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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed November 27, 2025 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1 and 6-11 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 2-5 are cancelled by applicant. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 and 6-9. The previous claim objection and 112 rejection have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments and cancelled claims. The previous specification objection is withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments and newly accepted “Specification” dated 11/27/2025. The previous 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
“each of the two operation ends is a polygonal mounting recess”, in claim 9, lines 2-3;
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 and 6-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a laser body integrally formed on the main body” in line 3, “the laser body is integrally formed on each of the two operation ends" in lines 30-31, “the laser body is directly formed with at least one first friction face” in lines 34-35, “the laser body is directly formed with at least one second friction face and at least one third friction face” in lines 47-48, “the at least one first friction face is integrally formed on the first surface of each of the two operation ends” in lines 49-50, “the at least one second friction face is integrally formed on the second surface of each of the two operation ends” in lines 51-52, and “the at least one third friction face is integrally formed on the third surface of each of the two operation ends”, in lines 53-54. However, upon a review of the specification, the examiner cannot find any recitation of the laser body being integrally formed on the main body or directly formed on the first/second/third friction faces and the first/second/third friction faces being integrally formed on the two operations ends. The examiner acknowledges in paragraphs 0028-0029 of the specification that the laser body is formed on a whole or partial surface of at least one operation end (see paragraph 0028) and the laser body is provided with at least one first friction face, one second friction face, and one third friction face (see paragraphs 0028-0029). Additionally, the one first/second/third friction faces are also provided on the first/second/third surfaces (see paragraph 0029). However, the specification does not explicitly disclose that the claimed laser body is “integrally” or “directly” formed on the respective ends/faces and that the first/second/third friction faces are “integrally” formed on the respective surfaces of the operation ends. As such the limitation is being regarded as new matter.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face are directly formed on a partial surface of each of the two operation ends” in lines 3-5. However, upon a review of the specification, the examiner cannot find any recitation of the one first/second/third friction face being directly formed on a partial surface of each of the two operation ends. The examiner acknowledges in paragraph 0032 that the one first/second/third friction face are provided on the partial surface of the at least one operation end. However, the specification does not explicitly disclose that the claimed one first/second/third friction face are “directly” formed on the partial surface of the operation ends. As such the limitation is being regarded as new matter.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the main body is a socket structure, and each of the two operation ends is a polygonal mounting recess” in lines 2-3. However, upon a review of the specification, the examiner cannot find any recitation of the each of the two operation ends is a polygonal mounting recess. The examiner acknowledges in paragraph 0037 of the specification that the socket structure has at least one operation end is a polygonal mounting recess for mounting a screw member and as best shown in figure 8, the socket structure shows one operation end (element 11). However, the specification and drawings do not explicitly disclose/show two operation ends having a polygonal mounting recess. As such the limitation is being regarded as new matter.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the laser body of each of the two operation ends is integrally formed with the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face” in lines 1-4. However, upon a review of the specification, the examiner cannot find any recitation of the laser body being integrally formed with the at least one first/second/third friction faces. The examiner acknowledges in paragraphs 0028-0029 of the specification that the laser body is provided with at least one first friction face, one second friction face, and one third friction face (see paragraphs 0028-0029). However, the specification does not explicitly disclose that the claimed laser body is “integrally” formed with the one first/second/third friction faces. As such the limitation is being regarded as new matter.
Claims 7-8 and 10 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(a).
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 and 6-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main body is a combination open and box end wrench structure" in line 19. It is unclear if the applicant is claiming the main body to have a different combination open and box end wrench structure or if the applicant is referring back to the combination open and box end wrench as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-6. Furthermore, it is unclear how the main body can be a combination open and box end wrench structure and also be either an open end wrench, a box end wrench, a combination open and box end wrench, a pipe wrench, a ratchet wrench, a composite wrench, a socket wrench, a socket, an adjustable wrench, a ratchet wheel, or a universal socket as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-7, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be the main body is a combination open and box end wrench structure or any of the other claimed structures as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-7.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the main body is a socket structure” in line 2. However, it is unclear how the main body can be socket structure and also a combination open and box end wrench structure as introduced in claim 1, line 19, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be the main body is capable of being a socket structure from the list of claim structure as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-7.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein: the main body is a double open end wrench structure” in lines 1-2. However, it is unclear how the main body can be a double open end wrench structure and also a combination open and box end wrench structure as introduced in claim 1, line 19, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purposes, the examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be the main body is capable of being a double open end wrench structure from the list of claim structure as introduced in claim 1, lines 5-7.
Claims 6-8 and 11 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (US Pub. No. 2015/0290777).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses: a hand tool structure (Figures 1-2, 12-14, 16, 18 and see also paragraph 0030/0033) comprising:
a main body (element 10); and
a laser body (element 20) integrally formed on the main body (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim. Furthermore, as best shown in figure 14, the hand tool structure is shown as a finished structure that has the laser body (element 20) formed on the main body (element 10), thus the laser body is integrally formed on the main body when in use of the hand tool.);
wherein:
the main body is an open end wrench (Figure 18), a box end wrench, a combination open and box end wrench (see Figure 14), a pipe wrench (Figures 1-2), a ratchet wrench, a composite wrench, a socket wrench, a socket (Figure 16), an adjustable wrench (Figure 12), a ratchet wheel, or a universal socket (Giving the limitation requires the main body and defines the limitation of “or”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the following limitations, thus the prior art meets claim 1);
the main body is a hand tool structure (see paragraphs 0006 and 0035);
the main body is provided with two operation ends formed on two ends of the main body (see figure 14 annotated below Detail A/B);
one of the two operation ends is an open end (see figure 14 annotated below Detail C) having two faces (see figure 14 annotated below Detail D) parallel with each other (see figure 14 annotated below showing the two faces (Detail D) being parallel (dotted lines) with each other);
the one of the two operation ends has a planar shape or an arcuate convex shape (see figure 14 below showing portions of the one of the two operation ends (Detail B) having a planar shape (Detail E) and a portion having an arcuate convex shape (Detail F));
the other of the two operation ends is an open end having a polygonal mounting recess (see figure 14 annotated below showing portions the other of the two operation end (Detail A) being open end (top opening) and having polygonal mounting recess (Detail G));
the main body is a combination open and box end wrench structure (see figure 14 annotated below);
each of the two operation ends includes a first surface (see figure 14 annotated below Detail H), a second surface (see figure 14 annotated below Detail I), and a third surface (see figure 14 annotated below Detail J);
the first surface is formed on an inner face of each of the two operation ends and contacts a workpiece (see figure 14 annotated below showing the first surface (Detail H) formed in the inner face (faces of the surfaces of the first surface) of each of the two operation ends (Detail A/B) which would be capable of contacting the workpiece);
the second surface is formed on an end face of each of the two operation ends (see figure 14 annotated below showing the second surface (Detail I) formed on an end face (outer face that is exposed of the operation end) of each of the two operation ends (Detail A/B));
the third surface is formed on a peripheral face of each of the two operation ends (see figure 14 annotated below showing the third surface (Detail J) formed on a peripheral (perimeter face of the operation end) of each of the two operation ends (Detail A/B));
the laser body is integrally formed on each of the two operation ends (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim. Furthermore, as best shown in figure 14 annotated below, the hand tool structure is shown as a finished structure that has the laser body (element 20) formed each of the two operation ends (Detail A/B), thus the laser body is integrally formed on the main body when in use of the hand tool.);
the laser body is directly formed with at least one first friction face (see annotated figure 14 below showing the laser body (element 20) having multiple different faces, see also paragraph 0030 where the prior art disclose element 20 forms “a friction surface”, and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses “friction provided” by element 20, thus the laser body is directly formed with at least one first friction face);
the at least one first friction face is a rough surface with particles (see paragraph 0030);
the at least one first friction face increases a contact friction force between each of the two operation ends and the workpiece to prevent the workpiece from slipping from each of the two operation ends (See paragraph 0030 where the prior art discloses element 20 forms “a friction surface” 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”, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the at least one first friction face increases a contact friction force each of the two operation end and the workpiece to prevent the workpiece from slipping from each of the two operation end, as recited.);
the laser body is directly formed with at least one second friction face and at least one third friction face (see also paragraph 0030 where the prior art disclose element 20 forms “a friction surface”, see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses “friction provided” by element 20, and see also figure 14 annotated below showing element 20 provided in each surface (Details H-I) of each operation end (Detail A/B), thus the laser body is provided with at least one second friction face (via element 20 provided on the second surface (Detail D)) and at least one third friction face (via element 20 provided on the third surface (Detail E));
the at least one first friction face is integrally formed on the first surface of each of the two operation ends (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim.);
the at least one second friction face is integrally formed on the second surface of each of the two operation ends (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim.); and
the at least one third friction face is integrally formed on the third surface of each of the two operation ends (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim.).
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
570
650
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Tsai discloses: the hand tool structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
when the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face are directly formed on a partial surface of each of the two operation ends (see paragraph 0030 where the prior art disclose element 20 forms “a friction surface”, see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses “friction provided” by element 20, and see also figure 14 annotated above showing element 20 provided in each surface (Details H-I) which includes the first/second/third friction faces on each operation end (Detail A/B), thus the at least one first/second/third friction faces are directly formed on the whole surface which would necessarily include a plurality of partial surfaces of each of the two operation ends), the laser body includes multiple first friction faces, multiple second friction faces, and multiple third friction faces (see figure 14 annotated above showing the multiple laser body (element 20) which includes the first/second/third friction faces are included on both ends (left and right) of the operation ends (Detail A and Detail B), thus including multiple first friction faces, multiple second friction faces, and multiple third friction faces); and
the first friction faces, the second friction faces, and the third friction faces are distributed on the partial surface of each of the two operation ends (see figure 14 annotated above showing the multiple laser body (element 20) which includes the first/second/third friction faces on both ends (left and right) of the operation ends (Detail A and Detail B) formed on an entire surface of the two operation ends (Detail A/B), thus first/second/third friction faces are provided in the whole surface which would necessarily include a plurality of partial surfaces).
Regarding claim 9, Tsai discloses: the hand tool structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the main body is a socket structure (As described above in the rejection of claim 1 (see page 9), the prior art discloses a socket structure (figure 16)), and each of the two operation ends is a polygonal mounting recess (see figure 16 annotated below Detail A showing one end of having a polygonal mounting recess and see also paragraph 0033 where the prior art discloses figure 16 is a “socket” which is well known in the art to have an operational end (opposite end of the opening end of Detail A as shown below) with a polygonal mounting recess (i.e. square) in order to be attached to square drive of a tool).
PNG
media_image3.png
676
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Tsai discloses: the hand tool structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the main body is a double open end wrench structure (As described above in the rejection of claim 1 (see page 9), the prior art discloses an open end wrench (figure 18) which includes a double open end); each of the two operation ends of the main body is an open end (see figure 18);
or the main body is a double box end wrench structure, and each of the two operation ends of the main body is a box end (Giving the requires a main body and defines the limitation of “or”, and since the prior art meets at least one of the following limitations, thus the prior art meets claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, Tsai discloses: the hand tool structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser body of each of the two operation ends is integrally formed with the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face, to prevent the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face from being detached from each of the two operation ends (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (integrally formed), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Tsai is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim and would be capable of preventing the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face from being detached from each of the two operation ends, as recited.).
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (US Pub. No. 2015/0290777) in view of Strauch (US Pub. No. 2003/0196527).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai discloses: the hand tool structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
when the at least one first friction face, the at least one second friction face, and the at least one third friction face are provided on the whole surface each of the two operation ends, the laser body includes multiple first friction faces, multiple second friction faces, and multiple third friction faces (see figure 14 annotated above showing the laser body (element 20) which includes the first/second/third friction faces formed on an entire surface of each of the two operation ends (Detail A/B), thus first/second/third friction faces are provided in the whole surface).
However, Tsai modified appears to be silent wherein the first friction faces are arranged obliquely relative to each of the two operation ends, an angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the first friction faces and a side of each of the two operation ends, multiple angles are defined between each of the second friction faces and each of the two operation ends, and an angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the third friction faces and a side of each of the two operation ends.
Strauch is also concern in providing a hand tool structure (Figures 1-2 and see also paragraph 0028) comprising an operation end (see annotated figure 2 below Detail A) including a first friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail B), a second friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail C), a third friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail D), formed by a laser process (see paragraphs 0028-0030), and wherein the first friction faces are arranged obliquely relative to the at least one operation end (see figure 2 annotated below showing portions of the first friction face (dotted line) be being obliquely relative to the at least one operation end (Detail A)), an angle (see figure 2 annotated below Detail E) is defined between each of the first friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end (see figure 2 annotated below), multiple angles are defined between each of the second friction faces and the at least one operation end (see figure 2 annotated below Detail F), and an angle (see figure 2 annotated below Detail G) of is defined between each of the third friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
875
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to incorporate the teachings of Strauch to provide wherein the first friction faces are arranged obliquely relative to the at least one operation end, an angle is defined between each of the first friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end, multiple angles are defined between each of the second friction faces and the at least one operation end, and an angle is defined between each of the third friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end. The resultant combination would have the obliquely arranged friction faces and multiple angle arranged second/third friction faces of Strauch now provided on each of the of the two operation ends of Tsai. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the first/second/third friction faces at a desired arrangement including the claimed arrangements would necessarily provide the predictable result of have the friction face provide additional friction in order to firmly clamp the hand tool with the workpiece in order to prevent disengagement and damages during operations.
However, Tsai modified appears to be silent wherein the angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the first friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end and the angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the third friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end.
However, the applicant fails to provide any criticality (see paragraph 0033) in having the specific angle be forty-five degrees provides an unexpected result and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this situation, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art of the time of the invention to have modified Tsai to provide wherein the angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the first friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end and the angle of forty-five degrees is defined between each of the third friction faces and a side of the at least one operation end, since such a modification would involve 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. Further, one could provide a suitable angle as desired by the user depending on the particular of the work piece being used with the tool in order to provide a secure fit between each component during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A))
Regarding claim 8, Tsai discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1, but appears to be silent wherein the first friction faces, the second friction faces, and the third friction faces are arranged transversely relative to each of the two operation ends.
Strauch is also concern in providing a hand tool structure (Figures 1-2 and see also paragraph 0028) comprising an operation end (see annotated figure 2 below Detail A) including a first friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail B), a second friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail C), a third friction face (element 6 and see annotated figure 2 below Detail D), formed by a laser process (see paragraphs 0028-0030), and wherein the first friction faces, the second friction faces, and the third friction faces are arranged transversely relative to the at least one operation end (see figure 2 annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
875
720
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tsai to incorporate the teachings of Strauch to provide wherein: the first friction faces, the second friction faces, and the third friction faces are arranged linearly relative to the at least one operation end; the first friction faces, the second friction faces, the third friction faces, and the at least one operation end are parallel with each other; or the first friction faces, the second friction faces, and the third friction faces are arranged transversely relative to the one operation end. The resultant combination would have the transversely arranged friction faces of Strauch now provided on each of the of the two operation ends of Tsai. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that arranging the first/second/third friction faces at a desired arrangement including the claimed arrangements would necessarily provide the predictable result of have the friction face provide additional friction in order to firmly clamp the hand tool with the workpiece in order to prevent disengagement and damages during operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages, 12-19 of the “Remarks”, the arguments regarding the newly presented limitations of claim 1, specifically the limitations of “integrally formed” and “directly formed” have been fully considered and addressed in the rejection above, thus arguments are unpersuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments on pages 15-17 that the prior art of Strauch is a screwdriver structure, whereas the claimed invention is a wrench structure as being nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art of is in the same field of the inventor’s endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned of providing a hand tool structure having friction surfaces which would necessarily provide the predictable result of have the friction face provide additional friction in order to firmly clamp the hand tool with the workpiece in order to prevent disengagement and damages during operations. Thus, arguments are unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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 at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723