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 .
Specification
The amendment filed May 12, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: claims as now amended recite for the steel core to comprise a uniform thickness from the drive head portion to the tang portion, which lacks written description in the originally filed specification. While drawings may appear to disclose a uniform thickness, this feature as now recited in overcoming the pending rejections, is deemed to introduce new matter. Applicant is required to point out the support for this feature in the written description or to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 9, 10 and 21-31 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (9,878,437) in view of Whitley (5,626,061) and Patel et al. (6,769,328 “Patel”).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a hand tool comprising:
an elongate, plate shaped steel core 10, 20, 30, 04:43-45 having a top face and a bottom face in parallel planes Fig. 1;
a drive head portion 12 formed at one end of the steel core and having a drive head cavity 13 formed therein;
a tang portion 11 extending from the drive head portion to the other end of the steel core;
PNG
media_image2.png
333
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a ratchet assembly 40, 50 disposed in the drive head cavity; and
a first encapsulation layer 2 at least partially covering the tang portion and the drive head portion, but not covering at least a portion of the ratchet assembly Figs. 4 and 5, wherein the first encapsulation layer comprises a plastic material., except for disclosing for the layer to comprise a fiber reinforced plastic composite material, and wherein the steel core comprises a uniform thickness from the drive head portion to the tang portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
131
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Whitley teaches a composite ratchet comprising a formed metallic insert and composite non-metallic covering material 13 molded around the metallic insert and comprising glass fibers Abstract . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chen with the glass fiber composite plastic as taught by Whitley to provide a non-conductive and non-sparking, yet high strength wrench.
PNG
media_image4.png
374
275
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding the new feature of uniform thickness, it is noted that Applicant has not disclose any criticality for this feature in the originally filed disclosure.
Patel teaches a hand tool with a drop-in ratchet drive disclosing a uniform thickness form the from the drive head portion to the proximal end Figs. 1, 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form the steel core of Chen and Whitely with the uniform thickness by using a drop-in ratchet drive and deleting the cover/limiting plates for an alternative means of supporting the drive head and since applicant has not disclosed that uniform thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well without said feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
479
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 22
Chen meets all of the limitations of claim 22, i.e., a hand tool comprising:
an elongate, plate shaped steel core 10, 20, 30, 04:43-45 having a top face and a bottom face that lie Fig. 1;
a drive head portion 12 formed at one end of the steel core and having a drive head cavity 13 formed therein;
a tang portion 11 extending from the drive head 12 portion to the other end of the steel core;
a ratchet assembly 40, 50 disposed in the drive head cavity; and
PNG
media_image2.png
333
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first encapsulation layer 2 at least partially covering the tang portion and the drive head portion, but not covering at least a portion of the ratchet assembly Figs. 4 and 5, wherein the first encapsulation layer comprises a plastic material., except for the steel core 10, 20, 30, 04:43-45 having a top face and a bottom face that lie entirely in parallel planes, for the layer to comprise a fiber reinforced plastic composite material, and for the first encapsulation layer to contact both the top face and the bottom face of the steel core at the drive head portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
131
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Whitley teaches a composite ratchet comprising a formed metallic insert and composite non-metallic covering material 13 molded around the metallic insert and comprising glass fibers Abstract . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chen with the glass fiber composite plastic as taught by Whitley to provide a non-conductive and non-sparking, yet high strength wrench.
PNG
media_image4.png
374
275
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen meets the limitations regarding the parallel planes and for the encapsulated layer to contact both faces, except for utilizing limiting plates 20, 30 to securely retain the ratcheting assembly.
Patel teaches a hand tool with a drop-in ratchet drive disclosing a uniform thickness form the from the drive head portion to the proximal end Figs. 1, 3 and 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form the steel core of Chen and Whitely with the uniform thickness by using a drop-in ratchet drive and deleting the cover/limiting plates for an alternative means of supporting the drive head and since applicant has not disclosed that uniform thickness solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well without said feature.
Regarding claims 2 and 23, PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley and Patel) meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 1 or 22 wherein the first encapsulation layer is injection molded over the tang portion and the drive head portion 01:8-11, Chen.
Regarding claims 3 and 24, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 2 or 23, wherein the fiber reinforced plastic composite material comprises a composition of glass fiber reinforced plastic composite material, except for using about 10% to about 80% glass fiber. Whitley teaches distributing glass fiber in the covering. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to desired amount of distribution of glass fiber, e.g., 15% in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and since such modification would depend on work-piece and operational parameters, requiring routine experimentations with predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 and 25, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 1 or 22, wherein the first encapsulation layer has non- uniform depths measured to the steel core at the tang portion relative to the drive head portion Chen, Fig. 4 and/or Whitley Abstract.
Regarding claims 5 and 26, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 4 or 25, except for the first encapsulation layer proximate to the drive head portion to be between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm, and wherein depth of the first encapsulation layer proximate to the ratchet tang is greater than about 1 mm. Whitley teaches that the covering 13 may be of uniform thickness or varying thickness . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to desired thickness at the head to be , e.g., 5mm for the head and the handle in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claims 9 and 29, PA meets the limitations, since product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the process steps, only the structure implied by the steps, thus a device produced by the method of prior art, e.g., stamped, or laser cut… would meet all the structural limitations, i.e., a steel core as recited and as disclosed by Chen. (See MPEP 2113 [R-1]) and since the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 1, wherein the steel core is defined by the top face, the bottom face and perpendicularly extending sidewalls therebetween to connect the top and bottom faces Fig. 1 Chen.
Regarding claim 21, PA meets the limitations, i.e., wherein the top and bottom faces defined by top/bottom surfaces of 11, 12 extend from the drive head portion 12 to the tang portion 11 in their respective parallel planes Fig. 2 Chen, and wherein the first encapsulation layer contacts both the top face and the bottom face of the steel core at the drive head portion modified for uniform thickness per Patel.
Regarding claim 30, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hand tool of claim 22, wherein the top and bottom faces defined by 11, 12 extend from the drive head portion 12 to the tang portion 11 in their respective parallel planes Fig. 1 Chen, and wherein the steel core comprises a uniform thickness from the drive head portion to the tang portion modified by Patel.
Claim 6 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters (2004/0177733).
PNG
media_image5.png
154
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley and Patel) meets all of the limitations of claim 6, except for a second encapsulation layer is applied over the first encapsulation layer.
Peters teaches a composite socket wrench formed from a thermoplastic polymer such as fiber nylon, wherein a rubber covering is applied to the handle portion of the wrench Abstract, Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the invention of PA with the rubber grip as taught by Peters for comfort and ease of use.
Claim 7 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dotson (6,019,022).
PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley and Patel) meets the limitations of claim 7, except for the use of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
Dotson teaches a multipurpose tool wherein the handle 12 is preferably formed of polypropylene or PVC, rubber or soft polyurethane or the like 03:47-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the invention of PA with the PVC grip as taught by Dotson for its durability.
Claims 8 and 28 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hobden et al. (7,966,912 “Hobden”).
PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley and Patel) meets all of the limitations of the indicated claims, except for the steel core to be black oxide treated prior to application of the first encapsulation layer.
Hobden teaches a ratcheting wrench disclosing for the handle to be heat treated and/or finished with black oxide 04:54. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the invention of PA with the black oxide treatment as taught by Hobden to provide a rust-resistant finish.
Claim 27 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Peters and Dotson.
PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley and Patel) meets all of the limitations of claim 22, except for a second encapsulation layer is applied over the first encapsulation layer and the use of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
PNG
media_image5.png
154
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Peters teaches a composite socket wrench formed from a thermoplastic polymer such as fiber nylon, wherein a rubber covering is applied to the handle portion of the wrench Abstract, Fig. 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the invention of PA with the rubber grip as taught by Peters for comfort and ease of use.
Dotson teaches a multipurpose tool wherein the handle 12 is preferably formed of polypropylene or PVC, rubber or soft polyurethane or the like 03:47-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the invention of PA (prior art, Chen modified by Whitley, Patel and Peters) with the PVC grip as taught by Dotson for its durability.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument about uniform thickness is noted, however it does not overcome the rejections. As indicated above, disclosure as originally filed does not support a uniform thickness for the steel core. Drawings as originally file, appear to disclose a uniform thickness, however there is no mention of this feature in the written description. Accordingly, even if Applicant had possession of this feature at the time of filling, Applicant presented no criticality for this feature and has not indicated if this feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. The base reference Chen, does not disclose a uniform core thickness because it uses limiting plates 20 and 30 to secure an retain the ratcheting mechanism. However, as evident by Patel, a hand tool having a uniform thickness from the head to the end of the handle/tang is old and known in the art. Thus, providing a uniform thickness by eliminating the limiting plates, as an alternative means of supporting and retaining the ratchet mechanism, as taught by Patel, is considered an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
September 11, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights