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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed January 7, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 1. The previous 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “wherein each of the first gripping surface (3) and the second gripping surface (5) is at least as large as a user’s hand” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, the metes and bounds of what is required in the limitation is unclear since the claim is not providing any indication on how to measure or what is considered to be as large as a user’s hand (an adult’s hand would necessarily be larger than the a toddler’s hand), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be functional language met by the structure of the first gripping surface and the second gripping surface being capable of being to be dimensioned to be the size of a user’s hand.
Claims 2-4 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ilic (US Patent No. 5,606,772).
Regarding claim 1, Ilic discloses: a handle element (Figures 2 and 5-6 element 10 and see also col. 3, ll. 40-41) for receiving a handle (element 82) of a handle tool (element 80) which can be handled, having an adapter element (see figure 2 and 6 annotated below Detail A) for at least partially receiving the handle (see figure 2 and 6 annotated below showing the adapter element (Detail A) including element 54 which “slides over an end portion of the tool shaft” (element 82) as best shown in figure 6) and at least a first gripping surface (3) (see figure 2 annotated below Detail E) and a second gripping surface (5) (element 56), wherein each of the first gripping surface (3) and the second gripping surface (5) is at least as large as a user’s hand (The examiner indicates that the user’s hand and any associated structure is not part of the claimed invention (handle element). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses gripping surfaces including the first gripping surface (Detail E) and second gripping surface (element 56) with the handle element being utilized to be gripped by a user’s hand (see figures 5-6) and there is no structural difference or additional structure provided, thus the first gripping surface (3) and the second gripping surface (5) would be capable of being dimensioned to be is at least as large as a user’s hand.), wherein the handle element (1) has a front region (V) (see figure 2 and 6 annotated below Detail B) through a region facing the handle tool (see figure 6 annotated below), a middle region (M) (see figure 2 and 6 annotated below Detail C) and a rear region (H) (see figure 2 and 6 annotated below Detail D), wherein
a. the first gripping surface is arranged in the rear region (H) of the handle element (1) (see figure 2 annotated below) and extends away from a first imaginary extension (GL1) (see figure 2 annotated below X-X line) of the handle of the handle tool (ST) at an angle alpha (see figure 2 annotated below Detail F),
b. the second gripping surface (5) is arranged in the front region (V), in the middle region (M) and in the rear region (H) of the handle element (see annotated figure 2 below showing portions of the second gripping surface (element 56) arranged in the front/middle/rear regions (Detail B/C/D)) and extends from the handle of the handle tool (ST) (see annotated figure 2 below),such that a first distance (see annotated figure 2 below Detail G) of the second gripping surface (5) in the front region (V) to the first imaginary extension (GL1) of the handle of the handle tool (ST) is greater than a second distance (6) (see annotated figure 2 below Detail H) of the second gripping surface (5) in the rear region (H) of the handle element (1) to the first imaginary extension (GL1) of the handle of the handle tool (ST) (see figure 2 annotated below showing the first distance (Detail G) of the second gripping surface (element 56) is greater than the second distance (Detail H) extending in the rear region (Detail D) to the first imaginary extension (X-X axis ) of the handle), so that a longitudinal extension (see annotated figure 2 below Detail I) of a second gripping surface (5) assumes an angle beta (see annotated figure 2 below Detail J) to the a second imaginary extension (GL2) (see annotated figure 2 below X2-X2 axis),
c. the adapter element is disposed entirely in the front region and the middle region of the handle element with no part extending past the first gripping surface in the rear region (see figure 2 annotated below showing the adapter element (box of Detail A) disposed entirely in the front region (Detail B) and the middle region (Detail C) of the handle element with no part extending past the first gripping surface (Detail E) in the rear region (Detail D),
d. the first gripping surface forms a rear end (see figure 2 annotated below box of Detail K) of the handle element,
e. the second gripping surface merges into the first gripping surface at the rear end of the handle element with no protruding contour of the second gripping surface rearward of the rear end (see figure 2 annotated below showing portions of the second gripping surface (element 56) merges into portions of the first gripping surface (Detail E) with no protruding contour of the second gripping surface rearward of the rear end (see the surface of element 56 that gradually inclines towards the rear end (box of Detail K) and the contour only appears at the rear end of the first gripping surface (Detail E)),
f. the handle element has a lower portion (see figure 2 annotated below Detail L) disposed on the adapter element (see figure 2 annotated below) and a front end (see figure 2 annotated below Detail M) connecting the second gripping surface with the lower portion (see figure 2 annotated below showing the front end (Detail M) connecting portions of the second gripping surface (element 56) with the lower portion (Detail L)), and
g. the second gripping surface forms a continuous incline from the rear end to the front end (see figure 2 annotated below showing portions of the second gripping surface (element 56) forms a continuous incline (surface that gradually inclines starting at the right edge of the box of Detail M starting from the front end to the left edge of the box of Detail K of the rear end)).
PNG
media_image1.png
822
834
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
792
1032
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
642
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Ilic shows angles alpha/beta having angles (see figure 1 annotated above and further discloses “since other modifications and changes varied to fit particular operating requirements and environments will be apparent to those skilled in the art, the invention is not considered limited to the example chosen for purposes of disclosure, and covers all changes and modifications” (see col. 4, ll. 15-21). However, Ilic does not explicitly disclose the angle alpha is less than or equal to 90 degrees and the angle beta is greater than 0 degrees.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ilic to provide wherein the angle alpha is less than or equal to 90 degrees and the angle beta is greater than 0 degrees, since such modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the handle element with the claimed angle ranges would necessarily provide the predicable result of having an ergonomic handle that allows the user to grip the tool in a variety of different gripping positions (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to place any criticality on the claimed angle ranges provides any unexpected result, indicating simply that “This angle alpha is 90 degrees. Depending on the embodiment, it may also be smaller than 90 degrees.” (see specification page 7, ll. 10-12) and “The angle beta may be greater than 0 or less than 0” (see specification page 8, ll. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Ilic modified discloses: the handle element according to claim 1, wherein the first grip surface (3) and the second grip surface (5) are formed in one piece (see annotated figure 2 above showing the first/second grip surfaces (element 56 and Detail E) formed as one piece).
Regarding claim 3, Ilic modified discloses: the handle element according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping surface (3) and the second gripping surface (5) and the handle ST are formed integrally (see col. 3, ll. 4-5 where the prior art discloses the handle element (element 10) that includes element 11 “can be fabricated to be integral to be integral with a particular tool shaft”, thus element 10 (handle element) which also includes the first/second grip surfaces (element 56 and Detail E) is capable of being formed integrally with the handle ST).
Regarding claim 4, Ilic modified discloses: the handle element according to claim 1, wherein the first gripping surface (3) and the second gripping surface (5) and the handle ST are formed integrally together with the handle tool (see col. 3, ll. 1-5 where the prior art discloses “The hand grip device 10 comprises a hollow shaft 11 which is slid over the end of a shaft (not shown) of a utensil or tool. The hollow shaft 11 can be fabricated to be integral with a particular tool shaft; however, that limits the use of hand grip 10 only to that particular utensil”, thus element 10 (handle element) which also includes the first/second grip surfaces (element 56 and Detail E) and the handle ST is capable of being formed integrally together with the handle tool).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of the “Remarks”, applicant’s arguments regarding the newly presented claim limitations of claim 1 have been considered and addressed in the rejection above.
Lastly, on pages 6-7 the applicant argues that the handle of instant application is designed for short-handled tools that are operated with one hand such as files, rasps, saws, scraper blades, scrapers, and brushes. The applicant exerts that the prior art of Ilic is used for long handled tool that is used while standing and is not operated and comprises interfering contours prevent further grip positions.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the use of the handle element of Ilic being used for long handled tool and not short-handled tools, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, giving that the prior art of Ilic discloses the handle element including the claimed structure as shown in the rejection above and there is no additional structure or structural difference provided, thus the prior be capable of providing further grip positions and be utilized for short-handled tools that are operated with one hand. Thus, arguments have been found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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 at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723