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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, and 5-10 are pending. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (TW M384740 U; cited 08/18/2025, citations are to the separate text translation attached as a NPL document; however, a machine translation of the patent publication image is also provided at the end of the FOR document).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (Lai)
With respect to claim 1, Lai discloses: A hand tool, comprising: a handle (10, fig. 2; [0008], referencing handle portion 10); at least one driving head connected with at least one end of the handle (20, fig. 2; [0008] open-end wrench head 20) at least one groove disposed on an inner edge of the at least one driving head (ann. fig. 2, above; at 26, [0008], referencing groove chamber 26), the at least one groove comprising:
an inner wall (the side wall, bottom wall and wall of countersunk hole 27, as in ann. fig. 2, above; [0008] describes the countersunk hole 27, having an inner wall with multiple distinct surfaces is consistent with the instant disclose and instant claim 6) ; and
at least one margin structure extending from an end of the inner wall, with an angle between the at least one margin structure and the inner wall (first margin structure at 29, ann. fig. 2, above, the surface is curved so it forms an angle with different parts of the inner wall; the first margin structure is described as a pivot hole in [0008]; for purposes of claim 1, the margin structure refers to the first margin structure); and
at least one abutting element disposed on the at least one groove (31, fig. 2, assembled into the inner wall as in fig. 3; described as jaw block 31 in [0008]);
wherein the at least one groove has an inner space and an outer space, the inner space is not fully occupied by the abutting element (inner space at the location of the countersunk hole 27, fig. 2, with the abutting element not fully occupying the inner space, see fig. 3), and the at least one margin structure forms the outer space in the at least one groove for the at least one abutting element to move along the inner wall or to elastically deform toward the inner wall, when a force is applied to the abutting element (the outer space is at the location of the margin structure in ann. fig. 2, above, which allows the abutting element to rotate/pivot as described in [0008], - “ the pivot hole (29) is tangent to the space formed inside the groove chamber […] The jaw block (31) is inserted into the pivot hole (29) by using a shaft (311) with one end extending from the top and bottom surfaces to pivotally assemble in the groove chamber (26)”; see figs. 3-4 for the pivoting motion - which would mean that the abutting element moves along the bottom surface of the inner wall, such bottom surface as annotated in ann. fig. 2 - examiner notes that the inner wall comprises multiple surfaces, consistent with instant claim 6 and the instant disclosure and is not a single surface; the geometry of the groove allows the abutting element to move as such)
however, does not explicitly disclose wherein the angle between the inner wall and the at least one margin structure is θ1, and the following condition is satisfied: 15° ≤ θ1 ≤ 70°. The examiner however notes that claim 1 (unlike claim 8) does not specify what part of the inner wall the surface the angle is formed from, and as the margin structure in Lai is curved and appears include a point 90 degrees from the side surface of Lai, then one could draw a line that is between 15 and 70 degrees as claimed, from a point on the curve to the side surface of the inner wall (see figs. 2 and 3, the margin structure makes a curve towards the left side of the figure from an edge of the side surface, then inclines/curves back towards the right side)
Lai further teaches that the range of pivoting of the abutting element 31 [which is dependent on angle between the inner wall [or the side surface of such] and the at least one margin structure, see pivoting effect in figs. 3 and 4, and the position of the first margin structure 29 in fig. 2] can affect the coupling force ([0011], specifying the pivoting shaft 311, fig. 3 of the abutting element). MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. In this case the applicant has not demonstrated the result effective nature of the angle θ1, and Lai demonstrates how the range of pivoting affects the coupling force of the tool.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the angle between the inner wall and the at least one margin structure to be between 15-70 degrees inclusive, as a matter of selection of a workable range of a result effective variable. The result would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success with the modification.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence that a particular shape is significant, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the angle between the inner wall and the at least one margin structure between 15°-70° inclusive of 15 and 70 degrees. The result would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, and one skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success with the modification.
With respect to claim 2, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein a number of the at least one margin structure is two, and each of the two margin structures extends from the end and a second end of the inner wall (second margin structure in ann. fig. 2, above extends from one end to another [bottom end to top end] in the inner wall; this margins structure appears to be curved to at least 90 degrees, therefore includes at least an angle of 15-70 degrees inclusive to the side surface of the inner wall, or alternatively the same change in shape rationale applies as in claim 1 for the angle of the second margin structure).
With respect to claim 3, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the inner wall is a curved wall (surface of countersunk hole 27, fig. 2, described in [0008] is curved as a round hole, and is interpreted to be part of the inner wall, consistent with the instant disclosure where there can be multiple distinct surfaces of the inner wall).
With respect to claim 5, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the inner wall is a planar wall (side surface, ann. fig. 2, is planar and is interpreted to be part of the inner wall, consistent with the instant disclosure where there can be multiple distinct surfaces of the inner wall).
With respect to claim 6, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the inner wall comprises: a bottom surface (ann. fig. 2, above); and at least one side surface extending vertically from an end of the bottom surface (ann. fig. 2, above, vertical is relative orientation of tool), wherein the at least one margin structure extends away from an end of the bottom surface from the at least one side surface (ann. fig. 2, above, margin structure extends from bottom surface (bottom of figure) and away from side surface, deeper into the groove).
With respect to claim 7, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches wherein the at least one margin structure is an inclined surface (margin structure, ann. fig. 2, above, is curved, so it is variably inclined)
With respect to claim 8, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches wherein an angle between the at least one margin structure and the at least one side surface is θ, and the following condition is satisfied 15° ≤ θ ≤ 70° (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, one could draw a line that is between 15 and 70 degrees from a point on the curve to the side surface of the inner wall, similarly the angle been the side surface and part of the margin structure is a result effective variable that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected as it affects the range of rotation and thus the coupling force, or alternatively would have been obvious as a change in shape).
With respect to claim 9, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the at least one margin structure is an inclined surface (margin structure, ann. fig. 2, above, is curved, so it is variably inclined).
With respect to claim 10, Lai, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein each of a number of the at least one groove and a number of the at least one abutting element is larger than or equal to two (there is a second groove, at 30, fig. 3, which as described in [0008], has analogous elements (i.e. jaw block 31, pivot hole 29, as described in the rejection of claim 1 using ann. fig. 2; and as described in [0010] the tool can have heads in pairs, thus also providing for this claimed limitation - see fig. 6 for the second head, claim 1 is noted to allow for a second driving head).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued (response pages 6-9) that the feature of wherein the abutting element moves along the inner wall is not found in Lai because the abutting element (jaw block 31) pivots about shaft 311, and not along the inner wall. Consistent with the instant disclosure, and what the applicant has actually claimed in claim 6, the inner wall comprises multiple surfaces. Thus, Lai can be reasonably interpreted to have the abutting element move along a bottom surface of the inner wall because it swings along the inner wall (the bottom surface of such as shown by the annotated arrows below):
PNG
media_image2.png
476
533
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The limitation of “elastically deform toward the inner wall, when a force is applied to the abutting element” later argued is a limitation in the alterative, and need not be present in the rejection or the prior art, however for the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner notes that the limitation “abutting element” can be mapped to spring 32, in Lai of which the end thereof can elastically deform toward the inner wall when a force is applied to such.
No specific arguments were presented with respect to the dependent claims.
The applicant is invited (and not required to as this is not the current grounds of rejection) to consider limitations defining the structure of the claimed “abutting element” which is noted to be fairly broad in nature. The instant abutting element is shown as, for example, to be an elastically deformable wire. While it appears that elastic deformable wires are known from the prior art (see Chen (US 20140238205 A1)), the instant application also appears to define a groove/inner wall with different geometry, in that the groove/inner wall appears to have varying cross section geometry to include rounded/curved surfaces, chamfered surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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 on 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights