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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 30, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on April 30, 2026. Claim 1, has been amended. Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 16, 17, and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 13-15, 18 and 19 were previously withdrawn. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been updated and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-12 and 21-23 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 1-6, 10, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2021/0046626) in view of Mo (DE 202005007853, previously cited) and Horobec (2005/0183548).
In reference to claim 1, Zhang discloses an extractor insert/socket (10) having a driven end (11) and a drive end (12), the extractor insert comprising:
a body (i.e. body of 10) extending along a central axis (i.e. longitudinal axis of 10) of the extractor insert and comprising a fastener engagement recess (13) and a drive surface assembly (14); and
a securing lip (18) coupled to the body (Figure 2), the securing lip extending radially away from the central axis such that the securing lip extends beyond an exterior of the body (Figure 2);
wherein the drive surface assembly comprises a plurality of external engaging surfaces (14) configured to interface with a driving tool (20) to permit a rotational force to be applied to the extractor insert (paragraph 18);
wherein the fastener engagement recess is an internal channel through the body extending along the central axis that is open at the driven end and the drive end (Figure 3), the fastener engagement recess being defined by internal sidewalls (i.e. not labeled but formed as the inner walls within 13) of the body (Figure 3);
wherein a plurality of engagement ribs (central portion of elements 13) extend from the internal sidewalls of the body towards the central axis, each engagement rib comprising an apex (i.e. at the central most tip portion thereof, see “dot” in figure below that represents one of the apexes) that extends (see double arrowed dotted line in figure below showing the extension of one apex) along a length (i.e. vertical length in figure below) of the engagement rib, each engagement rib having an opposing engagement rib such that apexes of opposing engagement ribs are disposed on a common plane with the central axis (note, since each apex of each rib extends vertically into the socket, opposing apexes would be disposed on a common plane [i.e. a plane extending into the socket] with the central axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
505
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang lacks,
each apex tapers at a taper angle relative to the central axis such that a distance between apexes of opposing engagement ribs is largest at the drive end and smallest at the driven end;
wherein a range of inner diameters of the fastener engagement recess defined by the apexes of opposing engagement ribs does not include a standard length between side faces of at least one standard size of fastener, but is between two adjacent standard sizes of fastener.
However, Mo teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (20) with engagement ribs (24) that taper (see Figure 4) at a taper angle relative to a central axis (i.e. longitudinal axis of the socket 20) such that a distance between apexes of opposing engagement ribs is largest at a drive end (i.e. lower end of opening 22, in Figure 4) and smallest at a driven end (i.e. upper end of opening 22. Also, see following portion below taken from the translation and has been used for motivation).
“The invention relates to a socket, in particular a socket, the a tapered plug hole has, with a secure fixation of a screw head is possible.”
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 each plurality of engagement ribs, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing an apex of each plurality of engagement ribs that tapers at a taper angle relative to a central axis such that a distance between apexes of opposing engagement ribs is largest at a drive end and smallest at a driven end, as taught by Mo, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures and engages with a screw head/fastener during normal operation (see underlined portion of translation, of Mo above).
In addition, Horobec teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a set of extraction tools/sockets (10, see paragraphs 38 and 39, similar to the socket of Zhang) in different sizes (paragraph 38), each extraction tool including a tapered engagement recess (28, Figure 5) having an inner diameter (Figure 5), wherein the tapered engagement recess “allows the tool to be placed over damaged fasteners that no longer have a standard size” (paragraph 17) such that the tapered engagement recess is “configured and correlated with respect to various damaged fastener sizes” (paragraph 38). Since, the damaged fasteners “no longer have a standard size, the tapered engagement recess of each of the set of extraction tools/sockets that are “configured and correlated with respect to various damaged fastener sizes” must also not have a standard size (otherwise they could not engage with the damaged fasteners) and thus obviously have a range of inner diameters that does not include a standard length but is between two adjacent standard sizes of fastener (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 fastener engagement recess, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing a fastener engagement recess having a diameter that is between two adjacent standard sizes of fastener, as taught by Horobec, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides an improved extraction tool/socket that more effectively removes damaged fasteners, such as nuts, bolts and studs and nuts or fasteners from long threaded studs (paragraph 15).
In reference to claim 2, Zhang discloses that the plurality of external engaging surfaces of the of the drive surface assembly form a male hex assembly (paragraph 18) for engaging with a drive tool (20) having a female hex assembly (23),
wherein a maximum width (see figure below) across the male hex assembly through the central axis is larger than a height (i.e. height of 18, see figure below. Note, since only “a height” is claimed, any height of the tool could be used) of the extractor insert to limit a depth that the extractor insert extends into the drive opening of the drive tool.
PNG
media_image2.png
352
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Assuming arguendo, that Zhang lacks specifically disclosing that,
a maximum width across the male hex assembly through the central axis is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor insert to limit a depth that the extractor insert extends into the drive opening of the drive tool.
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 Zhang to have a maximum width across the male hex assembly through the central axis that is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor insert, 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 Zhang would not operate differently with the claimed width and since the drive end (12) is intended to reside outside the tool (Figure 4), the device would function appropriately having the claimed width. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the width, indicating simply that the width “may” be larger than a height (paragraph 88).
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the maximum width across the male hex assembly through the central axis such that it is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor insert, would result in a difference in function of the Zhang device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the width across the male hex assembly, of Zhang, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimension solves any stated problem, indicating that the width “may” be within the claimed range (paragraph 88), and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 10% to 50%, paragraph 91) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 width across the male hex assembly region of Zhang to have a maximum width across the male hex assembly through the central axis that is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor insert, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
In reference to claim 3, Zhang discloses that the plurality of external engaging surfaces of the drive surface assembly form a male hex assembly (paragraph 18) for engaging with a drive tool (20) having a female hex assembly (23);
wherein a width of the securing lip (see figure below) through the central axis is larger than a maximum width (see figure below) across the male hex assembly through the central axis such that the securing lip operates as a catch on a top edge of a drive opening of the drive tool (see figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
330
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 4, Zhang discloses that a width of the securing lip (see figure below) through the central axis is larger than a height (i.e. height of 18, see figure below. Note, since only “a height” is claimed, any height of the tool could be used) of the extractor insert such that the securing lip operates as a catch on a top edge (22) of a drive opening (23) of a drive tool (20) that is a wrench (Figure 2) and the driven end (11) of the extractor insert does not extend (see position of driven end 11 in Figure 4) beyond a bottom edge (i.e. upper edge in Figure 4) of the drive opening of the wrench.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
656
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Assuming arguendo, that Zhang lacks specifically disclosing that,
a width of the securing lip through the central axis is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor.
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 Zhang to have a width of the securing lip through the central axis is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor, 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 Zhang would not operate differently with the claimed width and since the drive end (12) is intended to reside outside the tool (Figure 4), the device would function appropriately having the claimed width. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the width, indicating simply that the width “may” be larger than a height (paragraph 88).
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the width of the securing lip through the central axis is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor, would result in a difference in function of the Zhang device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the width of the securing lip, of Zhang, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimension solves any stated problem, indicating that the width “may” be within the claimed range (paragraph 88), and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 10% to 50%, paragraph 91) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 width of the securing lip, of Zhang to have a width that is larger than a total/overall height of the extractor, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
In reference to claim 5, Mo discloses that the taper angle is between 1 and 3 degrees or 1 and 5 degrees (see portion of the translation below disclosing that the taper is, “less than 10°” thereby teaching that the taper angle ranges from ≈0-10°, which includes the claimed range of, “between 1 and 3 degrees or 1 and 5 degrees”).
“…the plug hole ( 22 ) the socket ( 20 ) has a taper of less than 10 °.”
In reference to claim 6, Zhang discloses that edges of the drive surface assembly where each external engaging surface meets an adjacent external engaging surface are chamfered (i.e. at 15) or rounded (paragraph 18 and Figure 2).
In reference to claim 10, Zhang discloses that an underside (see figure below) of the securing lip extends to the body at lip angle of greater than 5 degrees (note, the figure below shows that the underside of securing lip 18 extends at an angle of 90 degrees to the body).
PNG
media_image5.png
200
719
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 21, Horobec obviously discloses that the two adjacent standard sizes of fastener are two adjacent standard metric sizes or two adjacent standard Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) sizes (because the “damaged fasteners no longer have a standard size”, paragraph 17 and thus must have previously been any known standard size of fastener), and wherein the range of inner diameters of the fastener engagement recess does not include a standard length (again because the “damaged fasteners no longer have a standard size”) between side faces of either of the two adjacent standard sizes of fastener (paragraph 17).
In reference to claim 22, Horobec obviously discloses the two adjacent standard sizes of fastener are a 12 millimeter standard metric size and a 13 millimeter standard metric size, because any original size of a standard fastener including 12 millimeter and 13 millimeter could be used before it has become damaged.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2021/0046626) in view of Mo (DE 202005007853, previously cited), Horobec (2005/0183548) and Chen (2008/0163730).
In reference to claim 7, Zhang discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, and further discloses that the securing lip prevents the extractor insert from falling from a drive tool (20) in a first falling direction (i.e. leftward direction in Figure 5), but lacks,
a magnet configured to form a magnetic bias between the insert and the driving tool to maintain the insert in engagement with the driving tool;
and the magnet prevents the extractor insert from falling from the drive tool in a second falling direction that is opposite the first falling direction.
