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 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 1-10 are finally 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.
Amended claim 1, requires for the friction faces to be level with each the six faces without protruding from each of the six faces, rendering the claim objectionable. Although, Examiner’s position regarding this feature, as explained below in response to Applicant’s argument, is that typically such friction faces are formed by grooves in the engaging blade of a screwdriver. Grooves do not form projection from the face of the blade, rather depression on the face, subsequently there would be no protrusions. However, since applicant is arguing for this feature for patentability, Applicant is required to point out the support for this feature in the disclosure as originally filed. Please note that reliance on the drawings alone, would not provide sufficient support, same as in prior art grooved blades. Applicant is required to point out the support for this feature without adding new matter or cancel this feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowins (6,009,862) in view of Kuter-Arnebeck (11,541,516) and Lin (8,955,415).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mowins meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a hex wrench structure comprising:
a main body; and
a
the main body has an L-shaped profile Fig. 4, shown here; an operation end 56 is provided on at least one end of the main body;
the operation end 56 is a surface contacting another element e.g., chuck;
the operation end is a surface contacting a workpiece known 01:22;
the operation end is a surface for rotating a workpiece Allen wrench;
the operation end is provided with six faces Allen wrench/key;
the operation end 56 is provided with an end face base; the six faces surround the end face Fig. 4;
the end face base has a planar shape Fig. 4;
the operation end of the main body is provided with a chamfered corner V-shaped indent, Fig. 4;
the chamfered corner is located between the six faces and the end face Fig. 4;
the chamfered corner has a circular shape not shown by defined by the base;
the operation end is provided with an axis short and long leg;
the six faces are arranged in an annular shape around the axis Fig. 4;
the 54 is mounted on the operation end Fig. 4;
the
the whole surface or partial surface of the operation end is provided with a friction face 54 formed concentration, or carbonization;
the friction face is a rough surface with particles Fig. 4;
the friction face 54 increases a contact friction force between the operation end and the workpiece to prevent the workpiece from slipping from the operation end;
the operation end 56 is provided with the
the friction face 54 of the laser body is formed by the
multiple friction faces 54 are provided on the partial surface of the operation end Fig. 4;
the friction faces 54 are arranged on a partial surface of the six faces Fig. 4;
the friction faces 54 are arranged on a partial surface of the chamfered corner Fig. 4;
the friction faces are arranged in an annular shape around the axis Fig. 4;
the end face base is not provided with the friction faces;
the friction faces 54 are arranged obliquely relative to the operation end 90 degrees relative to axis, Fig. 4B;
an angle is defined between each of the friction faces and the axis;
each of the friction faces 54 has a size relative to the operation end Fig. 4;
the size is a length parallel to the axis;
the friction faces are arranged linearly relative to the axis so that the friction faces and the axis are parallel mutually Fig. 4; and
the friction faces are arranged transversely relative to the axis so that the friction faces surround the axis and are arranged linearly in a direction of the axis Fig. 4, projections arranged linearly along the axis, except for the method of forming the projections (laser body, laser process with laser light), the angle and for the friction faces to be level with each of the six faces without protruding from each of the six faces.
PNG
media_image2.png
450
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding laser machining, it is noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). In this case the structural limitations, “friction face” is disclosed by art applied, regardless of the method of forming, which is not germane to the issue of patentability if the structures produced by the method is met. Kuter-Arnebeck teaches a fastener retention and anti-camout tool bit that is machined to produce a function end 108 with a friction face 110,106, and discloses laser machining as known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Mowins by forming the friction faces by laser machining for the method of forming the rough surfaces for a precise and accurate formation, as it is known in the art in view of Kuter-Arnebeck.
The tool of Mowins modified for the method of forming meets the claim, except for the angle for each friction face and the axis. Lin teaches an extractor bit for removing damaged bolt having rough or friction faces formed around the engaging end, forming teeth 15 which extend obliquely relative to the axis at a range of angles of between 15-60 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the modified invention of Mowins by forming the angles at about 15-60 degree as taught by Lin by such that the teeth/friction face wedge into the workpiece to facilitate unfastening the damaged fastener.
Mowins modified by laser cutting and Lin meets all of the limitations of claim 1, except for the particular sizes for the friction faces. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., 1 cm, 1/5 inch…for better engagement with the workpiece in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
The combination as modified meets all the limitations of claim 1, except for the faces to be level with each six faces without protruding. Mowins in column 3, lines 27 discloses that the projections 14 may extend slightly above the surface 12, clearly suggested an embodiment wherein the projections do not extend above the surface 12, e.g., the embodiment of Figs. 2A and B discloses projections not extending outside geometric envelope 30 and further discloses different shapes for the projections, e.g., indents 04:24. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention by forming the projections or indents flush with the driving surface, e.g., to prevent marring a workpiece for a particular application.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Mowins modified for extent of the projection and by Lin and in view of Kuter-Arnebeck) meets the limitations, i.e., the hex wrench structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the operation end is provided on two ends of the main body, and each of the six faces has a planar shape Fig. 4A.
PNG
media_image3.png
198
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (OPERATION END)]Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hex wrench structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the laser body is provided on a surface of the operation end Fig. 4A; the friction face is served as the surface of the operation end Fig. 4A; and the friction face covers at least one third (1/3) of the surface of the operation end Fig. 4A, clearly shows this limitation, e.g., as annotated partial Fig. 4A, shown here, however in order to expedite the prosecution, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., form the friction face on at least 1/3 of the of the operation end for better engagement with the workpiece in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hex wrench structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein: each of the six faces of the operation end on one of the two ends of the main body has a planar shape short leg Fig. 4A; each of the six faces of the operation end on the other one of the two ends of the main body is a convex face having a planar middle long leg Fig. 4A; each of the six faces includes a first arcuate face connecting a plane connecting a second arcuate face Fig. 4A; and the chamfered corner has an oblique shape Fig. 4A.
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, except for each of the six faces of the operation end on each of the two ends of the main body is a convex face, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the invention, to form both end as convex surface in adapting for a particular application and/or for better engagement, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a devise involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., including the friction face 54 to be provided on a partial surface of the six faces and a partial surface Fig. 4A, long leg; except for the friction face to be only formed on the operation end on one of the two ends of the main body; to be formed on the end face and the other one of the two ends of the main body is not provided with the friction face. Regarding forming the operation end only on one end, it is noted that going back in the art by eliminating an element and its function, i.e., second end with second friction faces, to save production cost would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the tool without both ends would function almost as well due to prevent camout (utilizing the end with the friction face) and since such modification would only require routine experimentations with
PNG
media_image5.png
294
236
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
292
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
predictable results.
With regards to recitation of providing the friction face on the end face, Kuter-Arnebeck is utilized. Kuter-Arnebeck teaches a fastener retention and anti-camout tool bit that is machined to produce a function end 108 with a friction face 110,106, wherein the end face 112 may also be treated with the friction Fig. 7 face or not Fig. 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the modified invention of PA by forming the friction face on the end face of the operation end having the friction face as taught by Kuter-Arnebeck as an alternative embodiment wherein enhanced engagement by the tip end is required to facilitate unfastening a damaged fastener.
Regarding claims 7-10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the hex wrench structure as claimed in claim 1, except for the chamfered corner to be located between the friction faces of the six faces and the end face. Kuter-Arnebeck teaches a fastener retention and anti-camout tool bit that is machined to produce a function end 108 with a friction face 110,106, wherein a corners defined by flutes 106 are positioned between the faces and the end face 112 Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the modified invention of PA by forming the chamfered corners between the faces and the end face as taught by Kuter-Arnebeck to facilitate engagement with the bit cavity and to avoid scoring the bit cavity; and wherein the friction faces are level with the chamfered corner without protruding from the chamfered corner flush arrangement as amended above.
Regarding claim 9, PA further modified by Kuter-Arnebeck for chamfered corers, meets the limitations, i.e., the hex wrench structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the friction faces extend from the six faces to the chamfered corner Fig. 7.
Regarding claim 10, PA further modified by Kuter-Arnebeck for chamfered corers meets the limitations, except for the friction faces to be arranged obliquely from the six faces to the chamfered corner. Kuter-Arnebeck teaches a fastener retention and anti-camout tool bit that is machined to produce a function end 108 with a friction face 110,106 arranged obliquely from the engaging faces to the chamfered corners Fig. 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the modified invention of PA by forming the friction faces obliquely from the faces to the corners as taught by Kuter-Arnebeck to facilitate engagement with the bit cavity and to avoid scoring the
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the base reference, Mowins does not have a laser body. As indicate above and previously the method of forming is not germane to the issue of patentability, accordingly, forming the body by laser manufacturing method does not reads over a body formed by other methods, lacking any limitations to require otherwise.
Applicant further argues that Mowins fails to disclose a laser body mounted on the operation end. Examienr, respectfully disagrees. Mowins in Figs. 4A and B, discloses friction/laser body mounted on the working ends.
Applicant further argues that Mowins fails to disclose a friction face is a rough surface with particles. Examienr, respectfully disagrees. Application, as originally filed, does not provide any description, illustration and or definition for the “particles”. Accordingly, the rough surfaces disclosed by Mowins includes particles defining the projections.
Applicant argues that in the Mowins reference, the projections 54 protrude from each of the six faces of the operation end 56. This argument is moot, since as suggested by Mowins, projections are modified to be flush or below the opening end surface to help reduce marring the workpiece.
Applicant further, in the Mowins reference, the chamfered corner of the main body 50 is a smooth V-shaped indent and does not have the projections 54 and that they are not arranged obliquely. These arguments are not found persuasive, since Fig. 4A, clearly shows upper corner having friction surface or projections meeting “arranged on a partial surface of the six corners” and Fig. 4, shows oblique arrangement of the ball hex key.
It is noted regarding arguments against the references individually that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 on 571 272 8548. The fax 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.
/Hadi Shakeri/
October 18, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723