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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 10/24/2025 has been reviewed and included with this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 8 and 9 of the claim it appears the phrase “said second arm selectively disengaged with” should be amended to “said second arm selectively disengages with” or “said second arm is configured to selectively disengage with” or similar. 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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to state: 1) (line 4) the ratcheting pawl (150) is carried by the second arm, and 2) (line 8) the switch (110) is carried by the first arm which also carries the ratchet teeth (line 15). As can be clearly seen in Figure 3, both the ratcheting pawl (150) and switch (110) are carried by the same arm and the ratchet teeth are carried by the other arm. In addition, the claim now states the switch is carried by both the first arm (line 8) and the second arm (line 16). There is no disclosure regarding these updated arrangements. As such it is considered new matter.
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 1-3 and 18 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, there are numerous issues with respect to the first and second arms and the locations of the pawl and switch. For example, line 8 indicates the switch (110) is carried by the first arm and then indicates in line 16 that it is carried by “a second arm”.
Regarding claim 1, and the recitation of “pawl and said switch carried by a second arm” in line 16, lines 3 and 4 of the claim already sets forth the second arm and indicates the pawl is carried the second arm. Therefore it is unclear in line 16 whether an additional 3rd arm is being claimed.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “a first arm” and “an arm pivot point” are unclear because both features have already been claimed in claim 1. Further, because the ratchet teeth are on the first arm and claim 1 already indicates first arm rotates about the arm pivot point it does not appear claim 3 further limits claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, because claim 18 is not dependent of claim 17 it is unclear when claiming “a second side” whether a first side is inherently required or if “a second side” is exclusively a naming convention.
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 6, 8, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US Patent No. 6,336,386) in view of Meyer (U.S Patent No. 2,505,564) and Noniewicz et al (US Patent No 6,708,587), hereinafter Noniewicz, and Lawson (US Patent No. 3,890,858).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches a hand tool (Figures 1-6) having a first arm (30) pivotally coupled to a first pivot point (generally 34) and a second arm (31) coupled to the first pivot point. The second arm has arm teeth (90) disposed thereon. The first arm (30; Figures 5 and 6) pivotally carries a ratcheting pawl (37; Col. 3, lines 4-23) about a second pivot point (generally 64). The ratcheting pawl has teeth (81). The first arm also carries a thumb release (36) that pivots about a third pivot point (Figures 5 and 6 identify the shape of the handle is curved which would cause the switch (36) to rotate about an axis of rotation that can be considered a second pivot point). The second arm teeth (90) are configured to selectively disengage with the pawl teeth (81) upon rotation of the thumb release about the third pivot point by the ratcheting pawl rotating about the second pivot point (Figures 5 and 6). The ratcheting pawl (37; Figures 5 and 6) movable between a thumb release engaged position characterized by engagement between the pawl teeth and the second arm teeth and a thumb release disengaged position characterized by disengagement between the pawl teeth and the second arm teeth. A spring (35) is coupled between the first (30) and second (31) arms to bias the handles to an open position. The (35) spring is considered coupled to the second arm and the ratcheting pawl since it is attached to pivot shaft 34 and pivot shaft 34 is attached to the first arm, and therefore the pawl, and the second arm. Direct coupling has not been claimed. However to expedite prosecution examiner has provided a rejection below for direct coupling.
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches there are a plurality of second arm teeth (90) and the pawl teeth (81) engage a first of the second arm teeth when proximal end portions a second of the second arm teeth in response to the arms pivoting closer together. Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches (Figure 1) the first (30) and second (31) arms each have an overlying relationship with one another as each blocks the other from view at specific angles.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches (Figure 1) both the first (30) and second (31) arms are formed of flat material.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches (Figure 1) each of the first (30) and second (31) arms has a contact point (33).
Regarding claims 12 and 16 Lee teaches (Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 51-67) first and second voids (holding 34 and 64) that receive the first and second pivot points.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Lee teaches (Figures 1 and 4) the pawl (37) is carried on a first side of the first arm (any interior wall of the first arm 30) disposed towards the second arm (31). Lee additionally teaches the thumb release (36) is disposed on a second side of the first arm (any exterior surface of 30) disposed away from the second arm (31).
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches (Figures 1 and 4) the pawl (37) is carried on a second side of the first arm (any interior wall of the first arm 30) disposed towards the second arm (31). Lee additionally teaches the thumb release (36) is disposed on a first side of the first arm (any exterior surface of 30) disposed away from the second arm (31).
Regarding claims 6, 8, 12, and 16 Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the third pivot point being disposed on the first arm such that there is a void space created for the third pivot point, wherein the ratcheting pawl has a rivet clearance surface with the third pivot point being at least partially surrounded by the surface and the third pivot point being in a third void in the first arm for receiving the third pivot point and the spring directly coupled the second arm and to the ratcheting pawl, specifically the spring being coupled to a void formed in the ratcheting pawl.
Meyer teaches (Figures 1 and 2) a device having two arms (12 and 14) connected at a first pivot point (16; Figure 1) The first arm (14) carries a ratchet pawl (40) pivotable about a second pivot point (42) and a thumb release (60) pivotal about a third pivot point (58) disposed in a void in the first arm.
Noniewicz teaches (Figures 15-18) it is known for both the ratcheting pawl (13) and the thumb release (17) to pivot such that both pivot points are within the handle (8) and wherein the handle pivots itself about another first pivot point (generally 2). The thumb release pivots about a third pivot point within a third void (within which 40 resides) of the handle (8). This third pivot point is surrounded by a surface (surface of 37, 37’, and 37”) of the ratcheting pawl (13). A second pivot point resides within a second void (void within which 19 resides) wherein the ratcheting pawl (13) pivots about this pin.
Lee, Meyer, and Noniewicz disclose that it is within the level of ordinary skill to select a pivot point location for a compressing/clamping device having pivotal handles at locations both on and off the first arm in order to engage a ratchet pawl effectively to clamp and/or allow movement of the handles relative to each other and place this pivot point within a void in the first handle. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try any known pivot location/construction that allowed for effective engagement and disengagement of the ratchet pawl with the teeth on the second arm as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp.
Noniewicz teaches (Figure 8) it is old and well known to have the arm (25) of an expanding spring (26) biasing two handles (6 and 8) directly couple and extend through the lever portion (23) of the pawl (13) which allows for better ratchet engagement between teeth to hold the handles in a desired orientation (Col. 4, lines 63-67 and Col. 5, lines 1-21).
It would have been obvious to have modified the device of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Noniewicz and have the spring extend through the ratcheting pawl as doing so would help promote engagement between the teeth of the pawl and the teeth of the second arm thereby better securing the arms relative to each other when locked in place.
Lawson teaches (Figure 1; Col. 2, lines 40-52) it is known when utilizing a spring (36) that is disposed about a pivot pin to bias two arms apart to directly couple the end of the spring (36) to the arm that does not include locking/ratchet means via an aperture (42) of an arm (14) to anchor the spring in place.
It would have been obvious to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Lawson to directly couple the end of the spring engaging the second arm via an aperture. This would help anchor the spring in place within the arm and prevent any unwanted movement.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Lee, as applied to claim 6, in further view of Chow (US Patent No 5,850,768).
The modified device of Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the second arm having a stop shoulder and wherein a surface of the ratcheting pawl is urged towards the stop shoulder when not in engagement with the teeth by the thumb release.
Chow teaches (Figure 4) it is known to orient a ratcheting pawl (45) such that when engaged by a thumb release (334) to move out of engagement with the teeth (302) of a second arm (30) the ratcheting pawl engages a stop shoulder (generally 451 in Figure 4) if the second arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Lee to incorporate the teachings of Chow to orient the pawl to engage a shoulder of the second arm when not in engagement with the teeth as doing so would identify to a user when the pawl was completely out of engagement to allow for free movement of the first and second handles.
Claimed subject matter
Claims 1-3 are considered to read over the prior art of record because the prior art of record does not teach the claimed combination of features according to claim 1 including the pawl and the switch being located on different handles, the switch being located on the same handle as the ratchet teeth, and the switch carried on both the first and second arms. However, these claims cannot be considered “allowable” at this time due to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, upon the claims being rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in this Office Action, further consideration of these claims with respect to the prior art will be necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of claim 6, applicant has argued (page 10 of the remarks) the references do not teach the spring biasing/urging the pawl to the thumb release disengaged position wherein the disengaged position is characterized by disengagement between the pawl teeth and the teeth of the second arm. This statement itself appears to be inaccurate in its characterization of the disengaged position. Specifically, as seen in Figure 12a and discussed in paragraph 30 of applicant’s specification, the torsion spring (140) is designed to bias the handles away from one another. In the thumb release disengaged position (Figure 12A) this bias will force the pawl teeth into engagement with the second arm which is opposite to the statement made in the remarks. As seen in Figure 12B the thumb release must be engaged to trigger detachment between the pawl teeth and the teeth of the second arm and overcome the bias of the spring.
For the purposes of the rejection examiner has characterized the interaction in reverse, wherein in the “engaged” position refers to the pawl and arm teeth are engaged with each other as a result of the bias of the spring. Examiner has therefore interpreted the “disengaged position” to be when a user is actively forcing the thumb release into engagement with the pawl to overcome the bias of the spring to disengage the teeth of the pawl from the teeth of the arm.
Regarding any arguments directed to Lawson, the reference is only currently utilized to indicated it is known to directly couple, via an anchor point, a spring to an arm and not to discuss any specific connection with a pawl or actuation element. Anchoring a spring to prevent the spring from inadvertent movement is within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu (US Publication No. 20080041198), Lin (US Patent No. 6,745,441), Ping (US Patent No. 6,711,789), Chow (US Patent No. 5,660,089), Anderson (US Patent No. 4,621,401), Aucoin (US Patent No. 4,563,833), Kubokawa (US Patent No. 3,619,890), and Ericson (US Patent No. 3,013,456) teach elements of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723