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 third locknut insert having a third insert inner surface and a third insert outer surface” in claim 4;
“a second bar being affixed to the second shell inner surface; in claim 12;
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
Claims 7, 13, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, lines 1-2 and claim 13, line 7 “driver sleeve having receptacle configured to engage with a lever” should be “driver sleeve having a receptacle configured to engage with a lever”
In claim 19, lines 1-2 “further comprising further comprising a third locknut insert” should be “
In claim 20, line 1 “The locknut socket of claim 12” should be “The locknut socket set of claim 12”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogues (US Patent No. 5,157,995) in view of Taylor (US Pub. No. 2017/0036324).
Regarding claim 1, Nogues discloses: a locknut socket (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 11-12) comprising:
a locknut shell (element 20) having a shell inner surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A), the shell inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a first size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 20 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 21) of the locknut shell (element 20) having “slight slant” (element 29) which is a portion of the shell inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a first size (Detail B) between the shell inner surfaces of the locknut shell (element 20). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the locknut shell including the shell inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the locknut shell has a first size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the shell inner surface engage with a locknut of a first size, as recited.);
a bar (element 85) affixed to the shell inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below showing the bar (element 85) operably affixed to a portion of the shell inner surface (Detail A));
a driver sleeve (element 80) coupled to the bar (see figure 4 and see also col. 2, ll. 29-31), the driver sleeve having a receptacle (element 82) configured to engage with a lever (element 87);
a first locknut insert (element 30) having a first insert inner surface (inner surface of element 30) and a first insert outer surface (outer surface of element 30), the first insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a second size smaller than the first size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 30 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 31) of the first locknut insert (element 30) having “slight slant” (element 39) which is a portion of the first insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a second size (Detail C) between the first insert inner surface of the first locknut insert (element 30) being smaller than a first size (Detail B) of the cavity between the shell inner surfaces of the locknut shell (element 20). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the first locknut insert including the first insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the first locknut insert has a second size receiving cavity smaller than the first size, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the first insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a second size smaller than the first size, as recited.); and
a second locknut insert (element 40) having a second insert inner surface inner surface of element 40) and a second insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40), the second insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a third size smaller than the second size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 40 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 41) of the second locknut insert (element 40) having “slight slant” (element 49) which is a portion of the second insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a third size (Detail D) between the second insert inner surface of the second locknut insert (element 40) being smaller than a second size (Detail C) of the cavity between the first insert inner surfaces of the first locknut insert (element 30). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the second locknut insert including the second insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the second locknut insert has a third size receiving cavity smaller than the second size, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the second insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a third size smaller than the second size, as recited.),
wherein
the bar is configured to transfer torque to the locknut shell (Giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations including the bar (element 85) affixed to the shell inner surface (Detail A) of the locknut shell (element 20) and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the bar transfer torque to the locknut shell, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1011
1422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nogues appears to be silent wherein the first insert outer surface comprises a first catch that engages with the shell inner surface under torque and the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch that engages with the first insert inner surface under torque.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have locknut socket (Figures 1-7B and see also paragraph 0054) comprising a locknut shell (element 600C) having a shell inner surface (see paragraph 0060 where the prior art discloses element 600C comprises “inner rounded corners” that is within the inner surface as best shown in figure 6C), an insert (element 100A) comprising an inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) and an outer surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B), and wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch (element 116A) that engages with the shell inner surface under torque (see paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to incorporate the teachings of Taylor to provide wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch that engages with the shell inner surface under torque. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the insert and locknut shell would necessarily enable concentrating more torque upon the flat walls of the hollow shape insert rather than at corners while also preventing spinning and slippage as disclosed by Taylor (see paragraph 0070).
Furthermore, the prior art of Taylor shows the insert’s outer surface having the catch (element 116a) in the form of “rounded outside corners” (see paragraph 0070), the insert having an inner surface (element 118a) in the form of “rounded inside corners” (see paragraph 0070), and a plurality of inserts (see figures 7A elements 702A I -702A VI). However, Nogues modified does not explicitly disclose the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch that engages with the first insert inner surface under torque.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to provide wherein the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The resultant modification would have the second insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40) of Nogues now having a second catch that engages the first inner surface (inner surface of element 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the plurality of inserts would necessarily prevent spinning and slippage (as evident by Taylor (see paragraph 0030)), thus increasing securement and prevent the inserts from disassembling during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
Regarding claim 2, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 1, wherein the bar is welded to the shell inner surface (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (welded), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Nogues modified is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim).
Regarding claim 3, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 1, wherein each of the shell inner surface, the first insert inner surface, and the second insert inner surface comprises a polygonal cross-sectional shape having six sides (see figure 2 showing each of the locknut shell (element 20) and first/second locknut insert (elements 30/40) which include the shell inner surface, the first insert inner surface, and the second insert inner surface all having a polygonal cross-sectional shape with six sides) or eight sides.
Regarding claim 4, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 1, further comprising a third locknut insert (element 50) having a third insert inner surface (inner surface of element 50) and a third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 50), the third insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a fourth size smaller than the third size (see col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 50 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 51) of the third locknut insert (element 50) having “slight slant” (element 59) which is a portion of the third insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a fourth size (Detail E) between the third insert inner surface of the third locknut insert (element 50) being smaller than a third size (Detail D) of the cavity between the second insert inner surfaces of the first locknut insert (element 40). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the third locknut insert including the third insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the third locknut insert has a fourth size receiving cavity smaller than the third size, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the third insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a fourth size smaller than the third size, as recited.).
PNG
media_image3.png
1011
789
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Nogues as modified disclosed a first and second catch engaging a respective inner surface (see rejection of claim 1 above). However, Nogues modified does not explicitly the third insert outer surface having a catch that engages with the second insert inner surface under torque.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to provide wherein the third insert outer surface having a catch that engages with the second insert inner surface under torque, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The resultant modification would have the third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 50) of Nogues now having a third catch that engages the second insert inner surface (inner surface of element 40). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the plurality of inserts would necessarily prevent spinning and slippage (as evident by Taylor (see paragraph 0030)), thus increasing securement and prevent the inserts from disassembling during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
Regarding claim 5, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 1, wherein the driver sleeve is detachably coupled to the bar (see figure 1 showing the driver sleeve (element 80) as a separate piece and including “outer threads” (element 84 and see also col. 2, ll. 24-26), thus being capable of being operably detachable from the bar).
Regarding claim 6, Nogues discloses: a locknut socket (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 11-12) comprising:
a locknut shell (element 20) having a shell inner surface, the shell inner surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) configured to engage with a locknut of a first size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 20 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 21) of the locknut shell (element 20) having “slight slant” (element 29) which is a portion of the shell inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a first size (Detail B) between the shell inner surfaces of the locknut shell (element 20). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the locknut shell including the shell inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the locknut shell has a first size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the shell inner surface engage with a locknut of a first size, as recited.);
a bar (element 85) affixed to the shell inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below showing the bar (element 85) operably affixed to a portion of the shell inner surface (Detail A)); and
a first locknut insert (element 30) having a first insert inner surface (inner surface of element 30) and a first insert outer surface (outer surface of element 30), the first insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a second size smaller than the first size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 30 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 31) of the first locknut insert (element 30) having “slight slant” (element 39) which is a portion of the first insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a second size (Detail C) between the first insert inner surface of the first locknut insert (element 30) being smaller than a first size (Detail B) of the cavity between the shell inner surfaces of the locknut shell (element 20). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the first locknut insert including the first insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the first locknut insert has a second size receiving cavity smaller than the first size, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the first insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a second size smaller than the first size, as recited.),
wherein
the bar is configured to transfer torque to the locknut shell (Giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations including the bar (element 85) affixed to the shell inner surface (Detail A) of the locknut shell (element 20) and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the bar transfer torque to the locknut shell, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
1011
1422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Nogues appears to be silent wherein the first insert outer surface comprises a first catch that engages with the shell inner surface under torque.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have locknut socket (Figures 1-7B and see also paragraph 0054) comprising a locknut shell (element 600C) having a shell inner surface (see paragraph 0060 where the prior art discloses element 600C comprises “inner rounded corners” that is within the inner surface as best shown in figure 6C), an insert (element 100A) comprising an inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) and an outer surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B), and wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch (element 116A) that engages with the shell inner surface under torque (see paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to incorporate the teachings of Taylor to provide wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch that engages with the shell inner surface under torque. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the insert and locknut shell would necessarily enable concentrating more torque upon the flat walls of the hollow shape insert rather than at corners while also preventing spinning and slippage as disclosed by Taylor (see paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 7, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 6, further comprising a driver sleeve (element 80) coupled to the bar (see figure 4 and see also col. 2, ll. 29-31), the driver sleeve having receptacle configured to engage with a lever (element 87).
Regarding claim 8, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 7, wherein the bar is welded to the shell inner surface (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (welded), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Nogues modified is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim).
Regarding claim 9, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 7, wherein the driver sleeve is detachably coupled to the bar (see figure 1 showing the driver sleeve (element 80) as a separate piece and including “outer threads” (element 84 and see also col. 2, ll. 24-26), thus being capable of being operably detachable from the bar).
Regarding claim 10, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 6, wherein each of the shell inner surface and the first insert inner surface comprises a polygonal cross-sectional shape having six sides (see figure 2 showing each of the locknut shell (element 20) and first locknut insert (element 30) which include the shell inner surface and the first insert inner surface all having a polygonal cross-sectional shape with six sides) or eight sides.
Regarding claim 11, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 6, wherein the bar extends along a line that passes through a center point of a cross section of the shell inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below showing the bar (element 85) extending though a portion of a line (X-X line) that passes through a selected center point (Detail A) of cross section of the shell inner surface).
PNG
media_image4.png
885
718
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogues (US Patent No. 5,157,995) in view of Harr (US Pub. No. 2021/0331354) and Taylor (US Pub. No. 2017/0036324).
Regarding claim 12, Nogues discloses: a locknut socket (Figures 1-5 element 10 and see also col. 2, ll. 11-12) comprising:
a first locknut shell (element 20) having a first shell inner surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A), the first shell inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a first size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 20 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 21) of the locknut shell (element 20) having “slight slant” (element 29) which is a portion of the shell inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a first size (Detail B) between the shell inner surfaces of the locknut shell (element 20). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the locknut shell including the shell inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the locknut shell has a first size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the shell inner surface engage with a locknut of a first size, as recited.), a first bar (element 85) being affixed to the first shell inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below showing the bar (element 85) operably affixed to a portion of the shell inner surface (Detail A));
a driver sleeve (element 80) having receptacle (element 82) configured to engage with a lever (element 87);
a first locknut insert (element 30) having a first insert inner surface (inner surface of element 30) and a first insert outer surface (outer surface of element 30), the first insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a third size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 30 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 31) of the first locknut insert (element 30) having “slight slant” (element 39) which is a portion of the first insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a third size (Detail C) between the first insert inner surface of the first locknut insert (element 30). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the first locknut insert including the first insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the first locknut insert has a third size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the first insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a third size, as recited.); and
wherein
the first bar is configured to detachably couple to the driver sleeve see figure 1 showing the driver sleeve (element 80) as a separate piece and including “outer threads” (element 84 and see also col. 2, ll. 24-26), thus being capable of being operably detachable from the bar) and transfer torque from the driver sleeve to the first locknut shell (Giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations including the bar (element 85) affixed to the shell inner surface (Detail A) of the locknut shell (element 20) and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the bar transfer torque to the locknut shell, as recited.).
PNG
media_image5.png
1011
789
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, as best shown in figure 1, the prior art of discloses a single locknut socket comprising the claimed structure of claim 1 including a locknut shell (element 20), a bar (element 85), a driver sleeve (element 80), and a plurality of locknut inserts (elements 30-70) including a first locknut insert (element 30). However, Nogues appears to be silent wherein the locknut socket is a set, a second locknut shell having a second shell inner surface, the second shell inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a second size different from the first size, a second bar being affixed to the second shell inner surface, a second locknut insert having a second insert inner surface and a second insert outer surface, the second insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a fourth size, the second bar is configured to detachably couple to the driver sleeve and transfer torque from the driver sleeve to the second locknut shell, the first insert outer surface comprises a first catch that engages with the first shell inner surface under torque, and the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch that engages with the second shell inner surface under torque.
Harr teaches it was known in the art to have a locknut socket (Figures 2A-2C element 30 and see also paragraph 0022) and comprising a locknut socket set (see paragraph 0022 where the prior art discloses that present invention uses “a large variety of sockets having different sizes” including “sets, for instance found on hardware store shelfs, have a variety of both imperial and metric sized sockets and may include from twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) different sockets”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to incorporate the teachings of Harr to provide the locknut socket as a set. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a set of different sized sockets including imperial and metric sized sockets would necessarily allow the user to engage different size/types of nuts with different measuring standards, thus increasing the capabilities of the locknut set. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues provide an additional a second locknut shell having a second shell inner surface, the second shell inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a second size different from the first size, a second bar being affixed to the second shell inner surface and a second locknut insert having a second insert inner surface and a second insert outer surface, the second insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a fourth size, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize having both a first and second locknut shell with it’s own respective insert would necessarily allow the user to have one socket in imperial and the other socket in metric which would necessarily increasing utilization of the set. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
However, Nogues modified appears to be silent wherein the first insert outer surface comprises a first catch that engages with the first shell inner surface under torque, and the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch that engages with the second shell inner surface under torque.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have locknut socket (Figures 1-7B and see also paragraph 0054) comprising a locknut shell (element 600C) having a shell inner surface (see paragraph 0060 where the prior art discloses element 600C comprises “inner rounded corners” that is within the inner surface as best shown in figure 6C), an insert (element 100A) comprising an inner surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) and an outer surface (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B), and wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch (element 116A) that engages with the shell inner surface under torque (see paragraph 0070).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to incorporate the teachings of Taylor to provide wherein the outer surface of the insert comprise a first catch that engages with the shell inner surface under torque. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the insert and locknut shell would necessarily enable concentrating more torque upon the flat walls of the hollow shape insert rather than at corners while also preventing spinning and slippage as disclosed by Taylor (see paragraph 0070).
Furthermore, the prior art of Taylor shows the insert’s outer surface having the catch (element 116a) in the form of “rounded outside corners” (see paragraph 0070), the insert having an inner surface (element 118a) in the form of “rounded inside corners” (see paragraph 0070), and a plurality of inserts (see figures 7A elements 702A I -702A VI). However, Nogues modified does not explicitly disclose the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch that engages with the first insert inner surface under torque.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to provide wherein the second insert outer surface comprises a second catch, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The resultant modification would have the second insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40) of Nogues now having a second catch that engages the first inner surface (inner surface of element 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the plurality of inserts would necessarily prevent spinning and slippage (as evident by Taylor (see paragraph 0030)), thus increasing securement and prevent the inserts from disassembling during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
Regarding claim 13, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 12, further comprising a ratchet lever (elements 86/87) compatible with the driver sleeve (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 14, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 12, wherein the first catch engages with the second shell inner surface under torque (Giving that the prior art as modified discloses all the structural limitations including both the first catch engaging an inner surface and also discloses having the second shell inner surface, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the first catch engages with the second shell inner surface under torque, as recited.).
Regarding claim 14, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 14, wherein the second catch engages with the first shell inner surface under torque (Giving that the prior art as modified discloses all the structural limitations including both the second catch engaging an inner surface and also discloses having the first shell inner surface, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the second catch engages with the first shell inner surface under torque, as recited.).
Regarding claim 16, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 12, wherein the second catch engages with the first shell inner surface under torque (Giving that the prior art as modified discloses all the structural limitations including both the second catch engaging an inner surface and also discloses having the first shell inner surface, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the second catch engages with the first shell inner surface under torque, as recited.).
Regarding claim 17, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 12, further comprising further comprising a third locknut insert (element 40) having a third insert inner surface (inner surface of element 40) and a third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40), the third insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a fifth size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 40 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 41) of the third locknut insert (element 40) having “slight slant” (element 49) which is a portion of the third insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a fifth size (Detail D) between the third insert inner surface of the third locknut insert (element 40). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the third locknut insert including the third insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the third locknut insert has a fifth size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the third insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a fifth size, as recited.).
PNG
media_image6.png
926
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Nogues as modified disclosed a first and second catch engaging a respective inner surface (see rejection of claim 12 above). However, Nogues modified does not explicitly the third insert outer surface having a third catch that engages with the first insert inner surface under torque.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to provide wherein the third insert outer surface having a catch that engages with the first insert inner surface under torque, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The resultant modification would have the third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40) of Nogues now having a third catch that engages the first insert inner surface (inner surface of element 30). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the plurality of inserts would necessarily prevent spinning and slippage (as evident by Taylor (see paragraph 0030)), thus increasing securement and prevent the inserts from disassembling during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
Regarding claim 18, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 17, wherein the third catch engages with the second insert inner surface under torque (Giving that the prior art as modified discloses all the structural limitations including both the third catch engaging an inner surface and also discloses having the second insert inner surface, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having wherein the third catch engages with the second insert inner surface under torque, as recited.).
Regarding claim 19, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket set of claim 12, (see rejection of claim 12 above wherein the prior art as modified discloses a set of locknut sockets (element10) which would necessarily comprise a third locknut insert (element 40)) having a third insert inner surface (inner surface of element 40) and a third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40), the third insert inner surface configured to engage with a locknut of a fifth size (See col. 2, ll. 15-19 where the prior art discloses element 40 is “designed to fit” on “nuts” (locknut), see also col. 2, ll. 54-58 where the prior art discloses an end (element 41) of the third locknut insert (element 40) having “slight slant” (element 49) which is a portion of the third insert inner surface, see also col. 2, ll. 61-66 where the prior art discloses the operation of the socket which includes moving the end portion of the socket in order to abut and match “the dimension of the nut”, see figure 5 showing an illustrative engagement of one of the sockets having the slant in combination with a portion of the inner surface engaging a nut (element N)), and see also figure 1 annotated below showing a cavity size of a fifth size (Detail D) between the third insert inner surface of the third locknut insert (element 40). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses all the structural limitations of the third locknut insert including the third insert inner surface having designed to fit/engage a nut and the third locknut insert has a fifth size receiving cavity, and giving that there is no additional structure or structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the third insert inner surface engage with a locknut of a fifth size, as recited.).
PNG
media_image6.png
926
789
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Nogues as modified disclosed a first and second catch engaging a respective inner surface (see rejection of claim 12 above). However, Nogues modified does not explicitly the third insert outer surface having a third catch that engages with the second insert inner surface under torque.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nogues to provide wherein the third insert outer surface having a catch that engages with the second insert inner surface under torque, since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. The resultant modification would have the third insert outer surface (outer surface of element 40) of Nogues now having a third catch that engages the second insert inner surface (inner surface of element 30 of the duplicated socket of element 10). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a catch engagement between the plurality of inserts would necessarily prevent spinning and slippage (as evident by Taylor (see paragraph 0030)), thus increasing securement and prevent the inserts from disassembling during operations. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C))
Regarding claim 20, Nogues modified discloses: the locknut socket of claim 12, wherein each of the first shell inner surface, the second shell inner surface, the first insert inner surface, and the second insert inner surface have a polygonal cross-sectional shape having six sides (see figure 2 showing each of the locknut shell (element 20) and first locknut insert (element 30) which include the shell inner surface and the first insert inner surface all having a polygonal cross-sectional shape with six sides, thus as modified (duplication of socket element 10 in the rejection of claim 12), the second shell having the second shell inner surface and the second insert having the second insert inner surface would necessarily have a polygonal cross-sectional shape with six sides) or eight sides.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723