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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7 - 9, 11, 12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blumenthal et al. (US 20250249552 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Blumenthal discloses a pliers tool (element 10, fig. 1) comprising:
a pair of jaws (element 14 & 26, fig. 1) being pivotally interconnected at first ends of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), each jaw of the pair of jaws has a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig. 2 below), each jaw of the pair of jaws has an engagement surface (element 38 & 42, fig. 2) which faces another jaw of the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws is positioned in a closed position (fig. 2);
PNG
media_image1.png
518
923
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pair of grip members (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), each grip member being mounted to an engagement surface of an associated jaw of the pair of jaws (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), a length of each grip member of the pair of grip members extending in a direction between the first end and the second end of the associated jaw (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), each grip member comprising a base and a plurality of nodules (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), the base being mounted on and conforming to the engagement surface of the associated jaw (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), the plurality of nodules being mounted on the base opposite the associated jaw (fig. 2) (para. [0032]); and
a pair of handles (element 18 & 30, fig. 2) being operably coupled to the pair of jaws, the pair of handles being movable toward each other to urge the pair of jaws toward each other (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein each handle of the pair of handles is coupled to an associated jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), the pair of handles including a fixed handle coupled to one jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]) and a movable handle pivotally coupled to another jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), the movable handle being movable toward the fixed handle to close the pair of jaws and away from the fixed handle to open the pair of jaws (para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 8, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
further comprising an over-center lock (element 46 & 50, fig. 4) being coupled to the pair of handles (element 46, 50, 58, 66 & 70, fig. 4; para. [0033 & 0034]) such that the pair of handles are securable in a selected position to secure the pair of jaws in the closed position (para. [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws form a space (see annotated fig. 2) between the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses:
wherein the second ends of the pair of jaws are spaced from each other to define an opening (see annotated fig. 3 below) to the space when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
676
897
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses:
wherein the space has an ovate shape wherein a narrow end of the ovate shape is positioned closer to the second ends of the pair of jaws than a broad end of the ovate shape (see annotated fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws form a space between the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 3), the space has an ovate shape wherein a narrow end of the ovate shape is positioned closer to the second ends of the pair of jaws than a broad end of the ovate shape (see annotated fig. 3), the second ends of the pair of jaws being spaced from each other to define an opening (see annotated fig. 3) to the space when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 3).
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.
Claims 2, 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal in view of Popelak (US 5485770 A).
Regarding claim 2, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to discloses:
wherein the nodules of the plurality of nodules are evenly spaced along the length of the grip member.
PNG
media_image3.png
657
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Popelak teaches a pliers tool (element 16, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14 & 20, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 12 & 18, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (see annotated Popelak fig. 1 below),
PNG
media_image4.png
605
882
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the nodules of the plurality of nodules are evenly spaced along the length of the grip member (see annotated Popelak fig. 5 below).
Popelak teaches grip member insets having a plurality of evenly space, alternating projections (element 28, fig. 2) for the purpose of enhancing “frictional engagement between the respective engaging pads and an exterior surface of an object being grasped” (col. 3, line 45-60). Further, Popelak suggests, displaying the embodiment of evenly spaced nodules, that the arrangement is known in the art and would be readily apparent one of ordinary skill in the art (col. 4, line 39-46).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Popelak to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members have a plurality of evenly spaced nodules. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit in having evenly spaced nodules for uniform engagement of the teeth on the workpiece. Particularly, Popelak suggests that the geometry of the grips members cooperate to enhance frictional engagement (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13).
Regarding claim 4, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to discloses:
wherein each nodule of the pair of nodules has a convexly arcuate surface facing away from the base.
Regarding claim 4, Popelak teaches a pliers tool (element 16, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14 & 20, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 12 & 18, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (see annotated Popelak fig. 1),
wherein each nodule of the pair of nodules has a convexly arcuate surface facing away from the base (see annotated Popelak fig. 5).
Popelak teaches grip member insets having a plurality of evenly space, alternating arcuate projections and recessions (element 28, fig. 2) for the purpose of enhancing “frictional engagement between the respective engaging pads and an exterior surface of an object being grasped” (col. 3, line 45-60). Further, Popelak suggests, displaying the embodiment of evenly spaced nodules, that the arrangement is known in the art and would be readily apparent one of ordinary skill in the art (col. 4, line 39-46).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Popelak to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members have a plurality of evenly spaced nodules which have a convexly arcuate surface. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of improved functionality of the grip member geometry for grasping rounds or cylindrical objects, as taught by Popelak (col. 4, line 14-26).
Regarding claim 5, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to discloses:
wherein each grip member of the pair of grip members comprises a resiliently compressible material.
Regarding claim 5, Popelak teaches a pliers tool (element 16, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14 & 20, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 12 & 18, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (see annotated Popelak fig. 1),
wherein each grip member of the pair of grip members comprises a resiliently compressible material (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13).
Popelak teaches grip member insets having a plurality of evenly space, alternating arcuate projections and arcuate recessions (element 34 & 36, fig. 5) for the purpose of improving grip on the workpiece (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13). Further, Popelak suggests, displaying the embodiment of evenly spaced nodules, that the optimum relationships for the parts, including variations in size, materials, shape and form, are known in the art and would be readily apparent one of ordinary skill in the art (col. 4, line 39-46).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Popelak to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members are constructed of a resiliently compressible material. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit in having the removable, polymer teeth of the insert of Popelak to improve the functionality of the rigid-toothed pliers taught by Blumenthal by enhancing frictional force while preventing damage to workpieces (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal, in view of Popelak, as applied to claim 2, in further view of Hsien (US 6962100 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Blumenthal modified discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 2, but fails to discloses:
wherein a spacing between adjacent nodules of the plurality of nodules is equal to a width of each nodule of the pair of nodules.
Regarding claim 3, Hsien teaches a tool engagement geometry (element 16, fig. 1),
PNG
media_image5.png
548
591
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein a spacing between adjacent nodules of the plurality of nodules is equal to a width of each nodule of the pair of nodules (see annotated Hsien fig. 4 below).
Hsien teaches a wrenching apparatus having a plurality of convexly arcuate nodules configured to engage with the engagement portions of fasteners, particularly nuts (col. 2, line 48-51). Hsien teaches that the nodule geometry offers the benefit of securely engaging a fastener (col. 1, line 12-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal modified to incorporate the teachings of Hsien to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members have a spacing between adjacent nodules substantially equal to the width of each nodule. Hsien teaches a nodule geometry and spacing between nodules that are consistent with the applicant’s definition of nodules (element 26, 28) and their spacing (element 30) in Figure 5 and in Page 4, Lines 26-32 and Page 5, Lines 1-2. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pliers tool of Blumenthal and the wrench of Hsien are both hand tools that can be used to securely engage with and exert a force on a fastener, where a specific tool geometry to best engage said fastener would be appreciated. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the improvement in functionality offered in providing the geometry taught by Hsien as the jaws for a pliers tool, which offer the benefit of securely clamping a workpiece.
In addition, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the spacing of nodules being equal to the width of each nodule or that this particular dimension provides any 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, 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spacing of nodules, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, Hsien discloses a substantially identical nodule spacing to that of applicant where the only difference is Hsien does not indicate the specific spacing of nodules being equal to the width of each nodule. Modifying the spacing between nodules and the width of the teeth, of Hsien, to be equal, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Popelak suggesting that the spacing of the teeth can be altered, and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Hsien device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal in view of Tartaglia (US 4315447 A).
Regarding claim 6, Blumenthal modified discloses the limitations of claim 5, but fails to discloses:
wherein the resiliently compressible material comprises rubber (col. 1, line 7-19).
Regarding claim 6, Tartaglia teaches a pliers tool (element 10, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 15, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 13, fig. 1),
wherein the resiliently compressible material comprises rubber (col. 1, line 7-19).
Tartaglia teaches reversible, non-marring, grip members inserts having one side constructed of hard rubber and another side constructed of soft rubber (col. 1, line 7-19). Tartaglia further teaches that the grip member inserts are removable from teeth (element 22, fig. 2) of the jaws of the pliers.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal modified to incorporate the teachings of Tartaglia to provide non-marring grip members comprising a resiliently compressible material, wherein the resiliently compressible material comprises rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the improvement in functionality in having a non-marring insert for pliers having sides of rubber of different hardnesses to provide varying degrees of compression while grasping a workpiece (col. 2, line 18-30). One of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that rubber is both a polymer and a resiliently compressible material.
Claims 10, 13, 15 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal in view of Peviani (US 4889022 A).
Regarding claim 10, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 9, but fails to discloses:
wherein the space has an elliptical shape.
Regarding claim 10, Peviani teaches a pliers tool (fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 11 & A, fig. 1),
wherein the space has an elliptical shape (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
654
817
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Peviani teaches the pliers tool having jaws having two sections; the first section has interlocking, planar, cooperating teeth and the second section has an elliptical opening defined between the two jaws (fig. 2). Peviani also teaches that jaws and teeth, as shown, are conventional and, necessarily, well known in the art (col. 3, line 30-38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Peviani to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having an elliptical space defined by the jaws. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit and functionality of jaws and engagement surfaces that Peviani describes as being conventional and understood in the art (col. 3, line 30-38). Blumenthal discloses the jaw faces can be any type of jaw face and discloses a similar shaped jaw (fig. 13) having deeper, symmetrical V-shaped grooves. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the elliptical shape of the jaws of Peviani would improve the jaws’ register on a cylindrical workpiece, as suggested in Blumenthal (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 13, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to discloses:
wherein the engagement surface of each jaw of the pair of jaws is planar, the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws lying adjacent to and parallel to each other when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position.
Regarding claim 13, Peviani teaches a pliers tool (fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 11 & A, fig. 1),
wherein the engagement surface of each jaw of the pair of jaws is planar, the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws lying adjacent to and parallel to each other (see annotated fig. 2) when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position.
Peviani teaches the pliers tool having jaws having two sections; the first section has interlocking, planar, cooperating teeth and the second section has an elliptical opening (fig. 2). Peviani also teaches that jaws and teeth as shown are conventional and, necessarily, well known in the art (col. 3, line 30-38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Peviani to provide a pliers tool wherein the engagement surface of each jaw of the pair of jaws is planar, the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws lying adjacent to and parallel to each other when jaws are in the closed position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit and functionality of jaws and engagement surfaces that Peviani describes as being conventional and understood in the art (col. 3, line 30-38). Blumenthal additionally discloses the jaw faces can be any type of jaw face and one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably modify Blumenthal with what is known and conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws form a space (see annotated fig. 2) between the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 2), the second ends of the pair of jaws being spaced from each other to define an opening (see annotated fig. 3) to the space when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 3).
Blumenthal fails, however, to disclose:
the space has an elliptical shape.
Regarding claim 15, Peviani teaches a pliers tool (fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 11 & A, fig. 1),
the space has an elliptical shape (see annotated fig. 2).
Peviani teaches the pliers tool having jaws having two sections; the first section has planar, cooperating teeth and the second section has an elliptical opening (fig. 2). Peviani also teaches that jaws and teeth as shown are conventional and, necessarily, well known in the art (col. 3, line 30-38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Peviani to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having an elliptical space defined by the jaws. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit and functionality of jaws and engagement surfaces that Peviani describes as being conventional and understood in the art (col. 3, line 30-38). Blumenthal discloses the jaw faces can be any type of jaw face and discloses a similar shaped jaw (fig. 13) having deeper, symmetrical V-shaped grooves. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the elliptical shape of the jaws of Peviani would improve the jaws’ register on a cylindrical workpiece, as suggested in Blumenthal (fig. 16).
Regarding claim 17, Blumenthal discloses the limitations of claim 1, but fails to discloses:
wherein the engagement surface of each jaw of the pair of jaws is planar, the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws lying adjacent to and parallel to each other when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position.
Regarding claim 17, Peviani teaches a pliers tool (fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element J1 & J2, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 11 & A, fig. 1),
wherein the engagement surface of each jaw of the pair of jaws is planar, the engagement surfaces of the pair of jaws lying adjacent to and parallel to each other when the pair of jaws is positioned in the closed position (see annotated fig. 2).
Peviani teaches the pliers tool having jaws having two sections; the first section has interlocking, planar, cooperating teeth and the second section has an elliptical opening (fig. 2). Peviani also teaches that jaws and teeth as shown are conventional and, necessarily, well known in the art (col. 3, line 30-38).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Peviani to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having an elliptical space defined by the jaws with an opening to the space when jaws are in the closed position. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit and functionality of jaws and engagement surfaces that Peviani describes as being conventional and understood in the art (col. 3, line 30-38). Blumenthal discloses the jaw faces can be any type of jaw face and discloses, in a second embodiment, a similar shaped jaw (fig. 13) having deeper, symmetrical V-shaped grooves. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the elliptical shape of the jaws of Peviani would improve the jaws’ register on a cylindrical workpiece, as suggested in Blumenthal (fig. 16, view of pliers of fig. 13 gripping cylindrical workpiece).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal in view of Popelak, Hsien, and Tartaglia.
Regarding claim 14, Blumenthal discloses a pliers tool comprising:
a pair of jaws (element 14 & 26, fig. 1) being pivotally interconnected at first ends of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), each jaw of the pair of jaws has a second end opposite the first end (see annotated fig. 2 below), each jaw of the pair of jaws has an engagement surface (element 38 & 42, fig. 2) which faces another jaw of the pair of jaws when the pair of jaws is positioned in a closed position (fig. 2);
a pair of grip members, each grip member being mounted to an a pair of grip members (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), each grip member being mounted to an engagement surface of an associated jaw of the pair of jaws (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), a length of each grip member of the pair of grip members extending in a direction between the first end and the second end of the associated jaw (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), each grip member comprising a base and a plurality of nodules (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), the base being mounted on and conforming to the engagement surface of the associated jaw (element 38 & 42, fig. 2), the plurality of nodules being mounted on the base opposite the associated jaw (fig. 2) (para. [0032]);
a pair of handles (element 18 & 30, fig. 2) being operably coupled to the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), each handle of the pair of handles being coupled to an associated jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), the pair of handles including a fixed handle coupled to one jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]) and a movable handle pivotally coupled to another jaw of the pair of jaws (para. [0004]), the movable handle being movable toward the fixed handle to close the pair of jaws and away from the fixed handle to open the pair of jaws (para. [0004]); and
further comprising an over-center lock (element 46 & 50, fig. 4) being coupled to the pair of handles (element 46, 50, 58, 66 & 70, fig. 4; para. [0033 & 0034]) such that the pair of handles are securable in a selected position to secure the pair of jaws in the closed position (para. [0033]).
Blumenthal fails, however, to disclose:
the plurality of nodules being evenly spaced along the length of the grip member, a spacing between adjacent nodules of the plurality of nodules being equal to a width of each nodule of the pair of nodules, each nodule of the pair of nodules has a convexly arcuate surface facing away from the base, each grip member of the pair of grip members comprising a resiliently compressible material, the resiliently compressible material comprising rubber.
Popelak teaches a pliers tool (element 16, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14 & 20, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 12 & 18, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (see annotated Popelak fig. 1) wherein,
the plurality of nodules being evenly spaced along the length of the grip member (see annotated Popelak fig. 5), each nodule of the pair of nodules has a convexly arcuate surface facing away from the base (see annotated Popelak fig. 5) each grip member of the pair of grip members comprising a resiliently compressible material (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal to incorporate the teachings of Popelak to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members have a plurality of evenly spaced nodules, the nodules have a convexly arcuate surface, or the grip members are constructed of a resiliently compressible material. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit in having the removable, polymer teeth of the insert of Popelak to improve the functionality of the rigid-toothed pliers taught by Blumenthal, to enhance frictional force while preventing damage to workpieces (col. 3, line 61-67; col. 4, line 1-13).
Blumenthal modified fails, however, to teach:
a spacing between adjacent nodules of the plurality of nodules being equal to a width of each nodule of the pair of nodules and the resiliently compressible material comprising rubber.
Hsien teaches a tool engagement geometry (element 16, fig. 1),
wherein a spacing between adjacent nodules of the plurality of nodules is equal to a width of each nodule of the pair of nodules (see annotated Hsien fig. 4).
Hsien teaches a wrenching apparatus having a plurality of convexly arcuate nodules configured to engage with the engagement portions of fasteners, particularly nuts (col. 2, line 48-51). Hsien teaches that the geometry offers the benefit of securely engaging a fastener (col. 1, line 12-37).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal modified to incorporate the teachings of Hsien to provide a pliers tool with a pair of jaws having grip members wherein the grips members have a spacing between adjacent nodules substantially equal to the width of each nodule. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the pliers tool of Blumenthal and the wrench of Hsien are both hand tools that can be used to securely engage with and exert a force on a fastener, where a specific tool geometry to best engage said fastener would be appreciated. Blumenthal and Popelak both teach various embodiments for the jaw shape and material choices (Blumenthal; para. [0032]; Popelak; col. 4, line 39-46; fig. 2, 4, 5 & 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the improvement in function offered in providing the geometry taught by Hsien as the jaws for a pliers tool, which offers the benefit of securely clamping a workpiece.
Blumenthal modified fails, however, to teach:
the resiliently compressible material comprising rubber.
Tartaglia teaches a pliers tool (element 10, fig. 1) comprising a pair of jaws (element 14, fig. 1), a pair of grip members (element 15, fig. 1), and a pair of handles (element 13, fig. 1), wherein
the resiliently compressible material comprises rubber.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blumenthal modified to incorporate the teachings of Tartaglia to provide non-marring grip members wherein the resiliently compressible material comprises rubber. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that rubber is a polymer and that it could be used as the polymeric casing taught in Blumenthal modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Labry (US 2766649 A) discloses cushioning grip members for wrench and other tool jaws. Labry teaches the benefit of providing additional friction to grip an object with sufficient force, while not damaging the object by marring, scratching, or otherwise deforming the surface of the object.
Schweigert (US 1766459 A) discloses removable grip member inserts having a variety of engagement surfaces for different pliers. Schweigert teaches that having exchangeable grips members reduces manufacturing costs and offers the ability to replace worn or damaged inserts.
Takasaki (US D791561 S) discloses a design for a pliers tool having convexly arcuate, planar, and adjacent nodules of the grip members when the jaws are in a closed position.
Machmeier et al. (US 5485641 A) discloses a pliers tool having removable grip members constructed of a non-electrically conductive material. Further, Machmeier discloses the nodules of the grip members being angular, planar, and adjacent when the jaws are in a closed position.
Daniels (US 3694834 A) discloses a pliers jaws geometry having convexly arcuate, planar, and adjacent nodules of the grip members when the jaws are in a closed position. Daniels teaches that this offers the benefit of increasing contact with the object to be engaged without nicking or scraping the object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEEGAN T MARTIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/KEEGAN T MARTIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723