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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on October 8, 2025. Claims 1, 6, 7, 14 and 19 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome. Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-14, filed October 8, 2025, with respect to amended claims 1 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1-22 has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 14-16 and 18-20 are Finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11590637 in view of Eggert et al. (2015/0135910).
In reference to claims 1, 14 and 15, U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose a fastener extractor (see claim 1) and dislodging tool apparatus comprising:
a torque-tool body (claim 1);
a plurality of engagement features (claim 1);
a plurality of gripping edges (claim 1);
the plurality of engagement features being radially positioned around a rotational axis of the torque-tool body (claim 1);
the plurality of engagement features being perimetrically connected around a base (claim 1) of the torque-tool body;
a gripping edge (claim 1) of the plurality of gripping edges, a channel cutting radius measured from the rotational axis to the gripping edge is less than a fastener radius (see claims 6, 13 and 21), wherein the gripping edge is a sharp point configured to cut a channel into a fastener parallel with the rotational axis of the torque-tool body (claim 1). The examiner notes the method claim 14 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claims 14 and 15 during normal operation.
U.S. Patent No. 11590637 lacks,
a cross section for each of the plurality of engagement features comprising a first slanted section, a hollow section, and a second slanted section;
the first slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section;
the second slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section;
the first slanted section and the second slanted section being oppositely positioned of each other about the hollow section;
the plurality of engagement features comprising an arbitrary engagement feature and an adjacent engagement feature;
the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature being connected to the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature at a gripping edge;
a channel cutting radius measured from the rotational axis to the gripping edge is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5% and
a cavity angle being delineated between the first slanted section and the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature, the cavity angle being acute.
However, Eggert et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket with a cross section for each of a plurality of engagement features (e.g. 402, 406, 404) comprising a first slanted section (see figure below), a hollow section (402), and a second slanted section (see figure below);
the first slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section (Figure 4);
the second slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section (Figure 4);
the first slanted section and the second slanted section being oppositely positioned of each other about the hollow section (Figure 4);
the plurality of engagement features comprising an arbitrary engagement feature (see figure below) and an adjacent engagement feature (see figure below);
the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature (see figure below) being connected to the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature (see figure below) at a gripping edge;
a cavity angle (see second figure below) being delineated between the first slanted section and the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second slanted section of Arbitrary engagement feature)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First slanted section of Arbitrary engagement feature )]
PNG
media_image2.png
388
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cavity angle)]
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 socket, of U.S. Patent No. 11590637, with the known technique of providing a socket with the engagement features and the cavity angle, as taught by Eggert et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile socket having inner surface geometries adapted to engage a flank of a fastener at a point away from a corner of the fastener thereby increasing the strength and life of the socket, reduces a risk of the fastener becoming locked or stuck in the socket, and reduces the risk of the fastener being stripped or the socket slipping on the fastener (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Eggert et al. do not specifically disclosing that the;
cavity angle is an acute angle.
However, the examiner notes that Eggert et al. do teach that angle (i.e. α4) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and by varying the angle (α4, especially because each slanted section can have a different angle α4) the cavity angle would also be varied.
In addition, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the cavity angle being an acute angle or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 range of the cavity angle such that it is an acute angle, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 (i.e. from Eggert et al.) disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not indicate the specific range of the cavity angle being an acute angle. Modifying the cavity angle, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 such that it is an acute angle, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Eggert et al. suggesting that the angle (α4 and thus the cavity angle) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 device.
Finally, U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not specifically disclose that the;
channel cutting radius measured from the rotational axis to the gripping edge is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the channel cutting radius being less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5% or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 channel cutting radius such that it is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 (i.e. from Eggert et al.) disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not indicate the specific range of the channel cutting radius being less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%. Modifying the channel cutting radius, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 such that it is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%, is well within the level of skill in the art, and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 device.
In reference to claim 2 and partially with respect to claim 18, Eggert et al. further disclose a gripping angle (α4a) being delineated between the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature and the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 3, Eggert et al. disclose that the gripping angle is between 90 and 150 degrees (i.e. 138.4 degrees, paragraph 42).
In reference to claim 4, Eggert et al. disclose that the plurality of engagement features further comprising an opposite engagement feature (see Figure 3 showing engagement features 302, 306, and 304 [similar to engagement features 402, 406 and 404 in Figure 4] being located on different sides of the fastener head 120. Note; these opposing engagement features would be similarly applied to the embodiment in Figure 4); and the first slanted section of the opposite engagement feature being connected to the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature at a gripping edge of the plurality of gripping edges (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 5 and partially with respect to claim 18, because Figure 4 does not show the complete circumferentially extending socket, the examiner has interpreted the middle protrusion below as being the adjacent engagement feature (note; this element was previously interpreted as including the arbitrary and adjacent features, see figure above) but it is being used below for reference with respect to an opposite engagement feature (see figure below), wherein a gap angle (see figure below) being delineated between the first slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature and the second slanted section of the opposite engagement feature; and the gap angle being obtuse.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Middle protrusion forming the adjacent engagement feature )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Another protrusion forming the opposite engagement feature )][AltContent: textbox (First slanted section of Adjacent engagement feature )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
472
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Gap angle)][AltContent: textbox (Second slanted section of an opposite engagement feature)]
Assuming arguendo that Eggert et al. lack specifically disclosing that the;
gap angle is an obtuse angle.
The examiner notes that Eggert et al. do teach that angle (i.e. α4) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and by varying the angle (α4, especially because each slanted section can have a different angle α4) the gap angle would also be varied.
In addition, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the gap angle being an obtuse angle or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 range of the gap angle such that it is an obtuse angle, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not indicate the specific range of the gap angle being an acute obtuse. Modifying the gap angle, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637, such that it is an obtuse angle, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Eggert et al. suggesting that the angle (α4 and thus the gap angle) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Eggert et al. device.
In reference to claims 6 and 19, Eggert et al. disclose that a length of the first slanted section being measured by a first distance; a length of the second slanted section being measured by a second distance; and the first distance being equal to the second distance, because portions (408 and 410) are disclosed as having lengths that are “substantially equal” to each other (paragraph 42). Assuming arguendo, that the lengths of portions (408 and 410) are not “exactly” equal to each other, 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., to make the first distance being exactly equal to the second distance, 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 reference to claims 7 and also 19, Eggert et al. disclose that portions (108 and 410) can have lengths that are “substantially equal” to each other (paragraph 42) thereby implying that portions (408 and 410) can have different lengths thus meeting the limitation of having a length of the first slanted section being measured by a first distance; a length of the second slanted section being measured by a second distance; and the first distance being greater than or less than the second distance. Assuming arguendo, that the lengths of portions (408 and 410) do not provide a first distance that is greater than or less than the second distance, 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., to make the first distance is greater than or less than the second distance, 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 reference to claims 8 and 20, Eggert et al. disclose that the first slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature is angularly offset (see bold lines in the figure on page 11 above) from the second slanted section of the opposite engagement feature (see figure on page 11 above).
In reference to claim 9, Eggert et al. disclose that the torque-tool body is outwardly extended (i.e. at least radially) from a cross section of the plurality of engagement features (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 10, Eggert et al. disclose that the first slanted section, the second slanted section, and the gripping edge are configured to simultaneously engage a fastener and the torque-tool body is configured to rotate the fastener (see Figure 3 but is the same in Figure 4).
In reference to claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose applying percussion blows to the torque-tool body to further engage the torque-tool body with the fastener (claim 8).
In further reference to claim 18, Eggert et al. disclose a gripping angle (α4a) being delineated between the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature and the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature (Figure 4), the gripping angle is obtuse (i.e. 138.4 degrees, paragraph 42).
Claims 11 and 21 are Finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11590637 in view of Eggert et al. (2015/0135910) and Fu (2004/0093996).
In reference to claims 11 and 21, U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack disclosing that the socket includes;
a top flat surface;
a top chamfered surface;
the top flat surface and the top chamfered surface being radially delineated by the plurality of engagement features;
the top flat surface being perimetrically connected around the top chamfered surface; the top flat surface being positioned parallel to a top surface of the base;
the top chamfered surface being angularly positioned to the top flat surface; and
the top chamfered surface being oriented towards the top surface of the base.
However, Fu teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket including;
a top flat surface (see figure below);
a top chamfered surface (14);
the top flat surface and the top chamfered surface being radially delineated by a plurality of engagement features (15);
the top flat surface being perimetrically connected around the top chamfered surface; the top flat surface being positioned parallel (see dotted lines below) to a top surface of the base (see figure below);
the top chamfered surface being angularly positioned to the top flat surface (Figure 1); and
the top chamfered surface being oriented towards the top surface of the base (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
668
690
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 socket, of U.S. Patent No. 11590637, with the known technique of providing a socket with the top flat surface and the top chamfered surface, as taught by Fu, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively facilitates alignment with the fastener (paragraph 8).
Claims 13 and 22 are Finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 13 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11590637 in view of Eggert et al. (2015/0135910) and Shoup (6092279).
In reference to claims 13 and 22, U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose a release bolt; a threaded opening (claim 1), but lack,
the threaded opening concentrically traversing through the base;
the release bolt comprising a bottom section, a threaded shaft section, and a driver section;
the release bolt being threadedly engaged with the threaded opening, opposite the plurality of engagement features; and
the release bolt being configured to press a fastener away from the torque- tool body.
However, Shoup teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (12) with;
a release bolt (16);
a threaded opening (14);
the threaded opening concentrically traversing through the base (Figures 2-4) ;
the release bolt comprising a bottom section (26b), a threaded shaft section (16a), and a driver section (16b, Figure 2);
the release bolt being threadedly engaged with the threaded opening, opposite a plurality of engagement features (30/32, Figures 3 and 4); and
the release bolt being configured to press a fastener away from the torque- tool body (Column 4, Lines 39-58).
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 socket, of U.S. Patent No. 11590637, with the known technique of providing a socket with the release bolt comprising the bottom section, the threaded shaft section, and the driver section, as taught by Shoup, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively removes various sized workpieces (i.e. bearing) from a shaft (Column 1, Lines 58-61 and/or Column 4, Line 39).
Claims 1-11, 13-15 and 18-22 are also Finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11897099 in view of Eggert et al. (2015/0135910).
In reference to claims 1, 14 and 15, U.S. Patent No. 11897099 disclose a fastener extractor (see claim 1) and dislodging tool apparatus comprising:
a torque-tool body (claim 1);
a plurality of engagement features (claim 1);
a plurality of gripping edges (claim 1);
the plurality of engagement features being radially positioned around a rotational axis of the torque-tool body (claim 1);
the plurality of engagement features being perimetrically connected around a base (claim 1) of the torque-tool body;
a cross section for each of the plurality of engagement features comprising a first slanted section, a hollow section, and a second slanted section (claim 1);
the first slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section (claim 1);
the second slanted section being terminally connected to the hollow section (claim 1);
the first slanted section and the second slanted section being oppositely positioned of each other about the hollow section (claim 1);
the plurality of engagement features comprising an arbitrary engagement feature and an adjacent engagement feature (claim 1);
the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature being connected to the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature at a gripping edge of the plurality of gripping edges (claim 1);
a gripping edge (claim 1) of the plurality of gripping edges, a channel cutting radius measured from the rotational axis to the gripping edge is less than a fastener radius (see claims 6, 13 and 21), wherein a channel cutting radius is measured from the rotational axis to the gripping edge (claim 6), wherein the gripping edge is a sharp point configured to cut a channel into a fastener parallel with the rotational axis of the torque-tool body (claim 1). The examiner notes the method claim 14 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claims 14 and 15 during normal operation.
U.S. Patent No. 11897099 lacks,
specifically disclosing that the channel cutting radius…is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%; and
a cavity angle being delineated between the first slanted section and the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature, the cavity angle being acute.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the channel cutting radius being less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5% or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 channel cutting radius such that it is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11897099 (i.e. from Eggert et al.) disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11897099 do not indicate the specific range of the channel cutting radius being less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%. Modifying the channel cutting radius, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11897099 such that it is less than a fastener radius by approximately 1-5%, is well within the level of skill in the art, and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of modified U.S. Patent No. 11897099 device.
In addition, Eggert et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket with a cavity angle (see second figure below) being delineated between the first slanted section and the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second slanted section of Arbitrary engagement feature)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First slanted section of Arbitrary engagement feature )]
PNG
media_image2.png
388
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cavity angle)]
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 socket, of U.S. Patent No. 11590637, with the known technique of providing a socket with the engagement features and the cavity angle, as taught by Eggert et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile socket having inner surface geometries adapted to engage a flank of a fastener at a point away from a corner of the fastener thereby increasing the strength and life of the socket, reduces a risk of the fastener becoming locked or stuck in the socket, and reduces the risk of the fastener being stripped or the socket slipping on the fastener (see Abstract).
Furthermore, Eggert et al. do not specifically disclosing that the;
cavity angle is an acute angle.
However, the examiner notes that Eggert et al. do teach that angle (i.e. α4) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and by varying the angle (α4, especially because each slanted section can have a different angle α4) the cavity angle would also be varied.
In addition, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the cavity angle being an acute angle or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 range of the cavity angle such that it is an acute angle, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 (i.e. from Eggert et al.) disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not indicate the specific range of the cavity angle being an acute angle. Modifying the cavity angle, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 such that it is an acute angle, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Eggert et al. suggesting that the angle (α4 and thus the cavity angle) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 device.
In reference to claim 2 and partially with respect to claim 18, Eggert et al. further disclose a gripping angle (α4a) being delineated between the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature and the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 3, Eggert et al. disclose that the gripping angle is between 90 and 150 degrees (i.e. 138.4 degrees, paragraph 42).
In reference to claim 4, Eggert et al. disclose that the plurality of engagement features further comprising an opposite engagement feature (see Figure 3 showing engagement features 302, 306, and 304 [similar to engagement features 402, 406 and 404 in Figure 4] being located on different sides of the fastener head 120. Note; these opposing engagement features would be similarly applied to the embodiment in Figure 4); and the first slanted section of the opposite engagement feature being connected to the second slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature at a gripping edge of the plurality of gripping edges (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 5 and partially with respect to claim 18, because Figure 4 does not show the complete circumferentially extending socket, the examiner has interpreted the middle protrusion below as being the adjacent engagement feature (note; this element was previously interpreted as including the arbitrary and adjacent features, see figure above) but it is being used below for reference with respect to an opposite engagement feature (see figure below), wherein a gap angle (see figure below) being delineated between the first slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature and the second slanted section of the opposite engagement feature; and the gap angle being obtuse.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Middle protrusion forming the adjacent engagement feature )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Another protrusion forming the opposite engagement feature )][AltContent: textbox (First slanted section of Adjacent engagement feature )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arc][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
472
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Gap angle)][AltContent: textbox (Second slanted section of an opposite engagement feature)]
Assuming arguendo that Eggert et al. lack specifically disclosing that the;
gap angle is an obtuse angle.
The examiner notes that Eggert et al. do teach that angle (i.e. α4) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and by varying the angle (α4, especially because each slanted section can have a different angle α4) the gap angle would also be varied.
In addition, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the gap angle being an obtuse angle or that this particular range provides any Unexpected Result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, 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 range of the gap angle such that it is an obtuse angle, since it has been 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” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 disclose a substantially identical fastener extractor to that of applicant where the only difference is modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637 do not indicate the specific range of the gap angle being an acute obtuse. Modifying the gap angle, of modified U.S. Patent No. 11590637, such that it is an obtuse angle, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Eggert et al. suggesting that the angle (α4 and thus the gap angle) can be varied (see paragraph 42) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Eggert et al. device.
In reference to claims 6 and 19, Eggert et al. disclose that a length of the first slanted section being measured by a first distance; a length of the second slanted section being measured by a second distance; and the first distance being equal to the second distance, because portions (408 and 410) are disclosed as having lengths that are “substantially equal” to each other (paragraph 42). Assuming arguendo, that the lengths of portions (408 and 410) are not “exactly” equal to each other, 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., to make the first distance being exactly equal to the second distance, 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 reference to claims 7 and also 19, Eggert et al. disclose that portions (108 and 410) can have lengths that are “substantially equal” to each other (paragraph 42) thereby implying that portions (408 and 410) can have different lengths thus meeting the limitation of having a length of the first slanted section being measured by a first distance; a length of the second slanted section being measured by a second distance; and the first distance being greater than or less than the second distance. Assuming arguendo, that the lengths of portions (408 and 410) do not provide a first distance that is greater than or less than the second distance, 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., to make the first distance is greater than or less than the second distance, 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 reference to claims 8 and 20, Eggert et al. disclose that the first slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature is angularly offset (see bold lines in the figure on page 11 above) from the second slanted section of the opposite engagement feature (see figure on page 11 above).
In reference to claim 9, Eggert et al. disclose that the torque-tool body is outwardly extended (i.e. at least radially) from a cross section of the plurality of engagement features (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 10, Eggert et al. disclose that the first slanted section, the second slanted section, and the gripping edge are configured to simultaneously engage a fastener and the torque-tool body is configured to rotate the fastener (see Figure 3 but is the same in Figure 4).
In reference to claims 11 and 21, U.S. Patent No. 11897099 further disclose;
a top flat surface (claim 7);
a top chamfered surface (claim 7);
the top flat surface and the top chamfered surface being radially delineated by the plurality of engagement features (claim 7);
the top flat surface being perimetrically connected around the top chamfered surface; the top flat surface being positioned parallel to a top surface of the base (claim 7);
the top chamfered surface being angularly positioned to the top flat surface (claim 7); and
the top chamfered surface being oriented towards the top surface of the base (claim 7).
In reference to claims 13 and 22, U.S. Patent No. 11897099 further disclose;
a release bolt (claim 7); a threaded opening (claim 7); the threaded opening concentrically traversing through the base (claim 7); the release bolt comprising a bottom section, a threaded shaft section, and a driver section (claim 7); the release bolt being threadedly engaged with the threaded opening, opposite the plurality of engagement features (claim 7); and the release bolt being configured to press a fastener away from the torque-tool body (claim 7).
In further reference to claim 18, Eggert et al. disclose a gripping angle (α4a) being delineated between the first slanted section of the arbitrary engagement feature and the second slanted section of the adjacent engagement feature (Figure 4), the gripping angle is obtuse (i.e. 138.4 degrees, paragraph 42).
Claim 16, is also Finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11897099 in view of Eggert et al. (2015/0135910) and Brase (3913427).
In reference to claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 11897099 disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack the step of,
applying percussion blows to the torque-tool body to further engage the torque-tool body with the fastener.
However, Brase teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the step of applying percussion blows (i.e. from the “suitable hammer”) to a torque-tool body (30) to further engage the torque-tool body with a fastener (Column 4, Lines 11-15).
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 socket, of U.S. Patent No. 11897099, with the known technique of providing a socket that includes the method step of applying percussion blows to the socket/torque-tool body, as taught by Brase, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased gripping force (Column 4, Lines 14-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12, is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 17, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention pertains to a fastener extractor and dislodging tool. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing; a sliding hammer; the sliding hammer comprising a hammer body and a hammer shaft; the hammer body comprising a through aperture; the hammer shaft comprising a shaft head portion, a central shaft portion, and a threaded shaft portion; the aperture of the hammer body engaged with the central shaft portion of the hammer shaft; the threaded shaft portion engaged with the torque-tool body; and the sliding hammer being configured to apply percussion blows to the torque-tool body to further engage the torque-tool body with the fastener (as in claims 12 and 17), together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined a channel cutting radius in claims 1 and 14.
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 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