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 office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on October 9, 2025. Claims 1 and 25 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. In view of the amendment, the previous 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103 rejection has been updated and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-12, 14-21 and 23-25 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 23, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
OR
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, 2, 4-10, 14, 16, 19-21 and 23 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Palmer (4126063) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485) and McCalley et al. (7152508).
In reference to claim 1, Palmer discloses an extraction tool (2) capable/for turning a rounded, stripped, worn, or damaged fastener (i.e. nut, see Abstract), the extraction tool comprising:
a drive end (36) configured to interface with the fastener (Figure 3); and
a body portion (4) extending directly from the drive end about an axis (i.e. vertical axis extending the length of 2, Figure 6);
wherein a fastener engagement recess (14, in Figure 3) extends directly from the drive end into the body portion such that the fastener engagement recess is coaxial with the body portion (Figure 3);
wherein the fastener engagement recess comprises only six engagement ribs (see figure below ) that are equally spaced about the axis (note; the six engagement ribs are “equally spaced about the axis” because they are each formed at central portions on respective land portions 18), each engagement rib extending inwardly (because they be “inclined or tapered”, see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3) toward the axis to form an apex (24, Figure 6);
wherein an entire length of each engagement rib within a tapered region (i.e. the region extending from 36 to 38, see Figure 3) extends directly from the drive end along a straight line that tapers inward (see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3) at an angle of 1 to 5 degrees (i.e. 5 degrees, see Column 4, Line 10) toward the axis so that the apex of each engagement rib is increasingly closer to the axis as the engagement rib extends directly from the drive end into the fastener engagement recess within the tapered region (see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3);
wherein the engagement ribs are configured to guide the extraction tool, during installation onto the fastener, in a linear, non-rotating motion to mate the apex of each engagement rib with a respective side of the fastener along a linear engagement path such that rotational movement of the extraction tool in either direction about the axis after being installed on the fastener does not increase or decrease the engagement of the engagement ribs with the fastener, because all of the structural limitations of the ribs have been met they will guide the extraction tool in the same manner as claimed above (also see Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 11); and
wherein each engagement rib is symmetric about its apex (Figure 6).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (6 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (5 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: textbox (4 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: textbox (3 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: textbox (2 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: textbox (1 of 6 ribs that are equally spaced about the axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
573
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Palmer discloses a taper angle (i.e. 5 degrees) that is within the claimed taper angle range (i.e. 1 to 5 degrees), Palmer lacks the entire taper angle range including;
1 to 4 degrees.
However, Piper et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (30) comprising a fastener engagement recess (50, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer) that tapers inward at an angle of 2.5 degrees (see paragraph 26), the fastener engagement recess comprising “intersecting surfaces [i.e. at 18, 19 and apex 16, see Figures 1 and 3 of Knudsen] of such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3495485” (see paragraph 25 and note the “intersecting surfaces” [18, 19 and 16] are similar to the engagement ribs 22, of Palmer). Since, the fastener engagement recess tapers inward and includes intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs therein, the intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs will also have the same taper angle (i.e. 2.5 degrees) of the fastener engagement recess.
And, McCalley et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (40) comprising a fastener engagement recess (64, Figure 3, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer and the fastener engagement recess 50, of Piper et al.) that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 8 degrees (Column 4, Line 1) thereby encompassing the entire taper angle range and when combined with Palmer, the engagement ribs of Palmer will also have the same taper angle of the fastener engagement recess, which would be between 1 to 8 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess (again note; modifying the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess also modifies the taper angle of the engagement ribs because they are located therein), of Palmer, with the known technique of providing a taper angle of a fastener engagement recess that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 4 degrees, as taught by Piper et al. and McCalley et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively locks a fastener/nut in the socket (see paragraph 29 of Piper et al.) and/or that more efficiently grips a damaged fastener without slipping (see Column 4, Lines 2-4 of McCalley et al.).
In reference to claim 2, Palmer discloses that the apex of each engagement rib is formed into a point (i.e. at apex, see Figures 1 and 2) or has a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less.
In reference to claim 4, Palmer discloses that the apex of each engagement rib lies in a straight line extending a length of each of the engagement ribs such that a contact area formed between the fastener and each of the engagement ribs also extends in the straight line that is the linear engagement path (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 5, Palmer discloses that the engagement ribs are symmetrical about a plane including the axis (see Figure 3), wherein each engagement rib is symmetrical about its apex (see Figure 6), wherein the fastener engagement recess is configured so that only the engagement ribs engage with the fastener (Figure 2), such that the fastener is equally drivable in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction (because all of the structural limitations have been met).
In reference to claim 6, Palmer discloses that the body portion extending from the drive end has a cylindrical exterior (Figure 5).
In reference to claims 7 and 20, Palmer discloses that each of the engagement ribs is disposed between six concave/arc-shaped grooves (see six concave/arc-shaped grooves at 33 in Figure 2 or see multiple concave/arc-shaped grooves in the figure below) that are symmetrical about the apex of each of the engagement ribs, wherein each of the concave arc-shaped grooves has a respective length that extends parallel to the axis (Figure 3); wherein a perimeter cross-sectional shape of the fastener engagement recess includes only curved surfaces (Figure 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 8, Palmer discloses that the six engagement ribs are disposed in pairs (see Figure 2) that extend inwardly toward each other (Figure 3) to define an inner diameter measured between the apexes of opposing ribs of each pair of engagement ribs (Figures 2 and 3), wherein the inner diameter is largest at the drive end and decreases along at least a portion of a length of the engagement ribs extending away from the drive end (see Figure 3).
In reference to claim 9, Palmer discloses that an inner diameter proximate the drive end is equal to or larger than a standard length between side faces of at least one standard size fastener, and wherein an inner diameter within the body is smaller than the standard length, depending on the particular size of fastener being used.
In reference to claim 10, Palmer discloses that an inner diameter proximate the drive end is less than a first standard length between side faces of a first standard size fastener, and greater than a second standard length between side faces of a second standard size fastener adjacent to the first standard size fastener, depending on the particular size of fastener being used.
In reference to claim 14, Palmer discloses further comprising a driven end (at 6 in Figure 3) configured (because it is formed as the same shape as claimed by applicant i.e. a square shape, Column 4, Lines 26-27) to receive drive power from a driving tool (i.e. Column 4, Lines 41-45).
In reference to claim 16, Palmer discloses that the driven end comprises a square drive cavity (6, Column 4, Lines 26-27) configured to receive a square drive projection from a driving tool (Column 4, Lines 41-45).
In reference to claim 19, Palmer discloses that the fastener engagement recess is configured to engage with the fastener for removal of the fastener and subsequently engage with the fastener to reuse the fastener and achieve both a peak removal torque and a peak installation torque of greater than 500 inch-pounds, because all of the structural limitations of the tool have previously been met, thus the peak removal torque and the peak installation torque will also be met.
In reference to claim 21, Palmer discloses that engagement ribs are spaced radially around the axis by 60 degrees because six sides (or lands 18) are provided and extend 360 degrees around the axis (see Figures 1 and 2), and because each side includes at least one rib, the ribs within each side would be spaced radially around the axis by 60 degrees because 360
÷
6=60.
In reference to claim 23, Palmer discloses that the engagement ribs converge uniformly toward each other as the engagement ribs extend into the body from the drive end, but wherein the length of the engagement ribs ends before any two ribs completely converge because recess (16) is located at a lower portion (Figure 3).
Claim 3, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Hui et al. (2013/0032009) or as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485), McCalley et al. (7152508) and Hui et al. (2013/0032009).
In reference to claim 3, Palmer discloses that the apex of each engagement rib is formed into a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less (because it is formed as a point [i.e. the tip of apex 24]), but lack,
wherein the radius of curvature increases as the engagement ribs taper into the fastener engagement recess toward the axis.
However, Hui et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide engagement ribs (14b) having a radius of curvature that increases (see lower portion of 14b that engages with fastener portion 121b as having larger radius of curvature as compared with an upper portion of 14b, Figure 5) as the engagement ribs taper into a fastener engagement recess (11b) toward an axis (i.e. not labeled but formed as the axis extending in a Z-coordinate in Figure 5, and see paragraphs 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the engagement ribs, of Palmer, with the known technique of providing engagement ribs having a radius of curvature that increases as the engagement ribs taper into the fastener engagement recess toward the axis, as taught by Hui et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively guides the workpiece into the recess and more effectively and quickly engages/snugly couples with the workpiece during normal operation (paragraph 30).
And, assuming arguendo, that Palmer lacks,
the apex of each engagement rib being formed into a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less.
Then, Hui et al. is also used for teaching that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide engagement ribs (14b) that can be formed from “any other suitable shape[s]” (see paragraph 31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the radius of curvature of the apex of each engagement rib, of Palmer, with the known technique of providing engagement ribs having a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less, and the results would have been predictable because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this situation, one could form the engagement ribs with any radius of curvature including one being substantially 0.5 millimeters or less, depending on the desired “snugly” engagement with the workpiece. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less. (see claim 3). Since, the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the range of the apex of each engagement rib being substantially 0.5 millimeters or less or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. Again, in this situation, one could form the engagement ribs with any radius of curvature including one being substantially 0.5 millimeters or less, depending on the desired “snugly” engagement with the workpiece.
Claim 11, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) or as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485) and McCalley et al. (7152508).
In reference to claim 11, Palmer discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the first standard length is 11mm and the second standard length is 10mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fasteners used with Palmer, with the known technique of providing fasteners having a first standard length of 11mm and a second standard length of 10mm, and the results would have been predictable because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this situation, one could use any size of fastener including one having a first standard length of 11mm and a second standard length of 10mm, depending on the particular application at hand. For example, one using fasteners for small applications (i.e. home usage including coupling components of a desk etc.) would be smaller than fasteners used for large applications (i.e. industrial applications including coupling components of machines).
And, the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the first standard length being 11mm and the second standard length being 10mm or that these lengths provide any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, one could provide any fastener having any first standard length including 11mm and one could provide any fastener having any second standard length including 10mm, depending on the particular needs of the user. For example, depending on the particular application at hand (e.g. size of opening that requires a certain fastener size or the desired connection between two elements that requires a certain fastener size), one could provide the claimed first and second fasteners having the first and second lengths thereby providing increased engagement with the opening and/or enhancing the connection between two elements during normal operation (i.e. insertion or removal).
Claims 12, 24 and 25 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485) and McCalley et al. (7152508).
In reference to claim 12, Palmer discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the engagement ribs taper inward toward the axis at an angle of between 1 and 3 degrees.
However, Piper et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (30) comprising a fastener engagement recess (50, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer) that tapers inward at an angle of 2.5 degrees (see paragraph 26), the fastener engagement recess comprising “intersecting surfaces [i.e. at 18, 19 and apex 16, see Figures 1 and 3 of Knudsen] of such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3495485” (see paragraph 25 and note the “intersecting surfaces” [18, 19 and 16] are similar to the engagement ribs 22, of Palmer). Since, the fastener engagement recess tapers inward and includes intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs therein, the intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs will also have the same taper angle (i.e. 2.5 degrees) of the fastener engagement recess.
And, McCalley et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (40) comprising a fastener engagement recess (64, Figure 3, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer and the fastener engagement recess 50, of Piper et al.) that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 8 degrees (Column 4, Line 1) thereby encompassing the entire taper angle range of 1 to 3 degrees, and when combined with Palmer, the engagement ribs of Palmer will also have the same taper angle of the fastener engagement recess, which would be between 1 to 8 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess (again note; modifying the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess also modifies the taper angle of the engagement ribs because they are located therein), of Palmer, with the known technique of providing a taper angle of a fastener engagement recess that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 3 degrees, as taught by Piper et al. and McCalley et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively locks a fastener/nut in the socket (see paragraph 29 of Piper et al.) and/or that more efficiently grips a damaged fastener without slipping (see Column 4, Lines 2-4 of McCalley et al.).
In reference to claim 24, Palmer discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the engagement ribs taper inward toward the axis at an angle of between 1 and 3 degrees; and
the inner diameter proximate to the drive end is selected from the group consisting of (in millimeters): 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05.
However, Piper et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (30) comprising a fastener engagement recess (50, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer) that tapers inward at an angle of 2.5 degrees (see paragraph 26), the fastener engagement recess comprising “intersecting surfaces [i.e. at 18, 19 and apex 16, see Figures 1 and 3 of Knudsen] of such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3495485” (see paragraph 25 and note the “intersecting surfaces” [18, 19 and 16] are similar to the engagement ribs 22, of Palmer). Since, the fastener engagement recess tapers inward and includes intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs therein, the intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs will also have the same taper angle (i.e. 2.5 degrees) of the fastener engagement recess.
And, McCalley et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (40) comprising a fastener engagement recess (64, Figure 3, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer and the fastener engagement recess 50, of Piper et al.) that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 8 degrees (Column 4, Line 1) thereby encompassing the entire taper angle range of 1 to 3 degrees, and when combined with Palmer, the engagement ribs of Palmer will also have the same taper angle of the fastener engagement recess, which would be between 1 to 8 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess (again note; modifying the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess also modifies the taper angle of the engagement ribs because they are located therein), of Palmer, with the known technique of providing a taper angle of a fastener engagement recess that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 3 degrees, as taught by Piper et al. and McCalley et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively locks a fastener/nut in the socket (see paragraph 29 of Piper et al.) and/or that more efficiently grips a damaged fastener without slipping (see Column 4, Lines 2-4 of McCalley et al.).
Again, Palmer lacks specifically disclosing that,
the inner diameter proximate to the drive end is selected from the group consisting of (in millimeters): 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner diameter proximate to the drive end, of Palmer, with the known technique of providing an inner diameter proximate to the drive end that is selected from the group consisting of (in millimeters): 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05, and the results would have been predictable because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this situation, one could select any size of inner diameter proximate to the drive end including one being selected form the group consisting of 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05, in order to more effectively and securely fix the socket with various sized fastener heads thereby increasing the versatility of the socket.
And, the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the inner diameter proximate to the drive end being selected from the group consisting of (in millimeters): 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05, or that these diameters provide any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. Again, in this situation, one could select any size of inner diameter proximate to the drive end including being selected form the group consisting of 6.1, 6.35, 6.75, 7, 7.75, 8, 9.28, 9.53, 9.75, 10, 10.8, 11.13, 11.75, 12, 12.45, 12.7, 13, 13.74, 14, 14.28, 15.7, 16, 16.75, 17, 17.25, 17.46, 18.7, and 19.05, in order to more effectively and securely fix the socket with various sized fastener heads thereby increasing the versatility of the socket.
In reference to claim 25, Palmer discloses an extraction tool (2) capable/for turning a rounded, stripped, worn, or damaged fastener (i.e. nut, see Abstract), the extraction tool comprising:
a drive end (36) configured to interface with the fastener (Figure 3); and
a body portion (4) extending directly from the drive end about an axis (i.e. vertical axis extending the length of 2, Figure 6);
wherein a fastener engagement recess (14, in Figure 3) extends directly from the drive end into the body portion such that the fastener engagement recess is coaxial with the body portion (Figure 3);
wherein the fastener engagement recess comprises only six engagement ribs (see figure previously shown on page 5 above) that are equally spaced about the axis (note; the six engagement ribs are “equally spaced about the axis” because they are each formed at central portions on respective land portions 18), each engagement rib extending inwardly (because they be “inclined or tapered”, see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3) toward the axis to form an apex (24, Figure 6);
wherein an entire length of each engagement rib within a tapered region (i.e. the region extending from 36 to 38, see Figure 3) extends directly from the drive end along a straight line that tapers inward (see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3) at an angle of 1 to 5 degrees (i.e. 5 degrees, see Column 4, Line 10) toward the axis so that the apex of each engagement rib is increasingly closer to the axis as the engagement rib extends directly from the drive end into the fastener engagement recess within the tapered region (see Column 4, Lines 7-11 and Figure 3);
wherein the engagement ribs are configured to guide the extraction tool, during installation onto the fastener, in a linear, non-rotating motion to mate the apex of each engagement rib with a respective side of the fastener along a linear engagement path such that rotational movement of the extraction tool in either direction about the axis after being installed on the fastener does not increase or decrease the engagement of the engagement ribs with the fastener, because all of the structural limitations of the ribs have been met they will guide the extraction tool in the same manner as claimed above (also see Column 3, Line 60-Column 4, Line 11); wherein each engagement rib is symmetric about its apex (Figure 6).
