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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (8,656,812 “Kawai”) in view of Baash (2,098,369).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
331
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (DEPRESSION)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
303
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Kawai meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool adapted to engage a fastener and having a longitudinal axis Front-Back, Fig. 2, first and second portions 31, 33, Fig. 2 pivotally coupled together comprising first and second handles; first and second grip portions jaws 4 respectively disposed on the first and second portions Fig. 2, each of the first and second grip portions include a front face @17, Fig. 5, a surface with a depression @34, Figs. 4, 11, and a first set of teeth 13, 34 disposed on the depression Fig. 11, wherein each tooth of the first set of teeth extends from the front face and across the depression defined by 13a, Fig. 4 & Fig. 3B teeth 13 extending from the front face, annotated Figs. 3 and 4 in a direction away from the front face at an angel relative to the longitudinal axis, and each tooth has a tooth angle and tooth depth front face diamond grip pattern not shown, 08:55-56, wherein the depression follows a first curve defined by roots of teeth dashed-lines Fig. 6A that is in a first plane (similar to first curve 138 of the [AltContent: arc]instant application) and has a first curve radius defined by teeth 12, 13 annotated here and the depression follows a second curve that 20is in a second plane Figs. 4, 7 (similar to second curve 146 of the instant application [0031] [0032], instant application Figs. 5 and 6) that is in a plane defined by the front face substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and has a second curve radius Fig. 4, Kawai, meeting the narrative/functional language of wherein the tooth angle and tooth depth are based on the second curve radius. Although a diamond shaped pattern discloses extension at an angle to the longitudinal axis and/or angle defined by the curvature of the depression, and even teeth extending parallel to the longitudinal axis, are extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis (i.e., angle of zero), however it may be considered to meet the claim, except for teeth to extend away from the front face at a non-zero angle relative to the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image6.png
259
205
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Baash teaches a pipe gripping tool with gripping portions die 12, 22 having teeth extending at a non-zero angle relative to a major/longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the pitching teeth 13 of Kawai with the angled pattern as taught by Baash to purchase a better grip on cylindrical workpieces page 2, column 1, lines 64-70, e.g., a worn head of a screw or a bolt.
Please note that each tooth modified for an angle pattern does define an angle relative to the first plane and is elongated, i.e., defines a length.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Kawai alone or modified by Baash) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the gripping portion is formed on a distal end of one of first and second handles Fig. 2 Kawai.
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, except for the disclosed angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., forming the angle about 10 degrees, in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the grip portion includes a second set of teeth 12a, Fig. 5 disposed on the surface outside the depression Fig. 5 Kawai; wherein the second set of teeth 12a are cut along an axis substantially perpendicular to the major axis Fig. 5 Kawai.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 4, wherein the grip portion includes a third set of teeth 11, Fig. 5 having a different tooth pattern than a tooth pattern of the first and second sets of teeth Fig. 12 Kawai.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the recited limitations, except for disclosing a grid pattern for the second set of teeth to be cut in a grid pattern. However as indicated above, grid patterns, e.g., a diamond shaped pattern is old and well known and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form the set of teeth in a grid pattern to enhance the grip.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, further comprising first and second handles 5, wherein the major/longitudinal axis is substantially parallel to the first and second handles and substantially perpendicular to the front face of the grip portion Fig. 2, Kawai.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, i.e., wherein the tool is a pliers-type tool Kawai.
Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, i.e., t wherein the first set of teeth are cut in a continuous pattern Fig. 2, Kawai.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., wherein when the tool is in a closed state, the first set of teeth form a mirrored pattern Fig. 4, Kawai.
Regarding claim 12, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the tool is adapted to engage a fastener, and wherein when the tool is coupled to the fastener, the major axis is substantially parallel with an axis of rotation 10of the fastener Fig. 6A Kawai.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the first plane Fig. 6A is in at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis Fig. 4, Kawai.
Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool of claim 1, wherein the first curve radius is based on the size and shape of the fastener Fig. 6A.
Regarding claims 15 and 21, PA meets the limitations, except for disclosing the first or second curve radius. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., form each of the curve radii at about 0.25” in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 16 and 22, PA meets the limitations, except for disclosing a depth of a cut along the first or the second curve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., form a depth of a cut along each curve at about 0.25” in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, PA meets the limitations, except for disclosing the tooth angle. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., form the tooth angle at about 60 degrees in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, PA meets the limitations, except for disclosing the tooth depth. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention with regards to dimension or desired size, e.g., form the tooth angle at about 0.50” in adapting the tool for a particular application, since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,938,600 in view of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art.
For double patenting to exist as between the rejected claims and the reference claims it must be determined that the rejected claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims. In order to make this determination, it first must be determined whether there are any differences between the rejected claims and the reference claims and, if so, whether those differences render the claims patentably distinct.
In this case the reference claims noted above recite for a plier’s type tool meeting the pending claims, except for that which is old and within the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, since combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly added limitation, i.e., for each tooth of the first set of teeth to extend from the front face and across the depression, as noted above the teeth do extend from the front face and across the depression, as clearly shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
with regards to the prior arguments, the previous response is presented.
PNG
media_image7.png
407
471
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (EXTENDING AT
NON-ZERO ANGLE)] Applicant argues that Kawai discloses longitudinal pinching teeth 13 that are disposed along the longitudinal axis and that Kawai does not disclose that each tooth of the first set of teeth extends from afront face in a direction away from the front face at a non-zero angle relative to the longitudinal axis, and that the tooth angle and the tooth depth are based on a second curve radius of a second curve of a depression as claimed. Examiner, respectfully disagrees. As clearly shown in Fig.3, teeth 13 extend from the front face at a non-zero angle relative to the longitudinal axis. Kawai is further modified for diamond shape pattern (disclosed not shown) to illustrate another extension of teeth in a non-zero angle relative to the axis from the front face, as disclosed in Fig. 2 of Baash, partially shown here.
PNG
media_image9.png
347
223
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Kawai does not disclose teeth extending at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis and that the teaching reference Baash does not disclose tooth angle and tooth depth based on a second curve radius. These arguments are not found persuasive, since applicant argues against the references individually, whereas the combination is applied to the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that the combination would teach against the intended purpose of the base reference, Kawai. This is not found persuasive, since the main purpose of Kawai that is to provide a pair of pliers capable of properly pinching a screw head and rapidly moving a screw from an object, would not be adversely affected by teeth that extend at an angle (non-zero) relative to the longitudinal axis. In fact, instant application, claiming said feature, is intended to provide a strong grip on a screw head so that stripped and worn-out screw heads may be griped and removed without the use of an extractor. Accordingly, providing said feature to the pliers of Kawai improves the grip in such a way that the plies would be capable of removing a stripped screw, which is more than enough to pinch and move a screw as intended by Kawi.
The argument against the double patenting rejections that first and second curves are not taught by art cited, is not persuasive because the combination meets the claims as described above.
Examienr is available for discussion in reaching an agreement for disposing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
May 30, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights