DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, as well as the remaining claims 2-19 depending therefrom, the terms “force application angle” is unclear, not being a known term in the art, and also failing to be defined clearly in the application as a whole. Additionally, the limitation that the force application angle is reduced by half, is further unclear because there is no reference force application angle defined to clearly define that “half” would be. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations are considered to be intended to define the angle that the ratchet may turn between positions that are engaged by teeth of one of the pawls, and “half” is intended to refer to a ratchet with only a single pawl, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Further, the new limitation that the pawls form a “half-tooth differential through the set angle” is also unclear. Although the term “half-tooth differential” is disclosed in the specification, the term is not clearly defined and is also not a commonly known term in the art. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the teeth from the first and second differentially engage the ratchet (i.e. fully engage the ratchet at different times than the other pawl), and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (10,105,828) in view of Wu (2016/0229035).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a micro-action ratchet wrench, which at least comprises: a wrench (11), having a main hole (101) arranged thereon and a first arc surface (122) and a second arc surface (123), respectively, recessed in the wall surface of the main hole to form a first chamber and a second chamber corresponding to the main hole, wherein a first centerline of the first chamber and a second centerline of the second chamber intersect at a center of the main hole to maintain a set angle (offset by distance a, requiring a set angle between centerlines); a ratchet (20), having an outer connection portion (210) penetrated through the center thereof and an outer teeth portion (21) that is coupled to the main hole and is provided with n teeth surrounded the outer circumference thereof, two detents (31/32), each having pawls (defined by teeth 311/321) capable of engaging the outer teeth portion of the ratchet, wherein a first detent is installed in the first chamber and the second detent is installed in the second chamber; and two springs (41/42), defined as a first spring installed in the first chamber and a second spring installed in the second chamber, are used to actuate the corresponding first detent and the second detent, so that the pawls of the first detent and the second detent form a half-tooth differential through the set angle configuration to engage the outer teeth portion of the ratchet (in the same manner as best understood to be supported by the current application), reducing the force application angle of the wrench by half when changing teeth. However, Wang does disclose that the first and second chambers are offset by an amount such that one pawl will be engaged under force of rotation with the ratchet teeth, while the other is free to move away from the teeth, and vice versa (see Figs. 3 and 5) in the same manner as shown by the current application (Figs. 8A-8B). Additionally, Wang defines that the lateral angle offset may be defined by a number that is 0 and 360° divided by number of ratchet teeth and preferably includes a range of 2-6 (Col. 6, lines 20-42), wherein the offset shown to fully engage one pawl and fully disengage the other, would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be half way between the spacing of teeth on the ratchet (i.e. 3 degrees for a 6 degree tooth spacing found for a 60 tooth ratchet). Further, Wu defines a similar ratchet, also having a pair of angularly offset pawl teeth to engage more often than a single-pawl ratchet and teaches that the offset angle is defined by the equation 360°x(M+1/L)÷N, where L is an integer defining the number of cutouts , M is any proper integer and N is the number of teeth on the ratchet (paragraph 10), which effectively teaches that the offset angle may be multiplied by an angle of any integer M, to reach the desired effect of offsetting the pawls to alternatively engage the ratchet teeth. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the offset angle, as calculated by Wang, may be multiplied by any integer, as taught by Wu, including odd integers greater than 1, to reach the same results of offsetting the pawl teeth to alternatively engage the ratchet teeth. Even further, the teaching of Wang and Wu are both understood to teach that the offset angle between pawls and chambers for housing the pawls, are result effective variables, wherein the applicant has failed to provide any evidence of criticality or unexpected results for the spacing defined by the claimed equation (360/n)/2 x Odd Integer>1. Therefore, it further would have been obvious through routine experimentation to optimize the angle as taught by Wang and Wu to the most effective spacing under MPEP 2144.05, section II.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, and shown in Figs. 3 and 5 of Wang, as well as Figs. 6 and 8 of Wu, the offset angle between pawls provides structure that will allow the function when the wrench applies force or empty back to the ratchet with the first detent, controls the second detent and the second arc surface to maintain a movable clearance so that the second detent is suspended in the second chamber; when the wrench applies force or empty back to the ratchet with the second detent, controls the first detent and the first arc surface to maintain a movable clearance so that the first detent is suspended in the first chamber.
Regarding claim 3, Wang further discloses that the first detent and the second detent each have a front face matching the outer circumference of the ratchet, wherein the front face is protruded with pawls capable of engaging with the outer teeth portion of the ratchet, wherein the first detent and the second detent each have a back face opposite to the front face, wherein the back face has a left curved surface connected to the left end of the front face and extends from the left end thereof, and a right curved surface connected to the right end of the front face and extends from the right end thereof (as seen in Figs. 2, 3 and 5).
Regarding claims 5-7, Wang further discloses that the shapes of the first chamber and the second chamber are symmetrical, so that the radius and radian of the first arc surface and the second arc surface are the same, wherein the shapes of the first detent and the second detent are symmetrical (as seen in Figs. 2, 3, 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 9-11, Wang further discloses that the wall surface of the main hole is recessed with the first arc surface and the second arc surface at different heights (as seen in Fig. 2).
Claims 4, 8, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (10,105,828) in view of Wu (2016/0229035) as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view of Shih (11,325,226).
Regarding claim 4, Wang further discloses that the left half of the front face is protruded with pawls (teeth) capable of engaging the outer teeth portion of the ratchet, but fails to disclose an escape zone. Shih discloses a similar ratchet, also having a spring biased arc shaped pawl, and teaches that one half of the pawl includes teeth and the other half of the front face is defined as an escape zone not engaged with the outer teeth portion of the ratchet, and teaches that the escape zone allows for quick release of the teeth when the wrench is turned in a direction that the pawl will idle (Col. 4, lines 33-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the other (right) half of the pawl of Wang with a similar escape zone, as taught by Shih, to provide a similar quick release of the teeth when needed.
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Wang discloses the respective structure, as discussed for claims 5-7 and 9-11 above, respectively.
Regarding claims 17-20, Wang discloses the ratchet positioned within a main hole of a wrench head, as discussed for claim 1, secured on one side by an inner flange (124) arranged on the main hole and necked down the diameter thereof, but fails to disclose any structure for securing the ratchet within the head on the other side. Shih further discloses that the ratchet, also positioned within a main hole of a wrench head, is secured within the wrench head via a buckle groove (seen in Fig. 2) arranged on the main hole for installing a buckle ring (34), and a similar inner flange to Wang, wherein the ratchet is restricted in the main hole by the buckle ring and the inner flange, so that the ratchet is capable of rotating along the wall of the main hole. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the buckle groove and buckle ring disclosed by Shih is very well known, possibly the most common means for securing a ratchet within a wrench head for decades, and allows for easy assembly and disassembly if/when needed. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to secure the other side of the ratchet of Wang with the common and well-known buckle groove and buckle ring, as taught by Shih, to restrict the ratchet in the main hole by the buckle ring and the inner flange, so that the ratchet is capable of rotating along the wall of the main hole.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (10,105,828) in view of Wu (2016/0229035) as applied to claims 1-3, and further in view of Li (2019/0329383).
As discussed supra, Wang discloses that the recesses for the first and second arc surfaces are at different heights. Li discloses another similar ratchet wrench, also having a pair of pawls positioned in respective recessed arc surfaces, and teaches that the pawls are spaced apart from one another by approximately 180°, which will allow the pawls to be oriented at the same height. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the offset orientation taught by Li will allow for either larger pawls (in the vertical direction), which will increase the contact surface area and strength of the pawls or allow the ratchet to be designed with a shorter height (in the vertical direction as viewed in Fig. 4), which will allow the wrench to access smaller areas as needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to alternatively position the pawls and respective recessed arc surfaces of Wang on opposite sides of the ratchet, as taught by Li, to allow for larger pawls (in the vertical direction) or a shorter height for the ratchet.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (10,105,828) in view of Wu (2016/0229035) and Shih (11,325,226) as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Li (2019/0329383).
As discussed supra, Shih teaches the escape zone on the right half of the face (as discussed for claim 4), and Li teaches the alternative structure having the recesses with the first arc surface and the second arc surface at the same height (as discussed for claims 13-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant first argues (sections 8 and 9) that the “lateral angle offset” disclosed by Wang is different than the “radial angle” of the current invention. However, the offset shown by Wang, in a lateral direction, is offset along the outer arc of the ratchet, such that the offset will from a radial angle offset relative to the center line of the ratchet in the same manner as the claimed invention. The applicant continues the argument by merely showing the calculations set forth in the claim for a range of teeth and odd integers, with a general statement that the calculations somehow show crucial and unexpected results. However, the applicant does not provide any evidence that the claimed subject matter provides any critical or unexpected results over the prior art, whereas the similar calculations disclosed by Wang, and overlapping ranges, are still considered to make the claimed invention obvious. Although Wang does not use the terminology of “half-tooth differential”, the disclosure of Wang in view of Wu, as applied above is considered to reach the same structure as disclosed and claimed in the current application.
In section 10, the applicant argues that the equation provided by Wu is “completely different” than the claimed equation on the basis that Wu suggests the is any proper integer. However, although the disclosed range (any proper integer) would include even integers, the range would also include all odd integers greater than 1, as claimed, which is effectively providing a range for the “set angle” that would overlap the claimed range, and therefore make the range obvious as noted above. The applicant also suggests that the cutouts of Wu are different than the claimed chambers. While the examiner agrees that they are different, the examiner does not rely on the structure of Wu, but relies on Wang as the base reference, which does have chambers very similar to the claimed and disclosed chambers of the current application.
Therefore, the examiner maintains that the applied prior art makes obvious the pending claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Wu (2015/0165600) and Hansmann (DE 202009016520 U1) disclose wrenches having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
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 BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 9 December 2025