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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the election requirement, Applicant has elected Group I without traverse in the reply filed on 03/10/2026. Claims 14-25 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1-13 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2024 (2), 08/27/2024, and 06/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 12/22/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, the phrase may be amended as “the engaged position provides [[for ]]a hands-free connection” in lines 1-2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US 2020/0386263, hereinafter Davis ‘263), in view of Miyata (US 2012/0125163).
Regarding claim 1, Davis ‘263 discloses a reaction socket assembly (fig. 2, socket unit 300), comprising:
a socket configured to slidingly engage an associated nut so as to define a socket axis, wherein the socket engages the associated nut for paired rotational movement (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 below and ¶ 0061, an actuation socket 310 [corresponds to the recited socket] of the socket unit 300 is fitted around a nut. A torque transfer axis 100A is the recited socket axis);
a lower part disposed coaxially exterior to the socket, the lower part defining a plurality of recesses and a plurality of keyways, wherein the plurality of recesses are fluidly connected with the respective plurality of keyways (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 below, a reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part] is disposed coaxially at an exterior of the actuation socket 310 [corresponds to the recited socket]. A plurality of recesses can be defined as shown in the annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 below and an entrance opening of each recess is considered as the recited keyway); and
a sleeve disposed coaxially exterior to the lower part, the sleeve including a plurality of ramps that are selectively received in the plurality of recesses (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 below and fig. 3, a lock-on ring 330 [corresponds to the recited sleeve] is disposed coaxially at an exterior of the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part]. Crown contour 339 [corresponds to the recited ramps] of the lock-on ring 330 are received in the recesses of the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part]), but does not disclose a plurality of keys selectively disposed in the plurality of recesses and the plurality of keyways.
Miyata teaches, in an analogous socket fastening tool field of endeavor, a plurality of keys selectively disposed in the plurality of recesses and the plurality of keyways (fig. 8 and ¶ 0071, a bottom end portion of a socket provides with engaging claws 24 [correspond to the recited keys]. The claws 24 are disposed between an inner socket portion 21 and an outer socket portion 22, which would be equivalent to the lower part and the sleeve respectively. The claws 24 would be disposed in a recess formed by the inner socket portion 21 [equivalent to the recited lower part]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reaction socket assembly of Davis ‘263 to provide the keys as taught by Miyata so that they engage teeth of a washer when fastening a washer (Miyata ¶ 0071).
PNG
media_image1.png
876
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Davis ‘263 Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
707
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Miyata Fig. 8
Regarding claim 2, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the reaction socket assembly defines an engaged position when the respective plurality of ramps of the sleeve are received in the respective plurality of recesses of the lower part so as to bias the plurality of keys toward the socket axis and an unengaged position when the respective plurality of ramps of the sleeve are not received in the respective plurality of recesses of the lower part so that the plurality of keys are not biased toward the socket axis (Davis ‘263 figs. 4A, 4B and ¶ 0042-44, a lock-on lip 333 of the crown contour 339 [corresponds to the recited ramp] aligns or mis-align with torque inducing structure 322 of the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part] in a lock-on orientation or a release orientation to engage or disengage with a torque receive structure 25 of a washer 10 respectively. In engaging orientation, the crown contours 339 [correspond to the recited ramps] of the lock-on ring 330 would be received in the recesses of the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part] in the lock-on orientation. By combining with Miyata, the claw [corresponds to the recited key] would not be biased or biased toward the socket axis).
Regarding claim 3, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the plurality of keyways fluidically connect the sleeve and the socket (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 above, the keyways are closely disposed with the actuation socket 310 [corresponds to the recited socket] and the lock-on ring 330 [corresponds to the recited sleeve], thus they are fluidically connected).
Regarding claim 4, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the sleeve defines a sleeve inner diameter surface from which the plurality of ramps radially extend inward and the lower part defines a lower part inner diameter surface (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 above and fig. 3, the lock-on ring 330 [corresponds to the recited sleeve] defines an inner diameter surface wherein the crown contour 339 [corresponds to the recited ramps] extend inward. The reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part] also defines an inner diameter surface).
Regarding claim 5, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 4, wherein the lower part defines a lower part inner diameter surface that defines a plurality of engagement ports in direct fluid communication with the respective keyways (Davis ‘263 fig. 2, an inner surface of the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part] includes tapers 324 [correspond to the recited engagement ports] interacting with the recited keyways), wherein the plurality of keys at least partially extend radially inward toward the socket axis when the respective plurality of ramps of the sleeve are received in the respective plurality of recesses of the lower part (annotated Miyata fig. 8 above, the claws 24 [correspond to the recited keys] are extended radially inward toward the socket axis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reaction socket assembly of Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata to provide the keys extending radially inward as taught by Miyata so that they properly engage teeth of a washer when fastening a washer (Miyata ¶ 0071).
Regarding claim 7, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 2, further comprising a drive cap configured for engagement with an associated torque tool such that the drive cap does not spin with respect to an engagement point of the associated torque tool (annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 2 above and ¶ 0052-53, an adapter flange 210 and a coupling unit 220 form the recited drive cap wherein the adapter flange 210 couples with a power torque wrench 90; Davis ¶ 0056, the adapter flange 210 [corresponds to the recited drive cap] includes an adapter spline 211 which is configured to couple with an external spline flange 91 of the wrench so that the recited drive cap and the wrench 90 would rotate together when the tool is in operation).
Regarding claim 8, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 7, wherein the drive cap includes an upper end and a lower end disposed at opposite ends of the drive cap, the lower end adjacent the sleeve, wherein the sleeve includes a first end and a second end, the first end being adjacent the lower end, and wherein the upper end of the drive cap and the second end of the sleeve are disposed at opposite ends of the reaction socket assembly so as to define terminal ends of the reaction socket assembly (See annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
853
854
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Davis ‘263 Fig. 3
Regarding claim 9, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 8, wherein the upper end of the drive cap defines an upper inner diameter surface that slidingly engages the associated torque tool to prevent rotation of the drive cap with respect to the associated torque tool and the second end of the sleeve defines a second end inner diameter surface that circumferentially surrounds the lower part (annotated Davis ‘263 figs. 2 and 3 above, an inner diameter surface of the upper end of the drive cap engages the power torque wrench 90. An inner diameter surface of the socket 60 [corresponds to the recited sleeve] surrounds the inner socket portion 21 [equivalent to the recited lower part]; Davis ¶ 0056, the adapter spline 211 of the adapter flange 210 [corresponds to the recited drive cap] is configured to couple with an external spline flange 91 of the wrench 90 so that it prevents rotation of the drive cap with respect to the torque tool).
Regarding claim 10, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 9, but does not disclose the upper inner diameter surface defines an upper cap shape and an upper cap size and the second end inner diameter surface define a sleeve shape and a sleeve size, and wherein the upper cap shape and the upper cap size are the same as the sleeve shape and the sleeve size, respectively.
As shown in annotated Davis ‘263 fig. 3 above, the upper inner diameter surface of the upper cap has a groove 212, thus the shape and size of the upper end cap and the second end sleeve are not the same. However, specification of the instant application does not explain why they need to have the same shape and size.
It would have been an obvious make the upend end of the drive cap to have the groove instead of making the shape and size of the drive cap to be same as the shape and size of the sleeve since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that drive cap of Davis ‘263 having the groove performs equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily provide the groove at the upper end of the drive cap in order to fit the power tool and make is easy to handle the socket by a user.
Regarding claim 11, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the socket is configured to rotationally move independent of the lower part (Davis ‘263 fig. 3, the actuation socket 310 [corresponds to the recited socket] is a separate component from the reaction socket 320 [corresponds to the recited lower part]. Thus, the actuation socket 310 can be configured to move separately from the inner socket portion 21).
Regarding claim 12, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the lower part and the plurality of keys are configured to simultaneously engage an associated compact reaction washer so as to prevent rotation between the lower part, the plurality of keys, and the associated compact reaction washer (annotated Miyata fig. 8 above and ¶ 0071, the claws 24 [correspond to the recited keys] can engage the teeth of the washer A. Once the washer is engaged the inner socket portion 21 [equivalent to the recited lower part], the claws 24, and the washer would not rotate freely themselves).
Regarding claim 13, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the engaged position provide for a hands-free connection between an associated compact reaction washer and the reaction socket assembly (Davis ‘263 fig. 4B and ¶ 0042-44, the lock-on orientation [corresponds to the recited engaged position] allows the entire system is locked-on to the washer 10).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis ‘263, in view of Miyata, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Davis (US 2022/0152789, hereinafter Davis ‘789).
Regarding claim 6, Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata teaches the reaction socket assembly as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose at least one resiliently resistive element disposed between the sleeve and the lower part, the resistive element biasing the sleeve and the lower part away from one another along the socket axis.
Davis ‘789 teaches, in an analogous socket fastening tool field of endeavor, at least one resiliently resistive element disposed between the sleeve and the lower part, the resistive element biasing the sleeve and the lower part away from one another along the socket axis (fig. 3 and ¶ 0061, a retaining ring 34 is disposed between a socket 60 [corresponds to the recited sleeve] and a sleeve 40 [corresponds to the recited lower part]. The ring 34 is made of material with sufficient resilience so that it can bias the socket 60 and the sleeve 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the socket assembly of Davis ‘263 as modified by Miyata to provide the resistive element as taught by Davis ‘789 in order to retain the sleeve 40/lower part in place (Davis ‘789 ¶ 0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Junkers et al. (US 2007/0251359) discloses a power torque tool comprising a socket and a sleeve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights