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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8-11-25.
There does not appear to be any support that the elected embodiment (Fig. 1) incorporates the first and second lines of action and the instantaneous center of rotation. See specification new matter objection below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 19B has text that cannot be seen as it is blocked by shading.
PNG
media_image1.png
542
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The drawings are objected to because:
Since the labels in Figures 18A-20E are considered new matter (see objections below), items 17 and 18 need to be added to Figures 1-17.
In Figure 2, the upper left occurrence of item 12 should be deleted.
In Figures 3 and 7, the compression link is clearly shown and should be labeled as 13 in both Figures. There is no other view of the completed plier where 13 is labeled and link 14 is labeled in both of these Figures.
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.
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:
The first and second cutting edges, of claim 1
Labeling these items in the Figures overcomes the objection. If an item is important enough to claim, the item is important enough to be labeled in the Figures and discussed in the Detailed Description.
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.
Specification
The amendment filed 2-23-26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Labeling each of the Figures 18A-20E with the reference labels corresponding to Figures 1-17 is new matter. Using Figures 7, 15, and 16, compression link 13 is curved or C-shaped. Figures 21 and 22 directed to the non-elected embodiment show a straight compression link 113. Figures 18A-20E clearly show a straight compression link which corresponds with Figures 21 and 22 and not Figure 1. Without any support from the original specification, labeling Figures 18A-20E with the labels of the embodiment of Figures 1-17 is not supported and is new matter.
Labeling the structures in paragraph [0056] with the reference labels corresponding to Figures 1-17 is new matter. There is no support that the embodiment of Figures 1-17 has the described first and second lines of action and the instantaneous center of rotation. The only area of the original specification that links either of these phrases with a particular plier is Figures 28 and 30. Figures 28 and 30 list the phrase “instantaneous center of rotation” which has to be associated with the plier featuring the straight compression link (now listed as plier 100 which is non-elected). The Figure 1 embodiment has two total links with a curved compression link while the Figures 21 embodiment has 4 total links and two straight compression links. There is no evidence both versions would have the same lines of action and instantaneous center of rotation.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0052], the terms “compression links” and “tension links” appear to be incorrect. The word “links” should be “link” since there is only one of each.
The Detailed Description needs to be amended to include the limitations of claims 5-10 (that are not considered new matter) so that the specification provides proper support.
The specification does not appear to provide a clear understanding of Figures 18A-20E and 27-31. The Figures feature text (i.e. “Unknown Force Parallel to Jaw”, “Handle Velocity”, “Force Normal to Lower Jaw”, “Unit Force”, etc.) and numbers (i.e. 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120) that do not appear to be in at least the Detailed Description. How do these Figures correspond with Figures 21-26? Without a description, it is unclear what these Figures are showing.
While Figure 32 does have a dedicated portion of the Detailed Description, it is unclear how corresponds to the either of the pliers.
All text shown in the Figures needs to be included in the Detailed Description in a way that it is clear what the text means in relation to the pliers.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regards to paragraph [0055] and claim 5, the couplings of the compression link of claim 5 do not correspond with paragraph [0055]. Lines 3-4 of paragraph [0055] disclose one end of compression link 13 is connected to the top jaw 17 and the other end is connected to bottom jaw. Claim 5 discloses one end of compression link is coupled to the second handle. Another issue is the original specification fails to provide any structural insight on where the handle ends and the jaw begins. Paragraph [0055] is the only disclosure that is originally supported. Therefore, the disclosure that “the second end of the compression link being rotatably coupled to the second handle” is not supported and is considered new matter at this time.
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 5-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to claim 5, the terms “upper” and “lower” are indefinite as they are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The plier is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones where neither jaw is upper or lower. Terms that a true regardless of orientation must be utilized (i.e. first and second).
With regards to claim 5, both disclosures of “a handle extending from the jaw” are unclear as both handles extend from both jaws. As written, the respective handles and jaws are separate structures which is not supported. The specification clearly shows the respective handles and jaws are different parts of the same structure. The claim needs to acknowledge this relationship because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 5, the disclosure of a multi-bar linkage including a tension link and a compression link does not appear to be true. Link 13 and 14 are not parts of a single linkage as they are clearly spaced and utilize different pins 15 to attach to the jaws. It is unclear what structure defines the multi-bar linkage that comprises both links 13 and 14? Claim 5 needs to be amended to remove the multi-bar linkage disclosure and just disclose the tension link and the compression link.
With regards to claim 5, it is unclear what structure allows for the linkage or the links to “control relative motion of the jaws”. The user moves the jaws and therefore controls the motion of the jaws. Without the user, there is no motion for the links to control. It is unclear what motion is being controlled by the links. Further definition is needed. Claim 6 has the same issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second handle" on line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 6, it is unclear if the claim 6 control function represents the same or a different function than the claim 5 control function. As written, there are two different control functions performed by the linkage which does not appear to be supported.
With regards to claim 7, it is unclear what structure of the tension link defines the extension. The link is 3-dimensional and extends in all directions. Meaning the tension link extends parallel to the longitudinal axes as well. Further definition is needed. Claim 8 has the same issue with the extension of the compression link.
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 5-10 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (2006/0168820).
With regards to claims 5 and 6, Chen discloses the same invention including an upper jaw with a first cutting edge (left 312 in Fig. 2), a lower handle extending from the upper jaw (right 312 in Fig. 2), a lower jaw with a second cutting edge (right 312 in Fig. 2), an upper handle extending from the lower jaw (left 31 in Fig. 2), a multi-bar linkage rotatably coupled to the upper jaw and the lower jaw capable of controlling relative motion of the jaws and the cutting edges (upper 51 and lower 51 in Fig. 2), and the linkage having a tension link (upper 51 in Fig. 2) having a first end rotatably coupled to the upper jaw (left 53 in Fig. 2) and a second end rotatably coupled to the lower jaw (right 53 in Fig. 2) and a compression link (lower 51 in Fig. 2) having a first end rotatably coupled to the upper jaw (left 53 in Fig. 2) and a second end rotatably coupled to the second/upper handle (right 53 in Fig. 2 couples the lower 51 to the right 312 (lower jaw) which is a part of left 31 (lower jaw)).
With regards to claims 7-10, Chen discloses the tension link extend substantially perpendicularly relative to a longitudinal axis of the handles (upper 51 in Fig. 2), the compression link extends substantially perpendicularly relative to the tension link (lower 51 in Fig. 2 extends in a direction perpendicularly relative to the tension link because the compression link is 3-dimensional and extends in all directions), pins (53) to rotatably couple the tension link to the jaws (Fig. 2), and pins (53) the rotatably couple the compression link to the upper jaw and to the handle (Fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection is not specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (571)272-4502. The fax phone 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.
23 April 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights