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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: As claim 1 is written, the first head both comprises the first socket part and the first socket part is within (i.e. not part of) the first head. The same issue is present in the recitation of the second socket part. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 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).
Regarding claim 9, because the first and second head are identically claimed in claim 1 there is nothing that structurally differentiates the two. Therefore, claim 9 appears to have a scope identical to claim 8 since the nomenclature (“first head” and “second head”) is essentially reversible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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, Figure 3 clearly shows there is a gap between the teeth on head 14 and socket 30. This leads the examiner to believe that in order for the teeth of 14 and 30 to engage each other they must be pressed into engagement via the sliding movement of socket 30 within the hole 24 of the head 14. Therefore, it is unclear how statements (d) and (g) in claim 1 can always be true. Examiner recommends adding the following phrase (and a similar phrase at the end of (g)) to the end of (d) to make the limitation clearer: “…in a second direction when the first head gear teeth are engaged with the first socket gear teeth;”.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “wraps” is unclear as one of ordinary skill would understand the limitation to mean to surround completely. Due to the slot in each of the first head and the second head the corresponding set of teeth cannot completely wrap around their corresponding hole. Examiner will interpret the claim as shown in the Figure 1.
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.
Note: Applicant should note the claims as written do not require the gear teeth to interact along an axial direction of the socket hole as seen in Figure 3 of the instant invention. In making the rejection below, examiner attempted to get as close to the disclosed invention as possible instead of providing a rejection that anticipated the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Applicant is encouraged to review all relevant prior art listed in the Conclusion section of this Office action. At least some of the prior art cited in the Conclusion section may anticipate many of the claims as presently drafted.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sroka (U.S Patent No. 5,388,479) in view of Huang (U.S Patent No. 6,158,308).
Regarding claim 1, Sroka teaches (Figures 1, 2, and 20) a ratchet wrench comprising a handle (10 and a first head (15) at a first end of the handle. The first head has first gear teach (40 and 45) a first hole (Figure 1) and a first head slot (18) that is an opening at a lateral side of the first head that merges with the first hole (see Figure 2). A first socket part (25 and attachment in Figure 20) is located within the first head. The first socket part includes first socket gear teeth (30) that engage with the first head gear teeth (45; Col. 5, lines 34-44), a hexagonal-shaped first socket cavity (Figure 20) for engaging a fastener (Col. 9, lines 18-27) and a first socket slot (Col. 5, lines 13-22) that is an opening at a side of the first socket part. The first head gear teeth (45) and the first socket gear teeth (30) 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 gear teeth (Col. 6, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 2, Sroka teaches (Figures 1, 4, 7A, and 7B) the first head gear teeth and the first socket gear teeth being 90 degrees.
Regarding claim 1, Sroka teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the ratchet wrench comprising a second head attached to a second head of the handle wherein the second head includes parts identical to that of the first head except wherein the second head gear teeth and the second socket gear teeth are configured such that the second socket part is rotatable within the second head in the second direction but rotationally locked in the first direction when the second head gear teeth are engaged with the second socket gear teeth.
Huang teaches (Col. 1, line 60 – Col. 2, line 6) it is useful in ratchet wrenches to provide two heads that can operate in reverse directions and has provided two options that enable increased torque to be applied by increasing contact between the socket gear and the head gear. The first embodiment is found in Figures 3-6. The second embodiment is shown in Figure 7. Huang indicates the second embodiment, which includes first and second heads (51) on opposing sides of a handle (50) is simpler to construct (Col. 3, lines 53-58). In the embodiment shown in Figure 7 it is clearly seen the first and second heads have identical construction except their teething is reversed to allow for forced movement in opposing directions.
Based on the teachings of Huang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Huang to incporporate the teachings Huang to duplicate the first head (with reverse teething), and its components, on the opposing side of the handle relative to the first head. Doing so would allow for a simple way to increase the utility of the device of Huang by allowing the same tool to be used to reverse out stuck bolts and or be equally as useful tightening bolts having reverse threading while still utilizing a durable design of by maximizing contact between teeth of the first and second head and the first and second socket gear, which is something Huang was interested in solving, in an effort to increase durability and provide greater torque.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sroka and Huang teach the second head gear teeth and the second socket gear teeth each having a teeth angle of 90 based on the rejection of claim 1 above and the duplication of the parts already present in Sroka.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the combination of Sroka and Huang teach 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. Since either the first or second head can be considered the first or second head and vice versa, the combination is considered to read on the limitations of claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Sroka and Huang teach 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 20).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Sroka and Huang teach 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 and the duplication of the parts already present in Sroka.
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 Sroka, as applied to claim 1, in view of Schreyer (U.S Patent No. 4,222,293) and Xu (WO2015096727).
The modified device of Sroka 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 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 Sroka, as applied to claim 1, in view of Lee et al. (U.S Publication No. 20070204727), and hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 11-14 the modified device of Sroka 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 Sroka 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hillinger (WO9611774), MacDonald (U.S Patent No. 10,406,658), Tesoro (U.S Patent No. 4,270,417), Antonius (U.S Patent No. 4,479,409), Lee (U.S Patent No. 4,939,961), Chen (U.S Publication No. 20100101376), Zhan (U.S Publication No. 20100257979), Hsien (U.S Publication No. 20060219061), Bergquist (U.S Patent No. 3,175,434), Cherry (U.S Patent No. 249,003), Seivert (U.S Patent No. 1,157,427), Colbert (U.S Patent No. 145,399), Jette (U.S Patent No. 1,526,150), Tsai (U.S Patent No. 6,155,140), Sawa (U.S Patent No. 11,161,226), Pannitti (U.S Patent No. 1,334,674), Hurley (U.S Patent No. 1,386,708), Seiss et al (U.S Patent No. 1,815,804), and Sedgley (U.S Patent No. 1,521,331) teach elements of the current invention.
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