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 Objections
Claims 8 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: “said spring coupled” should be “said spring is coupled”.
Claim 16: “at least three void spaces” should be “wherein at least three void spaces are”
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, 6, 8, and 10-19 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 the ratcheting pawl is carried by the first arm. While this itself is fine, the last paragraph of the claim then states “a spring coupled to said first arm and said ratcheting pawl”. The combination of the two limitations is considered new matter as the spring in this scenario should be coupled to the second arm and the ratcheting pawl.” To expedite prosecution examiner will interpret as shown in Figure 3 for the purposes of art-based rejections.
Regarding claim 6, the claim has been amended to state “said thumb release having an engagement surface biased into contact with said lever portion”. Based on the disclosure as originally filed the thumb release claimed is member 110. Paragraph 38 and Figure 5 indicate the thumb release 110 is not directly attached to any member that will bias it in any direction and instead can pivot freely about thumb release rivet 120. While examiner agrees the thumb release is configured to be biased by a user to engage the ratcheting pawl, this is different than what the claim requires which is the thumb release to be actively biased via a structural connection. Therefore, the limitation is considered new matter. To expedite prosecution, examiner consider as shown in Figure 5 for the purposes of art-based rejections.
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 6, 8, and 10-19 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 6, the limitations “said lever”, in line 8, and “said pawl tooth”, in the 2nd to last line, lack antecedent basis. Examiner will treat the limitations as “a lever of said ratcheting pawl” and “said at least one pawl tooth” respectively.
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 1 and 2 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).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches (Figures 1, 5, 6) a hand tool having a first arm (30) pivotally coupled to a second arm (31). A ratcheting pawl (37) rotatable about a first pivot point (generally 64; Col. 3, lines 4-23) is carried by the first arm (30) and has a lever portion (87 and 88) and pawl teeth (81). A series of ratchet teeth (90) are selectively engaged with the pawl teeth (81). A switch (36) is engaged with said lever portion and it rotatable about a second 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). When the switch (36) is in the first position (Figure 5) the pawl teeth (81) are in engagement with the ratchet teeth (90). When the switch is in the second position (Figure 6) the pawl teeth (81) are disengaged from the ratchet teeth (90). This is accomplished via rotation of the ratcheting pawl (37) about the first pivot point (generally 64). Lee further teaches (Figure 4) the ratchet teeth (90) are carried by the second arm (31) that is rotatable about an arm pivot point (generally 34). Lee also teaches (Figure 4) the ratcheting pawl (37) and the switch (36) are carried by the first arm (30). Further, a spring (35) is coupled between first (30) and second (31) arms and about the arm pivot point (34; Col. 2, lines 33-40) to bias the arms into an open position when the pawl teeth (81) are disengaged from the ratchet teeth (90).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches (Figures 5 and 6) the switch (36) is slidably engaged with the lever portion (87 and 88) wherein manipulation of the switch causes the lever and the switch to slide relative to each other.
Regarding claim 1, Lee fails to teach the second pivot point is carried by the first arm and the spring being coupled to the ratcheting pawl.
Meyer teaches (Figures 1 and 2) a device having two arms (12 and 14) connected at an arm pivot point (16; Figure 1) The first arm (14) carries a ratchet pawl (40) pivotable about a first pivot point (42) and a switch (60) pivotal about a second pivot point (58) carried by the first arm.
Noniewicz teaches (Figures 15-18) it is known in plier type tools for both the ratcheting pawl (13) and the switch (17) to pivot such that both pivot points are within the handle (8) and wherein the handle pivots itself about an arm pivot point (generally 2). The switch pivots about a thumb release pivot point (within which 40 resides) carried by the handle (8).
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 for the switch 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) to 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 lever portion of 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.
Claims 6, 8, and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Meyer, 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) radially disposed thereon about the first pivot point (Figure 4). 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 third pivot point). The thumb release has an engagement surface (70) that is configured to be biased into contact with the ratcheting pawl. 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), having a coil (351) surrounding the first pivot point (Col. 2, lines 33-40) and first and second spring legs, is coupled between the first (30) and second (31) arms to bias the handles to an open position, wherein the first spring leg is engaged with the second arm (31) and the second spring leg is engaged with the first arm (30; Figure 1). The spring (35) is designed to urge the first arm to rotate relative to the second arm in an opening direction about the first pivot point when the at least one pawl tooth is disengaged from the plurality of teeth (Col. 2, lines 33-40).
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 a lever of 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 a 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to claim 6, Lee already discloses the spring (35), coiled about the first pivot point (generally 34) and having legs that extend into the first and second arms to bias the arms away from each other. Paragraph 1 of the Detailed description is explicit in this discussion. Further, Lee clearly sets forth in Figures 5 and 6 that the range of motion of the thumb release to go into a right-most cavity in member 37 to lock it in position as well as a rearward depression to maintain the ratcheting pawl teeth in a disengaged state (see modified Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the statement that the “biased spring biased to urge said ratcheting pawl to said thumb release disengaged position”, while Figure 12A does show a position of the thumb release being engaged with surface 166 and in what is considered a “thumb release disengaged position” claim 6 is not directed to specifically what is shown in Figure 12A. Engagement and disengagement have not been defined relative to engagement between surfaces 158 and 166, just broadly engagement and disengagement wherein examiner can interpret the thumb release engaged position to be that shown in Figure 5 of Lee and the thumb release disengaged position to be that shown in Figure 6.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 112(a) and the applicant’s request for allowability, applicant has amended the scope of claim 1 such that an art can now be applied
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights