CTFR 18/147,529 CTFR 81244 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This office action is in reply to the response filed on April 13, 2026. No claims have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-12 and 21-26 are currently pending and have been fully examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-12, 21-24, and 26 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goehrig (EP 0549578, previously cited ) in view of Goehrig (WO 9842934, previously cited ) . In reference to claim 1, Goehrig discloses a clamping tool comprising: a lower jaw ( see figure below ); a first component ( 22 ) comprising: a first neck section ( see figure below ) extending from a first neck end ( see figure below ) to an opposing second neck end ( see figure below ), the lower jaw at the first neck end (F igure 1 ); a first cross over section ( see figure below ) extending upwardly from a first cross over end ( see figure below ) to an opposing second cross over end ( see figure below ), the first neck section at the first cross over end ( see figure below ); and a first grip section ( 28 ) extending from a first grip end ( see figure below ) to an opposing second grip end ( see figure below ), the first cross over section at the first grip end; an upper jaw, wherein the upper jaw is on an opposite side of a longitudinal axis (i.e. at 12 in Figure 1 ) of the clamping tool from the lower jaw; a second component ( 24 ) comprising; a second neck section ( see second figure below ) extending from a first neck end (see second figure below ) to an opposing second neck end ( see second figure below ), the upper jaw at the first neck end of the second component ( Figure 1 ); a second cross over section ( see second figure below ) extending downwardly from a first cross over end ( see second figure below ) to an opposing second cross over end ( see second figure below ), the second neck section at the first cross over end of the second component; and a second grip section ( see second figure below ) extending from a first grip end ( see second figure below ) to an opposing second grip end ( see second figure below ), the second cross over section at the first grip end of the second component ( Figure 1 ); a pivot joint ( 18 ) pivotably coupling the first component to the second component at the location at which the first neck section extends from the lower jaw and the second neck section extends from the upper jaw ( Figure 1 ), the first component and the second component pivoting with respect to each other about a rotational axis (i.e. rotation axis of 18 ) as the upper jaw and the lower jaw are moved between an open configuration in which the upper jaw and the lower jaw are spaced apart ( Figure 1 ) and a closed configuration in which the upper jaw and the lower jaw contact each other ( Figure 2 ); a first distance ( see third figure below ) along the longitudinal axis between the rotational axis and the second neck end of the first neck section when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration ( see third figure below ); and a second distance ( see third figure below ) along the longitudinal axis between the second cross over end of the first grip section and a center point ( see bold dot in third figure below ) at which the first cross over section crosses over the second cross over section when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration ( see third figure below ). PNG media_image1.png 467 703 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 424 721 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 341 683 media_image3.png Greyscale While, the drawings are not explicitly disclosed as being to scale, the examiner notes that Goehrig appears to show the same relationship (i.e. having the second distance being less than 50% of the first distance) between the first and second distances (see figure above). However, Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; the second distance is less than 50% of the first distance. However, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, the various ranges of the dimensions of the tool can all be varied or optimized ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 and claims 7 and 9 ) and thus are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions of the device changes the performance (i.e. the ability to reach into various narrow spaces , see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Goehrig device to have the second distance being less than 50% of the first distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a known component, as evidenced by Goehrig ‘934. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Goehrig with the second distance being less than 50% of the first distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Goehrig would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions indicated above and since the device is used for clamping in narrow spaces (see “ handling in narrow reinforcement cages… every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions can also vary in different embodiments (see specification paragraph 40, “In various embodiments, the second distance 43 is less than 50% of the first distance 42, and more specifically second distance 43 is less than 25% of the first distance 42, or more specifically second distance 43 is equal to 20% of the first distance 42.” ). In reference to claim 2, Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; the second distance is less than 25% of the first distance. However, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, the various ranges of the dimensions of the tool can all be varied or optimized ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 and claims 7 and 9 ) and thus are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions of the device changes the performance (i.e. the ability to reach into various narrow spaces , see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Goehrig device to have; the second distance being less than 25% of the first distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a known component, as evidenced by Goehrig ‘934. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Goehrig with the second distance being less than 25% of the first distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Goehrig would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions indicated above and since the device is used for clamping in narrow spaces (see “ handling in narrow reinforcement cages… every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions can also vary in different embodiments (see specification paragraph 40, “In various embodiments, the second distance 43 is less than 50% of the first distance 42, and more specifically second distance 43 is less than 25% of the first distance 42, or more specifically second distance 43 is equal to 20% of the first distance 42.” ). In reference to claims 3 and 7, Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; a third distance that is the entire length of the clamping tool along the longitudinal axis when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, wherein the first distance is at least 25% of the third distance. However, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, the various ranges of the dimensions of the tool can all be varied or optimized ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 and claims 7 and 9 ) and thus are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions of the device changes the performance (i.e. the ability to reach into various narrow spaces , see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Goehrig device to have; the first distance to be at least 25% of the third distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a known component, as evidenced by Goehrig ‘934. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Goehrig with the first distance to be at least 25% of the third distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Goehrig would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions indicated above and since the device is used for clamping in narrow spaces (see “ handling in narrow reinforcement cages… every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions can also vary in different embodiments (see specification paragraph 41, “the first distance 42 is at least 25% of the third distance 44 .” ). In reference to claims 4 and 5, Goehrig discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks specifically disclosing; a fourth distance between the first grip end of the first grip section and the second grip end of the first grip section along the longitudinal axis when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, and a fifth distance between the first cross over end of the first grip section and the second cross over end of the first grip section along the longitudinal axis when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, wherein the first distance is at least 50% of the sum of the fourth distance plus the fifth distance. However, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, the various ranges of the dimensions of the tool can all be varied or optimized ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 and claims 7 and 9 ) and thus are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions of the device changes the performance (i.e. the ability to reach into various narrow spaces , see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Goehrig device to have; wherein the first distance is at least 50% of the sum of the fourth distance plus the fifth distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a known component, as evidenced by Goehrig ‘934. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Goehrig with first distance is at least 50% of the sum of the fourth distance plus the fifth distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Goehrig would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions indicated above and since the device is used for clamping in narrow spaces (see “ handling in narrow reinforcement cages… every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions can also vary in different embodiments (see specification paragraph 43 disclosing, “In various embodiments, the first distance 42 is at least 50% of the sum of the fourth distance 38 plus the fifth distance 45 ” ). In reference to claim 6, Goehrig discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks specifically disclosing; a fourth distance between the first grip end of the first grip section and the second grip end of the first grip section along the longitudinal axis when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, wherein the second distance is less than 25% of the fourth distance. However, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, the various ranges of the dimensions of the tool can all be varied or optimized ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 and claims 7 and 9 ) and thus are considered as being a result effective variable in that changing the dimensions of the device changes the performance (i.e. the ability to reach into various narrow spaces , see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Goehrig device to have; wherein the second distance is less than 25% of the fourth distance, as it involves only adjusting the dimensions of a known component, as evidenced by Goehrig ‘934. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Goehrig with the second distance being less than 25% of the fourth distance, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of Goehrig would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions indicated above and since the device is used for clamping in narrow spaces (see “ handling in narrow reinforcement cages… every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ), the device would function appropriately having the claimed dimensions indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the dimensions can also vary in different embodiments (see specification paragraph 43 disclosing, “In various embodiments, second distance 43 is less than 25% of the fourth distance 38 .” ). In reference to claim 8, Goehrig discloses that when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, the first neck section extends downwardly from the lower jaw at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis ( see figure below ). PNG media_image4.png 267 627 media_image4.png Greyscale Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; the angle is less than 10 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle of the first neck section to be less than 10 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis would result in a difference in function of the Goehrig device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the angle of the first neck section of Goehrig, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended (operating in narrow spaces) being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle can be varied, “In various embodiments, angle A is less than 45 degrees with respect to longitudinal axis 25 , and more specifically is less than 30 degrees , and even more specifically is less than 10 degrees .” (see paragraph 29) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the first neck section relative to the longitudinal axis of Goehrig to have an angle to be less than 10 degrees, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In reference to claims 9 and 10, Goehrig discloses that when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, the first cross over section extends upwardly from the first neck section at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis ( see figure below ). PNG media_image5.png 284 628 media_image5.png Greyscale Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; the angle is less than 60 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first cross over section such that it extends upwardly from the first neck section at an angle less than 60 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis, would result in a difference in function of the Goehrig device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the angle of the first cross over section of Goehrig, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended (operating in narrow spaces) being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle can be varied, “In various embodiments, angle B is less than 60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis 25 , and more specifically is less than 50 degrees . In various embodiments, angle B is between 35 degrees 55 degrees , and more specifically is 45 degrees .” (see paragraph 30) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the cross over section relative to the longitudinal axis, of Goehrig to have an angle less than 60 degrees, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In reference to claim 11, Goehrig discloses that when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, the first neck section extends downwardly from the lower jaw at a first angle relative to the longitudinal axis and the first cross over section extends upwardly from the first neck section at a second angle relative to the longitudinal axis, and wherein the first angle is less than the second angle (i.e. depending on where the first angle is taken because the first angle becomes smaller as it moves leftward, see figure below ). PNG media_image6.png 286 628 media_image6.png Greyscale In reference to claim 12, Goehrig does not specifically disclose that; the first angle is less than half the second angle. However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the first angle such that it is less than half the second angle, would result in a difference in function of the Goehrig device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the first angle of Goehrig, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended (operating in narrow spaces) being given the claimed angles. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle can be varied, “In various embodiments, angle A is less than the angle B, and more specifically angle A is less than half of angle B.” (see paragraph 30) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first angle, of Goehrig such that it is less than half the second angle, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In reference to claims 21 and 26, Goehrig as modified by Goehrig ‘934 disclose the claimed invention as previously discussed above with respect to claim 1 and Goehrig further discloses that the longitudinal axis ( see broken line 12 ) runs from distal ends of the upper jaw and lower jaw to distal ends of the first grip end and opposing grip end ( Figure 2 ); wherein, when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, the first cross over end of the first cross over section, the opposing second neck end, the first neck section, the first neck end; and the lower jaw are on a first side (i.e. left side as shown in Figure 2 ) of the longitudinal axis ( Figure 2 ); and wherein, when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the closed configuration, the first cross over end of the second cross over section, the opposing second neck end, the second neck section, the second neck end, and the upper jaw are on a second side (i.e. left side as shown in Figure 2 ) of the longitudinal axis ( Figure 2 ). In reference to claim 22, Goehrig discloses that when the upper jaw and the lower jaw are in the open configuration ( Figure 1 ), a distance between distal ends of the upper and lower jaw is equal to a distance between the first cross over section and second cross over section at the location where the first cross over section extends from the first neck section and where the second cross over section extends from the second neck section, depending on how much the tool is opened. Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing a distance between distal ends of the upper and lower jaw to be equal to a distance between the first cross over section and second cross over section at the location where the first cross over section extends from the first neck section and where the second cross over section extends from the second neck section, would result in a difference in function of the Goehrig device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the distance between distal ends of the upper and lower jaw of Goehrig, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended (operating in narrow spaces) being given the claimed distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angle can be varied, “the distance 556 between the distal ends of the jaws 530, 536 is approximately 2 inches (see paragraph 51) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between distal ends of the upper and lower jaw, of Goehrig to be equal to a distance between the first cross over section and second cross over section at the location where the first cross over section extends from the first neck section and where the second cross over section extends from the second neck section, as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. In reference to claim 23, Goehrig discloses that the first component and second component do not form a mechanical connection to one another at the first cross over section and second cross over section ( Figures 1 and 2 ). In reference to claim 24, Goehrig discloses that the pivot joint is the only pivot joint coupling the first component and the second component ( Figures 1 and 2 ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 25, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goehrig (EP 0549578, previously cited ) in view of Goehrig (WO 9842934, previously cited ) and Goldmann, II (6024000) . In reference to claim 25, Goehrig discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks, the clamping tool being formed, at least in part, of forged steel. However, Goldmann, II teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form handles of pliers ( Figure 1 ) from forged steel (see Column 1, Lines 62-63 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of the handles, of Goehrig, with the known technique of forming handles of pliers from forged steel, as taught by Goldmann II, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that is stronger or more durable and/or that provides a cost-effective solution to premature wearing down of such a tool (Column 1, Lines 27-29) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that, “ First, the Applicant respectfully reasserts their arguments previously made .” The examiner has reviewed the previous arguments filed on 11/25/25 but note that most of the arguments are directed to a reference (i.e. Xu) that has not been used in the rejection above. Thus, any augment direct to Xu is considered moot. Furthermore, the only argument within the previously filed arguments on 11/25/25 that may be applied is the following below; “Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner overlooked an important limitation on the application of In re Aller to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art. In particular, "A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i .e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05(II)(B) (emphasis added). Further, as explained in MPEP 2144.05(III)(C), where "the disclosure in the prior art was insufficient to find a variable result-effective, there was essentially no disclosure of the relationship between the variable and the result in the prior art." MPEP 2144.05(III)(C).” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. As discussed in the rejection above, the examiner has provided adequate, articulated rationale explaining why the ranges of the dimensions of the tool are considered as being a result effective variable ( as evidenced from Goehrig ‘934 because the tool can be “manufactured in different sizes” see claim 7 ); why it would have been simple routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention (i.e. in order to reach into various narrow spaces, see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement ); and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range ( especially since the applicant fails to properly establish criticality for the claimed range ). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained. Applicant contends that, “Second, the Applicant respectfully asserts that the Examiner's reliance on the appearance of FIGS. 1-2 of Göhrig '578 "to show the same relationship between the first and second distances" is misplaced. Office Action, page 6. MPEP 2125 states that "[w]hen the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value." (citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. V. Avia Group Int'l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.")). The Examiner does not identify what portion of Göhrig '578 establishes that its drawings are to scale or otherwise demonstrates its dimensions .” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has not relied on Göhrig '578 as disclosing that the drawings are to scale but merely has stated that Göhrig '578 appears to show the same relationship (i.e. having the second distance being less than 50% of the first distance) between the first and second distances. This statement has merely been used for showing how generally close the structure of the device, of Göhrig '578 is similar to the structure of the current invention. However, it is the combination of Göhrig '578 and Goehrig ‘934 that provide the actual claimed range of parameters (i.e. distances). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained. Applicant contends that, “ Third, the Examiner cites to measurements, F, J, and H, from Goehrig '934 (See Office Action, pages 6-9); however, Applicant respectfully asserts that neither F, J, or H correspond to "a first distance along the longitudinal axis" or "a second distance along the longitudinal axis" as recited in independent claims 1 and 26. In particular, measurement J appears to be a measurement that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Goehrig '934, FIG. 1), which is in contrast to the first and second distance along the longitudinal axis in independent claims 1 and 26.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. In the rejection above, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar clamping tool ( 10, Figure 1 on page 9 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) that can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and incudes various ranges of the dimensions that the tool can be formed from ( see Figures 1 and 2 on page 3 of the translation of Goehrig ‘934 ) including dimensions that “can be produced in different lengths”, see claim 9). Thus, Goehrig ‘934 teaches that the dimensions of the tool are considered as being a result effective variable . The specific measurement (J) is moot because any of the measurements can be altered in order to more effectively reach into various narrow spaces (see following portion of translation, “ Starting from this prior art, the invention has for its object to provide a pair of binding pliers of the type mentioned, in which the disadvantages mentioned from the above-mentioned prior art are not present [i.e. “handling in narrow reinforcement cages or similar reinforcement arrangements is sometimes extremely difficult …” and “With such a pair of pliers, every construction site must be reached in the space occupied by the reinforcement” ). Therefore, the examiner maintains that the rejection above is proper and thus is maintained. Applicant contends that, “Finally, Goehrig '934 does not teach a pliers with a cross-over section. Rather, Goehrig '934 teaches a style of plier handles that appears to have abutting points that engage each other when the pliers are in the closed position, which appear in FIG. 1 to prevent handle cross-over. As such, Goehrig '934 does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the relative dimensions of the cross-over style plier handles of Göhrig '578 to result in the relative cross-over handle dimensions expressly recited in independent claims 1 and 26.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner believes the applicant is interpreting each reference individually rather than taking what each reference specifically teaches and applying that teaching into the combination and interpreting the combination as a whole. The fact that the device of Goehrig '934 includes “ abutting points that engage each other when the pliers are in the closed position, which appear in FIG. 1 to prevent handle cross-over ”, is moot, because Goehrig '934 has not been used for such a teaching. Rather, Goehrig '934 has been used for the teaching that a similar clamping tool can be “manufactured in different sizes” ( see claim 7 ) and includes various ranges of dimensions which can also be altered ( see claim 9 ). Thus, the combination as a whole meet the limitations of the claims therefore the examiner believes the rejection is proper and thus maintained. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2. 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 at 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. /ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 2 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 3 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 4 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 5 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 6 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 7 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 8 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 9 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 10 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 11 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 12 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 13 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 14 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 15 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 16 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 17 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 18 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 19 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 20 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 21 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 22 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 23 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 24 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 25 Art Unit: 3723 Application/Control Number: 18/147,529 Page 26 Art Unit: 3723
Prosecution Insights