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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,805,298 A to (SCHWEIGERT) in combination with US 8,353,230 B2 to (Cole).
Regarding claim 1, (SCHWEIGERT) provides an adjustable wrench comprising: a handle 16 comprising: an engagement end (lugs 25); and a gripping end, the handle 16 extending between the gripping end and the engagement end along a longitudinal axis of the handle; a head 12 coupled to the engagement end of the handle (via lug 24), the head comprising 12: a fixed jaw 13; and an adjustable jaw (movable jaw 14) extending away from the fixed jaw 13; an adjustment mechanism (e.g. a worm 20) positioned between engagement end of the handle and the adjustable jaw 14, the adjustment mechanism engages a rear portion of the adjustable jaw (slide portion 17); and, a first pivot axis (through tubular member 26 that pivotably connects the lug 24 of the head and the pair of lugs 25 on the engagement end of the handle 16), the first pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Thus, (SCHWEIGERT) provides an adjustable wrench as claimed except for lacking a second pivot axis, the second pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to provide more flexibility to the wrench for affording a user of the wrench to access the intended fastener.
(Cole) provides several embodiments of a wrench, and demonstrates that the head 100 of the wrench may be fixed to the handle of the wrench 102,102A,500 (Figs. 1-3 and 5); that the head 100 of the wrench may be pivotally attached to a handle 500 of the wrench such that a pivot axis perpendicular is to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6); or that the head 100 of the wrench may be connected to a handle 700 via a coupling mechanism 701 that allows the wrench head 100 to be indexed to any one of a plurality of positions relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool handle 700, and also allows the wrench head 100 to be positioned to any one of a plurality of positions angled relative to a lateral axis of the tool handle 700 (Fig. 7).
Therefore, as both (SCHWEIGERT) and (Cole) pertain to the art of wrenches, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the connection between the head and the handle of the wrench of (SCHWEIGERT) by providing a coupling mechanism, such as that in the embodiment of Fig. 7 in (Cole), and having the predictable result of offering a user of the wrench greater flexibility in accessing and tightening or loosening fasteners that are located in a difficult to access environment.
Regarding claim 7, in the combination of (SCHWEIGERT) and (Cole) as applied to claim 1 above, in (SCHWEIGERT) an adjustable distance is defined between a first jaw surface (replaceable jaw plate 15) of the fixed jaw (stationary jaw 13) and a second jaw surface (replaceable jaw plate 15) of the adjustable jaw (movable jaw 14).
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of (SCHWEIGERT) and (Cole) as applied to claim 7 above, although (SCHWEIGERT) is silent regarding the adjustable distance, i.e., from 0 to 2 3/8 inches, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to scale the respective components of the adjustable jaw wrench head, i.e., the head member 12, the stationary jaw 13, the opening in the stationary jaw, the adjustable jaw 14, and the slide portion 17 of the adjustable jaw 14 engaged through the opening in the stationary jaw, such that the adjustable distance between the first jaw surface and the second jaw surface has a range of 0 to 2 3/8 inches. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.) and In Gardner v. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,568,301 B2 to (Huang) in combination with US 8,353,230 B2 to (Cole).
Regarding claim 1, (Huang) provides an adjustable wrench comprising: a handle 4 comprising: an engagement end; and a gripping end, the handle 4 extending between the gripping end and the engagement end along a longitudinal axis of the handle; a head (main body 1) coupled to the engagement end of the handle (Figs. 1-5), the head 1 comprising: a fixed jaw 11; and an adjustable jaw 3 extending away from the fixed jaw 11; an adjustment mechanism (adjustment bolt 21 and a slide block 2) positioned between engagement end of the handle and the adjustable jaw, the adjustment mechanism engages a rear portion of the adjustable jaw 3; and, a first pivot axis (along pin 43), the first pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (e.g., Fig. 2).
Thus, (Huang) provides an adjustable wrench as claimed except for lacking a second pivot axis, the second pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to provide more flexibility to the wrench for affording a user of the wrench to access the intended fastener.
(Cole) provides several embodiments of a wrench, and demonstrates that the head 100 of the wrench may be fixed to the handle of the wrench 102,102A,500 (Figs. 1-3 and 5); that the head 100 of the wrench may be pivotally attached to a handle 500 of the wrench such that a pivot axis perpendicular is to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6); or that the head 100 of the wrench may be connected to a handle 700 via a coupling mechanism 701 that allows the wrench head 100 to be indexed to any one of a plurality of positions relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool handle 700, and also allows the wrench head 100 to be positioned to any one of a plurality of positions angled relative to a lateral axis of the tool handle 700 (Fig. 7).
Therefore, as both (Huang) and (Cole) pertain to the art of wrenches, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the connection between the head and the handle of the wrench of (Huang) by providing a coupling mechanism, such as that in the embodiment of Fig. 7 in (Cole), and having the predictable result of offering a user of the wrench greater flexibility in accessing and tightening or loosening fasteners that are located in a difficult to access environment.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of (Huang) and (Cole) as applied to claim 1 above, the adjustment mechanism of (Huang) comprises: a screw drive (adjustment bolt 21); and a carriage (slide block 2) that holds the screw drive 21 between an upper support and a lower support, the carriage 2 positioned between the screw drive 21 and the engagement end of the handle 4 (Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 7, in the combination of (Huang) and (Cole) as applied to claim 1 above, in (Huang) an adjustable distance is defined between a first jaw surface of the fixed jaw 11 and a second jaw surface of the adjustable jaw 3.
Regarding claim 8, in the combination of (Huang) and (Cole) as applied to claim 7 above, although (Huang) is silent regarding the adjustable distance, i.e., from 0 to 2 3/8 inches, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to scale the respective components of the adjustable jaw wrench head, i.e., the head member 12, the stationary jaw 13, the opening in the stationary jaw, the adjustable jaw 14, and the slide portion 17 of the adjustable jaw 14 engaged through the opening in the stationary jaw, such that the adjustable distance between the first jaw surface and the second jaw surface has a range of 0 to 2 3/8 inches. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.) and In Gardner v. 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2765690 A to (MAYER) in combination with US 8,353,230 B2 to (Cole).
Regarding claim 1, (MAYER) provides an adjustable wrench comprising: a handle (hand-operated lever 8) comprising: an engagement end (tooth or projection 17); and a gripping end (the opposing end of handle 8), the handle extending between the gripping end and the engagement end along a longitudinal axis of the handle; a head (body 1) coupled to the engagement end of the handle 8, the head comprising: a fixed jaw 2; and an adjustable jaw 3 extending away from the fixed jaw 2; an adjustment mechanism (shaft 11, worm 12 rotatably mounted upon the shaft 11, teeth 13 of the guide 3’ connected with the movable jaw 3) positioned between engagement end 17 of the handle and the adjustable jaw 3, the adjustment mechanism engages a rear portion (teeth 13 of the guide 3’) of the adjustable jaw 3; and a first pivot axis (through pivot 9), the first pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (pivot 9 penetrates the hand-operated lever 8 and the body 1 of the head on an axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the hand-operated lever 8).
Thus, (MAYER) provides an adjustable wrench as claimed except for lacking a second pivot axis, the second pivot axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis to provide more flexibility to the wrench for affording a user of the wrench to access the intended fastener.
(Cole) provides several embodiments of a wrench, and demonstrates that the head 100 of the wrench may be fixed to the handle of the wrench 102,102A,500 (Figs. 1-3 and 5); that the head 100 of the wrench may be pivotally attached to a handle 500 of the wrench such that a pivot axis perpendicular is to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 6); or that the head 100 of the wrench may be connected to a handle 700 via a coupling mechanism 701 that allows the wrench head 100 to be indexed to any one of a plurality of positions relative to the longitudinal axis of the tool handle 700, and also allows the wrench head 100 to be positioned to any one of a plurality of positions angled relative to a lateral axis of the tool handle 700 (Fig. 7).
Therefore, as both (Mayer) and (Cole) pertain to the art of wrenches, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the connection between the head and the handle of the wrench of (Mayer) by providing a coupling mechanism, such as that in the embodiment of Fig. 7 in (Cole), and having the predictable result of offering a user of the wrench greater flexibility in accessing and tightening or loosening fasteners that are located in a difficult to access environment.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 1 above, the adjustment mechanism of (Mayer) comprises: a screw drive (worm 12); and a carriage (“slidable sleeve 16 is mounted upon the shaft 11 close to the worm 12. The sleeve 16 is provided with a recess engaged by a tooth, or projection, 17” – Col. 2, lines 39-42; Figs. 1-3) that holds the screw drive 12 between an upper support (one end of recess 18) and a lower support (the other end of recess 18), the carriage 16 positioned between the screw drive 21 and the engagement end 17 of the handle.
Regarding claim 3, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 2 above, the carriage (sleeve 16) of (Mayer) further comprises at least one recess (“The sleeve 16 is provided with a recess” – Col. 2, lines 40-41), the recess facing the engagement end 17 of the handle 8 and the engagement end of the handle further comprising at least one cam (tooth or projection 17) extending toward the fixed jaw 2.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 3 above, when the handle 8 of (Mayer) is pivoted in a first direction, the at least one cam 17 engages the at least one recess of the carriage 16 such that the screw drive 12 engages a rear portion 3’ of the adjustable jaw 3 moving the adjustable jaw 3 away from the fixed jaw 2 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 3 above, when the handle 8 of (Mayer) is pivoted in a second direction, the at least one cam 17 engages the at least one recess of the carriage 16 such that the screw drive 12 engages a rear portion 3’ of the adjustable jaw 3 moving the adjustable jaw 3 toward the fixed jaw 2 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 4 above, the rear portion 3’ of the adjustable jaw 3 of (Mayer) comprises a plurality of grooves (teeth 13), the grooves 13 receiving threads (not labeled) of the screw drive (worm 12) when the screw drive engages the adjustable jaw 3.
Regarding claim 7, in the combination of (Mayer) and (Cole) as applied to claim 1 above, in (Mayer) an adjustable distance is defined between a first jaw surface of the fixed jaw 2 and a second jaw surface of the adjustable jaw 3.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,890,404 A to (Stojanowski), as evidenced in US 5,375,490 A to (Carlmark), US 4,454,791 A to (Seward, III), and US 4,326,436 A to (McGraw) among others.
Regarding claim 16, (Stojanowski) provides a self-adjusting wrench 10 comprising: a handle 42 comprising: an engagement end 46; and a gripping end (not labeled), the handle 42 extending between the gripping end and the engagement end along a longitudinal axis of the handle; a head 16 coupled to the engagement end 46 of the handle 42, the head 16 comprising: a fixed jaw 18; and an adjustable jaw (movable jaw 28) extending away from the fixed jaw 18, the adjustable jaw 28 comprising a threaded section (a plurality of teeth 32 on rack 30 on movable jaw 28); a screw drive (a thumb wheel 34) comprising threads (adjustable worm gear 36) and engaged with the threaded section 32 of the adjustable jaw 28; and a carriage (shaft 38 and cam component 52) that holds the screw drive 34; an axis perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (through first pivot pin 43), wherein, when the head is rotated 16, the head 16 moves in a clockwise (70 - Fig. 3; Col. 3, line 60) or counterclockwise (71 - Fig. 4, line 61) motion about the axis (of pivot pin 43); wherein, when the handle 42 is pivoted, the engagement end 46 of the handle 42 interfaces (via a lower longitudinal projection 48) against the carriage (the lower longitudinal projection 48 on the handle 52, and the front seat 56 in the cam component 52 presses against the enlarged base 40 of the shaft 38 of the thumb wheel 34) and rotates the screw drive 34 such that the adjustable jaw 28 is moved relative to the fixed jaw 18 (Col. 4, lines 60-62: “As shown in FIG. 3, a continuous clamping operation is performed on a nut 68 by rotating the handle 42 in a clockwise direction 70.”).
Thus, (Stojanowski) provides a self-adjusting wrench according to the claims, except for the absence of a series of markings on the fixed jaw providing an indication of a distance between the fixed jaw and the adjustable jaw; wherein the series of markings on the fixed jaw are located in between the screw drive and the adjustable jaw.
However, the problem to be solved by adding indicia or a series of indicia (i.e., markings) such that a user can determine the distance between jaw surfaces was old and well-know in the art of adjustable wrenches as clearly demonstrated by (Carlmark), (Seward, III), and (McGraw) among others.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the self-adjusting wrench of (Stojanowski) by providing indicia or a series of indicia (i.e., markings) on the fixed jaw of the self-adjusting wrench, as having been a well-known solution for determining the distance between jaw surfaces, as clearly demonstrated by (Carlmark), (Seward, III), and (McGraw) among others.
Regarding claim 17, in the modified self-adjusting wrench of (Stojanowski) as applied to claim 16, (Stojanowski) further provides a torsion spring 62, the torsion spring 62 engages a projection (one leg 64 of the spring 62 is biased against the upper longitudinal projection 44) on a rear surface of the engagement end 46 of the handle 42.
Regarding claim 18, in the modified self-adjusting wrench of (Stojanowski) as applied to claim 17, (Stojanowski) further provides that when the handle 42 is pivoted in a downward direction (71 – Fig. 4), the projection 44 of the handle 42 compresses an arm (leg 64 or leg 58) of the torsion spring 62.
Regarding claim 19, in the modified self-adjusting wrench of (Stojanowski) as applied to claim 18, (Stojanowski) further provides that when the handle is pivoted in an upward direction (70 – Fig. 3), the projection 44 releases the arm (leg 64 or leg 58) of the torsion spring 62.
Regarding claim 20, in the modified self-adjusting wrench of (Stojanowski) as applied to claim 18, (Stojanowski) further provides that the torsion spring 62 biases the handle 42 back into a resting position after the rotation of the screw drive 34 (see, e.g., Col. 4, lines 46-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: that the wrench comprises… a first cam and a second cam;… wherein, when the handle is pivoted about the pivot axis, the first end of the handle moves the screw drive such that the moveable jaw is moved relative to the fixed jaw; wherein the first cam and the second cam extend into and engage a first carriage recess and a second carriage recess, together in combination with the rest of the limitations in claim 9, has neither been disclosed nor suggested by the prior art of record considered as a whole, alone, or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 17 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive because the claims presented on 17 June 2026 have been amended. However, upon consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Conclusion
The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing wrenches, adjustable wrench, and similar tools having features relevant to the pending disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone 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.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/
Prosecution Insights