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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on November 11, 2025. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended. Claim 6 has been added. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained. Claims 1-4 and 6 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are Finally 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Amended Claim 1 discloses that; “the operation end is a surface contacting a workpiece…the laser body is integrally formed on the operation end and directly provided with a friction face…the friction face is served as the surface of the operation end”. However, it is unclear how the operation end is a surface contacting a workpiece, since the laser body is integrally formed on the operation end and directly provided with a friction face. Does the surface of the operation end indirectly contact (i.e. through the connection of parts therebetween) the workpiece? Since, the friction face is outer most surface of the operation end, it is the friction face of the laser body that contacts the workpiece not the surface of the operation end. How can the surface of the operation end contact the workpiece when the laser body is integrally formed on the operation end and directly provided with a friction face which serves as the surface of the operation end? It appears that the applicant may be using multiple terms (e.g. operation end surface, laser body friction face) for disclosing the same component (i.e. a surface contacting a workpiece). In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the surface of the operation end as being the friction face of the laser body. However further clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-3 and 6 are Finally rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (2015/0290777, i.e. the embodiment in Figure 1) in view of Strauch (2003/0196527).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Tsai discloses a pliers structure (see embodiment in Figure 1) comprising:
a main body (10, Figure 1); and
a body (12) mounted on the main body; wherein:
the main body includes pliers, a pipe wrench (Figure 1), needle nose pliers, water pump pliers, a wire stripper, electrician pliers, universal pliers, snap ring pliers, bathroom pliers, plumbing pliers, slip-joint pliers, a vise, filter pliers, car pliers, clamp pliers or a clip;
the main body is provided with an operation end (formed from left 11 and right 11);
the operation end is a surface (i.e. friction surface 21, see paragraph 31 disclosing; “the at least one contact face 12 has multiple teeth 14 and the friction surface 21 is formed on each of the teeth 14.” And, see paragraph 30 disclosing; “The at least one contact face 12 has at least one area 13 that has multiple abrasive particles 20 which are the same as those for a grinding wheel. The abrasive particles 20 form a friction surface 21 in the at least one area 13 so that the object can be firmly clamped by the work tool even if the object or the work tool is attached with oil or grease.” ) contacting another element (i.e. the workpiece paragraph 30);
the operation end is a surface (i.e. friction surface 21) contacting a workpiece (paragraphs 30-31);
the operation end is a surface (i.e. friction surface 21) for/capable rotating a workpiece (paragraphs 30-31);
the operation end is a clamping portion (i.e. friction surface 21) for clamping various workpieces (paragraphs 30-31);
the body (12) is integrally (Note, the definition of the term “integral” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “formed as a unit with another part” see definition 1C . Since, body 12 is “formed as a unit with another part” [i.e. part 11], it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim) formed on the operation end and directly provided with a friction face (i.e. friction surface 21, see paragraph 31 disclosing; “the at least one contact face 12 has multiple teeth 14 and the friction surface 21 is formed on each of the teeth 14.” And, see paragraph 30 disclosing; “The at least one contact face 12 has at least one area 13 that has multiple abrasive particles 20 which are the same as those for a grinding wheel. The abrasive particles 20 form a friction surface 21 in the at least one area 13 so that the object can be firmly clamped by the work tool even if the object or the work tool is attached with oil or grease.”);
the body is formed on a whole surface or a partial surface (12) of the operation end;
the whole surface or partial surface of the operation end is provided with the friction face (21), including peeling, coloring, concentration (see paragraph 30), or carbonization; the friction face is a rough surface with particles (20, paragraph 30);
the friction face increases a contact friction force between the operation end and the workpiece to prevent the workpiece from slipping from the operation end (paragraphs 30 and 31);
the body is provided on a surface (i.e. outer surface of 11) of the operation end;
the friction face (21) is served as the surface of the operation end (see paragraph 31 disclosing; “the at least one contact face 12 has multiple teeth 14 and the friction surface 21 is formed on each of the teeth 14.” And, see paragraph 30 disclosing; “a friction surface 21… so that the object can be firmly clamped by the work tool even if the object or the work tool is attached with oil or grease.”);
the friction face covers at least one third (1/3) of the surface of the operation end (note; paragraph 30 discloses; at least 20% [or 1/5] or at least 50% [or 1/2]. Since, at least 1/3 is completely within the range of at least 1/5 to at least 1/2, the limitation of covering at least one third (1/3) has been met);
multiple friction faces (i.e. formed from teeth 14) are provided on the partial surface of the operation end;
the friction faces (i.e. along 14) are arranged linearly relative to the operation end (see, Figure 1).
Tsai lacks,
forming the whole or partial surface of the friction face of the body from a laser process;
having the friction faces being arranged obliquely relative to the operation end;
having the friction faces being arranged in a matrix manner;
having the friction faces being arranged transversely relative to the operation end; and
providing an angle that is defined between each of the friction faces and a side face of the operation end; the angle is ranged between ten (10) degrees and seventy (70) degrees, or ranged between fifteen (15) degrees and sixty (60) degrees;
The examiner notes that Tsai does teach alternative attachment methods for forming the friction face (see paragraph 30 disclosing that; “Alternatively, the abrasive particles 20 are combined with agent and formed onto the at least one contact face 12 by way of sintering.”) thereby suggesting that other possible attachment methods may be used.
Strauch teaches of one such alternative attachment method for forming a friction face by using a laser process (paragraphs 28-30). Specifically, Strauch teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a whole or a partial surface of a friction face (i.e. at 6 in Figure 16) of an operation end including a jaw (17, Note; jaws 17 are similar to the left operation end and right operation end 11 of Tsai because the jaws “may be associated with pliers” see paragraph 47 or because the jaws can be “provided on an adjustable screwing tool, for example on a monkey wrench” see paragraph 48) from a laser process (paragraphs 28-30);
wherein the friction faces arranged obliquely (see dotted line in figure below) relative to an operation end (see figure below);
the friction faces being arranged in a matrix manner (at 5. Note, the definition of the term “matrix” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form” see definition 1. Since, friction faces 6 include diamond chips 7 that are “within” coating 5 [see Figures 4 and 16], it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim);
the friction faces are arranged transversely relative to the operation end (see dotted line the figure below); and
an angle (see figure below) is defined between each of the friction faces and a side face (i.e. upper side face thereof) of the operation end (see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the friction face, of Tsai, with the known technique of forming the friction face of a jaw from the laser process, as taught by Strauch, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an increased process for profiling working faces on tools in order to provide low brittleness and hard ribs (see paragraphs 2 and 5).
Strauch does not specifically disclose that;
the angle is between ten (10) degrees and seventy (70) degrees, or ranged between fifteen (15) degrees and sixty (60) degrees.
However, Strauch does teach that the shape, the direction and the arrangement of the grooves of the friction face, which includes the angle, “can be matched to the force-output profile of the screwing tool” thereby suggesting that the angle can be varied or optimized (paragraph 36) and as such the angle is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the angle changes the force-output profile of the screwing tool (paragraph 36). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Tsai device to have; the angle being between ten (10) degrees and seventy (70) degrees, or ranged between fifteen (15) degrees and sixty (60) degrees, as it involves only adjusting the angle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of modified Tsai by making the angle such that it is between ten (10) degrees and seventy (70) degrees, or ranged between fifteen (15) degrees and sixty (60) degrees, as it involves only adjusting the angle, as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, the device of modified Tsai would not operate differently with the claimed angles indicated above and since the device is used for gripping a workpiece (see paragraph 30 of Tsai), the device would function appropriately having the claimed angles indicated above. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the ranges claimed, indicating simply that the angle is “close to” the claimed ranges (specification paragraph 35) and also offers other acceptable ranges (e.g. 10-70 degrees or 15-60 degrees, see specification at paragraph 35) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
In reference to claim 2, Tsai discloses that the operation end is provided with a toothed portion (14); the toothed portion includes multiple teeth (Figure 1); and the multiple teeth are arranged in a straight direction (Figure 1) or in a transverse direction.
In reference to claim 3, modified Tsai disclose that the operation end is provided with the laser body (Figure 1), and the friction face of the laser body is formed by the laser process as taught by Strauch (see paragraphs 28-30).
In reference to claim 6, modified Tsai disclose that the laser body of the operation end is integrally formed with the friction face to prevent the friction face from being detached from the operation end (Again, note that the definition of the term “integral” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “formed as a unit with another part” see definition 1C . Since, body 12 is “formed as a unit with another part” [i.e. friction face 21], it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim).
Claim 4, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (2015/0290777, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 1) in view of Strauch (2003/0196527) and Tsai (2015/0290777, the different embodiment shown in Figure 4).
In reference to claim 4, Tsai discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, and further discloses that the operation end of the main body has a planar shape (Figure 1), but lacks,
the friction face of the laser body of the operation end being a concave face.
However, Tsai also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the friction face of the laser body (paragraph 32) of the operation end (11, Figure 4) that is formed as a concave face (see inner concave face of 11 in Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner face of the operation end, of Tsai, with the known technique of forming an inner face of an operation end with the concave face, as taught by the embodiment in Figure 4 of Tsai, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively provides tongue and groove pliers (see paragraph 32 of Tsai) thereby allowing the tool to be used with various rounded workpieces (i.e. pipes) more effectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on pages 10-12 that, “Further, the Strauch reference is a screwdriver structure, whereas the claimed invention is a plier structure. The basic structures of the Strauch reference and the claimed invention are different.” (see last paragraph on page 10) and also contends that, “Further, the figures and description of the Strauch reference only disclose a screwdriver structure and a file structure. The description and figures of the Strauch reference do not disclose the plier structure of the claimed invention. Moreover, the claimed invention discloses technology in the technical field of plier structures.” (see third paragraph on page 12).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Strauch teaches of different tools that include friction face (6, see Figures 11-16). One of the tools is formed as pliers having jaws (17) that include the friction face (Figure 16, see paragraph 47 disclosing that, “This jaw may be associated with pliers”). Another similar tool including a jaw having the friction face can be wrench (see paragraph 48 disclosing that, “In particular, it is provided for a jaw of this type to be provided on an adjustable screwing tool, for example on a monkey wrench.”). Since, Tsai and Strauch are directed to related tools (pliers or wrenches), the combination is deemed proper, especially since proper motivation (see rejection above) has been provided.
Applicant contends on page 13 that, “Thus, combination of the Tsai and Strauch references did not teach, suggest or imply "the laser body is integrally formed on the operation end and directly provided with a friction face" as disclosed in the amended claim 1 of the claimed invention.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Body (12) is integrally formed on the operation end (11) and directly provided with a friction face (21), as previously discussed in the rejection above. Tsai modified by Strauch provide that the body is a laser body including the friction face thereby meeting the limitations of the claim. Since, all of the limitations of the claim have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Applicant also contends on page 13 that, “In addition, in the Strauch reference, all the figures do not show the friction faces are arranged in a matrix manner. Thus, combination of the Tsai and Strauch references did not teach, suggest, or imply "the friction faces are arranged in a matrix manner" as disclosed in the amended claim 1 of the claimed invention.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. As previously discussed above, the definition of the term “matrix” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form” see definition 1. Since, friction faces 6 include diamond chips 7 that are “within” coating 5 [see Figures 4 and 16], it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim). If the applicant’s matrix is believed as being structurally different than that as taught by Strauch, the examiner recommends further defining the matrix with additional structural limitations pertaining to those structural differences. However, since all of the limitations of the claim as currently provided have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Applicant contends on page 14 that, “Further, in the Tsai reference, the friction surface 21 are attached to the at least one contact face 12 so that the at least one contact face 12 is not integrally formed with the friction surface 21. Thus, combination of the Tsai and Strauch references did not teach, suggest, or imply "the laser body of the operation end is integrally formed with the friction face to prevent the friction face from being detached from the operation end" as disclosed in the new claim 6 of the claimed invention.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Again, as previously discussed in the rejection above, the definition of the term “integral” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “formed as a unit with another part” see definition 1C . Since, body 12 is “formed as a unit with another part” [i.e. part 11 or part 21], it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim. Since, all of the limitations of the claim have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Applicant also contends on page 14 that, “Further, in the Tsai reference, the friction surface 21 are formed by the abrasive particles 20 and protrudes from the at least one contact face 12, so that the friction surface 21 cannot be a concave face as disclosed by the Schmidt reference. Thus, combination of the Tsai, Strauch, and Schmidt references did not teach, suggest, or imply "the friction face of the laser body of the operation end is a concave face" as disclosed in the amended claim 4 of the claimed invention.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Tsai (i.e. the embodiment in Figure 4) clearly shows that the friction face of the laser body of the operation end is a concave face. Since, all of the limitations of the claim have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, claim 1 was amended to further define; the laser body, a friction face and a matrix.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723