While Palmer discloses a taper angle (i.e. 5 degrees) that is within the claimed taper angle range (i.e. 1 to 5 degrees), Palmer lacks the entire taper angle range including;
1 to 4 degrees.
Palmer also lacks specifically disclosing that;
an inner diameter that spans between apexes of engagement ribs positioned opposite to each other in the fastener engagement recess is about 11.75mm at the drive end and the fastener being turned is formed as a 12mm fastener.
However, Piper et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (30) comprising a fastener engagement recess (50, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer) that tapers inward at an angle of 2.5 degrees (see paragraph 26), the fastener engagement recess comprising “intersecting surfaces [i.e. at 18, 19 and apex 16, see Figures 1 and 3 of Knudsen] of such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 3495485” (see paragraph 25 and note the “intersecting surfaces” [18, 19 and 16] are similar to the engagement ribs 22, of Palmer). Since, the fastener engagement recess tapers inward and includes intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs therein, the intersecting surfaces/engagement ribs will also have the same taper angle (i.e. 2.5 degrees) of the fastener engagement recess.
And, McCalley et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (40) comprising a fastener engagement recess (64, Figure 3, similar to the fastener engagement recess 14, of Palmer and the fastener engagement recess 50, of Piper et al.) that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 8 degrees (Column 4, Line 1) thereby encompassing the entire taper angle range and when combined with Palmer, the engagement ribs of Palmer will also have the same taper angle of the fastener engagement recess, which would be between 1 to 8 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess (again note; modifying the taper angle of the fastener engagement recess also modifies the taper angle of the engagement ribs because they are located therein), of Palmer, with the known technique of providing a taper angle of a fastener engagement recess that tapers inward at an angle of 1 to 4 degrees, as taught by Piper et al. and McCalley et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively locks a fastener/nut in the socket (see paragraph 29 of Piper et al.) and/or that more efficiently grips a damaged fastener without slipping (see Column 4, Lines 2-4 of McCalley et al.).
Again, Palmer lacks specifically disclosing that;
an inner diameter that spans between apexes of engagement ribs positioned opposite to each other in the fastener engagement recess is about 11.75mm at the drive end and the fastener being turned is formed as a 12mm fastener.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner diameter proximate to the drive end, of Palmer, with the known technique of providing an inner diameter proximate to the drive end that is about 11.75mm and the results would have been predictable because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this situation, one could select any size of inner diameter proximate to the drive end including one that is about 11.75mm, in order to more effectively and securely fix the socket with various sized fastener heads thereby increasing the versatility of the socket.
Next, the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having the inner diameter proximate to the drive end is about 11.75mm, or that this diameter provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. Again, in this situation, one could select any size of inner diameter proximate to the drive end including one that is 11.75mm, in order to more effectively and securely fix the socket with various sized fastener heads thereby increasing the versatility of the socket.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the fasteners used with Palmer, with the known technique of providing 12mm fasteners, and the results would have been predictable because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and the prior art range to have the same or similar properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this situation, one could use any size of fastener including one that is a 12mm fastener, depending on the particular application at hand. For example, one using fasteners for small applications (i.e. home usage including coupling components of a desk etc.) would be smaller than fasteners used for large applications (i.e. industrial applications including coupling components of machines).
And, the applicant fails to provide any criticality in having 12mm fastener or that this length provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, one could provide any fastener including one that is 12mm, depending on the particular needs of the user. For example, depending on the particular application at hand (e.g. size of opening that requires a certain fastener size or the desired connection between two elements that requires a certain fastener size), one could provide the 12mm fastener thereby providing increased engagement with the opening and/or enhancing the connection during normal operation (i.e. insertion or removal).
Claim 15, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Terry (5361657) or as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485), McCalley et al. (7152508) and Terry (5361657).
In reference to claim 15, Palmer discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the driving tool comprises a ratchet, a wrench or an impact gun.
