DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “a first imaginary plane (4) being co-linear with the first flat distal surface (30)” (as in claim 1), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “a triangular notch (35) formed between any two adjacent first flat distal surfaces (30)” (as in claim 1), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 discloses the term “tilt” in Line 18. The examiner believes that this limitation should actually disclose “tilted”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 1, discloses that, “a first imaginary plane (4) being co-linear with the first flat distal surface (30)… the first flat distal surface (30) comprising two equally wide and intersecting first slope (32) and second slope (33), a vertex (34) formed between the first slope (32) and the second slope (33), each first slope (32) and each second slope (33) having an inclined angle…”. It is unclear how the first imaginary plane (4) could be co-linear with the flat surface that includes the first inclined slope (32) and the second inclined slope (33). In other words, how can a plane (i.e. the imaginary flat plane 4) be co-linear with a surface (i.e. flat surface 30) that is angled (i.e. from first slope 32 and second slope 33)? Furthermore, because the applicant also discloses that, “a vertex (34) formed between the first slope (32) and the second slope” this suggests that the flat surface (30) is not flat (because of vertex 34) or ever straight (because of angled slopes 32 and 33). How can a surface formed from two angled surfaces be considered flat? Finally, Figure 11 clearly shows that surface 30 includes two flat surfaces (left flat surface 32 and right flat surface 33) with a corner (34) located therebetween. While, numeral (6, in Figure 11) “may” point to a first imaginary plane, the examiner notes that such a plane is not co-linear with both surfaces (32 and 33) because of the small space/gap located therebetween (see Figure 11). Thus, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as disclosing, “a first imaginary plane (4) being co-linear with slope of the flat distal surface (30)…”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 1 also discloses that, “a triangular notch (35) formed between any two adjacent first flat distal surfaces (30)”. However, notch (35) is not located between adjacent first flat surfaces (30) but rather is located between “any two adjacent second flat distal surfaces (80)” or is located between any two adjacent flat distal surfaces. Thus, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as disclosing, “a triangular notch (35) formed between any two adjacent [However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected, As Best Understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (6851336, i.e. the second embodiment in Figures 10-12, 14 and 15) in view of Knudsen et al. (3675516), Huebschen et al. (5148726) and Hsieh (5832792).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Yu discloses a socket (i.e. the socket shown in Figure 14) comprising:
a body (i.e. outer surface of the socket in Figure 14) being a tubular and elongate body (Figure 14), the body including a driving section (i.e. the section including drive projections 33, Figure 14), a mounting hole (not labeled but formed as the hole within the socket as shown in Figure 14) defined axially through the body, the mounting hole being a second hole in the driving section (Figure 14), the second hole (not labeled but again is formed as the hole within the socket as shown in Figure 14) being a polygonal hole (see Figure 14), the mounting hole in the driving section including six faces (33, Figure 14), each face comprising a first protrusion (see figure below) protruding from a central portion thereof (i.e. central portion of 33), the first protrusion of each face including a first flat distal surface (see figure below) which has a certain length, multiple second protrusions (335, see Figure 14) protruding from each face of the mounting hole and being arranged into two groups (i.e. first group of protrusions 335 being located on a left side of the first protrusion and another group of protrusions 335 being located on a right side of the first protrusion, see Figure 14), the first protrusion located between the two groups of the second protrusions (Figure 14), a slope of each of the second flat distal surfaces of the second protrusions of each group being identical (see Figure 10), the two respective slopes of the second flat distal surfaces (80) of the two groups of the second protrusions (8) being opposite to each other (Note; since one group is located on a left side of the central protrusion and the other group is located on a right side of the central protrusion, the slopes would be opposite to each other, see Figures 10 and 14);
a first imaginary plane (see figure below) being co-linear with [slope of the flat distal surface (see figure below), a second imaginary plane (see figure below) being co-linear with the second flat distal surfaces of each group of the second protrusions; and
the first flat distal surface comprising two equally wide and intersecting first slope (see figure below) and second slope (see figure below), a vertex (see figure below) formed between the first slope and the second slope, each first slope and each second slope having an inclined angle (see figure below) which is defined by the first slope (and the second slope with a third imaginary plane (i.e. a plane passing through the vertex between the first slope and the second slope of the first protrusion).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Vertex)][AltContent: textbox (Second flat distal surface of Second protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second flat distal surface of Second protrusion)][AltContent: textbox (First flat distal surface of First protrusion)][AltContent: textbox (Second flat distal surface of First protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First protrusion)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image1.png
416
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First imaginary plane and Second imaginary plane being co-linear with First slope of the First flat surface and Second flat distal surface)][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (First slope of First flat surface)][AltContent: textbox (Second flat surface)][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
410
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Second slope of First flat surface)][AltContent: ]
PNG
media_image2.png
410
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (First slope of the First flat surface )]
[AltContent: textbox (Third imaginary plane )][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Reference axis )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inclined angle )][AltContent: textbox (Inclined angle )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Second slope of the First flat surface )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
326
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yu lacks,
forming the socket body from two sections including a connection section and a driving section that is located co-axially to the connection section, the connection section including a rectangular hole and is adapted to be removably attached to a tool;
each second protrusion being tilted relative to the first flat distal surface;
an angle being defined between the first imaginary plane and each of the second imaginary planes; and
a triangular notch being formed between any two adjacent [
However, Knudsen et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a socket body (10, Figure 1) from two sections (i.e.11 and 13) including a connection section (11) and a driving section (13) that is located co-axially to the connection section (Figure 1), the connection section including a rectangular hole (12, Figure 2) and is adapted to be removably attached to a tool (Column 2, Lines 55-60).
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 socket, of Yu, with the known technique of forming a socket body from the two sections including the connection section and the driving section that is located co-axially to the connection section, as taught by Knudsen et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile socket that more effectively imparts rotation or turning movement in tightening fasteners registered or telescoped therein (Column 2, Lines 55-60).
Next, Huebschen et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench with various driving sections (at 106 and at 108 or 110, Figure 6) comprising a first protrusion (112) protruding from a central portion thereof, the first protrusion of each face including a first flat distal surface (112, Figure 6), multiple second protrusions (116 and/or 120) being arranged into two groups (i.e. first group of protrusions 108 and second group of protrusions 120, see Figure 6), the first protrusion located between the two groups of the second protrusions (Figure 6), wherein each second protrusion being tilted relative to the first flat distal surface (see angle E, in Figure 6), and wherein an angle (i.e. angle E) is defined between a first imaginary plane (i.e. plane 122) and a second imaginary plane (i.e. formed as the plane extending along lands 116 or 122, see following, “Specifically, the angle between a plane defined by the lands 116 and the plane 122…”, see Column 5, Lines 38-40).
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 second protrusions, of Yu, with the known technique of providing the second protrusion that are tilted relative to the first flat distal surface and provide an angle defined between the first imaginary plane and each of the second imaginary planes, as taught by Huebschen et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased surface-to-surface contact thereby achieving maximum gripping force and thereby minimize slipping of the wrench (Column 5, Lines 44-58).
Finally, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (Figure 2) with a triangular notch (31) formed between two adjacent [
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 socket, of Yu, with the known technique of providing the triangular notch formed between two adjacent flat distal surfaces, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having contact areas that more effectively co-operate with and rotate various workpieces including rounded or worn workpieces (Column 2, Lines 44-62).
In reference to claims 2 and 3, Yu discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further shows that the first flat distal surface is adapted to contact one side of a bolt (Figure 12), and the vertex (see figures above) of the first flat distal surface is adapted to contact the bolt (Figure 12), the fist flat distal surface is adapted to make a linear contact with a bolt (Figure 12), but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the inclined angle of each first slope and each second slope of the first flat distal surface is 5° or 7°.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the inclined angle of each first slope and each second slope being 5° or 7° or that these particular ranges 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 range of inclined angle of each first slope and each second slope such that it is 5° or 7°, 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, Yu disclose a substantially identical socket to that of applicant where the only difference is that Yu does not indicate the specific range of inclined angle of each first slope and each second slope being 5° or 7°. Modifying the angle of each first slope and each second slope, of Yu, such that it is being 5° or 7°, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Yu suggesting of providing different embodiments in Figures 5-8 and 9-15 and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Yu device.
In reference to claim 4, Yu discloses that the mounting hole of the socket is adapted to be mounted to a worn bolt (i.e. rounded bolt 50, Column 4, Lines 10-17) and the socket is rotated, the vertex and the first slope of the first flat distal surface is adapted to contact one side of the worn bolt simultaneously (Figure 12), as the socket continues to rotate, the second slope and the second flat distal surfaces is adapted to contact with the side of the worn bolt simultaneously and forms a clamped state (Column 4, Lines 10-17).
