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
Applicant’s originally filed claims 1/19/2024 included generic claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-19, and fishing tool specific claims 3, 10, 13, 20. Examiner issued an action presenting the fishing tool on 4/2/2025. Applicant’s claim amendments on 5/30/2025 directed to all claims to “a grabber tool”. Examiner issued a “notice of noncompliance” on 6/6/2025, stating that applicant has changed embodiments, and included what the restriction would have been, had the claims of 5/30/2025 been originally presented. The species restriction as between Species A: grabber tool (figures 1-17b), Species B: non-grabbing tool (figures 26-29), Species C: tool without handle, pincher or trigger (figures 30-37); the non-final action rejected species C.
Applicant’s arguments of 6/25/2025 states the election of species A: “grabber tool” without traverse.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species A “grabber tool” in the reply filed on 6/25/2025 is acknowledged.
This action considers species A, which is now positively elected by applicant.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks applicant for positively electing species A “grabber tool”. Other arguments regarding the original presentation/restriction is addressed above.
Regarding the structure of the grabber tool, examiner notes that the newly cited prior art discloses the structure claimed of the grabber tool.
Many arguments regarding the arm support structure and Adams are merely Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Examiner agrees the subject matter included in the new claims is not new matter.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24-40 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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 24 be found allowable, claim 40 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Specification
The amendment to the specification of 6/25/2025 is entered.
Drawings
The amendments of 6/25/2025 are entered.
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(s) 24-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 10500715 Fleming in view of 5156429 Adams.
Claim(s) 24-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Fleming.
Examiner notes that claims 24 and 40 are identical, and will be treated together. All other similar claims will be treated together.
Examiner further notes that the claims are rejected in two manners: Adams in view of Fleming, AND Fleming in view of Adams. Examiner discloses what each reference teaches, and then will address the obviousness reasoning separately below.
Adams discloses a tool with a handle (figure 11), having an upper handle (annotated) and a lower handle angled away from the upper handle (annotated), and a trigger (annotated), as well as an arm support arrangement (figure 11), the arm support arrangement comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
253
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tubular body (column 2 line 1) having at least three bends (indicated in figure 11) defining at least two planes (annotated lines with T terminals) and terminating in a tool-engaging end 24, the tool engaging end 24 comprising a male handle mating portion 68 (figure 12), a female support mating portion 66 being mated with the male handle mating portion 68 (figure 12) thereby
PNG
media_image3.png
314
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
attaching the arm support mechanism to the handle mechanism (figure 12), a first plane of the two planes comprising an upward slanting arm-engaging angled portion opposite the tool-engaging end 24, the arm-engaging angled portion comprising one of the bends disposed between a pair of support segments, a second plane of the two planes comprising a support-to-fulcrum angled portion (Adams arm support meets applicant’s claimed structure, based on comparison of figures 18 to Adams figure 1, and figure 20 to Adams figure 4, included above);
the bends cooperating to orient an axis of a user's forearm toward the handle mechanism in parallel relation to the arm axis (as shown in Adams figure 1), at least the elongate arm portion and the tool having a weight directed downwardly (by gravity) such that the arm-engaging angled portion is directed upwardly toward the user's forearm about a fulcrum point at the handle mechanism (by having the structure shown by applicant), the arm support arrangement thereby counterbalancing a load associated with the tool.
Adams discloses the use of the handle on a plurality of “tools” (column 5 line 61) and “any number of implements or attachments well known in the art” (column 4 line 6), “present device can be used to lift and support relatively heavy objects” (column 3 line 64). Therefore, Adams is obvious to be attached to any “tool” which is “well known in the art” which “can be used to lift” objects.
Fleming discloses:
a grabber tool (title) for enabling a user to grab objects, the grabber tool comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
312
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a handle mechanism (annotated) configured to be ergonomically received in a user's hand (angled), the handle mechanism comprising an upper handle portion (near arm 106), a lower handle portion angled relative to the upper handle portion (angle annotated in figure 1a), and a trigger mechanism 114 extending intermediate the upper handle portion and the lower handle portion (as shown in figure 1a, in the same location as applicant’s trigger 18) configured to enable at least a portion of the user's hand to selectively direct a trigger portion thereof toward the lower handle portion;
an elongate arm portion 106, the elongate arm portion extending distally from a first handle end of the upper handle portion (as shown in figure 1a) along an arm axis and comprising a proximal handle end and a distal pincher end 102, the upper handle portion extending along the arm axis 106 (as shown in figure 1a), the lower handle portion extending along a grip axis (indicated in figure 1a) obliquely angled relative to the arm axis at a handle angle;
a pincher mechanism 102 operably extending distally from the distal pincher end and being operatively coupled to the trigger mechanism 114, the trigger mechanism being operable to selectively close the pincher mechanism via the elongate arm portion 106.
Fleming does not disclose the inclusion of an arm support, or the manner in which to attach the grabber device to an arm support.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claims 24 and 40, Adams in view of Fleming:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a different “tool” which also has a handle and trigger, such as that taught by Fleming, to the known arm support for tools which have triggers, as taught by Adams. Doing so allows the known variability of Adams to be applied to the known tool of Fleming, in a known attachment mechanism taught in Adams figure 12. Therefore, examiner contends that the application of the tool of Fleming to the known handle of Adams is an obvious modification of the Adams disclosure.
Regarding claims 24 and 40, Fleming in view of Adams:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply an arm support, such as that taught in Adams, to the old and well known tool of Fleming. Examiner contends that Fleming, with its extend arm to reach to “picking objects”, creates more torque on a user’s hand during use, since torque is calculated by, in this instance, weight of the “object” times the distance (length of the arm 106), rather than the weight of the object being in the hand, making the “torque” zero. An increased torque on a hand may present user discomfort, and applying a known arm support such as taught in Adams, would alleviate such discomfort in a known manner. Further, Adams is known to be used on tools which use handles and triggers, as well as female and male mating portions between the tool and the handle. Therefore, the use of the Adams support on the Fleming tool is considered and obvious modification of Fleming.
Regarding claim 32:
Adams discloses a tool with a handle (figure 11), having an upper handle (annotated) and a lower handle (annotated), and a trigger (annotated), as well as an arm support arrangement (figure 11), the arm support arrangement comprising
PNG
media_image1.png
253
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
236
589
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a tubular body (column 2 line 1) defining at least two planes (annotated lines with T terminals) and terminating in a tool-engaging end 24, the tool engaging end 24 comprising a handle mating portion 68 (figure 12) thereby attaching the arm support to the handle mechanism (figure 11),
PNG
media_image3.png
314
522
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a first plane of the two planes comprising an upward slanting arm-engaging angled portion opposite the tool-engaging end 24, the arm-engaging angled portion comprising one of the bends disposed between a pair of support segments,
the S shape in three dimensions for orienting an axis of a user's forearm toward the handle mechanism in parallel relation to the arm axis (as shown in Adams figure 1), at least the elongate arm portion and the tool having a weight directed downwardly (by gravity) such that the arm-engaging angled portion is directed upwardly toward the user's forearm about a fulcrum point at the handle mechanism (by having the structure shown by applicant), the arm support arrangement thereby counterbalancing a load associated with the tool.
Adams discloses the use of the handle on a plurality of “tools” (column 5 line 61) and “any number of implements or attachments well known in the art” (column 4 line 6), “present device can be used to lift and support relatively heavy objects” (column 3 line 64). Therefore, Adams is obvious to be attached to any “tool” which is “well known in the art” which “can be used to lift” objects.
Fleming discloses:
a grabber tool (title) for enabling a user to grab objects, the grabber tool comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
312
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a handle mechanism (annotated), the handle mechanism comprising an upper handle portion (near arm 106), a lower handle portion, and a trigger mechanism 114;
an elongate arm portion 106, the elongate arm portion extending distally from a first handle end of the upper handle portion (as shown in figure 1a) comprising a proximal handle end and a distal pincher end 102;
a pincher mechanism 102 operably extending distally from the distal pincher end and being operatively coupled to the trigger mechanism 114, the trigger mechanism being operable to selectively close the pincher mechanism via the elongate arm portion 106.
Fleming does not disclose the inclusion of an arm support, or the manner in which to attach the grabber device to an arm support.
Regarding claim 32 Adams in view of Fleming:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a different “tool” which also has a handle and trigger, such as that taught by Fleming, to the known arm support for tools which have triggers, as taught by Adams. Doing so allows the known variability of Adams to be applied to the known tool of Fleming, in a known attachment mechanism taught in Adams figure 12. Therefore, examiner contends that the application of the tool of Fleming to the known handle of Adams is an obvious modification of the Adams disclosure.
Regarding claim 32 Fleming in view of Adams:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply an arm support, such as that taught in Adams, to the old and well known tool of Fleming. Examiner contends that Fleming, with its extend arm to reach to “picking objects”, creates more torque on a user’s hand during use, since torque is calculated by, in this instance, weight of the “object” times the distance (length of the arm 106), rather than the weight of the object being in the hand, making the “torque” zero. An increased torque on a hand may present user discomfort, and applying a known arm support such as taught in Adams, would alleviate such discomfort in a known manner. Further, Adams is known to be used on tools which use handles and triggers, as well as female and male mating portions between the tool and the handle. Therefore, the use of the Adams support on the Fleming tool is considered and obvious modification of Fleming.
Regarding claims 25 and 32,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 1 and 32.
Adams’ arm support further discloses the first plane extends obliquely relative to the axis of the user's forearm (as shown in Adams figure 11) such that the first plane extends through the support mating portion (68 figure 12) and a grip end of the upper handle portion (66 of figure 12) at a junction thereof with the lower handle portion, the first plane being obliquely angled between the arm axis and the grip axis (along axis of section 32 of figure 11).
Regarding claims 26 and 34,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 1 and 32.
Adams’ arm support further discloses the arm-engaging angled portion comprises a linear first support segment 32, a linear second support segment 42 obliquely angled relative to the linear first support segment 32, and a radiused support segment 38 extending intermediate the linear first 32 and second support segments 42, the radiused support segment being configured for engaging the user's forearm (as is shown in figure 6).
Regarding claims 27 and 35,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 26 and 34.
Adams arm support further discloses the linear first 32 and second support segments 42 flank outer portions of the user's forearm (figure 6) for further engaging the user's forearm and increasing the support function of the arm-engaging angled portion.
Regarding claims 28 and 36,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 26 and 34.
Adams support arm further includes the support-to-fulcrum angled portion comprises a linear first angle segment 44, a linear second angle segment 56 obliquely angled relative to the linear first angle segment, and a radiused angle segment (figure 11) extending intermediate the linear first and second angle segments (figure 11).
Regarding claims 29 and 37,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 26 and 34.
Adams support arm further includes the support-to-fulcrum angled portion (as previously claimed in claims 28 and 36) is connected to the arm-engaging angled support angled portion (also in figure 11) by way of a radiused central segment (curve 34 in figures 11-13) extending intermediate the linear second support segment and the linear second angle segment.
Regarding claims 30 and 38,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 24 and 32.
Adams support arm includes the male handle mating portion/tool- engaging portion and the female/support mating portion as disclosed in figure 12. Adams figure 12 does not disclose the male and female parts of the connection each comprise at least one fastener receiving aperture.
Adams figure 10 discloses a spring fastener 58 within both tubes that has a portion extending into through holes 62 of both tubes so that the arms are connected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize any known connection means for male/female connectors of figure 12 of Adams, with known male/female connections as shown in figure 10 of Adams. Examiner notes that these are known alternatives for male/female connections in similar devices and are well known in the art. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claims 31 and 39,
Adams in view of Fleming, and Fleming in view of Adams, discloses both claims 27 and 35.
Adams support arm of figure 11 does not particularly include padding on the exterior of the handle.
Adams figures 6-10 include padding 30 “preferably made of plastic or rubber” (column 4 line 37) is known to be added to a location where the user interacts with the handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to place a known “rubber” tube cover as taught in Adams figure 1 to the other locations of any known Adams handle variations, including that of figure 11. Examiner contends that the use of a cover or pad along any part of the handle does not affect how the handle of Adams is used, and is purely for comfort.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
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 EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. 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.
/EMILY M MORGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677