However, Terry teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (10) comprising a driven end (at 18 in Figure 3) configured (because it is formed as the same shape as claimed by applicant i.e. a square shape, Column 5, Lines 60-64) to receive drive power from a ratchet type driving tool (Column 3, Lines 19-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the driving tool used with Palmer, with the known technique of providing the ratchet type driving tool, as taught by Terry, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is more effectively cooperates with commonly known drive elements (Column 2, Lines 32-34).
Claims 17 and 18 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Stawarski (8607670) or as being unpatentable over Palmer (4126063) in view of Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485), McCalley et al. (7152508) and Stawarski (8607670).
In reference to claim 17, Palmer discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks,
a male hex assembly disposed around an exterior of the body portion proximate to the driven end to interface with a driving tool.
However, Stawarski teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (10, Figure 2) with a male hex assembly (48) disposed around an exterior of a body portion proximate to a driven end (i.e. the upper end in Figure 2) to interface with a driving tool (20, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the exterior of the body portion proximate to the driven end, of Palmer, with the known technique of forming a male hex assembly around an exterior of the body portion proximate to the driven end, as taught by Stawarski, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile socket having an outer surface that is more effectively shaped to be engaged by a tool to be used in rotating the body circumferentially about the axis and sized to present a working outer dimension to said tool (Column 1, Lines 15-18).
In reference to claim 18, Palmer discloses that the driven end comprises a drive cavity (6, Column 4, Lines 26-27) configured to receive a drive projection from a first type of driving tool (Column 4, Lines 41-45).
Palmer lacks,
a male hex assembly disposed proximate to the driven end to interface with a second type of driving tool.
However, Stawarski teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (10, Figure 2) with a male hex assembly (48) disposed around an exterior of a body portion proximate to a driven end (i.e. the upper end in Figure 2) to interface with a second type of driving tool (open end wrench, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the exterior of the body portion proximate to the driven end, of Palmer, with the known technique of forming a male hex assembly disposed proximate to the driven end to interface with a second type of driving tool, as taught by Stawarski, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile socket having an outer surface that is more effectively shaped to be engaged by a tool to be used in rotating the body circumferentially about the axis and sized to present a working outer dimension to said tool (Column 1, Lines 15-18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “In contrast to these aspects of Palmer, the independent claims (i.e., claims 1 and 25) recite that only six engagement ribs are included - one engagement rib per side of the fastener. In this regard, independent claim 1 states, and independent claim 25 similarly states, "wherein the fastener engagement recess comprises only six engagement ribs that are equally spaced about the axis, each engagement rib extending inwardly toward the axis to form an apex." (Emphasis added) Moreover, with respect to the engagement between these engagement ribs and the fastener, independent claim 1, and similarly independent claim 25, states "wherein the engagement ribs are configured to guide the extraction tool, during installation onto the fastener, in a linear, non-rotating motion to mate the apex of each engagement rib with a respective side of the fastener along a linear engagement path such that rotational movement of the extraction tool in either direction about the axis after being installed on the fastener does not increase or decrease the engagement of the engagement ribs with the fastener."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has included a new annotated figure on page 5 above, which clearly shows that only six engagement ribs that are equally spaced about the axis because they are each formed at central portions on respective land portions (18) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. While, more than six ribs are shown, at least six of the ribs (see the six ribs shown on page 5 above) are equally spaced about the axis thereby meeting the limitation of the claim. Since, all of the structural limitations have been met the examined believes that the rejection is proper.
Applicant contends that, “As such, the subject matter of the independent claims is not describing a maximum surface-to-surface gripping engagement. Rather, only six apexes of the respective six engagement ribs come into contact with the fastener. Thus, viewed through the lens of Palmer, the independent claims are minimizing surface-to-surface gripping engagement, rather than solving a technical problem of torque distribution and wall thickness by distributing many serrated contacting edges for engagement. Although it may be stated that the Palmer device includes serrations or ribs, the serrations of Palmer function very differently due to the number of serrations. For this reason and because of the desired toque distribution and wall thickness benefits of the structure of Palmer's device, one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Palmer to design an extractor socket having only one rib per fastener side that minimizes contact and focuses torque at a small apex.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. In response to applicant's argument that “the serrations of Palmer function very differently due to the number of serrations”, 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. In this case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations of the claims and is also capable of performing the intended use. Since, all of the structural limitations have been met the examined believes that the rejection is proper.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723