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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8, 11-18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (2008/0092337) in view of Wilson et al. (10,690,168 “Wilson”).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gross meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool handle comprising:
a body extending along a central axis 14, Fig. 1 between a head 18 and a base 40, wherein the body is configured with a lobe tip A1-A3 at each intersection of a tri-lobed pattern Fig. 3; and
PNG
media_image2.png
392
221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]a convex surface R formed between each of the lobe tips of the tri-lobed pattern, wherein each pair of parallel flat surface extends substantially between the head and base of the body head and base being defined, e.g., by mid portion as annotated here, and wherein the body of the tool handle is configured to accept a palm of a hand of a user capable of and the tri-lobed pattern is configured to receive a regular hexagon tool, except for a pair of parallel flat surfaces corresponding to each lobe tip of the tri-lobed pattern and extending along the central axis and wherein the convex surface extends between one of the pair of parallel flat surfaces and another of the pair of parallel flat surfaces aligned between two adjacent lobe tips and for the tri-lobed pattern to engage the tool via engagement with a pair of parallel flat surfaces. Note that limitations are not read into the claims and base and a head may be defined along the length as in Fig. 5 of instant application.
PNG
media_image4.png
310
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Wilson teaches a three-point fastener comprising a non-bearing surfaces 320 defined by the tri-lobed convex surfaces and torque bearing surfaces defined by a pair of flat surfaces 308, 310, 312 between the head and the base of the body arranged substantially around the central axis and about each lobe tip configured to receive a regular hexagon tool 02:62-65, Wilson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Gross with the flat bearing surfaces as taught by Wilson to reduce the mass and enhance the transfer of torque form the handle to the working end, which is already configured to similar to instant application to receive a hexagonal tool via engagement with the pair of parallel flat surfaces.
Regarding claims 2-4, PA (prior art, Gross modified by Wilson) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the tri-lobed pattern substantially defines a Reuleaux triangle, Fig. 3 modified Gross; the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the tri-lobed pattern includes three, substantially equidistant lobes arranged around the central axis, Fig. 3; the tool handle of claim 3, wherein the three equidistant lobes are arranged substantially 120 degrees apart relative to an axis of rotation, Fig. 3; the tool handle of claim 1, wherein each of the pair of parallel flat surfaces extends substantially between the head and the base of the body, Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the tri-lobed pattern is arranged to accept a three finger grip, Fig. 3 modified Gross.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the tri-lobed pattern is configured to receive a regular hexagon tool 02:62-65, Wilson; the handle of claim 11, wherein the pair of parallel flat surfaces are configured to engage the regular hexagon tool flat bearing surfaces, 308-312.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 11, wherein the regular hexagon tool is a 19mm internal hexagon at least capable of for a corresponding sized tool. Please note that hexagonal tool is not part of the claimed invention, however in order to expedite the prosecution, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., 19 mm in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the central axis is an axis of rotation Fig. 3, Gross or Wilson.
Regarding claim 15, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the convex surface formed between each of the lobe tips reflects a constant width Fig. 3 modified Gross.
Regarding claim 16, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein each of the lobe tips bisects one pair of parallel flat surfaces Fig. 3 Wilson.
Regarding claim 17, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, the pair of parallel flat surfaces extending along the central axis extend between the head and the base including a taper adjacent to the head Fig. 3 Wilson.
Regarding claim 18, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the convex surface 320 extends between a first flat surface 308 of the pair of parallel flat surfaces at a first lobe tip 314 and a second flat surface 310 of the pair of parallel flat surfaces at a second lobe tip Fig. 3 Wilson.
Regarding claim 24, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool handle of claim 1, wherein the body of the tool handle is configured to accept a palm of a hand, except for the tri-lobed pattern to be configured to receive a regular hexagon tool. Gross, discloses that the handle may be used in a tool for driving a screw e.g., [0021] without limiting the type of the screw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA for a tool configured to drive a hexagonal screw, since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borah (3,438,413).
PA (prior art, Gross modified by Wilson) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of 6, except for an internal square formed within the head, wherein the internal square extends along the central axis into the body.
PNG
media_image5.png
216
175
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Borah teaches a handle for a screwdriver having an internal square 22 formed within a head @ 28 extending along the central axis Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify
PNG
media_image6.png
408
168
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the modified invention of PA with the square internal hole as taught by Borah to adapt the tool handle for receiving different types of working ends for different applications.
Regarding claim 7, PA (prior art, Gros modified by Wilson and Borah) meets the limitations, i.e., except for disclosing for a first tip of the internal square is aligned with one of the lobe tips defines as part of the tri-lobed pattern. Borah discloses aligning the tips of the internal square with the four corners/apexes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA by aligning the square with the tips, as suggested by Borah to enhancing the transfer of torque, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikes, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruggeman (5,526,724).
PNG
media_image7.png
180
559
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Gross modified by Wilson) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of 9, except for the base to define a convex base.
Bruggeman teaches a screwdriver with a palm knob comprising a convex base 20 that fits into a worker’s palm Fig. 1, 03:23.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with the convex base as taught by Bruggeman to allow the screwdriver to be used to apply torque together with an axial force without blistering or injury to the worker’s palm.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sharpe (5,680,800).
PA (prior art, Gross modified by Wilson) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of 19, except for the body be a molded body formed about a support shaft. Although the method of forming a tool is not germane to the issue of patentability, Sharpe is cited.
PNG
media_image8.png
378
131
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
486
156
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Sharpe teaches a wherein the handle 12 that is injection molded around a support shaft 22, which also defines a socket for receiving a drive extension 50, 02:47-48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with the handle molded around an inner shaft defining a drive socket as taught by Beere as secure means of forming the handle around a shaft with a drive socket.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durrant (6,490,761).
PA (prior art, Gross modified by Wilson) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of 19, including for the base of the to be configured to accept an internal hex socket, Wilson 02:62-63, except for the body to be a metal body.
PNG
media_image12.png
216
324
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Durrant teaches a screwdriver, wherein the handle 12 may be constructed from any number of suitable materials, such as hard polymer or metal, 03:64. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with the metallic handle as taught by Durrant for strength and durability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a hand tool with a body configured with a lobe tip at each intersection of a tri-lobed pattern, a pair of parallel flat surfaces corresponding to each lobe tip of the tri-lobed pattern and extending along the central axis, an internal square formed within the head of the body and a convex surface formed between each of the lobe tips of the tri-lobed pattern, wherein a point of the plurality of points of the internal square aligns with one of the lobe tips of the tri-lobed pattern, together in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the newly recited feature that the modified tool of Grose and Wilson, is not configured to receive a hexagonal tool and the argument that there are no motivation or suggestions to modify the prior art tool to receive a hexagonal tool via engagement with the pair of parallel flat surfaces, are acknowledged but they are not persuasive. The tool of Grose modified by Wilson is already configured to receive a hexagonal tool via engagement with the pair of parallel flat surfaces. The claim language “the tri-lobed pattern is configured to receive” does not recite or require for the tool to comprise any extra element or structural features. The tri-lobe pattern with the parallel flat surfaces, similar to the instant application, is already configured to receive a hexagonal tool. The narrative/functional language is met by the tool as applied.
Prior art made of record, disclosing the use of hexagonal tool on a tool handle are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Korkowski, Condon and Rossini are cited to show related inventions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
May 1, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights