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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the preliminary amendment filed on February 16, 2024. Claims 4, 5, 10-13, 16, 17, 25 and 32 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 15, 18-24 and 26-29 have been cancelled. Claims 1-14, 16, 17, 25 and 30-32 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on February 16, 2024, June 4, 2025, September 8, 2025 and September 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-3, 10-14, 25 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kaiser (DE 938420, translation included herewith).
In reference to claim 1, Kaiser discloses a tool (Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a body (4) comprising an opening (5) having a center axis (i.e. a vertical axis in Figure 2);
a plurality of grips (8) coupled to the body and angularly spaced apart from each other around the opening (Figure 3), wherein at least one of the grips is radially movable relative to the opening (Figures 3 and 4);
a plurality of lugs (6) coupled to the body, wherein the lugs limit radially inward movement of the at least one of the grips (Figures 3 and 4); and
a cam (9/10) coupled to the body, wherein rotation of the cam about the center axis in a first rotational direction relative to the body moves the at least one of the grips radially inward (see following portion of translation disclosing, “Upon rotation of the shaft 1, [i.e.] counterclockwise, the clamping bodies 8, as a comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows, by the control surfaces 9 jointly moved radially inward.” ).
In reference to claim 2, Kaiser discloses that at least two of the grips are radially movable relative to the opening (Figure 4); the plurality of lugs limits radially inward movement of the at least two of the grips (Figure 4); and rotation of the cam in the first rotational direction relative to the body moves the at least two of the grips radially inward (see translation above).
In reference to claim 3, Kaiser discloses that an entirety of the grips is radially movable relative to the opening (Figure 4); the plurality of lugs limits radially inward movement of the entirety of the grips (Figure 4); and rotation of the cam in the first rotational direction relative to the body moves the entirety of the grips radially inward (see translation above).
In reference to claim 10, Kaiser discloses that the plurality of lugs comprises at least one lug pair (i.e. two adjacent lugs) associated with the at least one of the grips (Figures 3 and 4); the at least one of the grips is located between the lug pair (Figure 3); and a dimension (i.e. length extending between adjacent lugs) between the lug pair is less than (otherwise the grips would move completely through the tool as they move inwardly) a cross-sectional dimension (i.e. diameter) of the at least one of the grips, because a portion of the grips is larger/wide than the length extending between adjacent lugs, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 11, Kaiser discloses that each one of the grips is equally angularly spaced apart from a directly adjacent one of the grips around the opening (Figures 1 and 3).
In reference to claim 12, Kaiser discloses that the body comprises: a first frame (4); and a second frame (2) coupled to the first frame; and the grips and the lugs are disposed between the first frame and the second frame (Figures 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 13, Kaiser discloses further comprising a ring (10) that is coupled to and concentric with the body (Figure 3), wherein the ring is rotatable about the center axis relative to the body; and the cam is coupled to the ring (Figures 1, 3 and 4).
In reference to claims 14 and 30, Kaiser discloses a tool (Figures 1 and 2) comprising:
a body comprising:
a center axis (i.e. a vertical axis extending along element 1, in Figure 2);
a first frame (4) comprising a first opening (5) that is concentric with the center axis;
a second frame (2) coupled to the first frame and comprising a second opening (not labeled formed as the central opening within 2 and/or formed as the central opening at a lower end of 1, as seen in Figure 1) that is concentric with the center axis (Figure 2);
a plurality of grips (8) disposed between the first frame and the second frame and angularly spaced apart from each other around the center axis (Figure 1);
a plurality of lugs (6) extending between the first frame and the second frame (Figure 1);
a ring (10) coupled to the body and concentric with the center axis (Figures 1 and 3); and
a cam (9) coupled to the ring and extending radially inward (Figure 1),
wherein:
the grips are radially movable relative to the center axis (Figures 3 and 4, also see following portion of translation disclosing, “Upon rotation of the shaft 1, [i.e.] counterclockwise, the clamping bodies 8, as a comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows, by the control surfaces 9 jointly moved radially inward.” );
the lugs limit radially inward movement of the grips (Figure 4);
the ring is rotatable about the center axis relative to the body (Figures 3 and 4); and
rotation of the ring about the center axis in a first rotational direction relative to the body engages the cam with the grips to move the grips radially inward (again see following portion of translation disclosing, “Upon rotation of the shaft 1, [i.e.] counterclockwise, the clamping bodies 8, as a comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows, by the control surfaces 9 jointly moved radially inward.”
The examiner notes the method claim 30 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 14 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 14 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 30.
In reference to claim 25, Kaiser discloses that each one of the grips is disposed between a directly adjacent pair of the lugs (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 31, Kaiser discloses limiting radially inward movement (see Figure 4) of the grips (otherwise the grips would move completely through the tool as they move inwardly) using a plurality of lugs (6), wherein: the lugs are coupled to the body and angularly spaced apart from each other around the opening (Figures 1 and 3); and each one of the grips is disposed between a directly adjacent pair of the lugs (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 32, Kaiser discloses moving the grips radially inward in response to rotating the ring (see following portion of translation disclosing, “Upon rotation of the shaft 1, [i.e.] counterclockwise, the clamping bodies 8, as a comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows, by the control surfaces 9 jointly moved radially inward.”), comprises engaging the grips with a cam (9); and the cam extends radially inward from the ring (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.
Claims 4-9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (DE 938420, translation included herewith) in view of Foreign Reference (DE 9312316, translation included herewith and hereafter referred to as FR).
In reference to claims 4 and 16, Kaiser discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the at least one of the grips is rotatable about a rotation axis that is parallel to the center axis.
The examiner notes that Kaiser teaches that the grips are slidably movable in a slot (7).
However, FR teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar stud/pipe type gripping tool (Figure 1) including a center axis (at M in Figure 1) and a plurality of grips (e.g. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, see Figure 2), each of which being slidably movable in a slot (7, see Figures 2 and 3 similar to the slot 7of Kaiser) and each of which being rotatable (see Figure 3) about a rotation axis (i.e. vertical axis of each guide 3.1-3.6, For example, grip 6.1 rotates about a vertical axis extending along shaft 3.1, in Figures 2 and 3, Note, each grip rotates about a similar vertical shaft, e.g. 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, respectively, Figures 2 and 3) that is parallel (because both 3.1 and M are vertical axes, Figure 1) to the center axis (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the grips, of Kaiser, with the known technique of providing the grips that are rotatable about a rotation axis that is parallel to the center axis, as taught by FR, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively supports/guides a respective grip, so that it can be more effectively moved in a slot “so that after a predetermined angle of rotation a pipe inserted into the pipe passage space is touched by the outer surfaces of the clamping bodies” (see portion of translation disclosing, “Each of the clamping bodies has a guide slot 7 running radially outwards from its center, which encloses the guide rods 3.1 to 3.6 so that they can be moved in the slots 7… The guide rods 3.1 to 3.6 slide in the slots 7 in the clamping bodies outwards, which, as can be seen from the drawing, results in the clamping bodies 6.1 to 6.6 pivoting inwards due to this guidance and entering the pipe passage space R, so that after a predetermined angle of rotation a pipe inserted into the pipe passage space is touched by the outer surfaces of the clamping bodies”.).
In reference to claims 5-7 and 17, Kaiser discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks specifically disclosing that,
the grips are formed as cylindrical/tubular rollers.
However FR teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar stud/pipe type gripping tool (Figure 1) including a plurality of grips (e.g. 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, see Figure 2 and which are similar to the grips of Kaiser) each being formed as a cylindrical/tubular roller (6.1-6.6, see Figure 2. Note, each grips is considered as being a roller because each grip pivots/rolls about a respective guiding shaft [3.1-3.6], Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the grips, of Kaiser, with the known technique of providing the grips, each being formed as the cylindrical/tubular roller, as taught by FR, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a plurality of grips that that more firmly rest against the pipe to be screwed during normal operation (see portion of translation disclosing, “clamping bodies arranged around the pipe to be screwed, which are arranged and guided in such a way that they rest firmly against the pipe to be screwed”).
In reference to claim 8, FR discloses that the at least one of the grips further comprises a pin (3.1-3.6, respectively) that is coupled to a body (at 2.1 and/or 2.2); and the tubular roller is rotatable about the pin (see Figures 2 and 3) and is linearly moveable (i.e. along slot 7) relative to the pin (see Figures 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 9, FR discloses that the tubular roller has an inner diameter (see inner diameter of roller 6.1 in Figure 1); the pin has a diameter (see inner diameter of roller 3.1 in Figure 1); and the diameter of the pin is less than the inner diameter of the tubular roller (otherwise the pin would not fit inside the roller, Figure 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bonner (4732059) shows that it is old and well known in the art to provide a drive with a roller (25) that rotates about a pin (28).
Linzell (2006/0175770) discloses a coupling device (Figure 3) including roller gripper elements (62) moved inwardly by rotation of a cam (61, Figures 3a and 3b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723