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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 9, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 9, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on July 9, 2026. Claims 1, 7 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. The previous rejections using Palmer (4126063) as a base reference have been overcome and thus has been withdrawn however a new 103 rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-12, 14-21 and 23-25 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-12, 14, 16, 19-21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwinski et al. (6626067) in view of Palmer (4126063).
In reference to claim 1, Iwinski et al. disclose an extraction tool (20, Figure 2) capable/for turning a rounded, stripped, worn, or damaged fastener (see Abstract), the extraction tool comprising:
a drive end (24) configured to interface with the fastener (Figure 2); and
a body portion (22) extending directly from the drive end about an axis (i.e. vertical axis X, Figure 2);
wherein a fastener engagement recess (30) extends directly from the drive end into the body portion such that the fastener engagement recess is coaxial with the body portion (Figure 2);
wherein the fastener engagement recess comprises only six engagement ribs (formed from 35 and 36) that are equally spaced about the axis, each engagement rib extending inwardly toward the axis to form an apex (i.e. at 42), such that each of six side faces of the fastener is engaged by the apex of only a single respective one of the six engagement ribs (Figure 8);
wherein an entire length of each engagement rib within a tapered region (see figure below) extends directly from the drive end along a straight line (i.e. along 42) that tapers inward (see figure below) at an angle (not explicitly disclosed) 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 (Figures 2 and 2a);
the examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “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” and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since Iwinski et al. has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims it can be used in the same manner above (also see Abstract); and
wherein each engagement rib is symmetric about its apex (Figures 2 and 2a).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Tapered region. Note a lower section of 42 extends inward further toward axis X than an upper section of 42 thereby forming the tapered region. Also see Figure 2a, showing surfaces 37 extending inward at the lower section of 42 further illustrating the tapered region.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
269
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iwinski et al. lack explicitly disclosing that;
the engagement ribs taper at an angle of 1 to 5 degrees.
However, Palmer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (2) comprising a plurality of engagement ribs (20) that taper at an angle of 5 degrees (Column 4, Lines 7-11).
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 tapered engagement ribs, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing engagement ribs that taper at the angle of 5 degrees, as taught by Palmer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively facilitates insertion onto a fastener (Column 4, Lines 10-11).
The examiner further notes that Iwinski et al. as modified by Palmer meet at least a portion of the claimed tapering angle (i.e. 5 degrees) of the engagement ribs, but lack, disclosing the entire range of the tapering angle of the engagement ribs being;
1 to 4 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iwinski et al. to have engagement ribs that taper at an angle of 1-4 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Iwinski et al. would not operate differently with the claimed engagement ribs tapering at an angle of 1-4 degrees and since the tapering engagement ribs facilitate insertion onto a fastener, the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle of 1-4 degrees. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (see specification paragraph 55).
In reference to claim 2, Iwinski et al. disclose that the apex of each engagement rib is formed into a point (i.e. peak 42, see Figure 2) or has a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less.
In reference to claim 3, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
the apex of each engagement rib is formed into a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less, and wherein the radius of curvature increases as the engagement ribs taper into the fastener engagement recess toward the axis.
However, Iwinski et al. teach in another embodiment (see embodiment in Figure 6) that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (20) comprising a plurality of engagement ribs (formed from 35 and 36) each including an apex (i.e. at 43) that is formed into a radius of curvature (see Column 4, Lines 51-54 for disclosing that, “However plateau 43 need not be flat as depicted, plateau 43 can have any suitable shape and can even have a radius, for example a convex radius.”), and wherein the radius of curvature increases as the engagement ribs taper into the fastener engagement recess toward the axis (Note, since the lower portion of 43 is larger than an upper portion of 43, it would have a radius of curvature that increases toward the lower portion of 43).
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 apex of the engagement ribs, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing engagement ribs having an apex that is formed into a radius of curvature, as taught by the other embodiment of Iwinski et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figure 6), and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively retains/wedges a fastener in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions (Column 4, Lines 39-21 and Column 5, Lines 43-46).
The examiner further notes that Iwinski et al. modified by the other embodiment of Iwinski et al. (i.e. the embodiment in Figure 6), but lack explicitly disclosing that;
the apex includes a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iwinski et al. to have an apex formed with a radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Iwinski et al. would not operate differently with the claimed radius of curvature and since the radius of curvature facilitates insertion onto a fastener and retains/wedges a fastener in both clockwise and counterclockwise directions, the device would function appropriately having the claimed radius of curvature that is substantially 0.5 millimeters or less. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the radius of curvature “may be a sharp corner that comes to point or may be somewhat rounded having a very small radius of curvature at the apex, such as a radius of substantially 0.5 mm or less.” be within the claimed range (see specification paragraph 37).
In reference to claim 4, Iwinski et al disclose that the apex of each engagement rib lies in a straight line (Figure 2) 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 2).
In reference to claim 5, Iwinski et al disclose that the engagement ribs are symmetrical about a plane including the axis (Figure 2), wherein each engagement rib is symmetrical about its apex (Figure 2), wherein the fastener engagement recess is configured so that only the engagement ribs engage with the fastener (Figure 8), such that the fastener is equally drivable in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction (Column 4, lines 39-54).
In reference to claim 6, Iwinski et al disclose that the body portion extending from the drive end has a cylindrical exterior (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 7, Iwinski et al disclose that the fastener engagement recess further comprises six arc shaped grooves (33) respective ones of which are formed between the engagement ribs (Figure 2), wherein the six engagement ribs and the six are shaped grooves alternate about the axis such that each engagement rib is disposed between two adjacent are shaped grooves (Figure 2), and wherein each of the six are shaped grooves is configured to align with a respective corner portion of the fastener that is disposed between adjacent side faces of the fastener such that the fastener engagement recess avoids contact with the corner portions of the fastener (Figure 8).
In reference to claim 8, Iwinski et al disclose that the six engagement ribs are disposed in pairs (Figure 2) that extend inwardly toward each other (Figure 2) to define an inner diameter measured between the apexes of opposing ribs of each pair of engagement ribs (Figure 2), 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 (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 9, Iwinski et al disclose that 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, Iwinski et al disclose 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 11, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack 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 Iwinski et al., 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).
In reference to claim 12, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the engagement ribs taper inward toward the axis at an angle of between 1 and 3 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iwinski et al. to have engagement ribs that taper at an angle of 1-3 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Iwinski et al. would not operate differently with the claimed engagement ribs tapering at an angle of 1-3 degrees and since the tapering engagement ribs facilitate insertion onto a fastener, the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle of 1-3 degrees. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (see specification paragraph 55).
In reference to claim 14, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
a driven end configured to receive drive power from a driving tool.
However, Palmer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (2) 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).
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 socket, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing a socket having the driven end that receives drive power from a driving tool, as taught by Palmer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively imparts turning movement to the wrench socket and hence, to the fastener to be removed (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, Iwinski et al. disclose 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 20, Iwinski et al. disclose that each of the engagement ribs is disposed between concave arc-shaped grooves (33) 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 2); wherein a perimeter cross-sectional shape of the fastener engagement recess includes only curved surfaces (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 21, Iwinski et al. disclose that the engagement ribs are spaced radially around the axis by 60 degrees (Figure 8).
In reference to claim 23, Iwinski et al. disclose 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 (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 24, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack 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, Palmer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (2) comprising a plurality of engagement ribs (20) that taper at an angle of 5 degrees (Column 4, Lines 7-11).
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 tapered engagement ribs, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing engagement ribs that taper at the angle of 5 degrees, as taught by Palmer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively facilitates insertion onto a fastener (Column 4, Lines 10-11).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iwinski et al. to have engagement ribs that taper at an angle of 1-3 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Iwinski et al. would not operate differently with the claimed engagement ribs tapering at an angle of 1-3 degrees and since the tapering engagement ribs facilitate insertion onto a fastener, the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle of 1-3 degrees. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (see specification paragraph 55).
Next, it would also 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 Iwinski et al., 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, Iwinski et al. disclose an extraction tool (20, Figure 2) capable/for turning a rounded, stripped, worn, or damaged fastener (see Abstract), the extraction tool comprising:
a drive end (24) configured to interface with the fastener (Figure 2); and
a body portion (22) extending directly from the drive end about an axis (i.e. vertical axis X, Figure 2);
wherein a fastener engagement recess (30) extends directly from the drive end into the body portion such that the fastener engagement recess is coaxial with the body portion (Figure 2);
wherein the fastener engagement recess comprises only six engagement ribs (formed from 35 and 36) that are equally spaced about the axis, each engagement rib extending inwardly toward the axis to form an apex (i.e. at 42), such that each of six side faces of the fastener is engaged by the apex of only a single respective one of the six engagement ribs (Figure 8);
wherein an entire length of each engagement rib within a tapered region (see figure below) extends directly from the drive end along a straight line (i.e. along 42) that tapers inward (see figure below) at an angle (not explicitly disclosed) 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 (Figures 2 and 2a);
the examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “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” and since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since Iwinski et al. has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims it can be used in the same manner above (also see Abstract); and
wherein each engagement rib is symmetric about its apex (Figures 2 and 2a).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Tapered region. Note a lower section of 42 extends inward further toward axis X than an upper section of 42 thereby forming the tapered region. Also see Figure 2a, showing surfaces 37 extending inward at the lower section of 42 further illustrating the tapered region.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
269
210
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iwinski et al. lack explicitly disclosing that;
the engagement ribs taper at an angle of 1 to 5 degrees; and
wherein an inner diameter that spans between apexes of engagement ribs positioned opposite each other in the fastener engagement recess is about 11.750 millimeters at the drive end of the extraction tool, such that a combination of the inner diameter and the 1 to 5 degree tapered inward apexes of the engagement ribs causes engagement with the fastener for extraction, the fastener being a 12 millimeter fastener that has been rounded, stripped, worn, or damaged.
However, Palmer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (2) comprising a plurality of engagement ribs (20) that taper at an angle of 5 degrees (Column 4, Lines 7-11).
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 tapered engagement ribs, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing engagement ribs that taper at the angle of 5 degrees, as taught by Palmer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively facilitates insertion onto a fastener (Column 4, Lines 10-11).
The examiner further notes that Iwinski et al. as modified by Palmer meet at least a portion of the claimed tapering angle (i.e. 5 degrees) of the engagement ribs, but lack, disclosing the entire range of the tapering angle of the engagement ribs being;
1 to 4 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iwinski et al. to have engagement ribs that taper at an angle of 1-4 degrees, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Iwinski et al. would not operate differently with the claimed engagement ribs tapering at an angle of 1-4 degrees and since the tapering engagement ribs facilitate insertion onto a fastener, the device would function appropriately having the claimed angle of 1-4 degrees. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle “may” be within the claimed ranges (see specification paragraph 55).
Again, Iwinski et al. lack 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 11.750 mm 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 Iwinski et al., 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 Iwinski et al., 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwinski et al. (6626067) in view of Palmer (4126063) and Terry (5361657).
In reference to claim 15, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
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, Iwinski et al., 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwinski et al. (6626067) in view of Palmer (4126063) and Stawarski (8607670).
In reference to claim 17, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
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 Iwinski et al., 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, Iwinski et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lack,
the driven end comprises a drive cavity configured to receive a drive projection from a first type of driving tool; and
wherein a male hex assembly is disposed proximate to the driven end to interface with a second type of driving tool.
However, Palmer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (2) having a driven end (at 6 in Figure 3) comprising 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).
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 socket, of Iwinski et al., with the known technique of providing a socket having the driven end comprising the drive cavity that receives drive power from a driving tool, as taught by Palmer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively imparts turning movement to the wrench socket and hence, to the fastener to be removed (Column 4, Lines 41-45).
In addition, Stawarski also 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 (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 Iwinski et al., 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed July 9, 2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection (i.e. using Palmer as a base reference) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piper et al. (2010/0154602, as further evidenced by Knudsen 3495485). 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) 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.
McCalley et al. (7152508) 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) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights