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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2, consider amending to, --angle that is [[the]]an inverse of the first angle.—for proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “an adjustment mechanism suitable to move the slider within the carriage slot” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Figs. 2-3, pp. [0014-0016] disclose the corresponding structure of “adjustment mechanism” is external threads on the handle end and internal threads on the head end for the handle/head to rotate about an axis and equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-5 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cislo (US Patent No. 5,862,722).
Regarding claim 1, Cislo (US Patent No. 5,862,722) discloses a wrench (item 10; figs. 1-4) comprising:
a head (item 12; fig. 1) with a carriage slot (item 16; col. 3, ll. 62-64; fig. 1) having a static side (defined as side with items 24, i.e. upper side of carriage slot 16 in view of fig. 1), the carriage slot suitable for interfacing with a nut (carriage slut 16 capable of interfacing a nut; col. 3, ll. 67 through col. 4, ll. 5);
a slider (item 30; figs. 1-3) disposed within the carriage slot (slider 30 defines movable side of carriage slot to interface with nut; fig. 1);
a handle (item 14; figs. 1-2) extending from the head (col. 3, ll. 60-61; figs. 1-2), the handle defining an axis (designated in annotated fig. 1 below); and
an adjustment mechanism (includes items 26, 28; figs. 1-2) suitable to move the slider within the carriage slot along the axis relative to the static side (col. 5, ll. 64 through col. 6, ll. 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 2, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises a threaded end of the handle (defined as end of handle 14 including external threads 26; figs. 1-2) that engages a corresponding thread (defined as internal thread 28 of head 12; figs. 2 and 4) of an inner surface of the head (defined as inner surface of head 12 within bore 20; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 2, wherein the handle comprises a knob (handle 14 includes item 66 which is a raised, knurled surface; similar to applicant’s disclosure in which a raised, knurled surface is considered the knob, pp. [0013] of instant disclosure).
Regarding claim 4, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slider is coupled directly to the handle (col. 4, ll. 15-34; item 34 of slider 30 mounts directly to handle via items 40, 42; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slider is movable between a first position (defined as position when slider 30 is flush with lower wall of carriage slot 16 and item 74 is at the highest scale marking on handle; fig. 1) and a second position (defined as position when slider 30 is closest to static side and item 74 is at the lowest scale marking on handle; fig 1), the first position corresponding to a maximum size of the carriage slot (first position is defined when slider is flush with lower wall of carriage and thereby, at the maximum size between slider 30 and static side of carriage slot to accommodate maximum size of a nut), and the second position corresponding to a minimum size of the carriage slot (second position is defined when slider 30 is closest to static side and thereby, accommodating minimum size of a nut between slider 30 and static side of carriage slot; defined by phantom line position in view of fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the handle has a knurled surface (item 66 on the handle 14 is a knurled surface; col. 5, ll. 62-63; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the static side comprises two segments (items 24; figs. 1 and 3) forming a first angle (defined as apex angle formed between the two segments 24; annotated fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 10, wherein the slider comprises two segments (items 52; figs. 1 and 3) forming a second angle (defined as apex angle formed between the two segments 52; annotated fig. 1 above) that is an inverse of the first angle (second angle is inverse, i.e. opposite and facing, the first angle; figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first angle is a 120-degree angle (col. 4, ll. 3-5).
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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cislo (US Patent No. 5,862,722) in view of Cullen (US Patent No. 2,754,710).
Regarding claim 6, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 5. Cislo discloses a range of inch-scale markings (figs. 1 and 5), wherein the maximum size can accommodate up to a 7/8-inch size nut but does not explicitly disclose wherein the maximum size of the range of the carriage slot accommodates a 3.5-inch hexagonal nut. Cullen (US Patent No. 2,754,710) teaches an adjustable wrench comprising a head (item 12; fig. 1) with carriage slot (item 13; fig. 1) having a static side (item 15; fig. 1) and a slider (item 16; figs. 1-2) configured to accommodate various size nuts within the carriage slot, wherein Cullen further discloses many changes may be made in size, shape, and arrangement without departing from the spirit and scope thereof (col. 2, ll. 43-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the carriage slot, as taught by Cullen, to accommodate various size nuts, such as a 3.5-inch hexagonal nut as the maximum size nut accommodated in the carriage slot, since such a modification would provide an improved, rugged, economical to manufacture adjustable wrench that is readily adjusted to accommodate a reasonable range of sizes of nuts, bolts, and studs (Cullen; col. 1, ll. 16-29).
Regarding claim 7, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 5, Cislo discloses a range of inch-scale markings (figs. 1 and 5), wherein the minimum size can accommodate a 1/4-inch size nut but does not explicitly disclose wherein the minimum size of the range of the carriage slot accommodates a 1-inch hexagonal nut. Cullen (US Patent No. 2,754,710) teaches an adjustable wrench comprising a head (item 12; fig. 1) with carriage slot (item 13; fig. 1) having a static side (item 15; fig. 1) and a slider (item 16; figs. 1-2) configured to accommodate various size nuts within the carriage slot, wherein Cullen further discloses many changes may be made in size, shape, and arrangement without departing from the spirit and scope thereof (col. 2, ll. 43-48).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size of the carriage slot, as taught by Cullen, to accommodate various size nuts, such as a 1-inch hexagonal nut as the minimum size nut accommodated in the carriage slot, since such a modification would provide an improved, rugged, economical to manufacture adjustable wrench that is readily adjusted to accommodate a reasonable range of sizes of nuts, bolts, and studs (Cullen; col. 1, ll. 16-29).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cislo (US Patent No. 5,862,722).
Regarding claim 8, Cislo discloses the wrench as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the handle, such as wherein the handle has a length between 16-22 inches.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the length of the handle between 16-22 inches. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The length of the handle can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the length is larger, the user may be able to reach nuts, bolts, studs, etc. that are difficult to reach; while if the length is shorter, the user may need to be closer to the nut, stud, bolts, etc. but will be able to get a higher torque to secure/release the nut, stud, bolt, etc. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Cislo, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the length of the handle between 16-22 inches. Further in the instant application, pp. [0019], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang (US 2019/0061113) discloses a wrench comprising a head with a carriage slot having a static side, a slider disposed within the carriage slot, a handle having a threaded end extending from the head, and an adjustment mechanism suitable to move the slider.
Boyd (US Patent No. 5,988,024) discloses a wrench comprising a head with a carriage slot having a static side, a slider disposed within the carriage slot, a handle extending from the head, and an adjustment mechanism suitable to move the slider.
Perkins (US Patent No. 6,220,124) discloses a wrench comprising a head with a carriage slot having a static side, a slider disposed within the carriage slot, a handle extending from the head and including a threaded end, and an adjustment mechanism suitable to move the slider.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723