior art measured ratio to the claimed ratio of about 0.03. Even without any variation to the known jaw widths, the known variation of the handle length would modify the claimed ratio and length well within known handle length variations would meet the claimed ratio. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection has provided additional evidence and explanation supporting the prima facie obviousness of the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-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 on 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 17 September 2025
Prosecution Insights