DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/01/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-11, 13-20 and 22-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 12 and 21 were cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krause (US 1731010).
Regarding claim 18, Crapo teaches an apparatus (see Figure 1) for punching holes in metal studs, comprising:
a head unit (assembly above 12 in Figure 1)having a proximal end and a distal end (top and bottom end in Figure 1), wherein said head unit includes a die (15) and a punch (22) that are configured to work in conjunction to punch holes in metal studs;
a first pole (11) having a proximal end and a distal end (bottom and top end in Figure 1), wherein said distal end of said first pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 1);
a second pole (29) having a proximal end and a distal end (bottom and top end in Figure 1), wherein said distal end of said second pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 1); and
wherein said die and said first pole are configured such that a reference line projected distally from the center line of said die and a reference line projected distally from the center line of said first pole interface at a distal location above said apparatus to form an interior angle falling within the range of from 0 degrees to 45 degrees (vertical lines, see Figure 1),
wherein said apparatus is configured to permit a user to actuate said punch manually by moving said second pole in relation to said first pole so as to enable said apparatus to punch at least one hole in the top plate of a stud (page 1 lines 64-77).
Regarding claim 19, Krause teaches said die is located at said distal end of said heat unit (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 20, Krause teaches said distal end of said first pole is connected to said distal end of said head unit (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22, Krause teaches a third pole (30) connects said proximal end of said first pole to said proximal end of said second pole (see Figure 1).
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crapo (US 5101566).
Regarding claim 1, Crapo teaches an apparatus (see Figure 1) for punching holes in metal studs (74, see Figures 3-5), comprising:
a head unit (assembly of 12 and 14, see Figures 1-2) having a proximal end (left end on 12 in Figure 2) and a distal end (right end on 14 in Figure 2), wherein said distal end of said head unit includes a die (50, right end on 14), wherein said die includes a proximal end and a distal end (bottom and top end 48 in Figure 1), wherein said proximal end of said head unit includes a punch (38, see Figure 2), and wherein said die and said punch are configured to work in conjunction to punch holes in metal studs;
a first pole (16 on left in Figure 2) having a proximal end and a distal end (left and center end in Figure 2), wherein said distal end of said first pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 2);
a second pole (16 on right in Figure 2) having a proximal end and a distal end (right and center end in figure 2), wherein said distal end of said second pole is connected to said head unit with a linkage (at 21 with 24), wherein said linkage is configured to permit said punch to move from an unactuated position to an actuated position within said head unit when moving said second pole from a proximal position to a distal position (see Figure 2), while said first pole remains stationary and while said second pole moves in relation to said first pole so as to actuate said punch (as the first pole can be locked in place, while the second pole is moved, thus the limitation is met); and
wherein said apparatus has an overall length that extends proximally in a perpendicular direction from said proximal end of said die (bottom end of tool, which is perpendicular to vertical length, see Figure 4) and interfaces a reference line that extends horizontally from said distal end of said first pole at the proximal end of the said die (horizontal line at the top end in figure 5), wherein such overall length is a unknown value (see Figure 4).
Crapo fails to teach the overall length is at least 24 inches.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific overall length is at least 24/45/70 inches, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify handle of Crapo to have the specific overall length set forth in the claim to achieve the desired reach with the tool for the end user.
Claims 4-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crapo (US 5101566) in view of Wang (US 20130185945 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Crapo teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Crapo fails to teach said first pole and said second pole are each extendable so as to adjust said overall length of said apparatus.
Wang teaches a cutter with extendable handles that adjust the overall length of said cutter (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Crapo to make the handles extendable, as taught by Wang, in order to increase the reach of the tool (abstract and paragraph 0004 of Wang).
Regarding claim 5, modified Crapo further teaches said first pole and said second pole each comprise at least two telescopic sections (as modified by Wang, 4 and 5, see Figure 6 of Wang).
Regarding claim 6, modified Crapo further teaches said first pole and said second pole each comprise three telescopic sections (as modified by Wang, 2, 4 and 5, see Figure 6 of Wang).
Regarding claim 7, modified Crapo further teaches said distal end of said first pole is connected to said distal end of said head unit with a first connection and said distal end of said second pole is connected to said proximal end of said head unit with a second connection (all the parts are connected to each other at the end, see Figure 2 of Crapo).
Regarding claim 8, modified Crapo further teaches said first connection between said distal end of said first pole and said head unit includes a fixed connection (the bolt 20 is fixed with nut 22, thus meeting the limitation of a fixed connection between the parts, see Figure 2 of Crapo).
Regarding claim 9, modified Crapo further teaches said overall length is at least 45 inches (as modified by Crapo in claim 1, can be change into any length).
Regarding claim 10, modified Crapo further teaches said overall length is at least 70 inches (as modified by Crapo in claim 1, can be change into any length).
Regarding claim 13, Crapo teaches an apparatus for punching holes in metal studs, comprising:
a head unit (assembly of 12 and 14) that includes a die (50) and a punch (40), wherein said die and said punch are configured to work in conjunction with one another to punch holes in metal studs (See Figure 2);
a first pole (16 on right) having a proximal end and a distal end (right and center end in Figure 2), wherein said distal end of said first pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 2);
a second pole (16 on left) having a proximal end and a distal end (left and center end in Figure 2), wherein said distal end of said second pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 2);
wherein said first pole is configured to remain stationary while (as the first pole can be locked in place, while the second pole is moved, thus the limitation is met) and said second pole is configured to move relative to said first pole so as to actuate said punch relative to said die (see Figure 2 and 5); and
wherein said apparatus is configured to permit a user to reposition said apparatus along a top plate of a metal stud so as to actuate said punch in order to punch a plurality of holes in said top plate (as the apparatus can be moved, the limitation is met).
Crapo fails to teach wherein said first and second pole are extendable.
Wang teaches a cutter with extendable handles that adjust the overall length of said cutter (see Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Crapo to make the handles extendable, as taught by Wang, in order to increase the reach of the tool (abstract and paragraph 0004 of Wang)
Regarding claim 15, modified Crapo further teaches said first pole and said second pole each comprise at least two telescopic sections (as modified by Wang, 4 and 5, see Figure 6 of Wang).
Regarding claim 16, modified Crapo further teaches said first pole and said second pole each comprise three telescopic sections (as modified by Wang, 2, 4 and 5, see Figure 6 of Wang).
Regarding claim 17, modified Crapo further teaches said die and said first pole each includes a centerline (the centerline of the die is at least in the center of die with respect to the view in Figure 3, see annotated Figure 2 of Crapo), wherein a reference line projected distally from said centerline of said die is parallel to a reference line project along said centerline of said first pole (see annotated Figure 2 of Crapo).
PNG
media_image1.png
681
878
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (US 1731010).
Regarding claim 1, Krause teaches an apparatus (see Figure 1) for punching holes in metal studs (see Figure 1), comprising:
a head unit (assembly above 12, see Figure 1) having a proximal end (top end in Figure 1) and a distal end (bottom end Figure 1), wherein said distal end of said head unit includes a die (15, see Figure 1), wherein said die includes a proximal end and a distal end (top and bottom end in Figure 1), wherein said proximal end of said head unit includes a punch (22, see Figure 1), and wherein said die and said punch are configured to work in conjunction to punch holes in metal studs;
a first pole (11) having a proximal end and a distal end (bottom and top end in Figure 1), wherein said distal end of said first pole is connected to said head unit (see Figure 1);
a second pole (29) having a proximal end and a distal end (bottom and top end in Figure 1), wherein said distal end of said second pole is connected to said head unit with a linkage (26), wherein said linkage is configured to permit said punch to move from an unactuated position to an actuated position within said head unit when moving said second pole from a proximal position to a distal position (see Figure 1), while said first pole remains stationary and while said second pole moves in relation to said first pole so as to actuate said punch (as the first pole can be locked in place, while the second pole is moved, thus the limitation is met); and;
wherein said apparatus has an overall length that extends proximally in a perpendicular direction from said proximal end of said die (vertical length, see Figure 1) and interfaces a reference line that extends horizontally from said distal end of said first pole at the proximal end of the said die (horizontal line at the bottom end in Figure 1), wherein such overall length is a unknown value (see Figure 1).
Krause fails to teach the overall length is at least 24 inches.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific overall length is at least 24/45/70 inches, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the pole of Krause to have the specific overall length set forth in the claim to achieve the desired reach with the tool for the end user.
Regarding claim 2, modified Krause further teaches a third pole (30) connects said proximal end of said first pole to said proximal end of said second pole in a manner that permits said second pole to move relative to said first pole (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Krause further teaches said third pole extends in a downward direction from said proximal end of said second pole when said second pole is positioned such that said punch is in said actuated position (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Krause further teaches said overall length is at least 45 inches (as modified by Krause in claim 1, can be change into any length).
Regarding claim 10, modified Krause further teaches said overall length is at least 70 inches (as modified by Krause in claim 1, can be change into any length).
Regarding claim 11, modified Krause further teaches said reference line that extends proximally in a perpendicular direction from said proximal end of said die is parallel to a reference line that extends along the centerline of said first pole (both in the vertical line direction in Figure 1).
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause (US 1731010) in view of Leavitt (US 620659).
Regarding claims 23-24, Krause teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 stated above.
Krause fails to teach said interior angle falls within the range of 8 degrees to 12 degrees (as required by claim 23) and said interior angle is 10 degrees (as required by claim 24).
Leavitt teaches a support pole (A) at angle with respect to the vertical punching direction (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Krause to have the angled pole, as taught by Leavitt. As one of ordinary skill in the art understand that the angle pole can be more aesthetically pleasing.
Furthermore, with respect to the specific angle of 10 degrees, the courts have held that where the general conditions of the invention are met, 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). MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify the pole of Krause to have the specific angle set forth in the claim base on the desired look wanted by the end user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Crapo fails to teach the first pole remain stationary while the second pole moves. The examiner disagrees and notes that, while the device is intended to move with both poles, there is not thing stop the device from functioning while the first pole is lock in place and moving the second pole, it would just cause the tool head and the work piece to move with the second pole, but the limitation of the first pole remain stationary while the second pole moves is still met.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/3/2026