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 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 1-3, 8, 10 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurley (U.S Patent No. 1,386,708; previously cited), in view of Antonius (U.S Patent No. 4,479,409; previously cited), and in further view of Jette (U.S Patent No. 1,526,150; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, teaches a ratchet wrench. The wrench has a handle (14), a first head (15), and a first socket part (10). The first head has gear teeth (17), a first hole (Figure 1). The first socket part is positioned within the first head (Figures 1 and 4) and includes a first socket gear teeth (two pins 18; Figure 3), that engages with the first head gear teeth, a first socket cavity (11), recessed radially outward from an inner wall of the first socket part (Figure 3), and a first socket knob (20) extending from a top side of the first socket part and capable of being rotated manually. The first socket part is slidable within the first hole such that the first socket gear teeth (18) are selectively engageable and disengageable without a resilient member biasing the first socket gear teeth or the first head gear teeth. Further, the first head gear teeth and first socket gear teeth are configured such that the first socket part is rotatable within the first head in a first direction, but rotationally locked in a second direction when the first head gear teeth are engaged with the first socket head gear teeth.
Regarding claim 1, Hurley fails to teach the first head and the first socket parts each having a slot at their lateral sides. Hurley further fails to teach a second head at a second end of the handle with a corresponding second socket part wherein the second head gear teeth and second socket gear teeth are locked in the first direction and rotatable in the second direction. Hurley does indicate however (Figure 1) that it is known to utilize a second set of oppositely oriented teeth (16) that function as a second head for rotating and locking the socket part (10) in directions opposite of the first set of socket head teeth (17).
Antonius teaches (Figures 1 and 3) it is known to make wrench similar to that of Hurley such that both the socket head (12) and the socket part (20) have slots that extend from lateral sides to the internal hole/cavity of the corresponding part.
It would have been obvious to have modified Hurley to incorporate the teachings of Antonius to include slots in both the head and the socket part for the express purpose of allowing a user to insert a nut and bolt from the side of the wrench instead of the bottom thereby allowing the wrench to be used in additional hard to reach places.
Jette teaches (Figure 8) that it is known to place opposing sets of teeth (31 and 32) for rotating a nut in opposing directions on first and second heads (29 and 30) on opposing sides of a handle (28).
Hurley and Jett teach known alternatives in the art for providing opposing sets of teeth on a handle designed to allow a user to both tighten and loosen a bolt utilizing the same tool. As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one configuration, opposing sets of teeth on heads on opposite sides of the handle, for the other, the opposing sets of teeth being located on the same head, to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to tighten and loosen a nut with the same tool.
The combination above fails to include a second socket part as required by claim 1. However, the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well known in socket wrenches to include a plurality of socket parts as part of a wrench tool for the express purpose of utilizing the wrench to tighten/loosen nuts of various sizes and/or different external shapes (hex, square, star, etc.). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include additional socket parts to accommodate nuts of different sizes and external shapes to increase the overall utility of the device. The inclusion of additional socket parts would necessarily allow for a second socket part to be engaged with the second head.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Hurley teaches (Figure 1 of Hurley) the first and second head gear teeth (17 and 16) and the first and second socket gear teeth (18) each having a teeth angle of about 90 degrees. Applicant has not defined the range of the term “about” and therefore the teeth of Hurley are considered to meet the range.
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Hurley teaches both heads allowing for movement of their respective gear teeth in one rotational direction relative to each other and no movement in the opposing rotational direction.
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Hurley teaches the first and second socket cavities as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. above and the duplication of the parts already present in Sroka. This includes the socket cavities being hexagonal-shaped (Figure 2 of Hurley).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Hurley teaches the first head gear teeth encircles a portion of the first hole and the second head teeth encircle at least a portion of the second hole as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 16-20, the method claimed is inherent in the use of the combination of Sroka and Huang, i.e. the method reads on any and all instances of inserting a nut on a threaded rod into the first head and tightening the bolt and then loosening the same bolt with the second head.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Hurley, as applied to claim 1, in view of Schreyer (U.S Patent No. 4,222,293; previously cited) and Xu (WO2015096727; previously cited).
The modified device of Hurley teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the first and second head gear and socket teeth having a teeth angle of less than 90 degrees (claims 4 and 6), and specifically between 60-87 degrees (claims 5 and 7).
Schreyer teaches (Figure 2; Col. 5, lines 30-48) teaches it is known to make head (14) and gear teeth (15) points have an acute angle of less than 90 degrees. Further, Xu teaches (Figure 2; Bottom of page 3 of the provided translation) that it is known for ratchet teeth to have an angle of between 85 and 90 degrees.
Based on the teaches of Schreyer and Xu it would have been an obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try making the angle of the teeth of the first and second heads and sockets parts of the modified device of Hurley be less than 90, and as small as 85 degrees. Applicant has provided no criticality to the specific angles claimed and both Schreyer and Xu are evidence that there is a reasonable expectation of success and yield to the predictable result of allowing the teeth to engage each other to allow for the ratchet wrench to function as intended.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Hurley, as applied to claim 1, in view of Lee et al. (U.S Publication No. 20070204727; previously cited), and hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 11-14 the modified device of Hurley teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the first and second head being angled relative to the handle (claims 11 and 13), wherein both the first head and the second head are angled relative to the handle in the range of 5-45 degrees (claims 12 and 14).
Lee teaches (Figures 2, and 5a-6) it is known to angle a head (110) of a ratchet wrench relative to the handle (130) of the ratchet wrench. Figures 5A and 5B clearly identifies, based on the available teeth (116) on the head (110), approximately 180 degrees an angular adjustment of the head relative to the handle (130). Lee teaches it is known to angular adjust the head of a ratchet wrench relative to the handle to all the wrench to be utilized in hard-to-reach places (Paragraph 2).
Based on the teachings of Lee, it would have been obvious to have modified the modified device of Hurley to try angling both the first and second heads relative to the handle for the express purpose of allowing the wrench to be utilized in hard-to-reach places. Further, Based on the teachings of Lee it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the angle of the first and second heads relative to the handle to be between 5 and 45 degrees because discovering an optimal angle between a head and the handle would have been a mere design consideration based on the type and intended location of use of the wrench, i.e. the angle necessary for a person necessary to effectively and comfortably utilize the wrench in the intended hard to reach location especially since Lee discloses a range of angle adjustment that includes the entirety of the claimed range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-20 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.
Examiner agrees with applicant the original primary reference, Sroka (U.S Patent No. 5,388,479; previously cited), and similarly Hillinger (WO-9611774-A1; previously cited), could not be modified to render obvious the invention as presently claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Viets (U.S Patent No. 2,699,082) teaches (Figure 2) it is known to provide a first socket with a cavity being recessed radially outward from an inner wall (see cavity that forms 46 from ratchet 12).
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 EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
