DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Provines (U.S. Patent Number 8,366,075, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Provines teaches an attachment for a prybar (abstract), the attachment comprising: a base portion having a bottom surface adapted to contact a grounding surface, and an interface surface opposite the bottom surface and adapted to interface with the prybar (figures 1 - 7, bottom portion of element 34 being the ‘base portion,’ see below; column 4, lines 9 - 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Provines further teaches opposing first and second sides extending upwardly from the base portion and cooperatively forming a channel between the first and second sides that is adapted to receive the prybar (figures 1 – 7, elements 36 being the ‘first and second sides’; column 6, lines 9 – 16, wherein the “interior dimensions between the internal legs of said “U” shape” is the ‘channel’); and a fastener coupling the first and second sides together and extending across the channel (figures 1 – 7, element 46 being the ‘fastener’; column 6, lines 1 – 16).
As to claim 2, Provines teaches that the first and second sides respectively include first and second apertures (figure 6, see below; column 6, lines 1 – 16). Examiner notes that this can be found because Provines expressly teaches that fastener extends through the first and second sides (figures 1 – 6, elements 46 and 36; column 6, lines 7 – 8), requiring the first and second sides to include the first and second apertures, respectively. Provines further teaches that the fastener is disposed in the first and second apertures (figures 1 – 6, element 46; column 6, lines 1 – 16).
PNG
media_image2.png
463
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Provines teaches that the fastener includes opposing first and second ends respectively coupled to the first and second sides (figures 1 – 6, elements 46 and 36; column 6, lines 1 – 16).
As to claim 8, Provines teaches that the bottom surface includes a flat surface (figure 5, bottom surface of element 34).
As to claim 11, Provines teaches that the interface surface is a flat surface (figures 1 – 6, element 36). This can be found because Provines teaches that the prybar rests on the interface surface (figures 1 – 6, elements 34 and 50; column 6, lines 1 – 16).
As to claim 12, Provines teaches that the base portion and the first and second side are a single monolithic piece (figures 1 – 6, element 34; column 6, lines 1 – 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provines as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tronger (U.S. Patent Number 949,337, cited in IDS).
As to claim 4, Provines teaches that the first and second sides includes upper and lower portions (figures 1 – 6, elements 36, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
391
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Provines does not teach the upper portions being tapered. Tronger teaches an attachment for a prybar (lines 1- 16), the attachment comprising: opposing first and second sides extending upwardly from a base portion and cooperatively forming a channel between the first and second sides that is adapted to receive the prybar (figures 1 and 2, elements 6 being the ‘first and second sides’ and element 4 being the ‘base portion’; lines 24 – 41); and a fastener coupling the first and second sides together and extending across the channel (figures 1 and 2, element 7 being the ‘fastener’; lines 34 – 41), wherein each of the first and second sides includes upper and lower portions (figure 1, elements 6, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
477
583
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Tronger further teaches that the upper portions are tapered (figure 1, elements 6, see above). Examiner notes that this can be found because “taper” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “to become progressively smaller toward one end” or “to diminish gradually.” It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form first and second sides having upper and lower portions, as taught by Provines, wherein the tapered shape of the upper sides of Tronger are substituted for the rectangular shape of the upper sides of Provines, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either a rectangular or a tapered shape would provide the same benefit of forming a channel adapted to receive a prybar and house a fastener coupling the first and second sides together, as desired by Provines.
As to claim 5, Provines teaches that the first and second sides respectively include first and second apertures respectively disposed in the upper portions of the first and second sides (figure 6, see below; column 6, lines 1 – 16). Examiner notes that this can be found because Provines expressly teaches that fastener extends through the first and second sides (figures 1 – 6, elements 46 and 36; column 6, lines 7 – 8), requiring the first and second sides to include the first and second apertures, respectively.
PNG
media_image5.png
391
837
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Provines teaches the lower portions being rectangular in shape (figures 1 – 6, elements 36, see above). However, Tronger makes obvious the upper portions being circular in shape, rather than triangular. It is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the upper portions of the first and second sides of Provines in view of Tronger so as to be triangular in shape, rather than circular, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either a circular, rectangular, or triangular shape would provide the same benefit of forming a channel adapted to receive a prybar and house a fastener coupling the first and second sides together, as desired by Provines. Examiner further notes that Applicant’s Specification does not teach a benefit or desire to form the upper portion as a triangular shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 6 – 7, that Provines does not tech the base portion having ‘a bottom surface adapted to contact a grounding surface’ and ‘an interface surface adapted to interface with the prybar’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. The bottom surface of the base portion (figures 1, 2, and 4 – 6, element 32, see above) is flat without any downwardly extending protrusions. It is the position of the Examiner that this bottom surface is ‘adapted to contact a grounding surface’ in the same manner that as the bottom surface of Applicant’s base portion. Examiner notes that Applicant only generally alleges that the bottom surface is not adapted for contact with a grounding surface, without specifying any reasons why.
Regarding the ‘interface surface being adapted to interface with a prybar,’ Provines expressly teaches this limitation (figures 1, 2, and 4 – 6, element 50 being the ‘prybar,’ see above).
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights