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 March 20, 2026. Claims 8, 21, 22 and 24 have been amended. No claims have been added. Claims 1-7, 15-20, and 26-29 have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 8-14, 21-25 and 30 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 8 and 10 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Towson (GB 2387803, previously cited) and/or Coffman (5595096), Cacciacarne (D578363) and Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503).
In reference to claim 8, Frick et al. disclose a wing nut tool (Figure 1) comprising:
a first end (see figure below);
a middle section (see figure below) joined to the first end;
a second end (see figure below) joined to the middle section;
a first wing nut aperture (see figure below) disposed at the first end;
wherein the first wing nut aperture includes a long axis and short axis (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Frick et al. lack,
a second wing nut aperture disposed at the second;
a first narrow wall thickness section disposed at a distal rounded corner of the first wing nut aperture, wherein the first narrow wall section is narrow relative to the sides adjacent the distal rounded corner of the first wing nut aperture;
a second narrow wall thickness section disposed at a distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture, wherein the second narrow wall section is narrow relative to the sides adjacent the distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture;
wherein the first wing nut aperture and the second wing nut aperture are each rhomboids in which adjacent angles are not equal;
wherein the long axis of each rhomboid is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the middle section of the wing nut tool; and
wherein the long axis of each rhomboid extends through a center of the distal rounded corner of the respective rhomboid.
However, Towson teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching hand tool (C, see Figure 3) comprising;
a first wing nut aperture (see figure below) disposed at a first end (i.e. left end of the tool, as seen in Figure 3 below); and
a second wing nut aperture (see figure below) that is formed from a smaller size (see Figure 3 and claim 1) and is disposed at a second (i.e. right end of the tool, as seen in Figure 3 below) of the tool (also see following portion of citation, “It is, essentially a tool…with one or more shaped holes designed to fit over and turn various sizes of wingnut.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Coffman also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching hand tool (Figure 5) comprising a first driving aperture (i.e. left drive 39, which is “20mm” in size) located at a first end (left end) and a second driving aperture (i.e. right drive 39, which is “18mm,” in size, Column 4, Line 61-Column 5, Line 12) located at a second end (right end, Figure 5).
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 single drive aperture, of Frick et al., with the known technique of providing the first and second drive apertures of different sizes and positioned on opposite ends, as taught by Towson and/or Coffman, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having one or more shaped holes designed to fit over and turn various sizes of wingnuts (see portion of citation, of Towson) and/or that provides one tool that will more effectively engage with a nut/workpiece that is closest in size without slipping (see Column 5, Lines 8-16, of Coffman).
Next, Cacciacarne teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figure 7) with a drive aperture (see figure below) that is formed as a rounded rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal (see figure below), includes a long axis (i.e. horizontal dotted line, see figure below), a short axis (i.e. vertical dotted line, see figure below) and wherein the long axis extends through a center of a distal rounded corner of the rhomboid. Note, both drive apertures, as taught by Towson and/or Coffman, would similarly include the long axis shown below.
[AltContent: textbox (Center of distal rounded corner of the rhomboid)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Short axis)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Long axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
272
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 shape of the first drive aperture and the shape of the second drive aperture, of modified Frick et al., with the known technique of forming a drive aperture as a rounded rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal and includes the long axis extending through a center of a distal rounded corner of the rhomboid, as taught by Cacciacarne, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively engages with wingnuts or thumbscrews (see Title).
The examiner further notes that when Frick et al. is modified by Towson and/or Coffman, two drive apertures would be provided (see figure below), a first drive located at the first end and a second smaller drive located at the second of the tool, of Frick et al. (see figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
308
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The shape of the first drive aperture and the shape of the second drive aperture is further modified (see figure below), by Cacciacarne, to be a rounded drive aperture that is rhomboid in shape in which adjacent angles are not equal (see Figure 7 above) thereby meeting the limitation of “the first wing nut aperture and the second wing nut aperture are each rhomboids in which adjacent angles are not equal.” (see figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
668
556
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Rust shows that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figures 1-5) having a similar rhomboid shaped drive aperture at a first end (see figures 2 and 3 below), another drive aperture at an opposite second end (see figures 2 and 3 below) and an angled middle section (figures 2 and 3 below) extending therebetween, wherein a long axis (see horizontal dotted line in figure 3 below) of the rhomboid is non-parallel (see figure 3 below) to a longitudinal axis (see bold angled dotted line in figure 3 below) of the middle section of the wing nut tool because the middle section is angled with respect to the first and second ends (see figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
360
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Hlink also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figure 1) having a similar rhomboid shaped drive aperture (12) at a first end (Figure 1), another drive aperture (18) at an opposite second end and an angled middle section (14) extending therebetween, wherein a long axis (i.e. axis within 12 extending left to right in Figure 1) of the rhomboid is non-parallel (see Figure 1) to a longitudinal axis (i.e. axis extending along 14) of the middle section of the wing nut tool because the middle section is angled with respect to the first and second ends (see 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 middle section, of modified Frick et al., with the known technique of providing the angled middle section, as shown by Rust or Hlink, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively engages with workpieces located in hard to reach areas (i.e. from common knowledge) or that prevents injury to a user’s knuckles during normal operation (see Column 2, Lines 30-33 of Hlink).
Finally, the combination as a whole provides; a first narrow wall thickness section disposed at a distal rounded corner of the first wing nut aperture (i.e. left aperture), wherein the first narrow wall section is narrow relative to the sides adjacent the distal rounded corner of the first wing nut aperture (see figure below); and
a second narrow wall thickness section disposed at a distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture (i.e. right aperture), wherein the second narrow wall section is narrow relative to the sides adjacent the distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture (see figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
754
766
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 10, Frick et al. as modified by Towson provide that the first wing nut aperture is of a first dimension (i.e. large) and the second wing nut aperture is of a second dimension (i.e. small), wherein the first dimension is different than the second dimension (Figure 3 and Abstract of Towson).
Claim 9, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Towson (GB 2387803, previously cited) and/or Coffman (5595096), Cacciacarne (D578363), Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503) and Boehringer (7117766).
In reference to claim 9, Frick et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the first drive/wingnut aperture and the second drive/wingnut aperture having equal dimensions.
However, Boehringer teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrench (10) comprising, a first drive/wing nut aperture (26) and a second drive/wing nut aperture (34) having equal dimensions (see Figures 1-2 and note because the same wing nut [28] can be engaged in both apertures [see Column 2, Lines 4-6 and 13-14] both apertures must have equal dimensions).
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 first and second drive apertures, of Frick et al., with the known technique of the first and second drive apertures having equal dimensions, as taught by Boehringer, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device which allows for varying positioning of the tool with respect to the workpiece (i.e. wing nut 28) to ensure that the workpiece may be engaged with the tool thereby providing a user with additional torque during normal operation (Column 2, Lines 29-36).
Claims 11-14 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Towson (GB 2387803, previously cited) and/or Coffman (5595096), Cacciacarne (D578363), Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503) and Watts (GB 2413296, previously cited).
In reference to claim 11, Frick et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the wing nut tool is made of one or more of plastic, metal, stone, wood, a natural material, a synthetic material, or a composite material.
However, Watts teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a wing nut tool from one or more of plastic, metal (see claim 6), stone, wood, a natural material, a synthetic material, or a composite material (see page 3).
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 material of the tool, of Frick et al., with the known technique of forming a similar tool from metal, as taught by Watts, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a desired strength and thickness for facilitating tightening and loosening of a fastener and depending on manufacturing techniques, as required by the user, see page 3, paragraphs 1 and 5).
In reference to claim 12, Frick et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the middle section comprises one or more slots.
However, Watts teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wing nut tool (Figure 1) comprising a middle section comprises one or more slots (5, 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 middle section of the tool, of Frick et al., with the known technique of providing a middle section that comprises the one or more slots, as taught by Watts, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can be attached to lanyard thereby allowing the tool to be more easily carried (see page 3, paragraphs 3, 10 and 11).
In reference to claim 13, Watts shows that the one or more slots (5) are oriented in one or more of a horizontal orientation, a vertical orientation, or an oblique orientation (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 14, Watts shows that the one or more slots (5) form one or more of an oval shape, a square shape, a rectangular shape, a circular shape, or a polygonal shape (Figure 1).
Claims 21 and 24 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Cacciacarne (D578363) and Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503).
In further reference to claim 21, Frick et al. disclose a wing nut tool (Figure 1) comprising:
a first end (see figure below);
a middle section (see figure below) joined to the first end;
a second end (see figure below) joined to the middle section;
a first wing nut aperture (see figure below) disposed at the first end and is configured/capable to engage a first drum hardware item;
wherein the first wing nut aperture includes a long axis and short axis (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
259
531
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Frick et al. lack,
the first aperture being formed as a rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal;
wherein the long axis of each rhomboid is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the middle section of the wing nut tool; and
wherein the long axis of each rhomboid extends through a distal curved portion of the first aperture rhomboid.
However, Cacciacarne teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figure 7) with a drive aperture (see figure below) that is formed as a rounded rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal (see figure below), includes a long axis (i.e. horizontal dotted line, see figure below), a short axis (i.e. vertical dotted line, see figure below) and wherein the long axis extends through a distal curved portion of the first aperture rhomboid (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Center of distal rounded corner of the rhomboid)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Short axis)]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Long axis)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
272
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 shape of the first drive aperture and the shape of the second drive aperture, of modified Frick et al., with the known technique of forming a drive aperture as a rounded rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal and includes the long axis extending through a distal curved portion of the first aperture rhomboid, as taught by Cacciacarne, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively engages with wingnuts or thumbscrews (see Title).
Furthermore, Rust shows that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figures 1-5) having a similar rhomboid shaped drive aperture at a first end (see figures 2 and 3 below), another drive aperture at an opposite second end (see figures 2 and 3 below) and an angled middle section (figures 2 and 3 below) extending therebetween, wherein a long axis (see horizontal dotted line in figure 3 below) of the rhomboid is non-parallel (see figure 3 below) to a longitudinal axis (see bold angled dotted line in figure 3 below) of the middle section of the wing nut tool because the middle section is angled with respect to the first and second ends (see figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
360
738
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, Hlink also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching tool (Figure 1) having a similar rhomboid shaped drive aperture (12) at a first end (Figure 1), another drive aperture (18) at an opposite second end and an angled middle section (14) extending therebetween, wherein a long axis (i.e. axis within 12 extending left to right in Figure 1) of the rhomboid is non-parallel (see Figure 1) to a longitudinal axis (i.e. axis extending along 14) of the middle section of the wing nut tool because the middle section is angled with respect to the first and second ends (see 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 middle section, of modified Frick et al., with the known technique of providing the angled middle section, as shown by Rust or Hlink, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively engages with workpieces located in hard to reach areas (i.e. from common knowledge) or that prevents injury to a user’s knuckles during normal operation (see Column 2, Lines 30-33 of Hlink).
In reference to claim 24, Cacciacarne discloses further comprising a first narrowed wall thickness section (see figure below) disposed at a distal rounded corner (see figure below) of the first aperture, wherein the first narrowed wall section is narrow relative to the sides (i.e. upper and lower sides) adjacent the distal rounded corner of the first aperture (see figure below).
PNG
media_image9.png
208
641
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 22, 25 and 30 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Cacciacarne (D578363), Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503) and further in view of Towson (GB 2387803, previously cited) and/or Coffman (5595096).
In reference to claim 22, Frick et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above further comprising a second end joined to the middle section opposite the first end (see figure on page 14 above), but lack,
the second end includes a second aperture configured to engage a second drum hardware item, and wherein the second aperture is a rhomboid in which adjacent angles are not equal; and
wherein the long axis of the second aperture rhomboid extends through a distal curved portion of the second aperture rhomboid.
However, Towson teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching hand tool (C, see Figure 3) comprising;
a first wing nut aperture (see figure below) disposed at a first end (i.e. left end of the tool, as seen in Figure 3 below); and
a second wing nut aperture (see figure below) configured/capable to engage a second drum hardware item and is formed from a smaller size (see Figure 3 and claim 1) and is disposed at a second (i.e. right end of the tool, as seen in Figure 3 below) of the tool (also see following portion of citation, “It is, essentially a tool…with one or more shaped holes designed to fit over and turn various sizes of wingnut.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In addition, Coffman also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar wrenching hand tool (Figure 5) comprising a first driving aperture (i.e. left drive 39, which is “20mm” in size) located at a first end (left end) and a second driving aperture (i.e. right drive 39, which is “18mm,” in size, Column 4, Line 61-Column 5, Line 12) located at a second end (right end, Figure 5).
Note, both drive apertures, as taught by Towson and/or Coffman, would similarly include the long axis that extends through a distal curved portion, as previously taught by Cacciacarne (see figure on page 16 above).
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 single drive aperture, of Frick et al., with the known technique of providing the first and second drive apertures of different sizes and positioned on opposite ends, as taught by Towson and/or Coffman, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having one or more shaped holes designed to fit over and turn various sizes of wingnuts (see portion of citation, of Towson) and/or that provides one tool that will more effectively engage with a nut/workpiece that is closest in size without slipping (see Column 5, Lines 8-16, of Coffman).
In reference to claim 25, modified Frick et al. disclose;
a second narrow wall thickness section disposed at a distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture (i.e. right aperture), wherein the second narrow wall section is narrow relative to the sides adjacent the distal rounded corner of the second wing nut aperture (see figure below).
PNG
media_image7.png
754
766
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 30, modified Frick et al. disclose that the second narrowed wall thickness section has dimensions substantially identical to the first narrowed wall thickness section (see annotated figure above).
Claim 23, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frick et al. (D264796) in view of Cacciacarne (D578363), Rust (D268473) or Hlinka (6098503) and Watts (GB 2413296, previously cited).
In further reference to claim 23, Frick et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack specifically disclosing that,
the wing nut tool being made of one or more of plastic, metal, stone, wood, a natural material, a synthetic material, or a composite material.
However, Watts teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a wing nut tool from one or more of plastic, metal (see claim 6), stone, wood, a natural material, a synthetic material, or a composite material (see page 3).
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 material of the tool, of Frick et al., with the known technique of forming a similar tool from metal, as taught by Watts, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a desired strength and thickness for facilitating tightening and loosening of a fastener and depending on manufacturing techniques, as required by the user, see page 3, paragraphs 1 and 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “As discussed during the interview, and per the Examiner's suggestion, independent Claim 8 has been amended to recite that "the long axis of each rhomboid extends through a center of the distal rounded corner of the respective rhomboid." Independent Claim 21 has been amended to recite ‘the long axis of the first aperture rhomboid extends through a distal curved portion of the first aperture rhomboid’."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. During the interview the examiner suggested further defining the rounded structure (i.e. rounded corners of the tool) of the tool (not the rhomboid) at first and second ends in combination with the long axis of each rhomboid passing through a central portion of the rounded end (i.e. corner) at the first end and at the second end, respectively. This suggestion was not provided by the applicant in the response filed on March 20, 2026. The examiner has also provided a copy of the interview summary below.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image10.png
139
675
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the examiner also notes that during the updated search, Watts (GB 2413296, previously cited) was also determined as teaching the limitations of the suggestion provided by the examiner above, because Watts teaches of orienting drive apertures (at 1/3 and at 2/4, Figure 1) such that a long axis (see dotted lines in figure below) of each drive aperture passes through a central portion of a respective rounded end (i.e. corner) of the tool. Thus, even if the suggestion previously made by the examiner during the interview on March 6, 2026 was incorporate into the claims, the examiner believes that it would not place the application in condition for allowance.
[AltContent: textbox (Central portion of another rounded end)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Central portion of a rounded end)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image11.png
345
394
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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
Prosecution Insights