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 .
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.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/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 11 recites the limitation "the auxiliary element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakeley US 941,476.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wakeley discloses a crowbar comprising: a grip (see annotated figure); a bar (B) comprising: a connective portion (B) connected to the grip (A and B); a bifurcated end (b, b’, b2) extending opposite to the connective portion; and a bent portion (b3) extending between the bifurcated end and the connective portion at an angle; and an auxiliary element (C) connected to the grip (via bar B) so that the auxiliary element is pivotable into contact with the bar (via pivotal connection B2 and C2).
As for claim 2, Wakeley discloses wherein the auxiliary element comprises an arched portion (bottom portion of C, see Fig. 2 and 4) for contact with the bar.
As for claim 5, Wakeley discloses a connector (B2, C2, D) for connecting the grip to the auxiliary element (C) and the bar (B).
As for claim 8, Wakeley discloses a crowbar comprising: a grip (A); and a bar (B) comprising: a connective portion (end of B) connected to the grip; a bifurcated end (b, b’, b2); and a bent portion (b3) extending between the bifurcated end and the connective portion at an angle (see Fig. 2).
As for claim 11, Wakeley discloses a connector (B2, C2, D) for connecting the grip (A) to the auxiliary element (C) and the bar (B).
As for claim 14, Wakeley discloses a crowbar comprising: a grip (A); a bifurcated end (b, b’, b2); and a bent portion (b3) extending between the grip and the bifurcated end at an angle.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 9-10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeley US 941,476.
PNG
media_image3.png
422
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 3, Wakeley discloses wherein the bent portion extending between the bifurcated end and the connective portion is at an angle (see annotated Figure 2 above) but does not specifically state wherein the angle is 95 to 145 degrees. However, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, through routine engineering to modify the angle of the ben portion from 95 to 145 degrees because Applicant has not disclosed that the stated angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the disclosed angle of Wakeley, and applicant' s invention, to perform equally well because both angles would perform the same function of providing leverage to remove an object and/or fastener from another object.
As for claim 4, Wakeley discloses wherein the angle is 105 to 135 degrees (see claim 3 rejection).
As for claim 9, Wakeley discloses the angle is 95 to 145 degrees (see claim 3 rejection above).
As for claim 10, Wakeley discloses the angle is 105 to 135 degrees (see claim 3 rejection above).
As for claim 15, Wakeley discloses wherein the angle is 95 degrees to 145 degrees (see claim 3 rejection).
As for claim 16, Wakeley discloses wherein the angle is 105 degrees to 135 degrees (see claim 3 rejection).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12-13 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakeley US 941476 in view of Mitchell US 281,110.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
502
176
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claims 6 and 12, Wakeley discloses a first fastener (E) for connecting the connector (B2 and C2) to the auxiliary element (C) and the bar (B). Wakeley further illustrates wherein the bar (B) is integrally connected to the grip (A). Wakeley does not specify a second fastener for connecting the connector to the grip. However, the use of connectors and/or tool holders for retaining a connection between a tool and a handle is well known in the tool art as evidence by Mitchell. Mitchell teaches tool having a grip (K), a tool head (G) having a bar (I) and a connector (A) for connecting the tool head to the grip. The connector (A) is provided with a first fastener (F) for connecting the connector to the bar (I) and a second fastener (L) for connecting the connector (A) to the grip (K). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the integral connector of Wakeley to a separate connector that includes a second fastener as taught by Mitchell as an alternative means of connecting the connector to the tool grip and tool.
As for claims 7 and 13, the modified Wakeley teaches wherein the connector (Mitchell, A) comprises a rear plate, a front plate and two lateral plates (Mitchell discloses tapered socket walls B, see pg. 1, lines 28-37) formed between the rear and front plates, wherein the first fastener (Mitchell, F) is connected to the lateral plates, wherein the second fastener (Mitchell, L) is connected to the lateral plates. The modified Wakeley does not specify wherein the second fastener is connected to the front and rear plates as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, through routine engineering, to modify the position of the second fastener to extend between the front and rear plates because Applicant has not specified that the position of the fasteners provides any advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem other than for securing the connector and tool to the grip. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the positioning of the first and second fasteners as taught by Mitchell and as claimed by Applicant to perform the same function of securing the tool to the grip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723