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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 5,018,773 to Johnson et al.
In re claim 1, Johnson teaches a workpiece handling tool comprising:
a tool head (see Annotated Figure 1) comprising:
a base (12) having a first side (adjacent the handle, 26) and a second side (see Annotated Figure 1, below) positioned opposite each other; and
a first engagement member (56, left) and a second engagement member (see Annotated Figure 1, below) coupled to the base on the first side, the first and second engagement members being planar (as shown in at least Figure 5), parallel and spaced from each other at a distance (as shown in at least Figure 5) such that the tool head is configured to receive a workpiece between the first and second engagement members (see Annotated Figure 1, below, note the workpiece is between at least a first and a second engagement member), at least one of the first and second engagement members being resiliently bendable (Col. 3, lines 40-45) such that the at least one of the first and second engagement members (is capable of bending) bends to accommodate to the workpiece when receiving the workpiece between the first and second engagement members; and
a handle (26) coupled to the tool head, the handle being configured to facilitate grasping of the handle with a hand.
PNG
media_image1.png
722
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the handle (26) is positioned on the second side of the base (12), the handle being elongated (the handle is elongated in the vertical direction) between the tool head and a distal end of the handle with respect to the tool head, the handle forming an acute angle (as shown in at least Figure 1, the handle forms various acute angles with respect to a horizontal axis extending between the first and second engagement members) with an axis extending between the first and second engagement members, the handle extending away from the tool head in a direction away from the second engagement member (as shown in at least Figure 5).
In re claim 3, wherein the handle has a cylindrical shape (as shown in at least Figures 5, 6, 8,8A, Col. 5, lines 65-68, Col. 6, line 1).
In re claim 4, wherein the second engagement member (56) comprises a pair of prongs (at least two of the engagement members form a pair of prongs) which are spaced from each other.
In re claim 7, further comprising a grip (28, Col. 3, lines 34-33) mounted to a perimeter of the handle to frictionally enhance the handle.
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, 2, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 12,115,633 to Corneau et al. in view of US Patent No. 4,449,743 to Pankratz.
In re claim 1, Corneau teaches a workpiece handling tool comprising:
a tool head (10) comprising:
a base (12) having a first side (see Annotated Figure 2, below) and a second side (as shown in at least Figure 1, 52,54 extend from a second side) positioned opposite each other; and
a first engagement member (28) and a second engagement member (24) coupled to the base on the first side, the first and second engagement members being planar (as shown in at least Figure 1), parallel and spaced from each other at a distance (as shown in at least Figure 1) such that the tool head is configured to receive a workpiece between the first and second engagement members (as shown in at least Figure 3), and
a handle (36) coupled to the tool head, the handle being configured to facilitate grasping of the handle with a hand.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
604
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the handle (36) is positioned on the second side of the base (12), the handle being elongated (as shown in at least Figure 1) between the tool head and a distal end of the handle with respect to the tool head, the handle forming an acute angle (as shown in at least Figure 3, the handle forms various acute angles with respect to a horizontal axis extending between the first and second engagement members when rotated) with an axis extending between the first and second engagement members, the handle extending away from the tool head in a direction away from the second engagement member (the grip of the handle has at least one dimension in the vertical direction that extends away from the second engagement member, 24).
In re claim 4, wherein the second engagement member (24) comprises a pair of prongs (40,66) which are spaced from each other.
In re claim 5, wherein the first engagement member (28) comprises an extension panel (the surface of the engagement member (28) is a planar extension panel which tapers, as shown in at least Figure 2) and a tooth (44), the extension panel being coupled to an extending between the base (12) and the tooth (40), the tooth pointing towards the second engagement member (24).
First engagement member 28 has an extension panel which tapers in as much as applicants.
In re claim 6, wherein the extension panel tapers from the base (12) to the tooth (as shown in at least Figure 2).
In re claim 7, further comprising a grip (38) mounted to a perimeter of the handle to frictionally enhance the handle (Col. 3, lines 2-5).
Regarding claim 1, Corneau teaches a first and second engagement member, but does not teach at least one of the first and second engagement members being resiliently bendable such that the at least one of the first and second engagement members (is capable of bending) bends to accommodate to the workpiece when receiving the workpiece between the first and second engagement members.
Pankratz teaches in the art of workpiece handling tools, a tool head having at least one first and second engagement members (16,30) that are resiliently bendable (Col. 2, lines 31-37, Col. 3, lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for at least one of the first and second engagement members of Corneau to have a resilient bendable property as taught by Pankratz to a provide constant gripping pressure against the outer periphery of the workpiece for picking up, transporting, and releasing the log in a desired position (Col. 2, lines 31-37).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corneau et al. in view of Pankratz, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Johnson.
In re claim 8, Johnson teaches a handle having a grip (26) with gripping depressions (32) at an underside to form a texted grip, but does not teach a grip comprises a plurality of rings, each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
Del Sol teaches in the art of handles, a handle (20) having a cylindrical shape (Para 0045) and the grip comprising a plurality of rings (as shown in at least Figure 2, Para 0045), each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the grip of Johnson with a plurality of rings as taught by Del Sol to provide sensory feedback for the user’s fingers or to match the contours of a human palm and to reduce slippage of the handle (Para 0045).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of WO2022241133 to Del Sol.
In re claim 8, Johnson teaches a handle having a grip (26) with gripping depressions (32) at an underside to form a texted grip, but does not teach a grip comprises a plurality of rings, each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
Del Sol teaches in the art of handles, a handle (20) having a cylindrical shape (Para 0045) and the grip comprising a plurality of rings (as shown in at least Figure 2, Para 0045), each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the grip of Johnson with a plurality of rings as taught by Del Sol to provide sensory feedback for the user’s fingers or to match the contours of a human palm and to reduce slippage of the handle (Para 0045).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corneau et al. in view of Pankratz, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of Del Sol.
In re claim 9, workpiece handling tool comprising:
a tool head (10) comprising:
a base (12) having a first side (see Annotated Figure 2, below) and a second side (as shown in at least Figure 1, 52,54 extend from a second side) positioned opposite each other; and
a first engagement member (28) and a second engagement member (24) coupled to the base on the first side, the first and second engagement members being planar (as shown in at least Figure 1), parallel and spaced from each other at a distance (as shown in at least Figure 1) such that the tool head is configured to receive a workpiece between the first and second engagement members (as shown in at least Figure 3),
the second engagement member comprising a pair of prongs (40,66) which are spaced from each other, 28) comprises an extension panel (the surface of the engagement member (28) is a planar extension panel which tapers, as shown in at least Figure 2) and a tooth (44), the extension panel being coupled to an extending between the base (12) and the tooth (40), the tooth pointing towards the second engagement member (24), the extension panel tapering from the base to the tooth;
a handle (36) coupled to the tool head, the handle (36) is positioned on the second side of the base (12), the handle being elongated (as shown in at least Figure 1) between the tool head and a distal end of the handle with respect to the tool head, the handle forming an acute angle (as shown in at least Figure 3, the handle forms various acute angles with respect to a horizontal axis extending between the first and second engagement members when rotated) with an axis extending between the first and second engagement members, the handle extending away from the tool head in a direction away from the second engagement member (the grip of the handle has at least one dimension in the vertical direction that extends away from the second engagement member, 24): and
grip (38) mounted to a perimeter of the handle to frictionally enhance the handle (Col. 3, lines 2-5).
Note, first engagement member 28 has an extension panel which tapers in as much as applicants.
Regarding claim 9, Corneau teaches a first and second engagement member, but does not teach at least one of the first and second engagement members being resiliently bendable such that the at least one of the first and second engagement members (is capable of bending) bends to accommodate to the workpiece when receiving the workpiece between the first and second engagement members.
Pankratz teaches in the art of workpiece handling tools, a tool head having at least one first and second engagement members (16,30) that are resiliently bendable (Col. 2, lines 31-37, Col. 3, lines 44-48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for at least one of the first and second engagement members of Corneau to have a resilient bendable property as taught by Pankratz to a provide constant gripping pressure against the outer periphery of the workpiece for picking up, transporting, and releasing the log in a desired position (Col. 2, lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 9, Corneau teaches a handle having a grip, but does not teach the handle having a cylindrical shape and the grip comprising a plurality of rings, each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
Del Sol teaches in the art of handles, a handle (20) having a cylindrical shape (Para 0045) and the grip comprising a plurality of rings (as shown in at least Figure 2, Para 0045), each ring of the plurality of rings extending around the perimeter of the handle, the plurality of rings being spaced at intervals between the tool head and the distal end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the handle of Corneau to have a cylindrical shape and the grip a plurality of rings as taught by Del Sol to provide sensory feedback for the user’s fingers or to match the contours of a human palm and to reduce slippage of the handle (Para 0045). Changing the shape of the handle from a planar shape to a cylindrical shape is an obvious design choice of shape. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 214.04, Section IV, Part B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724