However, Chen teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an extractor insert (10) with a magnet (20) configured to form a magnetic bias between the insert and a driving tool (40) to maintain the insert in engagement with the driving tool; and the magnet prevents the extractor insert from falling from the drive tool in a second falling direction (i.e. a rightward direction in Figure 56 of Zhang) that is opposite the first falling direction.
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 insert, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing the extractor insert including the magnet, as taught by Chen, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a magnet provided inside thereof to increase the stability of fixing, so that the objective of tight elastic engagement is attained (see paragraph 6).
In reference to claim 8, Chen discloses that the magnet is disposed in a magnet recess (110) in an external engaging surface (i.e. surface of 11) of a drive surface assembly (11, Figure 1).
In reference to claim 9, modified Zhang discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a depth of the magnet recess is less than half of a thickness of the body between the internal sidewall and the external engaging surface at the magnet recess for torque strength at the magnet recess.
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 Zhang to have a depth of the magnet recess that is less than half of a thickness of the body between the internal sidewall and the external engaging surface at the magnet recess, 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 Zhang as modified by Chen, would not operate differently with the claimed depth of the magnet recess and since the magnet is intended to reside in the recess (Figures 1 and 2), the device would function appropriately having the claimed depth of the magnet recess. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the depth, indicating simply that the depth of the magnet recess “may” be less than half of a thickness of the body (paragraph 95).
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the depth of the magnet recess to be less than half of a thickness of the body between the internal sidewall and the external engaging surface at the magnet recess, would result in a difference in function of the Zhang as modified by Chen device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the width of the depth of the magnet recess, of Zhang as modified by Chen device, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed dimensions. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed dimension solves any stated problem, indicating that the width “may” be within the claimed range (paragraph 95), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, 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 depth of the magnet recess, of Zhang such that it is less than half of a thickness of the body between the internal sidewall and the external engaging surface at the magnet recess, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2021/0046626) in view of Mo (DE 202005007853, previously cited), Horobec (2005/0183548) and Arnold (5819606).
In reference to claim 11, Zhang discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a first indicia indicative of a fastener size for use with the extractor insert disposed on a surface at the drive end of the extractor insert.
However, Arnold teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an extractor insert (10) with a first indicia (i.e. at 34 in Figure 3) indicative of a fastener size for use with the extractor insert disposed on a surface (i.e. at 32) at a drive end of the extractor insert (Figures 1 and 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 insert, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing the first indicia, as taught by Arnold, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides identification as an alpha numeric or a color code to identify either a fraction or metric system socket or a specific size socket of either system (Column 2, Lines 15-19).
In reference to claim 23, Zhang discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a first indicia disposed on a surface at the drive end of the extractor insert, the first indicia being indicative of a non-standard fastener size for use with the extractor insert.
However, Arnold teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an extractor insert (10) with a first indicia (i.e. at 34 in Figure 3) indicative of a fastener size (which could be any fastener including damaged fasteners) for use with the extractor insert disposed on a surface (i.e. at 32) at a drive end of the extractor insert (Figures 1 and 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 insert, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing the first indicia, as taught by Arnold, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides identification as an alpha numeric or a color code to identify either a fraction or metric system socket or a specific size socket of either system (Column 2, Lines 15-19).
Claim 12, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2021/0046626) in view of Mo (DE 202005007853, previously cited), Horobec (2005/0183548), Arnold (5819606) and Hu (2016/0271760).
In reference to claim 12, Zhang discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a second indicia indicative of a size of driving tool opening for use the extractor insert disposed on one of the external engaging surfaces of the drive surface assembly.
However, Hu teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an extractor insert (10) with a second indicia (i.e. at 34 in Figure 1) indicative of a size of driving tool opening (21, paragraph 38) for use the extractor insert disposed on one of external engaging surfaces (i.e. at 321 in Figure 2) of a drive surface assembly (32).
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 insert, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing the second indicia disposed on one of external engaging surfaces, as taught by Hu, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more clearly indicates the size of the polygonal hole (paragraph 38) and/or that allows a user to more clearly identify the insert among various similar inserts.
Claim 21, is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (2021/0046626) in view of Mo (DE 202005007853, previously cited), Horobec (2005/0183548) and Horobec et al. (5551320).
In further reference to claim 21, assuming arguendo that modified Zhang lack that the,
two adjacent standard sizes of fastener are a 12 millimeter standard metric size and a 13 millimeter standard metric size, than Horobec et al. is used for such a teaching.
Horobec et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide two adjacent standard sizes of fastener are a 12 millimeter standard metric size and a 13 millimeter standard metric size (Column 6, Lines 19-23).
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 fastener, of Zhang, with the known technique of providing the fastener that is a 12 millimeter standard metric size and a 13 millimeter standard metric size, as taught by Horobec et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively fits onto standard ratchets or wrenches (Column 6, Lines 18-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed April 30, 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1 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
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