In reference to claim 5, Huebschen et al. disclose that the angle (i.e. angle E) is larger than 0 degree (i.e. 1-3 degrees, Column 5, Lines 42-43), a maximum value of the angle being 3 degrees (Column 5, Lines 42-43). Yu as modified by Huebschen et al. lack the entire range (i.e. ranging from 4-7 degrees) of the maximum value of the angle being;
7 degrees.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the maximum value of the angle being 4-7 degrees, or that this particular range 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 range of the maximum value of the angle being 4-7 degrees, 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, Yu disclose a substantially identical socket to that of applicant where the only difference is that Yu does not indicate the specific range of the maximum value of the angle being 4-7 degrees. Modifying the maximum angle, of Yu, such that it is being 4-7 degrees, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Yu suggesting of providing different embodiments in Figures 5-8 and 9-15 and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Yu device.
In reference to claim 6, Huebschen et al. disclose that the angle (i.e. angle E) is 2 degrees (Column 5, Lines 42-43).
In reference to claim 7, Yu discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
groove defined axially between adjacent faces.
However, Hsieh teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (Figure 1) with a mounting hole (20) that includes a groove (21) is defined axially between adjacent faces (30 and 30’, see Figure 2) of the mounting hole (20, Figure 1).
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 socket, of Yu, with the known technique of providing a socket with the groove that is defined axially between adjacent faces of the mounting hole, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively urges the sides of the workpiece against the adjacent faces of the socket, so as to perform a formal function like a conventional socket (Column 2, Lines 44-62).
In reference to claim 8, Yu discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a triangular notch defined axially between the adjacent second protrusions of each group of the second protrusions.
However, Hsieh teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (Figure 2) with a triangular notch (31) defined axially between adjacent second protrusions (i.e. at 33 and 32) of each group of the second protrusions (Figures 2 and 5).
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 socket, of Yu, with the known technique of providing the triangular notch formed between two adjacent flat second protrusions, as taught by Hsieh, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having contact areas that more effectively co-operate with and rotate various workpieces including rounded or worn workpieces (Column 2, Lines 44-62).
Claims 9 and 10 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (6851336, i.e. the second embodiment in Figures 10-12, 14 and 15) in view of Knudsen et al. (3675516), Huebschen et al. (5148726), Hsieh (5832792) and Lee et al. (9120210).
In reference to claim 9, Yu discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
a length of each second flat distal surface is longer than a length of each first flat distal surface.
However, Lee et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench head (Figure 4) with a first protrusion (see figure below) protruding from a central portion thereof (see figure below), the first protrusion including a first flat distal surface (i.e. lower distal surface thereof) which has a certain length (see figure below), multiple second protrusions (see figure below) protruding being arranged into two groups (left side group and right side group), the first protrusion located between the two groups of the second protrusions (see figure below), each second protrusion including a second flat distal surface (i.e. lower distal surface thereof), and a length of each second flat distal surface is longer than a length of each first flat distal surface (see figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
540
684
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 length of each of the flat distal surfaces, of Yu, with the known technique of providing a length of second flat distal surfaces being longer than a length of a first flat distal surface, as taught by Lee et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile wrench that more effectively prevents damage from to corners of the object being worked on during normal operation (Column 1, Lines 5-7).
In reference to claim 10, Yu discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the second length of each second flat distal surface is 0.56mm, and that the first length of each first flat distal surface is 0.5mm.
However, the examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the range of the second length of each second flat distal surface being 0.56mm and that the first length of each first flat distal surface is 0.5mm, or that these particular ranges 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 range of the second length of each second flat distal surface to be 0.56mm, and that the first length of each first flat distal surface to be 0.5mm, 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, Yu disclose a substantially identical socket to that of applicant where the only difference is that Yu does not indicate the specific range of the second length of each second flat distal surface being 0.56mm and the first length of each first flat distal surface being 0.5mm, Modifying the lengths of each second flat distal surface and the lengths of each first flat distal surface, of Yu, such that the second length is 0.56mm and the first length is 0.5mm, is well within the level of skill in the art, and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Yu device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wright et al. (6907805) also teaches of providing second protrusions (548 and 549) that are tilts relative to a central protrusion (547, Figures 6 and 8).
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