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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, “the automobile” should read “[[the]] an automobile” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity
Claim 1, lines 12-13, “fixed to a plier body” should read “fixed to a respective plier body” to provide increased clarity
Claim 1, lines 13-14, “the other pivoting part” should read “[[the]] an other pivoting part” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4, “wherein a curved side wall of the clipping mouth” should read “wherein a curved side wall of each of the clipping mouths” to provide increased clarity
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-5 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.
Regarding claim 1, last six line, the language recites “each of the two plier bodies comprises a clipping part, the clipping part maintains an included angle with respect to the plier body, a semi-curved clipping mouth is disposed opposite to the clipping part, and the clipping mouth is used to clip the lock ring, which facilitates the pliers to rotate the lock ring”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the term “disposed opposite”. Specifically, with respect to instant fig. 2, it is not precisely clear how the clipping mouth 27 is disposed “opposite” to the clipping part 26. As best understood by the examiner, the clipping mouth 27 is disposed adjacent to the clipping part 26. Additionally, the language should include the term “respective” as appropriate to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issues. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “each of the two plier bodies comprises a clipping part, the respective clipping part maintains an included angle with respect to the respective plier body, [[a]] semi-curved clipping mouths are respectively [[is]] disposed [[opposite]] adjacent to the respective clipping part, and the respective clipping mouth is used to clip the lock ring, which facilitates the pliers to rotate the lock ring”.
Claims 2-5 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(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, 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuzmic et al. (US PGPUB 20240342879), hereinafter Kuzmic.
Regarding claim 1, Kuzmic teaches an automobile hot water hose joint pliers (fig. 3-4 of Kuzmic, wherein the pliers of Kuzmic are capable of performing as automobile hot water hose joint pliers), being used to install a hot water hose joint on a tube end of an evaporator of the automobile or dismantle the hot water hose joint from the tube end (the pliers of figs. 3-4 are capable of being used to install a hot water hose joint on a tube end of an evaporator of the automobile or dismantle the hot water hose joint from the tube end. Because the claim is directed towards an apparatus claim of the “pliers”, the prior art must only be capable of the intended use limitations. If the Applicant intends to require the structure of the specific hose joint, the examiner recommends a “system claim” format. Additionally, the pliers of Kuzmic are capable of being used to install or dismantle the hose joint of instant figs. 1 and 4),
wherein the hot water hose joint comprises a connection part, an end of the connection part is connected and fixed to a water hose, the other end of the connection part is provided with a lock ring, and the lock ring is rotated clockwise or counterclockwise by a predetermined angle to change between a lock position and an unlock position; on the lock position, the hot water hose joint being locked on the tube end without escaping; on the unlock position, the hot water hose joint escaping from the tube end (As described above, the prior art is only required to be capable of operating with the hot water hose joint, as claimed. The pliers of Kuzmic are capable of operating with a hose joint as specifically claimed. Additionally, the pliers of Kuzmic are capable of operating with the hose joint of the instant figures.);
the pliers including two hand grips, with an end of each hand grip being connected and fixed to a plier body (see annotated fig. 3 below),
a pivoting part of one plier body being overlapped with the other pivoting part of the other plier body (see annotated fig. 3 below), and the two pivoting parts being pivoted together by a spindle (rivet 130, [0036]);
PNG
media_image1.png
551
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the two plier bodies comprises a clipping part (see annotated fig. 3 above), the clipping part maintains an included angle with respect to the plier body (Kuzmic teaches the clipping part is twisted at an angle with respect to the plier body [0035]), a semi-curved (figs. 8a-9b, wherein the parts interpreted as the clipping mouth are semi-curved) clipping mouth (see annotated fig. 3 above) is disposed opposite to the clipping part (see annotated fig. 3 above. As best understood by the examiner, in view of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claim limitations), and the clipping mouth is used to clip the lock ring (the clipping mouth is capable of clipping a lock ring. See above discussion of intended use for more details), which facilitates the pliers to rotate the lock ring (the clipping mouth is capable of clipping a lock ring and facilitating the pliers to rotate the lock ring. See above discussion of intended use for more details).
Regarding claim 2, Kuzmic teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kuzmic teaches wherein the included angle is 90° to 120° (Kuzmic teaches 90 degree twisting angle [0035]).
Regarding claim 5, Kuzmic teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Kuzmic teaches wherein an elastic element is disposed between the two hand grips, and by elastic force of the elastic element, the two hand grips keep opened normally (pivot spring 140, [0038]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzmic et al. (US PGPUB 20240342879), hereinafter Kuzmic.
Regarding claim 3, Kuzmic teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1.
Kuzmic does not explicitly teach wherein the included angle is 100°.
However, Kuzmic additionally teaches the jaw twisted portion (interpreted above as the clipping part. see rejection of claim 1 for more details) is created in the initially flat piece of metal of the plier handles, in order to create inward facing jaw face of each plier handle [0035]. Overall, Kuzmic teaches the angle of twisting is a result effective variable in that providing the angle of twisting creates an inward facing jaw face of each plier handle [0035].
Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Kuzmic device to have an included twisting angle of 100 degrees, as it involves adjusting the twisting angle dimension of a component taught to be twisted in order to affect the orientation of the jaw face of each plier handle, such that the jaw face faces inwardly and is oriented to grip a workpiece. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kuzmic by making the twisting angle to be 100 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).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuzmic et al. (US PGPUB 20240342879), hereinafter Kuzmic, in view of Doyle et al. (US Patent 12420391), hereinafter Doyle.
Regarding claim 4, Kuzmic teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Kuzmic does not explicitly teach wherein a curved side wall of the clipping mouth is provided with an anti-slip embossment.
However, Doyle teaches a pair of hose clamp pliers, wherein the inner face of the jaw portions may include a texture. For example, the inner face may include ridges or a knurled texture to aid in gripping surfaces (col. 6, lines 55-57).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kuzmic to incorporate the teachings of Doyle to provide wherein a curved side wall of the clipping mouth is provided with an anti-slip embossment. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include wherein the curved side wall of the clipping mouths of Kuzmic (figs. 8a-9b) are provided with an anti-slip embossment in the form of a textured surface including ridges or a knurled texture. Doing so would aid in gripping surfaces (as taught by Doyle) which prevents damage to the workpiece due to slipping.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boese et al. (US PGPUB 20210101267) teaches a pair of pliers for releasing a line connection similar to the intended use of the instant invention
Schoolland (US Patent 9676082) teaches a plier like tool with bent jaws similar to the claimed invention
Wu (US PGPUB 20160046002) teaches a plier clamping device with bent jaws similar to the claimed invention
Wu (US PGPUB 20080041198) teaches a tool for applying and removing a band clamp similar to the claimed invention
Kang (US Patent 6389937) teaches a pair of pliers with jaws similar to the claimed invention.
Jerdee (US Patent 5865072) teaches a pair of pliers with jaws that would be capable of the intended use as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723