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 .
Drawings
Figures 13-15 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
The drawings are also objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “each encounter face including two inclined faces intersect at a peak point by a top angle” 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 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.
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.
Claim 1, is 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 1, discloses that, "the socket having a large angle between each of the inclined face and the chord” (see lines 20-21). However, claim 1 previously disclosed, "an angle of 2 to 9 degrees being defined between each of the inclined face and a chord" (see lines 13-14). Thus, it is unclear which angle (i.e. the angle of 2-9 degrees or the larger angle) exists between each of the inclined face and the chord. Also, it is unclear if there are more than one angle that exists between each of the inclined face and the chord. How can there be more than one angle that exists between each of the inclined face and the chord? Is the angle of 2 to 9 degrees considered as being the large angle? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as disclosing that, “the socket having an [ However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim 1, is rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (2010/0224035) or optionally over Hu (2010/0224035) in view of Colvin (4930378).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Hu discloses a socket (10, Figures 5c and 6c) comprising:
a cylindrical body having a central hole (100), multiple protrusions (101) protruding radially from an inner periphery of the central hole of the socket, multiple grooves (106) defined in the inner periphery of the central hole and located alternatively between the protrusions (Figures 5c and 6c), each protrusion having an encounter face (formed from left 104, right 104 and peak 105) formed on a distal end thereof (Figures 5c and 6c), the encounter face facing a center (O) of the socket (Figures 5c and 6c), each encounter face including two inclined faces (i.e. left 104 and right 104) which intersect at a peak point (105) by a top angle (see figure below), each protrusion including two lateral sides (i.e. left 103 and right 103, Figure 6c) which respectively face the grooves corresponding thereto, the two inclined faces respectively intersecting the two lateral sides at a corner (see figure below) by a corner angle (see figure below) which is an obtuse angle (see figure below), the two inclined faces having an identical width (i.e. W3, Figure 6c), an angle (see figure below and note for simplicity in the annotated figure below only one of the two angles, [i.e. the right angle] is labeled, however a similar opposite left angle is clearly provided by Hu) being defined between each of the inclined face and a chord (i.e. horizontal dotted line, see figure below) that passes the peak point and intersects two respective points on an outer periphery of the socket (see figure below), the chord being perpendicular to an axis (i.e. vertical axis see figure below) of the protrusion (see figure below), the axis of the protrusion passing through the center of the socket (see figure below), a center angle (see figure below) defined between the two lateral sides of each protrusion and the center of the socket, an engagement between the two inclined faces and the worn object being enhanced so as to avoid the protrusions from being damaged, wherein the socket having an
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Angle)][AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image1.png
710
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu does not explicitly disclose that;
the angle defined between each of the inclined face and the chord is in a range of 2 to 9 degrees.
Hu does teach of varying the inclination of each of the inclined faces (see Figures 5a-5c) needs to be optimized for engagement with fasteners or different sizes (paragraphs 31-32). Figure 5a shows a large gap existing between the inclined faces (104) and the horizontal extending portion of the nut (A1). Figure 5b shows a smaller gap existing between the inclined faces (104) and the horizontal extending portion of the nut (B1). And, Figure 5c shows an even smaller gap existing between the inclined faces (104) and the horizontal extending portion of the nut (C1). Thus, the inclination of each of the inclined faces is disclosed as being a result effective variable in that changing the inclination of each of the inclined faces changes the engagement with fasteners of different sizes (paragraphs 31-32).
Also, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the angle can be “different angles θ” (see paragraph 30 of applicants PG-PUB 2024/0149403) and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g. 2-4 degrees, see paragraph 30 of applicants PG-PUB 2024/0149403) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Hu device to have an angle within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the angle of a component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Hu by making the angle defined between each of the inclined face and the chord being between 2 to 9 degrees, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Optionally, Colvin also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a socket (Figure 4) having an angle (B) that is defined between each of an inclined face (upper 34 and lower 34, Figure 4) and a chord (32e) is in a range of 2 to 9 degrees (i.e. “less than 11 degrees”, Column 6, Lines 56-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the angle defined between each of the inclined face and the chord, of Hu, with the known technique of providing the angle defined between each of the inclined face and the chord in a range of 2 to 9 degrees, as taught by Colvin, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an improved construction for providing surface-to-surface contact with a conventionally toleranced hexagonal fastener such as a nut or bolt head of the same nominal size (Column 2, Lines 9-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knudsen et al. (3675516) discloses a socket having a center angle b. between two lateral sides (21 and 22) of each protrusion (16) being 45 degrees "more or less" (see Column 1, Line 42 and Figure 3).
Eggert et al. (9718170) discloses a socket (Figure 4) having a center C. angle (a4b) between two lateral sides (414 and 416) of each protrusion (406) "about" 20-24 degrees (see Column 6, Lines 34-67 and Figure 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723