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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Five pages of Drawings (2 marked-up, 2 clean and 1 new copy) and two pages of specification were received on May 8, 2026. The drawings and specification are acceptable to correct the obvious scrivener’s errors and omission in the original disclosure.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Clip Species I and Tether Species I in the reply filed on January 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14 and 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 8, 15, 17, 18, 26-28, 41 and 74-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The percentage or exact size, shape or geometry to match the handle in order to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested. Same rejection applies to claims 8, 26, 27 and 76.
The term “resilient” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resilient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The toughness or capable of withstanding shock without permanent deformation or rupture (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resilient) of the bend to meet the claim limitation is not known. Clarification is respectfully requested.
The term “substantially” in line 5 of claim 74 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The maximum allowable thickness to meet the claim limitation is not known because it is unclear how short is “substantially” less? Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 13, 15, 17, 18, 26-28, 41, 74 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harris (US 4683923).
With respect to claim 1, Harris discloses an attachment (Figs. 1-5) for a work tool (20) having a handle (22) and a trigger (23) adjustable between an on-position (Fig. 3) and an off-position (not shown), the attachment comprising: a clip (10) including a first arm (12) and a second arm (13) extending from a link (11), the clip being configured so that said first arm and said second arm delineate a width suitable for holding the trigger in its on-position (Fig. 3), with the first arm abutted against an external surface of the handle and the second arm abutted against the trigger (Fig. 4), when the clip is engaged with the handle; and wherein the clip includes a portion (areas with teeth 12b) having a (radial) thickness extending outward from the handle and an exterior (radially outermost) surface configured for (capable of) manual grasping by a worker when the clip is engaged with the handle of the work tool, the exterior surface of the clip having a (overall radial) width along the handle that is greater than the thickness.
With respect to claim 2, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 1 wherein the clip has a generally C-shaped or a generally U-shaped profile (Figs. 1, 2 and 4).
With respect to claim 3, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 2 wherein a thickness of the link is thin relative to a (curved) length along the profile.
With respect to claim 6, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 1 wherein the exterior surface of the clip is textured (serrated).
With respect to claim 7, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 1 wherein the exterior surface of the clip is part of a rubber grip (high strength plastic material. Col. 1, line 41).
With respect to claim 8, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 1 wherein the link comprises a (C) shape that generally follows a shape of the handle (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 13, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 1, the link comprising a first curved bend (between “11 and 12” and “11 and 13”) that connects to one of the first arm and the second arm.
With respect to claim 15, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 13 wherein the first curved bend is resilient (not broken when in use. Figs. 3 and 4).
With respect to claim 17, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 15 wherein the clip is configured to (capable of) bend (opening up or widen the gap of the C-shaped profile) when subject to a biasing force provided by the trigger (Harris’ clip is made metal or high strength plastic material. Almost all material flexes or bend under stress when examined microscopically. Therefore, the capability of the clip to bend and the bend encourages disengagement of the clip from the handle is nothing but commonly known physics); and wherein bending of the clip encourages disengagement of the clip from the handle.
With respect to claim 18, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 17 wherein the clip is configured to (capable of) automatically disengage from the handle when the clip is not grasped (not under stress as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 and subjected to gravitational force).
With respect to claim 26, Harris discloses an attachment (Figs. 1-5) for a work tool (20) having a handle (22) and a trigger (23) adjustable between an on-position (Fig. 3) and an off-position (not shown), the attachment comprising: a clip (10) comprising a generally C-shaped or generally U-shaped profile (Figs. 1, 2 and 4) and a first portion (areas with teeth 12b) having a (radial) width extending along the handle and configured to (capable of) wrap about at least a (top) portion of the handle, the clip being configured for (capable of) holding the trigger in its on-position when the clip is engaged with the handle, the first portion characterized by a (axial) thickness that is less than the width; and wherein the clip includes an exterior surface (of 10) configured for (capable of) manual grasping by a worker when the clip is engaged with the handle of the work tool.
With respect to claim 27, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 26 wherein the exterior surface of the clip has a shape that generally matches a shape of an exterior gripping surface of the handle (Fig. 4).
With respect to claim 28, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 26 wherein the clip includes a curved bend (between “11 and 12” and “11 and 13”) having a thickness less than the thickness of the first portion(the length of 11 relative to the overall length of claim 10).
With respect to claim 41, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 26 further comprising a tether (hole 11a and the key chain. Col. 2, lines 11-12) secured (built-in) to the clip, the tether comprising a strap (chain or string of the key chain. Not shown) including a loop (ring or chain of the key chain. Not shown) portion configured for (capable of) securing the tether to a hand (finger) or a wrist of the worker.
With respect to claim 74, Harris discloses a work tool (Figs. 1-5) comprising: a handle (22) including a trigger (23) for (capable of) controlling an operational mode of a work tool, the trigger being adjustable between a first (dispensing) position (Fig. 3) and a second position (not shown); and a clip (10) including a first arm (12) and a second arm (13) extending from a link (area connecting 11 to 12 and 13), the link having a (axial) thickness substantially less than a (radial) width thereof extending along the handle (See Fig. 1 with additional annotations below), the clip being configured (capable of) so that said first arm and said second arm are separated by a dimension suitable for holding the trigger in its first position, with the first arm abutted against an external (top) surface of the handle and the second arm abutted against the trigger, when the clip is engaged with the handle; wherein the clip includes an exterior surface configured for (capable of) manual grasping by a worker when the clip is engaged with the handle of the work tool.
With respect to claim 76, Harris discloses the wherein the clip has a generally C-shaped or a generally U-shaped profile.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris.
With respect to claim 4, Harris discloses the attachment of claim 3 except for wherein the thickness of the link is between about 0.2 cm and about 2.0 cm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the thickness of the link is between about 0.2 cm and about 2.0 cm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Sunaba (US 10239075).
With respect to claim 75, Harris discloses the work tool of claim 74 wherein said first position being an on-position for the work tool and said second position being an off-position for the work tool.
Harris fails to disclose the trigger is operably engaged with a safety-interlock.
However, Sunaba teaches work tool (1) comprising a trigger (7) and the trigger is operably engaged with a safety-interlock (9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a safety-interlock, as taught by Sunaba, to Harris’s trigger, in order to lock and unlock the trigger (Figs 3-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that Harris fails to disclose “a portion having a thickness extending outward from the handle and an exterior surface configured for manual grasping by a worker when the clip is engaged with the handle of the work tool, the exterior surface of the clip having a width along the handle that is greater than the thickness.” The applicant’s argument has been considered but is moot due to the new interpretation of the Harris reference. The portion is now being interpreted as “areas with teeth 12b.” Therefore, Harris discloses the portion (areas with teeth 12b) having a (radial) thickness extending outward from the handle and an exterior (radially outermost) surface configured for (capable of) manual grasping by a worker when the clip is engaged with the handle of the work tool, the exterior surface of the clip having a (overall radial) width along the handle that is greater than the thickness. Similar interpretation is applies to claims 26 and 74. See also Fig. 1 with additional annotations clarifying the Examiner’s position.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights