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 .
The status of the 03/26/2026 claims, is as follows: Claims 21-28 have been added; Claims 10-20 have been canceled; Claims 1-9 and 21-28 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The (1) information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claim 1 (similarly applying to claim 21 line 6):
The limitation “a locking mechanism” in line 6
“mechanism” is the generic placeholder.
“locking” is the functional language.
In claim 3 (similarly applying to claim 23 line 3):
The limitation “a biasing member” in line 3
“member” is the generic placeholder.
“biasing” is the functional language.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
The limitation “a locking mechanism” in line 6 of claim 1 has been described in claim 3 to comprise a locking tab and the biasing member.
The limitation “a biasing member” in line 3 of claim 3 has been described in the published specification as the biasing member 216 (i.e. a spring or an otherwise resilient plate or strip).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krupnicki (US 20090277891) in view of Mangaroo (US 20100018006)
Regarding Claim 1, Krupnicki discloses a pistol grip for a processing torch (pistol grip handle attachment for MIG welding gun) comprising:
a main body (handle 7) having a proximal end (annotated fig. 4) and a distal end (annotated fig. 4), the proximal end configured to engage a portion of the processing torch (welding gun 38) (“mounting brackets 4 and 6 are used to attach the pistol grip handle attachment shown in FIG. 1 to a mig gun 38”, para. 0019; fig. 4);
a pistol trigger (trigger 20) having a trigger extension (tang 28) (“tang 28 has a first or proximal end 30 that is affixed to second or distal end 24 of trigger 20”, para. 0018), the pistol trigger pivotably coupled to the main body (handle 7) (“trigger 20 is pivotally mounted on pivot pin 26 that passes through an opening in distal end 24 and is anchored by corresponding recesses in walls 8 and 10.”, para. 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krupnicki does not disclose a locking mechanism movably coupled to the main body adjacent the proximal end of the main body, the locking mechanism being movable between an unlocked position and a locked position where the locking mechanism locks the main body in a fixed position with respect to the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo discloses a pistol grip (removable pistol grip; abstract fig. 2) comprising a locking mechanism (latch 38c; figs. 2, 6a-6b, 7) movably coupled to the main body (handle 20) (“the latch 38c has a protrusion 44”, para. 0049; fig. 7) adjacent the proximal end of the main body (handle 20; fig. 5b), the locking mechanism (latch 38c) being movable between an unlocked position (fig. 6a) and a locked position (fig. 6b) where the locking mechanism (latch 38c) locks the main body (handle 20) in a fixed position with respect to the enclosure 23 (para. 0049, and 0051-0052) (it is noted the latch 38c comprises the resilient connection 48 comprising the button 47, the spring, and protrusion 44, the movement of which results in unlocked position fig. 6a (latch 38c is not engaged with the slot 38d) and locked position fig. 6b (latch 38c is engaged with the slot 38d).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the mounting brackets 4, 6 (i.e. para. 0019 of Krupnicki) with the locking mechanism (i.e. latch 38c of Mangaroo) that is movably coupled to the main body adjacent the proximal end of the main body, wherein the locking machism being movable between the unlocked position and the locked position as taught by Mangaroo, in order to secure the pistol handle to the welding torch by means of the locking mechanism of Mangaroo that includes the engagement between the protrusion of the handle and the slots of the welding torch. The locking mechanism of Mangaroo facilitates the attachment of the handle to the welding torch without any additional tools and corresponding fasteners (i.e. screwdrivers and screws) (para. 0047 of Mangaroo).
Regarding Claim 2, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except further comprising a groove disposed in an inner surface of the proximal end of the main body, the groove configured to receive a protrusion extending from the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo discloses further comprising a groove (slots 38a) disposed in an inner surface of the proximal end of the main body (handle), the groove configured to receive a protrusion extending from the processing torch (“the slots 38a can be located on the handle 20 and the protrusions 38b located on the enclosure 23”, para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of the handle of Krupnicki to include the groove and modify the processing torch of Krupnicki to include the protrusion such that the groove of the handle is engaged with the protrusion of the welding torch when the handle is secured to the welding torch. Doing so would aid in securing the handle to the welding torch via the engagement of the groove and the protrusion.
Regarding Claim 3, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c; figs. 6a-6b; 7) comprises:
a locking tab (protrusion 44); and
a biasing member (spring 49) configured to bias the locking tab toward the locked position (fig. 6b) (para. 0049 and 0051-0052; figs. 6a, 6b and 7 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the spring 49 is used to bias the latch 38c in either locked position fig. 6b or unlocked position 6a).
Regarding Claim 4, the modification discloses the pistol grip (pistol grip handle attachment of Krupnicki) further comprising a protrusion (lip 45; fig. 7 of Mangaroo) extending from an inner surface of the locking tab (protrusion 44 of Mangaroo), wherein the protrusion (lip 45) is configured to engage a slot (slot 38d; fig. 2 of Mangaroo) in the processing torch (welding gun) when the locking mechanism (latch 38c) is in the locked position (fig. 6b) (para. 0049, 0051-0052 of Mangaroo).
Regarding Claim 5, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is prevented from repositioning from the locked position (fig. 6b) to the unlocked position (fig. 6a) when the pistol grip (handle 20) is gripped by a user's hand (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in either locked or unlocked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change the position).
Regarding Claim 6, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is configured to move to and remain in the locked position (locked position) when the pistol grip (handle 20) is gripped by a user's hand (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in locked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change the position).
Regarding Claim 7, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is configured to disengage from the processing torch (welding gun) in response to a release force being applied to the locking tab (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo; fig. 7) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in locked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change to the unlocked position, in which the handle can be disengaged from the welding torch).
Regarding Claim 8, Krupnicki discloses the trigger extension (tang 28) is configured to engage a torch trigger (gun trigger 42) included in the processing torch (MIG gun) when the pistol trigger (trigger 20) is actuated (para. 0018 and “when screw 36 is appropriately adjusted, depression of the pistol grip handle trigger 20 causes a corresponding depression of straight handle trigger 42”, para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 9, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the locking mechanism cooperates with the main body to define an opening for receiving the portion of the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo further discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c) cooperates with the main body (handle 20) to define an opening (slots 38a) for receiving the portion of the processing torch (protrusion 38b) (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of the handle of Krupnicki to include the opening (i.e. slots 38a) and modify the processing torch of Krupnicki to include the protrusion (i.e. protrusion 38b) such that the opening is engaged with the protrusion when the handle is secured to the welding torch. Doing so would aid in securing the handle to the welding torch.
Regarding Claim 21, Krupnicki discloses a pistol grip for a processing torch (pistol grip handle attachment for MIG welding gun) comprising:
a main body (handle 7) having a proximal end (annotated fig. 4) and a distal end (annotated fig. 4), the proximal end configured to engage a portion of the processing torch (welding gun 38) (“mounting brackets 4 and 6 are used to attach the pistol grip handle attachment shown in FIG. 1 to a mig gun 38”, para. 0019; fig. 4);
a pistol trigger (trigger 20) having a trigger extension (tang 28) (“tang 28 has a first or proximal end 30 that is affixed to second or distal end 24 of trigger 20”, para. 0018), the pistol trigger pivotably coupled to the main body (handle 7) (“trigger 20 is pivotally mounted on pivot pin 26 that passes through an opening in distal end 24 and is anchored by corresponding recesses in walls 8 and 10.”, para. 0018).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krupnicki does not disclose a locking mechanism movably coupled to the main body adjacent the proximal end of the main body, the locking mechanism being movable between an unlocked position and a locked position where the locking mechanism locks the main body in a fixed position with respect to the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo discloses a pistol grip (removable pistol grip; abstract fig. 2) comprising a locking mechanism (latch 38c; figs. 2, 6a-6b, 7) movably coupled to the main body (handle 20) (“the latch 38c has a protrusion 44”, para. 0049; fig. 7) adjacent the proximal end of the main body (handle 20; fig. 5b), the locking mechanism (latch 38c) being movable between an unlocked position (fig. 6a) and a locked position (fig. 6b) where the locking mechanism (latch 38c) locks the main body (handle 20) in a fixed position with respect to the enclosure 23 (para. 0049, and 0051-0052) (it is noted the latch 38c comprises the resilient connection 48 comprising the button 47, the spring, and protrusion 44, the movement of which results in unlocked position fig. 6a (latch 38c is not engaged with the slot 38d) and locked position fig. 6b (latch 38c is engaged with the slot 38d).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the mounting brackets 4, 6 (i.e. para. 0019 of Krupnicki) with the locking mechanism (i.e. latch 38c of Mangaroo) that is movably coupled to the main body adjacent the proximal end of the main body and to configure the processing torch to receive the latch 38c of Mangaroo to facilitate attachment of pistol handle to the welding torch, wherein the locking mechanism being movable between the unlocked position and the locked position as taught by Mangaroo, in order to secure the pistol handle to the welding torch by means of the locking mechanism of Mangaroo. The locking mechanism of Mangaroo facilitates the attachment of the handle to the welding torch without any additional tools and corresponding fasteners (i.e. screwdrivers and screws) (para. 0047 of Mangaroo).
The modification would result in structure, in which the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is prevented from repositioning from the locked position (fig. 6b) to the unlocked position (fig. 6a) when the pistol grip (handle 20) is gripped by a user's hand (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in either locked or unlocked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change the position).
Regarding Claim 22, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except further comprising a groove disposed in an inner surface of the proximal end of the main body, the groove configured to receive a protrusion extending from the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo discloses further comprising a groove (slots 38a) disposed in an inner surface of the proximal end of the main body (handle), the groove configured to receive a protrusion extending from the processing torch (“the slots 38a can be located on the handle 20 and the protrusions 38b located on the enclosure 23”, para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of the handle of Krupnicki to include the groove and modify the processing torch of Krupnicki to include the protrusion such that the groove of the handle is engaged with the protrusion of the welding torch when the handle is secured to the welding torch. Doing so would aid in securing the pistol handle to the welding torch via the engagement of the groove and the protrusion.
Regarding Claim 23, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c; figs. 6a-6b; 7) comprises:
a locking tab (protrusion 44); and
a biasing member (spring 49) configured to bias the locking tab toward the locked position (fig. 6b) (para. 0049 and 0051-0052; figs. 6a, 6b and 7 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the spring 49 is used to bias the latch 38c in either locked position fig. 6b or unlocked position 6a).
Regarding Claim 24, the modification discloses the pistol grip (pistol grip handle attachment of Krupnicki) further comprising a protrusion (lip 45; fig. 7 of Mangaroo) extending from an inner surface of the locking tab (protrusion 44 of Mangaroo), wherein the protrusion (lip 45) is configured to engage a slot (slot 38d; fig. 2 of Mangaroo) in the processing torch (welding gun) when the locking mechanism (latch 38c) is in the locked position (fig. 6b) (para. 0049, 0051-0052 of Mangaroo).
Regarding Claim 25, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is configured to move to and remain in the locked position (locked position) when the pistol grip (handle 20) is gripped by a user's hand (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in locked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change the position).
Regarding Claim 26, the modification discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c of Mangaroo) is configured to disengage from the processing torch (welding gun) in response to a release force being applied to the locking tab (protrusion 44) (para. 0049, 0051, and “subsequent release of the latch 38c by the user”, para. 0052 of Mangaroo; fig. 7) (it is noted the latch 38c remains in locked position until the user presses on the button 47 to change to the unlocked position, in which the handle can be disengaged from the welding torch).
Regarding Claim 27, Krupnicki discloses the trigger extension (tang 28) is configured to engage a torch trigger (gun trigger 42) included in the processing torch (MIG gun) when the pistol trigger (trigger 20) is actuated (para. 0018 and “when screw 36 is appropriately adjusted, depression of the pistol grip handle trigger 20 causes a corresponding depression of straight handle trigger 42”, para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 28, the modification discloses substantially all of the claimed features as set forth above, except the locking mechanism cooperates with the main body to define an opening for receiving the portion of the processing torch.
However, Mangaroo further discloses the locking mechanism (latch 38c) cooperates with the main body (handle 20) to define an opening (slots 38a) for receiving the portion of the processing torch (protrusion 38b) (para. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main body of the handle of Krupnicki to include the opening (i.e. slots 38a) and modify the processing torch of Krupnicki to include the protrusion (i.e. protrusion 38b) such that the opening is engaged with the protrusion when the handle is secured to the welding torch. Doing so would aid in securing the handle to the welding torch.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are respectfully not persuasive because:
Applicant’s Arguments: with respect to claim 1 on p. 6-7 of the Remarks
“The Office Action accurately states on pages 7-8 that "Krupnicki does not disclose a locking mechanism movably coupled to the main body adjacent the proximal end of the main body, the locking mechanism being movable between an unlocked position and a locked position where the locking mechanism locks the main body in a fixed position with respect to the processing torch."
However, the Office Action turned to Mangaroo to remedy this deficiency of Krupnicki, and Applicant submits that the combination of Mangaroo and Krupnicki is improper.
Turning to Mangaroo, Mangaroo is directed to a handle for a portable computer having
one or more scanning functions for interacting with information objects in a logistics
environment. That environment and application is very different from a welding environment in
which the handle of a welding or processing torch is coupled to a hose that is heavy and
cumbersome. Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill in the art of welding
torches would not look to any teaching of Mangaroo to modify any feature of Krupnicki because
Mangaroo is non-analogous art to Krupnicki and to Applicant's claims. As shown in FIG. 1 of Mangaroo (reproduced at the right), "a portable terminal 10 for imaging and/ or scanning features (and/or functions) in data capture/communications 12 and asset tracking/management, for example in wireless communication 14 with tracking ( e.g. information) objects 16 (e.g. barcode labels and/or RFID tags) present in one or more logistics environments 18 ( e.g. industrial, retail, supply chain)" is illustrated. (see paragraph [0035]) Applicant submits that a scanmng portable terminal for use m a logistic 24 environment is completely different from and is designed for an entirely different environment than a welding or processing torch. As set forth in paragraph [0036], the portable terminal 10 can have an optional handle 20 that is connected to an enclosure 23 of a handheld computer 24 (emphasis added).
The Office Action alleges that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to replace the mounting brackets 4, 6 of Krupnicki with the locking mechanism of Mangaroo
"in order to secure the pistol handle to the welding torch by means of the locking mechanism of
Mangaroo that includes the engagement between the protrusion of the handle and the slots of the
welding torch." Applicant respectfully disagrees with the motivation alleged in the Office
Action, and submits that such motivation is based on impermissible hindsight.
As set forth above, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look
to the structure of the lightweight logistics environment portable scanner of Mangaroo for any
teaching to modify the handle of Krupnicki that is coupled to a welding torch connected to a hose that has a "weight and cumbersome nature" that creates user fatigue. In addition, the proposed modification of Krupnicki according to the Office Action fails to address the fact that
modifications would have to be made to the welding torch of Krupnicki as well. As shown in the
drawings from Krupnicki, the handle 2 has opposing mounting plates 4 and 6 with bolt holes 44
and 46 that receive bolts. The torch itself includes corresponding holes that receive the bolts.
The proposed modification to Krupnicki would be much more than just changing the mounting plates on the handle. Any proposed modification of Krupnicki would have to take into account
the application in which the handle and torch of Krupnicki is used. It seems that Applicant's
disclosure is being used for the motivation to improperly combine Mangaroo with Krupnicki to
try to teach the features recited in claim 1.”
Examiner’s Responses:
The applicant’s arguments are respectfully not persuasive because Krupnicki and Mangaroo are analogous art because they are pertinent to the problem faced by the invention, MPEP 2141.01(a) Section I. Specifically, Krupnicki utilizes the mounting brackets 4 and 6 and a set of bolts to attach the pistol handle to the mig gun 38 (para. 0019-0020; figs. 1 and 4-5). Mangaroo utilizes the mechanical coupling 38 to facilitate attachment of handle 20 to the enclosure 23 without the aid of additional tools and corresponding fasteners (i.e. screwdrivers and screws etc.) (para. 0047; fig. 4). Krupnicki and Mangaroo are analogous art because they both try to solve the problem of detachedly securing the handle to something else. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace the mounting brackets 4 and 6 of Krupnicki with the mechanical coupling 38 of Mangaroo and configure the processing torch as necessary to accommodate the mechanical coupling 38 such that the attachment of the pistol handle to the processing torch is made possible by means of mechanical coupling 38. Advantageously, the attachment or disengagement of the handle to the torch can be accomplished quickly because there is no additional tools and screws required (para. 0047, 0049; fig. 4 of Mangaroo).
For the above reasons, the rejections to all of the claims are respectfully sustained by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 BONITA KHLOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7313. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am-6pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571)270-5569. The fax phone 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.
/BONITA KHLOK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights