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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 7, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 19, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claims 19, discloses that the second wrench is formed as “an adjustable crescent wrench”. However, the applicant previously disclosed “an adjustable crescent wrench” in claim 18. Did the applicant mean to disclose that the second wrench is formed as an adjustable pipe wrench? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-6 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (6961973).
In reference to claims 1 and 17, Smith discloses a dual-sided wrench device (Figure 3) comprising:
a first end (i.e. the lower end in Figure 3) comprised of a first wrench (i.e. crescent wrench 3);
a second end (i.e. the upper end in Figure 3) comprised of a second wrench (i.e. pipe wrench 2); and
a handle (17) connected to the first end and the second end (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 3, Smith discloses that the handle is comprised of a grip area (at 17 in Figure 3). The examiner notes the method claim 17 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 17.
In reference to claim 3, Smith discloses that the handle is comprised of a grip area (17, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 4, Smith discloses that the grip area is comprised of a non-slip material (i.e. formed as rubber finger grips 17, see Column 5, Lines 6-9, which meet the non-slip “rubber” material, as described in paragraph 30 of applicant’s Specification).
In reference to claim 5, Smith discloses that the non-slip material is comprised of a raised texture or a recessed texture (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Recessed texture)][AltContent: textbox (Raised texture)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 6, Smith discloses that the type of wrench of the first wrench differs from the type of wrench of the second wrench, because one is a crescent wrench (3) and the other is a pipe wrench (2, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 18, Smith discloses that the first wrench is comprised of an adjustable crescent wrench (3, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 19, As Best Understood, the examiner notes that claim 17 does not define the ends (i.e. the first end or the second end) in combination with the wrench as previously defined in claim 1. Thus, the adjustable crescent wrench (3), of Smith, meets the limitation of being the second wrench in claim 19. The, examiner believes that claim 19 should actually disclose an adjustable pipe wrench, which Smith also discloses at (2, Figure 3).
In reference to claim 20, Smith discloses that the handle connects the first wrench to the second wrench (Figure 3).
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 2 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (6961973) in view of Streater et al. (8464615).
In reference to claim 2, Smith discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
handle including an opening.
However, Streater et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a handle (33) with an opening (49, Figure 3 and Column 2, Lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the handle, of Smith, with the known technique of providing a handle with the opening, as taught by Streater et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a reduced weight (Column 2, Lines 55-57).
In reference to claim 7, Smith discloses a dual-sided wrench device (Figure 3) comprising:
a first end (i.e. the lower end in Figure 3) comprised of a first adjustable crescent wrench (3);
a second end (i.e. the upper end in Figure 3) comprised of a second adjustable pipe wrench (2); and
a handle (17) connected to the first end and the second end (Figure 3).
Smith lacks,
the handle including an opening.
However, Streater et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a handle (33) with an opening (49, Figure 3 and Column 2, Lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the handle, of Smith, with the known technique of providing a handle with the opening, as taught by Streater et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a reduced weight (Column 2, Lines 55-57).
In reference to claim 8, Smith discloses that the adjustable crescent wrench is comprised of a worm screw (at 13 in Figure 2 and is similarly provided in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 9, Smith discloses that the adjustable crescent wrench is comprised of a fixed jaw (at 12 in Figure 2 and is similarly provided in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 10, Smith discloses that the adjustable crescent wrench is comprised of an adjustable jaw (at 11 in Figure 2 and is similarly provided in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 11, Smith discloses that the adjustable crescent wrench is comprised of a seat (shown at 16 in Figure 2 and is similarly provided in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 12, Smith discloses that the adjustable pipe wrench is comprised of a hook jaw (at 5/5A in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 13, Smith discloses that the hook jaw is comprised of a serrated surface (at 5A, in Figure 3 also see Column 3, Lines 60-62).
In reference to claim 14, Smith discloses that the adjustable pipe wrench is comprised of a heel jaw (at 6/6A, in Figure 3).
In reference to claim 15, Smith discloses that the heel jaw is comprised of a serrated surface (at 6A, in Figure 3 also see Column 3, Lines 60-62).
In reference to claim 16, Smith discloses that the adjustable pipe wrench is comprised of an adjustment nut (at 9 in Figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saunders (2003/0172782) shows a dual wrench (Figure 7) and also shows various embodiments that the wrench heads could be formed (Figures 1-85).
Nammoto (2018/0021928) also shows that it is known to provide a dual wrench (Figure 20).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723