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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 22nd, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 19-21 are pending. Claims 17-18 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 23rd, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 23rd, 2026.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 23rd, 2026. However, the amended language has introduced a new set of rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for claims 16 and 19-21 as explained below.
Applicant is reminded that a properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received as stated in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 23rd, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on July 22nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art as explained below.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on July 22nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Pechstein fails to disclose that the locking mechanism 1220 can be positioned in the claimed locked position of claim 7. Applicant further argues that this is because the locking mechanism 1220 is not positioned close enough to the alleged assist spring to engage or stop any movement of the gas springs 1225. Applicant further argues that as shown in Figs. 17A-D of Pechstein, the locking mechanism 1220 is located on an upright support 1217 that is spaced away from the gas springs 1225 and that as such, the locking mechanism 1220 is not positioned in the path of the alleged assist spring and therefore cannot block any movement of the gas springs 1225 to a deployed position. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the positioning of the adjustable stop relative to the assist spring as well as the mechanism in which the adjustable stop block the movement of the assist spring) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments, see pages 12-14 of the Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed on July 22nd, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 14, Applicant argues that Miles fails to teach a step facing either axially outward or axially inward and that Miles merely teaches chamfers. In this case, the Examiner has given the claim language the broadest reasonable interpretation in which the chamfers (Figs. 4-5, Element 54) of Miles facing axially outward (Fig. 5, Element 54) and axially inward (Fig. 4, Element 54) are interpreted as “steps”. Moreover, a step has a riser and a tread, which Miles teaches.
Oath/Declaration
A properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received for the following inventor(s):
Joseph J. PECHSTEIN
Sean T. KEHOE
Sam L. BERTZ
Aaron C. GRODE
Matthew R. WOLF
Joseph C. ILLG
Peter J. DAVIES
An inventor's oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 executed by or with respect to each inventor must be submitted. See 37 CFR 1.53(f).
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 16 and 19-21 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 16 recites the limitation “wherein improper positioning of the plurality of jaws on the jaw plate is prevented by providing sliding interface profiles that are different from each other such that interchangeability is prevented, wherein the sliding interface profiles differ from each other on only one of a clockwise side or a counter-clockwise side, and wherein a first interface profile includes a step facing axially outward, a second interface profile includes a male-female interface spaced from both axial ends, and a third interface profile includes a step facing axially inward” in Lines 16-23. It is unclear where the first interface profile, the second interface profile, and the third interface profile are located, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Are they all located on the clockwise side or the counterclockwise side of each one of the plurality of jaws or on a single one of the plurality of jaws? Examiner proposes that Applicant amends the claim language to the following: --wherein each jaw has a sliding interface profile, wherein the sliding interface profiles are different from each other such that interchangeability and improper positioning are prevented; wherein the sliding interface profiles are positioned on opposite sides of each jaw, wherein the sliding interface profiles differ from each other on only one side of each jaw; wherein the sliding interface profile of one of the jaws includes a step facing axially outward relative to the chuck; wherein the sliding interface profile of a second one of the jaws includes a male-female interface spaced from axial ends of the sliding interface profile; and wherein the sliding interface profile of a third one of the jaws includes a step facing axially inward relative to the chuck--.
Claims 19-21, which depend on Claim 16, are equally rejected.
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 7-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pechstein et al. (US20210229200A1), hereinafter “Pechstein”.
Regarding Claim 7, Pechstein discloses a portable pipe threader (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 10) comprising: a collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1200) including a first leg (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1260) and a second leg (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1210) coupled to the first leg (¶0067, Lines 6-9) with a first rotatable joint (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced below; ¶0067, Lines 6-9); a housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) supported by the collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B) , the housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) supporting a battery-powered drive assembly (Fig. 6, Elements 51 and 18; ¶0031, Lines 4-41; ¶0040, Lines 1-6); an assist spring (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1225) having a first end (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced below; ¶0070, Lines 1-8) coupled to a lower portion of the first leg (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced below; Figs. 19A-B, Element 1260; ¶0070, Lines 1-8) and a second end (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced below; ¶0070, Lines 1-8) coupled to an upper portion of the second leg (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced below; Figs. 19A-B, Element 1260; ¶0070, Lines 1-8), the assist spring (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1225) exerting a bias force urging the collapsible stand (¶0070, Lines 11-23) to an upright deployed position (¶0070, Lines 11-23) for supporting the housing (¶0070, Lines 11-23) at an elevated height above a work surface (¶0070, Lines 11-23; Fig. 19A, Element 1205); and an adjustable stop (Fig. 19B, Element 1220) operable to toggle between a first, unlocked position (¶0072) in which the adjustable stop (Fig. 19B, Element 1220) provides clearance for the second end of the assist spring (¶0072) to allow movement to the upright deployed position (¶0072) , and a second, locked position (¶0072) in which the adjustable stop (Fig. 19B, Element 1220) is positioned to block movement of the second end of the assist spring (¶0072) to prevent movement to the upright deployed position (¶0072).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein
Regarding Claim 8, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 7 as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses wherein the adjustable stop (Fig. 19B, Element 1220) consists of a rigid bracket (Figs. 18A-C, Element 1228) pivotable between the unlocked (¶0071) and locked positions (¶0071) about a second rotatable joint (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced above) on the first leg (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1260).
Regarding Claim 13, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 7 as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses wherein the assist spring (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1225) is a gas spring (¶0070, Lines 1-8).
Regarding Claim 14, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 7 as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses wherein the assist spring (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1225) is extendable and retractable in length (¶0070, Lines 8-10), and wherein the assist spring (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1225) is configured to extend along the first leg (¶0070, Lines 8-10; Figs. 19A-B) in a non-parallel orientation (¶0070, Lines 8-10; Figs. 19A-B).
Regarding Claim 15, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 7 as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses wherein a first end of the adjustable stop (Fig. 17A, Element 1220) is pivotally coupled to the first rotatable joint (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein above), and a second end of the adjustable stop (Fig. 17A, Element 1220) is positioned adjacent to the second end of the assist spring (see annotated Fig. 19A of Pechstein reproduced above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechstein in view of Ridgid (2021), hereinafter "Ridgid".
Regarding Claim 1, Pechstein discloses a portable pipe threader comprising (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 10): a collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1200); a housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) supported by the collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B), the housing supporting a battery-powered drive assembly (Fig. 6, Elements 51 and 18; ¶0031, Lines 4-41; ¶0040, Lines 1-6); a first set of guide rails (Fig. 6, Element 44) extending from a first end of the housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) and supporting pipe threading tools (Fig. 6, Elements 46, 50, and 54; ¶0040, Lines 6-9); and a second set of guide rails (Fig. 6, Element 45) extending from a second end of the housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) and supporting a roll groover (¶0073, Lines 2-9; ¶0042).
Pechstein is silent on wherein the roll groover is configured to swing about a first one of the second set of guide rails to selectively engage a second one of the second set of guide rails and wherein the first one of the second set of guide rails supports the roll groover when the roll groover is in a hanging position and disengaged from the second one of the second set of guide rails.
Nonetheless, Ridgid teaches a portable pipe threader (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced below) with a roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced below) wherein the roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced below) is configured to swing about a first one of a set of guide rails (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced below and Fig. 7 of Ridgid) to selectively engage a second one of the set of guide rails (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced below and Fig. 7 of Ridgid).
The applicant is reminded that claim limitations consisting of functional language and/or intended use language are given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP § 2111.04 stating that claim scope may not be limited by claim language, such as “wherein” clauses, that do not limit a claim to a particular structure, and § 2114 stating that the manner of operating a device does not differentiate device claims from the prior art. Further, the applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions (see Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970)). While Pechestein doesn’t explicit state that the first one of the second set of guide rails supports the roll groover when the roll groover is in a hanging position and disengaged from the second one of the second set of guide rails, there is no structural limitation that prevents the first one of the second set of guide rails of Ridgid to supports the roll groover when the roll groover is in a hanging position and disengaged from the second one of the second set of guide rails.
Pechstein and Ridgid are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of portable pipe threaders with roll groovers. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ridgid of using a swingable roll groover into the portable pipe threader disclosed by Pechstein so that the roll groover is configured to swing about a first one of the second set of guide rails to selectively engage a second one of the second set of guide rails and the first one of the second set of guide rails supports the roll groover when the roll groover is in a hanging position and disengaged from the second one of the second set of guide rails since it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2143, subsection I.D.).
PNG
media_image2.png
747
855
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid
Regarding Claim 2, the prior combination of Pechstein and Ridgid renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
After modifications, the prior art combination of Pechstein and Ridgid teaches the portable pipe threader (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 10) further comprising a first chuck (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced below) operable to clamp a pipe at the first end of the housing (Pechstein - ¶0051, Lines 1-11), and a second chuck (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced below) operable to clamp a pipe at the second end of the housing (Pechstein - ¶0051, Lines 1-11), wherein the roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) is aligned with the second chuck (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced below) when engaged with the second one of the second set of guide rails (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced below).
Examiner Note: As explained in Claim 2 above, the roll groover would be positioned at Elements 46, 50, and 54, and thus would be aligned with the second chuck.
PNG
media_image3.png
541
777
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein
Regarding Claim 3, the prior combination of Pechstein and Ridgid renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
After modifications, the prior art combination of Pechstein and Ridgid teaches wherein the roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) has a closed cylindrical mount fully encircling (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) the first one of the second set of guide rails (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above; Pechstein - Fig. 6, Element 45), and wherein the roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) has an open mount (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) for selectively resting upon a top surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) of the second one of the second set of guide rails (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above; Fig. 6, Element 45).
Regarding Claim 4, the prior combination of Pechstein and Ridgid renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 3 unpatentable as explained above.
After modifications, the prior art combination of Pechstein and Ridgid teaches wherein the roll groover (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) includes a cross bar (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) extending between the closed cylindrical mount (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above) and the open mount (see annotated Fig. 1 of Ridgid reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 5, the prior combination of Pechstein and Ridgid renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses wherein the collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1200) includes a first leg (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1260) and a second leg (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1210)
coupled to the first leg (¶0067, Lines 6-9), a wheel ground engagement member (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1230) coupled to the first leg (¶0067, Lines 9-10), and a non-wheel ground engagement member (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1235) coupled to the second leg (¶0067, Lines 10-12).
Regarding Claim 6, the prior combination of Pechstein and Ridgid renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 1 unpatentable as explained above.
Pechstein further discloses the portable pipe threader (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 10) further comprising a mount (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1207) positioned on a first end of the collapsible stand (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1200), wherein the mount (Figs. 19A-B, Element 1207) is configured to be removably coupled to the threader (Figs. 17A-D; Figs. 19A-B).
Claims 9- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechstein in view of Chiu (US20100301180A1), hereinafter "Chiu".
Regarding Claim 9, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 8 as explained above.
Pechstein fails to discloses wherein the first rotatable joint engages the bracket to limit the range movement thereof.
Nonetheless, Chui teaches wherein a first rotatable joint (Fig. 7, Element 64) engages a bracket (Fig. 7, Element 40) to limit the range movement thereof.
Pechstein and Chiu are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of tool stands. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chiu of using a the first rotatable joint to engage the bracket to limit the range of movement thereof into the portable pipe threader disclosed by Pechstein to move the first rotatable joint between the unlocked and locked position (¶0028, Lines 11-14).
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art combination of Pechstein and Chiu renders the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 9 unpatentable as explained above.
Chiu further teaches wherein the bracket (Fig. 7, Element 40) includes a slot (¶0033, Element 44) that receives the first rotatable joint (Fig. 6, Element 64).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechstein.
Regarding Claim 11, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 8 as explained above.
While Pechstein is silent on wherein the adjustable stop is pivotal up to 10 degrees to move between the unlocked position and the locked position, Pechstein discloses a range of movement between the unlocked and locked position (Figs. 17B-17D; ¶0071, Lines 1-4) to unfold and fold the stand, thus, the range of movement is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have an adjustable stop pivotal up to 10 degrees to move between the unlocked position and the locked position since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective parameter involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesh, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claims 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechstein in view of Miles (US5918887A), hereinafter "Miles", Whiton (US0425279A), hereinafter "Whiton", and Mowat (US789051A), hereinafter "Mowat".
Regarding Claim 16, Pechstein discloses a portable pipe threader (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 10) comprising: a housing (Fig. 6, Element 51) supporting a battery-powered drive assembly (Fig. 6, Elements 51 and 18; ¶0031, Lines 4-41; ¶0040, Lines 1-6); a carriage (Figs. 6 and 19A-B, Element 42) supporting pipe threading tools (Fig. 6, Elements 46, 50, and 54; ¶0031, Lines 1-4) at a first end of the housing (Fig. 6, Element 51); and a spindle assembly (Fig. 6, Element 60) including a chuck (Fig. 10A, Element 610; ¶0051, Lines 1-7) positioned at the first end (Fig. 6, Element 51) for selectively clamping a pipe for rotation by the drive assembly about a central axis ( ¶0051, Lines 1-7), wherein the chuck (Fig. 10A, Element 610) includes a plurality of jaws (Fig. 10A, Element 620; ¶0051, Lines 1-7) movable toward and away from the central axis (¶0051, Lines 7-19), a jaw plate (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced above) slidingly supporting each of the plurality of jaws (see annotated Fig. 6 of Pechstein reproduced above) with a radial sliding interface (see annotated Fig. 10A of Pechstein reproduced below), and a scroll plate (Fig. 10A, Element 615; ¶0051, Lines 7-19) coupled to an internal side of each of the plurality of jaws (Fig. 10A, Element 620; ¶0051, Lines 7-19) and rotatable ( ¶0051, Lines 7-19) to simultaneously move the plurality of jaws ( ¶0051, Lines 7-19) toward or away from the central axis ( ¶0051, Lines 7-19).
Pechstein fails to disclose wherein the internal sides of the plurality of jaws differ from each other and only operate with concentricity when each of the plurality of jaws is in a prescribed position on the jaw plate, wherein improper positioning of the plurality of jaws on the jaw plate is prevented by providing sliding interface profiles that are different from each other such that interchangeability is prevented, wherein the sliding interface profiles differ from each other on only one of a clockwise side or a counter-clockwise side, and wherein a first interface profile includes a step facing axially outward, a second interface profile includes a male-female interface spaced from both axial ends, and a third interface profile includes a step facing axially inward.
Nonetheless, Miles teaches wherein the internal sides of the plurality of jaws differ from each other (Fig. 3-5, Element 54) and only operate with concentricity when each of the plurality of jaws is in a prescribed position (Column 1, Lines 39-45; Column 2, Lines 21-28) on the jaw plate (Column 1, Lines 39-45; Column 2, Lines 21-28), wherein improper positioning of the plurality of jaws (Column 2, Lines 21-28) on the jaw plate (Column 2, Lines 21-28) is prevented (Column 2, Lines 21-28) by providing sliding interface profiles (Column 2, Lines 21-28) that are different from each other such that interchangeability is prevented (Column 2, Lines 21-28), wherein the sliding interface profiles (Column 2, Lines 29-38) differ from each other (Column 2, Lines 29-38) on only one of a clockwise side or a counter-clockwise side (Column 2, Lines 29-38), and wherein a first interface profile (Fig. 5, Element 54) includes a step (Fig. 5, Element 54) facing axially outward (Fig. 5, Element 54) and a third interface profile (Fig. 4, Element 54) includes a step (Fig. 4, Element 54) facing axially inward (Fig. 4, Element 54).
Pechstein and Miles are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of chucks. It would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miles of using a plurality of jaws that differ from each other and only operate with concentricity when each of the plurality of jaws is in a prescribed position on the jaw plate, wherein improper positioning of the plurality of jaws on the jaw plate is prevented by providing sliding interface profiles that are different from each other such that interchangeability is prevented, wherein the sliding interface profiles differ from each other on only one of a clockwise side or a counter-clockwise side and wherein a first interface profile includes a step facing axially outward and a third interface profile includes a step facing axially inward into the portable pipe threader disclosed by Pechstein to provide each jaw a respective passageway so that the jaws cannot be interchanged and prevent the mix or interchange of the jaws upon assembly of the chucks (Column 2, Lines 23-28).
While Miles teaches that the cross-sectional profiles can have any geometric shape so long as at least one characteristic or keyed feature of each profile is different between the three jaws and respective passageways so that the jaws cannot be interchanged between passageways (Column 4, Lines 46-51), Pechstein and Miles fail to teach wherein a second interface profile includes a male-female interface spaced from both axial ends.
Nonetheless, Whiton and Mowat wherein a second interface profile (Whiton - Figs. 1 and 6, Elements 11, 14, and 15; Mowat - Figs. 2-4, Elements 10 and 11) includes a male-female interface (Whiton - Figs. 1 and 6, Elements 11, 14, and 15; Mowat - Figs. 2-4, Elements 10 and 11) spaced from both axial ends (Figs. 1 and 6, Elements 11, 14, and 15; Mowat - Figs. 2-4, Elements 10 and 11).
Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of chucks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Whiton and Mowat of using the well-known technique of incorporating a jaw with a male-female interface spaced from both axial ends into the second interface profile of the portable pipe threader disclosed by Pechstein and further modified by Miles to provide a different configured profile and uniquely distinguish each respective jaw and passageway (Miles - Column 4, Lines 63-67 to Column 5, Lines 1-5).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 10A of Pechstein
Regarding Claim 19, the prior combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat further teaches wherein the male-female interface (Whiton - Figs. 1 and 6, Elements 11, 14, and 15; Mowat - Figs. 2-4, Elements 10 and 11) includes a rib and a slot (Whiton - Figs. 1 and 6, Elements 11, 14, and 15; Mowat - Figs. 2-4, Elements 10 and 11).
Regarding Claim 20, the prior combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat further teaches wherein the jaw plate (Miles - Fig. 2, Elements 12, 19, 18a-c, and 37; Miles - Column 2, Lines 21-28; Miles - Column 4, Lines 31-43) includes a plurality of slots (Miles - Fig. 2, Elements 12, 19, 18a-c, and 37; Miles - Column 2, Lines 21-28; Miles - Column 4, Lines 31-43), and wherein the sliding interface profiles (Miles - Fig. 2, Elements 12, 19, 18a-c, and 37; Miles - Column 2, Lines 21-28; Miles - Column 4, Lines 31-43) are configured to engage (Miles - Fig. 2, Elements 12, 19, 18a-c, and 37; Miles - Column 2, Lines 21-28; Miles - Column 4, Lines 31-43) the plurality of slots (Miles - Fig. 2, Elements 12, 19, 18a-c, and 37; Miles - Column 2, Lines 21-28; Miles - Column 4, Lines 31-43).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pechstein in view of Miles, Whiton, and Mowat as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Borkovec (CS233778B1), hereinafter “Borkovec”. For text citation of Borkovec refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat renders the portable pipe threader of Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat fails to teach wherein each of the plurality of jaws includes a replaceable insert configured to contact the pipe.
Nonetheless, Borkovec teaches wherein each of the plurality of jaws (Fig. 1, Element 2; Page 1, Description, Lines 20-21) includes a replaceable insert (Figs. 1, and 3-5, Elements 3, 8, 9 and 10; Page 1, Description, Lines 20-21; Page 2, Lines 5-6) configured to contact the pipe (Page 2, Lines 2-3).
Pechstein, Miles, Whiton, and Mowat are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of chucks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Borkovec of providing each of the plurality of jaws with a replaceable insert configured to contact the pipe into the portable pipe threader disclosed by Pechstein and modified by Miles, Whiton, and Mowat to provide each plurality of jaws with a replaceable insert that is quick to replace and eliminates the lengthy adjustment of the jaws when adapting to the clamped dimension or the possible replacement of the entire chuck (Page 2, Lines 15-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As explained above, Pechstein anticipates the portable pipe threader as claimed in Claim 8. The prior art considered by the examiner fails to teach wherein an end of the bracket that is distal to the second rotatable joint is concave and complementary in shape to a rounded boss portion of a mount that secures the second end of the assist spring to the second leg suggesting allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JP2002519992A - Jaw with plurality of sliding interface profiles
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights