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 § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dein (US 20060102442 A1).
Referring to claim 1: Dein discloses a compact ratchet wrench (1/500 Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 6e, 7c, 8a, 8b, 7d, 9a) comprising: a body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) with a first end (first end housing 30 shown in Fig. 3b) provided with a head (head portion which houses 30 shown in Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 8a) and a second end provided with a grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) respectively, wherein the head (head portion which houses 30 shown in Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 8a) defines a cavity (12 Fig. 1) extending axially along a rotation axis (rotation axis of 34/53/950/953 shown in Figs. 1, 9a and RA Fig. 1-A inserted below), wherein the body, along a length direction (length direction shown in 3b, 6e) thereof, has a total length (total length = LF + LB shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) comprising a front section length (LF Fig. 1-A inserted below) and a rear section length (LB Fig. 1-A inserted below), wherein the front section length (LF Fig. 1-A inserted below) is a length between a distal end of the head (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) which is distal to the grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) and the rotation axis (RA Fig. 1-A inserted below) and the rear section length (LB Fig. 1-A inserted below) is a length between the rotation axis (RA Fig. 1-A inserted below) and a distal end of the grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) which is distal to the head respectively; and
a ratchet head (30 Fig. 1) rotatably arranged in the cavity (12 Fig. 1) and rotatable about the rotation axis (RA Fig. 1-A inserted below), wherein a first end (first end of 56 shown in Fig. 3b) of the ratchet head (30 Fig. 1), along the rotation axis (RA Fig. 1-A inserted below), is provided with a driving portion (56 shown in Fig. 3b/; 950/953 Fig. 9a), wherein the driving portion has driving surfaces (surfaces of 56 shown in Fig. 3b; surfaces of 950/953 Fig. 9a) and the driving surface has two opposite driving surfaces (two opposite driving surfaces of 56 shown in Fig. 3b and opposite surfaces of 950/953 Fig. 9a) when the body is in cross section along the length direction (length direction shown in 3b) thereof and the two opposite driving surfaces are spaced at a distance which defines a drive width (WD = “first drive element 950, which is 3/8 inch (9.5 mm) square in cross-section” [0217]), wherein the ratio of the front section length (LF = 32/2= 16mm shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) to the drive width (WD = “9.5 mm” [0217]) is less than 2.5 and greater than or equal to 1 (LF/WD = 1.68), and wherein the ratio of the rear section length (LB = 97-16 = 81mm shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below) to drive width (WD = “9.5 mm” [0217]) is less than 12 and greater than 4 (LB/WD = 81/9.5 = 8.53).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 2: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the ratio of the rear section length (LB = 97-16 = 81mm shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) to the drive width (WD = “9.5 mm” [0217]) is less than 9 and greater than 5 (LB/WD = 81/9.5 = 8.53).
Referring to claim 13: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein and the driving surfaces (surfaces of 56 shown in Fig. 3b; surfaces of 950/953 Fig. 9a) are arranged such that the driving portion (56 shown in Fig. 3b/; 950/953 Fig. 9a) has a polygonal shape (polygonal shape shown in Figs. 1 and 3b).
Referring to claim 14: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 13, wherein the driving portion (56 shown in Fig. 3b/; 950/953 Fig. 9a) defines a hollow (hollow which accommodates 952/954 Fug 9a) and the driving surfaces (surfaces of 56 shown in Fig. 3b; surfaces of 950/953 Fig. 9a) delimit an inner periphery (delimit the inner periphery which holds the ball detents 950/953 shown in Fig. 9a ) of the hollow.
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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein (US 20060102442 A1) and “Milwaukee 2021”.
Referring to claim 4: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the sum of the front section length (LF) and the rear section length (LB) is less than 83 millimeters (3.27 inches).
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches an overall length of 3 inches = 76.2 mm.
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the length as taught by “Milwaukee 2021” for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Referring to claim 5: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, and teaches a hole diameter (DH = “22 mm” [0200]) of the cavity, but is silent on wherein the ratio of a hole diameter of the cavity to the drive width (WD) is less than 2.2 and greater than 1.5.
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a drive width (WD = 0.5 inches = 12.7mm)
DH/WD = 22/12.7 = 1.73
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the drive width as taught by “Milwaukee 2021” for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein (US 20060102442 A1) and “Milwaukee 2021”, as applied above in claim 5, and in further view of Abel (US 7878091 B2).
Referring to claim 6: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 5, but is silent on wherein a second end of the ratchet head, along the rotation axis, is provided with a control portion, wherein the driving portion and the control portion are at opposite ends of the ratchet head, wherein the control portion extends around the rotation axis, and wherein the ratio of an outer diameter of the control portion (DO) to the hole diameter (DH) of the cavity is less than 1.5 and greater than 1.
Abel in an analogous ratchet wrench (shown in Figs. 22-26) teaches wherein a second end of the ratchet head (205 Figs. 22-26), along the similar configuration rotation axis (201 Figs. 22-26), is provided with a control portion (219 Figs. 22-26), wherein the similar configuration driving portion (204 Figs. 22-26) and the control portion (219 Figs. 22-26) are at opposite ends of the ratchet head (shown in Figs. 22-26), wherein the control portion (219 Figs. 22-26) extends around the similar configuration rotation axis (201 Figs. 22-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified with the control portion as taught by Abel for the purpose of having a larger surface area for which the turning direction can be easily controlled.
Dein as modified teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on the ratio of an outer diameter of the control portion (DO) to the hole diameter (DH) of the cavity is less than 1.5 and greater than 1.
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that wherein the ratio of an outer diameter of the control portion (DO) to the hole diameter (DH) of the cavity is less than 1.5 and greater than 1, greater than 1.5, or less than 1;
further, the prior art teaches the control portion (DO) and the hole diameter (DH).
Therefore, modifying the compact ratchet wrench of Dein to have the ratio of an outer diameter of the control portion (DO) to the hole diameter (DH) of the cavity is less than 1.5 and greater than 1, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet features. Lastly, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein (US 20060102442 A1).
Referring to claim 11: Dein discloses compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) has a middle part (MP Fig. 2-A inserted below) extending between the head and the grip along the length direction thereof, wherein the middle part (MP Fig. 2-A inserted below) has a top recess portion (TP Fig. 2-A inserted below) and a bottom recess portion (BP Fig. 2-A inserted below) opposite to each other when the body is viewed in cross section along a thickness direction (top diagram shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below) thereof which is orthogonal to the length direction thereof and the top and bottom recess portions (TP and BP Fig. 2-A inserted below) are spaced at a maximum distance which defines a mid-section thickness (TM being the thickness between TP and BP shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below),
wherein the middle part (MP Fig. 2-A inserted below) has a left side mid-section (LP Fig. 2-A inserted below) and a right side mid-section (RP Fig. 2-A inserted below) opposite to each other when the body is viewed in cross section along a width direction (width direction shown in the bottom diagram shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below) thereof which is orthogonal to the length and thickness directions thereof and the left and right side mid-sections (LP and RP Fig. 2-A inserted below) are spaced at a maximum distance which defines a mid-section width (mid-section width Fig. 2-A inserted below), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the mid-section thickness (TM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 0.35 and greater than 0.25 and wherein the ratio of the mid-section width (WM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 1.3 and greater than 1.1.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that wherein the ratio of the mid-section thickness (TM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 0.35 and greater than 0.25, less than 0.25, or greater than 0.35; and wherein the ratio of the mid-section width (WM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 1.3 and greater than 1.1, greater than 1.3, or less than 1.1;
further, the prior art teaches the mid-section thickness (TM), drive width (WD), and mid-section width (WM).
Therefore, modifying the compact ratchet wrench of Dein to have the ratio of the mid-section thickness (TM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 0.35 and greater than 0.25 and wherein the ratio of the mid-section width (WM) to the drive width (WD) is less than 1.3 and greater than 1.1, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the compact ratchet wrench of Dein for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench. Lastly, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
PNG
media_image2.png
484
786
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 12: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 11, wherein the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) has a mid-length (LM Fig. 2-A inserted above) between the distal end of the head (head which houses 30 shown in Fig. 3b) to a distal end of the middle part (MP Fig. 2-A inserted above) which is distal to the head along the length direction thereof (shown in Fig. 2-A inserted above), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the total length of the body to the mid-length (LM) is less than 1.4 and greater than 1.2.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that wherein the ratio of the total length of the body to the mid-length (LM) is less than 1.4 and greater than 1.2, greater than 1.4, or less than 1.2;
further, the prior art teaches a total length and a mid-length.
Therefore, modifying the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified to have the ratio of the total length of the body to the mid-length (LM) is less than 1.4 and greater than 1.2, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the compact ratchet wrench of Dein for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench. Lastly, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claims 3, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein (US 20060102442 A1), Cummings (US 20130283983 A1), and “Milwaukee 2021”.
Referring to claim 3: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 2, Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the front section length (LF) to the drive width (WD) is less than 1.5 and greater than 1.1, and wherein the ratio of rear section length (LB) to the drive width (WD) is less than 7.7 and greater than 7.
Cummings, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a front section length (front section length = width “30”/2 Fig. 2; “30“= “a width 30 of between about 0.75 inches and 1.50 inches” [0027]; front section length = 1in / 2 = 0.5in = 12.7mm = LF).
(WD = “9.5 mm” [0217] of Dein)
LF/WD = 12.7/9.5=1.33
Cummings teaches a front section length (front section length = width “30”/2 Fig. 2; “30“= “a width 30 of between about 0.75 inches and 1.50 inches” [0027]; front section length = 0.75 / 2 = 0.375in = 9.525mm).
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches an overall length of 3 inches = 76.2 mm.
76.2mm-9.525mm = rear section length (LB) = 66.675mm
drive width (WD = “9.5 mm” [0217])
LB/WD = 66.675 mm /9.5 mm = 7.018
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the lengths as taught by Cummings and “Milwaukee 2021” for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Referring to claim 7: Dein discloses the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1, wherein the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b), along a thickness direction (thickness direction of 20 shown in Fig. 3b) thereof which is orthogonal to the length direction thereof, has a front section thickness (front section thickness of head shown in Fig. 3b) and a rear section thickness (rear section thickness of 92 shown in Fig. 3b), wherein the head (head which houses 30 shown in Fig. 3b) has two opposite sides (side of 94b and side of 94a Fig. 3b) when the body is viewed in cross section along the thickness direction thereof and the two opposite sides are spaced at a maximum distance which defines the front section thickness (front section thickness of head shown in Fig. 3b), wherein the grip has two opposite sides when the body is viewed in cross section along the thickness direction thereof and the two opposite sides are spaced at a maximum distance which defines the rear section thickness (rear section thickness of 92 shown in Fig. 3b), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the front section thickness (TF) to the drive width (WD) is less than 1.4 and greater than 1, and wherein the ratio of the rear section thickness (TB) to the drive width (WD) is less than 2.2 and greater than 0.9.
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches the drive width WD = 0.5inch = 12.7mm.
Cummings teaches the front section thickness (TF) and the rear section thickness (TB) (TF = TB = 0.6inch = 15.24mm).
TF/WD
15.24/12.7 = 1.2
TB/WD
15.24/12.7 = 1.2
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the lengths as taught by Cummings and “Milwaukee 2021” for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Referring to claim 8: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 7, wherein the head (head which houses 30 shown in Fig. 3b) has a left side front section (left side front section shown in Figs. 3a and 1-A inserted above) and a right side front section (right side front section shown in Figs. 3a and 1-A inserted above) opposite to each other when the body is viewed in cross section along a width direction (shown in Figs. 3a and 1-A inserted above) thereof which is orthogonal to the length and thickness directions thereof and the left and right side front sections are spaced at a maximum distance (maximum distance of 32mm shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above) which defines a front section width (front section width 32mm shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the front section width (WF) to the front section thickness (TF) is less than 2.3 and greater than 2.
Cummings teaches a front section length (front section width (WF) = “a width 30 of between about 0.75 inches and 1.50 inches” [0027]; front section thickness (TF)= “and a thickness 32 of between about 0.5 inches and 1 inch” [0027]).
WF from 0.75in = 19.05mm to WF 1.5in = 38.1mm
TF from 0.5 inch = 12.7 mm to 1 inch = 25.4 mm
WF/TF = 28mm / 12.7mm = 2.205
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the lengths as taught by Cummings for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Referring to claim 9: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 7, wherein the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) has a middle part (816 Fig. 8a) extending between the head (head portion which houses 30 shown in Figs. 1, 3b, 5, 8a) and the grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) along the length direction thereof, wherein the head has two pivot ears and the ratchet head (30 Fig. 1) is pivotally arranged between the two pivot ears (810 Fig. 8a), wherein one end of the two pivot ears is connected to the middle part (816 Fig. 8a),
wherein the head has a left side front section (left side of 810 Fig. 8a) and a right side front section (right side of 810 Fig. 8a) opposite to each other when the body is viewed in cross section along a width direction thereof which is orthogonal to the length and thickness directions thereof (shown in Fig. 8a) and the left and the right side front sections (left and right sides of 810 Fig. 8a) are spaced at a maximum distance which defines a front section width (front section width shown in Fig. 8a) ,
wherein the left side front section (left side of 810 Fig. 8a) is defined on one of the two pivot ears (shown in Fig. 8a) and the right side front section (right side of 810 Fig. 8a) is defined on the other of the two pivot ears (shown in Fig. 8a), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the front section width (WF) to the front section thickness (TF) is less than 3.3 and greater than 3.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that the ratio of the front section width (WF) to the front section thickness (TF) is less than 3.3 and greater than 3, less than 3, or greater than 3.3; further, the prior art teaches front section width and a front section thickness.
Therefore, modifying the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified to have front section width (WF) to the front section thickness (TF) is less than 3.3 and greater than 3, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the compact ratchet wrench of Dein as modified with reasonable expectations of success. Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the compact ratchet wrench of Dein for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench. Lastly, since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cummings (US 20130283983 A1) and “Milwaukee 2021”, as applied above respectively in claims 7 and 8, and in further view of Whiteford (US 5857390 A).
Referring to claim 10: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 7, wherein the grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) has a left side rear section (left side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) and a right side rear section (right side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) opposite to each other when the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) is viewed in cross section (shown in Fig. 3a) along a width direction thereof which is orthogonal to the length and thickness directions thereof and the left and the right side rear sections (left and right side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) are spaced at a maximum distance which defines a rear section width (rear section width of 92 shown in Fig. 3a), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the rear section width (WD) to the rear section thickness (TB) is less than 1.5 and greater than 1.3.
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a drive width (WD = 0.5 inches = 12.7mm).
Whiteford, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a similar configuration rear section thickness (TB) (“wrench head is 3/8-inch (0.375inch= 9.525mm) thick” Col. 2, lines 44-45).
WD/TB =
12.7/ 9.525 = 1.3333
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the lengths as taught by “Milwaukee 2021”and Whiteford for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Referring to claim 15: Dein as modified teaches the compact ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 8, wherein the grip (92 Figs. 3a and 3b) has a left side rear section (left side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) and a right side rear section (right side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) opposite to each other when the body (body of 1 shown in Fig. 3b) is in cross section along a width direction thereof which is orthogonal to the length and thickness directions thereof and the left and the right side rear sections (left and right side rear section of 92 shown in Fig. 3a) are spaced at a maximum distance which defines a rear section width (rear section width of 92 shown in Fig. 3a), Dein teaches all the structure required by the claim, but is silent on wherein the ratio of the rear section width (WB) to the rear section thickness (TB) is less than 1.5 and greater than 1.3.
“Milwaukee 2021”, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a drive width (WD = 0.5 inches = 12.7mm).
Whiteford, in an analogous ratchet wrench, teaches a similar configuration rear section thickness (TB) (“wrench head is 3/8-inch (0.375inch= 9.525mm) thick” Col. 2, lines 44-45).
WD/TB =
12.7/ 9.525 = 1.3333
Since the application has not disclosed how the specified ratios are critical to its operation, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratchet wrench of Dein with the lengths as taught by “Milwaukee 2021”and Whiteford for the purpose of having an alternate sized ratchet wrench, and since such a 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. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723