Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/218,594

SWITCH-POSITIONING DEVICE OF A RATCHET WRENCH

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 06, 2023
Examiner
SHAKERI, HADI
Art Unit
3723
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
62%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 62% of resolved cases
62%
Career Allow Rate
1119 granted / 1808 resolved
-8.1% vs TC avg
Strong +37% interview lift
Without
With
+37.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
67 currently pending
Career history
1875
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
46.0%
+6.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
19.7%
-20.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1808 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore “a head comprising…two bores in communication with the pothole (claim 1)” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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 3-5 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. Claim 3 recites for the two bores to be made on an arched pate, rendering the claim indefinite for eliminating a feature from the parent claim. A dependent claim can further limit the parent but cannot delete a feature earlier recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Able et al. (10,828,751 “Able”) Able discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a ratchet wrench comprising: PNG media_image1.png 462 378 media_image1.png Greyscale a head comprising a chamber 6, a pothole supporting switch 3, a channel not numbered supporting the pawls via which the chamber is in communication with the pothole Fig. 3, and two bores 31 in communication with the pothole Fig. 3, wherein the channel comprises two tapered sections corners and a broad section flat mid-section between the tapered sections; a toothed wheel 4 located in the chamber 13; a pawl coupled 10&20 movable between the tapered sections of the channel via the broad section mid-section; and PNG media_image2.png 399 348 media_image2.png Greyscale a switch 3 being pivotable in the pothole and comprising: a tunnel not numbered accommodating 7-9 with a first end in communication with the broad section of the channel Fig. 3 and a second end in communication with the pothole via 33, Fig. 3; PNG media_image3.png 536 342 media_image3.png Greyscale a detent 7 comprising a first end connected to the pawl and a second end movable in the tunnel Fig. 3; a spring 8 comprising a first end in contact with the second end of the detent Fig. 3 and a second end @9; and . a ball 33 comprising a first portion in contact with the second end of the spring Fig. 3 and a second portion insertable in a selected one of the bores 31 when the detent moves the pawl to a corresponding one of the tapered sections of the channel Figs. 3, 5. Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Able) meets the limitations, i.e., the ratchet wrench according to claim 1, wherein the bores 31 are made in a wall of the pothole Fig. 3. Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the ratchet wrench according to claim 1, wherein the detent 7 is a hollow element Fig. 8 for receiving a section of the spring. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 3 and 5, as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Able in view of Allen et al. (5,535,646 “Allen”). Abel as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 3, except for an arched plate located between a wall of the pothole and the switch, wherein the bores are made in the arched plate. Allen teaches a ratchet drive disclosing the use of wear plate 41, 04:43 or a wear washer 36 introduced between contacting elements to reduce wear, and further the wear washer 36 is provided with an opening to receive a corresponding extension 32, 03:53-55. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Able with a wear washer between contacting elements as taught by Allen to reduce wear and prolong the useful life thereof. Placing a wear plate provided with openings, as suggested by Allen, e.g., in the pothole around the switch to protect the switch and the interior wall, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, requiring routine experimentations with predictable results and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikes, 86 USPQ 70. Regarding claim 5, PA (prior art, Able modified by Allen) meets the limitations, i.e., ratchet wrench according to claim 3, wherein the switch 3 comprises a lever not numbered Able Fig. 7 extending over meeting the narrative/functional language of and hence keeping the arched plate in the pothole of the ratchet wrench. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Able in view of Hu (6,457,389). Abel as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 6, except for the detent 7 to comprises an end located out of the switch and restrained between two portions of the head on upper and lower sides of the broad section of the channel, thereby keeping the switch in the head. PNG media_image4.png 256 525 media_image4.png Greyscale Hu teaches a switching arrangement for a reversible ratchet wrench disclosing several embodiments including the embodiment of Fig. 2, wherein an end of the detent 61 is located outside the switch 50 urging against the pawl and restrained by the bridge 16 and bottom floor forming the channel 14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Able with the detent arrangement as taught by Hu for an alternative means of supporting the detent and urging the pawl. PNG media_image5.png 446 338 media_image5.png Greyscale Abel as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 8, except for the detent 7 to comprises a reduced end fitted in a section of the spring. Hu teaches a switching arrangement for a reversible ratchet wrench disclosing several embodiments including the embodiment of Fig. 13 partially shown above, wherein a pin 203 comprises a reduced portion 206 for receiving the spring 202. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Able with the detent and spring arrangement as taught by Hu for an alternative means of supporting the spring and urging the pawl. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 4, as best understood 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. Conclusion Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Chow and Over et al. are cited to show related inventions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Hadi Shakeri/ December 12, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 06, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600017
SPOUT SEPARATING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594659
FLUID-POWERED TORQUE WRENCH WITH FLUID PUMP CONTROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594795
TYRE SUPPORT DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564918
TOOL BIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552009
Tool
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
62%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+37.3%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1808 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month