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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The reference numerals set forth in paragraphs 5-8 of the specification are not found in the drawings. 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. 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 subject matter of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 9 and the symmetrical relationship between 16 and 117 refers to Figure 8. The embodiment of Figure 8 does not include the tetragonal shape for the groove, which is now required by claim 1, and instead has a shape identical to the third recess (16).
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.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9, the original disclosure does not provide support for an embodiment wherein the groove (117) and the third recess (16) are arranged symmetrically when the groove (117) has a tetragonal shape as now required by claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 requires the groove and the third recess to be symmetrical as the groove must have a tetragonal shape while the third recess is required to be between the second and fourth sides (i.e. not a groove that is part of a side). Any rejection that reads on claim 1 will be considered to read on claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 already requires the second distance to be 2.5 times the first distance relative to the vertical line. As such the first recess and groove are already required to be asymmetrically arranged. Therefore, claim 10 fails to further limit claim 1. Any rejection that reads on claim 1 will be considered to read on claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 already requires the fourth distance to be more than the third distance relative to the vertical line. As such the third recess and the second recess are already required to be asymmetrically arranged. Therefore, claim 11 fails to further limit claim 1. Any rejection that reads on claim 1 will be considered to read on claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, as written the claim includes an embodiment where the groove and second recess have a new shape that is the same, instead of the required tetragonal shape required in claim 1. This would be inappropriate. Examiner will read limitation as the tetragonal shape of the groove and the tetragonal shape of the second recess are identical.
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, 2, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kukucka et al (U.S Publication No. 20200353606), hereinafter Kukucka in view of and Schultz (U.S. Patent No. 7,331,744), and in further view of Barnhill et al (U.S Patent No. 4,512,220), hereinafter Barnhill, and Olsen et al (U.S Patent No. 4,776,244), hereinafter Olsen.
Regarding claim 1, Kukucka teaches (Figures 1-4) an engaging structure having a main body (1) including a first side (generally 4 in Figure 2), second side (generally 8 in Figure 2), and third and fourth sides (generally seen together as 12 in Figure 2), The first and second sides are located opposite each other. The first, third, fourth, and second sides are arranged serially and annularly and together compose four sides of a hexagon having an axis. Each of the sides is equidistant and therefore each have a fourth length. A vertical line passes through a center axis (2) and the hexagon has first through fourth lines that correspond to and are aligned with their respective sides and additionally has first through third angled corners. Each of the lines are equal to the fourth length. The first side is provided with a first recess (6) and a first face (5). The first recess is situated on a left side of the vertical line and the vertical line passes through the first face (5). The first face has a planar shape (paragraph 28; 5 has a flat-bracing shape). The first recess is provided with a first arcuate face (21; paragraph 33) and a second arcuate face (22; paragraph 33). The first arcuate face connects to a first end of the first face (5) and is tangent to the first face and second arcuate face (Figure 3). The first arcuate face (21) has a radius equal to the distance between feature 4 and feature 8 (paragraph 33; 0.9-1.5 times the distance between) and has a radius greater than the second arcuate face (22; paragraph 33, 2nd to last sentence). A first distance is defined between the first end of the first face and the vertical line and a second distance is defined between a second end of the first face and the vertical line. These distances appear to be equal based on Figure 2. The first recess (6) has a first length (Figure 3; combined length of 21 and 22). As shown in Figure 3, this length is greater than half the length of first face (5) and therefore greater than the first distance. The second side (Figure 4) is provided with a second recess (10) and a second face (9). The second recess (10) is positioned at a left side of the vertical line and faces the first recess (6). The vertical line passes through the second face (9). A third distance is defined between a first end of the second end face and the vertical line and a fourth distance is defined between a second end of the second face and the vertical line. The third and fourth distances are equal to each other (Figure 3). The third distance is equal to the first distance (Figure 2; paragraphs 43-45 indicate both opposing sides can have the same dimensions based on the ranges provided). The second recess (10) has a second length and a depth defining a third length (Figure 4). Based on paragraph 45, the second length (51 +52) can be greater than the fourth distance (half of 9). Kukucka additionally teaches (Figure 2) the first side is provided with a groove (7) and the first face (5) is arranged between the first recess and the groove. A third recess (11) is defined as a connection between the second and fourth sides. A fourth recess (unnumbered in Figure 2 but seen as arced groove between the fourth and third sides is section 12) is found between the third and fourth sides.
Regarding claim 2, Kukucka teaches (Figure 1) the device is a hand tool. Further, Kukucka teaches the same structure can be placed in an open ended wrench (paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 6, Kukucka teaches (Figure 4) the third recess has third and fourth arcuate faces (53 and face on opposite side of 54) arranged symmetrically relative to a fifth arcuate face (54). The third arcuate face (53) is tangent to the second face and the fourth arcuate face is tangent to the fourth side.
Regarding claim 8, Kukucka teaches (Figure 2) the device is a socket having two fourth recesses arranged symmetrically.
Regarding claim 9, Kukucka teaches (Figure 2) the groove (7) and the third recess (11) are arranged symmetrically and have the same structure. In addition, the fourth recess has the same structure. (applicant this statement regarding claim 9 is evidentiary only based on the 112(a) written description and 112(d) failure to further limit issues disclosed above)
Regarding claim 12, Kukucka teaches (Figure 2) the first, third and fourth recesses are identical.
Regarding claims 1, and 10-12, Kukucka fails to teach:
the second distance of the first face being 2.5 times the first distance of the first face relative to the vertical line;
the fourth length being eleven times the first distance;
the first length being five times the first distance;
the second recess being provided with first and second corners and having a tetragonal shape wherein the second corner connects to the second face;
the fourth distance being more than the third distance;
the second length being three to four times the fourth distance;
the third length being equal to the fourth distance;
the groove having a tetragonal shape; and
regarding claim 12, Kukucka additionally fails to teach the tetragonal shapes of the second recess and groove being identical and therefore different in shape than the first, third, and fourth recesses.
Schultz teaches (Figures 4a and 4b) it is old and well known in the art for sides (52) of an engagement member to have a flat bearing surfaces (60) that are not symmetrical with a vertical line running through an axis (generally 56).
Based on the teachings of Kukucka, which teaches symmetrical relationships about the vertical lines through the axis, and Schultz, which teaches the opposite, the determination of the optimal relative distances between portions of a flat face relative to a vertical line extending through the axis appears to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum relationship between flat bearing surfaces, recesses, and the center axis of the device would have been a mere design consideration based on the how the manufacturer wanted the device to interact with a hex bolt. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The obvious statement above would make obvious the second distance of the first face being 2.5 times the first distance of the first face relative to the vertical line, the fourth length (length of a particular side) be eleven times the first distance, the fourth distance being more than the third distance, the second length (i.e. the length of the second recess) being three to four times the fourth distance, the fourth distance being more than the third distance, and the third length (i.e. the depth of the second recess) being equal to the second disstance as this would be based on the relationship of the flat faces relative to the vertical line extending through the axis. Further, the modification teaches all of claims 9-11 which have been held to not be further limiting of claim 1.
Barnhill teaches (Figure 4 and 5) it is within the level of ordinary skill to utilize smooth connections or corners between surfaces having different orientations in an engagement structure.
Because Barnhill teaches it is old and well known to utilize either smooth connections or connections that create corners between surfaces in an engagement structure it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to try utilizing corners instead of smooth transitions at any of the transition points between any surface in the engagement structure of Barnhill, including at the ends of the second recess, in an attempt to improve the overall operability of the device.
Olson teaches (Figure 2, 3b, and 4) teaches it is known to have grooves (20 and 21) located on opposite sides of a vertical line going through an axis of an engagement structure (i.e. located where the 2nd recess and groove of Kukucka would be) to be identical (Col. 2, lines 54) that do not utilize smoothly curved surfaces and are therefore considered tetragonal in nature. The design allows for the use of drive surfaces in the engagement structure to limit the chance of the tool breaking during tightening (Col. 2, lines 49-51).
It would have been obvious to have modified Kukucka to incorporate the teachings of Olsen by having the groove and second recess have identical tetragonal shapes, as doing so would allow for force to be applied to a workpiece while reducing the chance of the tool breaking during use.
Regarding claim 12, the modification in view of Olson above would necessarily make the first, third, and fourth recesses of Kukucka be different than the identically shaped tetragonal recesses of the groove and second recess as required by claim 12.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Kukucka, as applied to claim 1, in view of Ruzicka et al (U.S Patent No. 5,219,392), hereinafter Ruzicka.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Kukucka teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the first and second corners being right angles.
Ruzicka teaches (Figures 1-26 and most specifically Figures 5 and 24; Col. 3, lines 31-37 and Col. 17, lines 5-8) teach it is old and well known in the art for intesections between flat and arcuate surfaces to occur at right angles as well as a variety of other angles based on different heads and different head sizes (Col. 3, lines 37-50).
Based on the teachings of Ruzicka it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try utilizing 90 degree angles between any of the flat and arcuate surfaces set forth in the modified device of Kukucka, including for the second recess, in an attempt to better accommodate different heads of different sizes.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Kukucka, as applied to claim 1, in view of Pai (US Design Patent No. D431,764) and DePalo (US Design Patent No. D338,379).
Kukucka teaches (Figure 2) that the fourth recess has two fifth sides and a sixth arcuate face and the fifth sides are arranged symmetrically relative to the sixth arcuate face. The two fifth sides form an acute angle relative to each other.
The modified device of Kukucka therefore teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the fifth sides being perpendicular to their respective third and fourth sides and arranged at angle of between fifty and seventy degrees relative to each other.
Depalo teaches (Figure 3) an engagement structure with what could be considered a fourth recess having two fifth sides that extend parallel to each other.
Pai teaches (Figure 5) respectively teach it is known to provide a fourth recess with fifth sides that form an acute angle and are perpendicular to respective third and fourth sides.
Because Kukucka, Depalo, and Pai teach it is known to arrange a fourth recess with opposing and symmetrical fifth sides in obtuse, parallel, and acute orientations relative to each other, and connect to corresponding adjacent surfaces in a corresponding manner, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art because discovering the optimum relationship between the third and fourth sides and the fourth recess and the shape of the recess would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired how the manufacturer wanted the device to interact with a hex bolt. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All applicant’s arguments are directed to the primary reference Kukucka not anticipating the claimed limitations. The examiner acknowledged in the non-final office action mailed 7/1/25 that Kukucka did not teach each and every limitation found in the claims. Upon review of the available prior art, examiner identified additional art/evidence that pointed to those features missing from Kukucka as obvious. No arguments presented were directed toward the combination of references utilized in the rejection and therefore the rejection has been maintained. See MPEP 2145 IV. ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hsieh (US Publication No. 20090007732), Hartmann et al (US Publication No. 20020039523), Eggert et al (US Publication No. 20150135910), Eggert et al (US Publication No. 20200331125), Cheng (US Publication No. 20080302219), Doroslovac et al (US Publication No. 20170252905), Chen (US Publication No. 20130192428), Hart (US Publication No. 20080105093), Lee et al (US Publication No. 20150027278), Pagac et al (US Patent No. 5,117,714), and Baker (US Patent No. 6,158,309) 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. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 17a and 117a added to Figures 8 and 9 in the reply filed 7/24/25. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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 3761