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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier US 4813120 in view of Bondar US 4843668.
PNG
media_image1.png
78
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
678
216
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fournier discloses a ring seal removal tool, comprising: an elongated body (3) extending from a proximal end to a distal end; a hook (5) extending from the proximal end; a prying tip (16) extending from the distal end.
Fournier does not specify wherein a cutout in the elongated body, the cutout being configured to receive a portion of a ring seal having an outer diameter about equal to a width of the cutout. However, Bondar teaches an elongated body (11, 18) having cutouts (23) configured to receive a portion of a ring seal (19) having an outer diameter about equal to a width of the cutout (col. 3, lines 16-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the elongated body of Fournier to include a plurality of cutouts as taught by Bondar in order to provide a means for sizing an O-ring that is removed for replacement.
PNG
media_image3.png
118
473
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, the modified Fournier (see modified Fig. 2 above) teaches wherein the elongated body includes a first surface and a second surface (see Fournier, Fig. 2) spaced apart across a height of the elongated body, and the cutout extends into the elongated body from the second surface towards the first surface (see Bondar, Fig. 1, cutouts formed on a surface; modification show in fig. 2 above).
As for claim 3, the modified Fournier teaches wherein a height of the cutout is greater than or equal to the width of the cutout. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have the height of the cutout as greater than or equal to the width of the cutout to provide sizing for different size O-ring seals.
As for claim 4, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the cutout includes: a pair of planar walls (beginning of notch opening 23) spaced apart along a longitudinal axis of the elongated body; and a generally semi-cylindrical bottom wall (bottom of notch 23) extending between the planar walls.
As for claim 5, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the hook has a shank (5) attached to the elongated body (3), a generally curvilinear body (5) extending past the first surface in a first direction extending from the second surface towards the first surface, and a tip (11) projecting past the second surface in a second direction extending from the first surface towards the second surface.
As for claim 6, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the prying tip (16) includes: a shank (16) extending from the distal end along a longitudinal axis of the elongated body; and a tip portion (19) extending from the shank in direction transverse to the longitudinal axis.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 7, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the tip portion has a generally conical shape (19), and the tip portion (19) is disposed at an obtuse angle (see annotated Figure above) relative to the shank (16).
As for claim 10, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the cutout is one of a plurality of cutouts (see annotated figure 2 above).
As for claim 11, the modified Fourier teaches a plurality of cutouts for sizing different size O-ring seals but does not specify wherein a first group of cutouts disposed adjacent to the proximal end of the elongated body; and a second group of cutouts disposed adjacent to the distal end of the elongated body. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design through routine engineering, before the effective filing date, to modify the elongated body to include a plurality of cutouts along the elongated body surface near the distal and proximal ends of the elongated body thus forming two groups of cutouts.
As for claim 12, the modified Fournier teaches wherein each of the first group of cutouts and the second group of cutouts includes cutouts having different widths (Bondar, col. 3, lines 16-27).
As for claim 13, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the first group of cutouts includes: a first cutout adjacent to the proximal end; a second cutout adjacent to a central portion of the elongated body; and a plurality of intermediate cutouts disposed between the first cutout and the second cutout, wherein the first cutout has a first width that is smaller than widths of the intermediate cutouts and the second cutout, and the second cutout has a second width that is larger than the widths of the intermediate cutouts and the first width (Bondar, col. 3, lines 16-27, different size cutouts for different size O-rings). Bondar teaches wherein the plurality of cutouts (23) are provided along the elongated body (18) it therefore would’ve been obvious to group the plurality of cutouts along the proximal and distal end of the elongated body.
As for claim 17, the modified Fournier teaches a ring seal removal tool, comprising: an elongated body (3) extending from a proximal end to a distal end, the elongated body including a bottom surface and top surface spaced apart from the bottom surface in a height direction; one of a hook (5) or a prying tip (16) attached to one of the proximal end or the distal end; and a plurality of cutouts (23 as taught by Bondar) in the elongated body, each cutout extending from the top surface of the elongated body towards the bottom surface of the elongated body, and being configured to receive a portion of a ring seal (Fournier, 2; Bondar, 19) having an outer diameter about equal to a width of the cutout.
As for claim 18, see claim 13 rejection. The prior art of Bondar teaches wherein the cutouts (23) are of different sizes for sizing different O-rings (Bondar, col. 3, lines 16-27).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier US 4813120 in view of Bondar US 4843668 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Langan US 2012/0098282.
PNG
media_image5.png
262
518
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for claim 8, the modified Fournier teaches all the limitations recited above but does not specify wherein at least one of the prying tip and the hook is removably attached to the elongated body. However, the use of a tool having detachable tool elements attached to an elongated body is well known in the tool art as evidence by Langan who teaches a multi-purpose tool (100) having an elongated body (102) having two tool elements (108 and 110) at a proximal and distal end of the elongated body. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the elongated body of Fournier to a detachable tool as taught by Langan in order to provide a means for replacing worn out prying tips or hooks.
Claim(s) 9, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournier US 4813120 in view of Bondar US 4843668 as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Bogdanoff et al. US D306,067.
PNG
media_image6.png
72
664
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
72
68
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As for claim 9, the modified Fournier teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the elongated body has a polygonal cross-section. However, prying tools having a polygonal cross-section is well known in the art as evidence by Bogdanoff who teaches a dental prying tool having a hook end and a prying end wherein the cross-section of the elongated handle body is polygonal shape (see fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to modify the shape of Fournier to a polygonal cross-section as taught by Bogdanoff in order to provide an alternative shape for providing a grip for using the prying tool.
As for claim 15 and 19, the modified Fournier teaches all the limitations as recited above but does not specify wherein the elongated body includes: a proximal portion extending from the proximal end towards the distal end, a distal portion extending from the distal end towards the proximal end, and a central portion extending between the proximal portion and the distal portion, the central portion having a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of the proximal portion or the distal portion.
However, Bogdanoff teaches an elongated body having a proximal portion extending from the proximal end towards the distal end, a distal portion extending from the distal end towards the proximal end, and a central portion extending between the proximal portion and the distal portion, the central portion having a cross-sectional area larger than a cross-sectional area of the proximal portion or the distal portion (see Fig. 4). It would have been obvious design choice through routine engineering, to modify Fournier to have the cross-sectional area of the central portion to be larger than the cross-sectional area of the proximal portion or the distal portion as taught by Bogdanoff in order to provide enhance gripping while also distinguishing the proximal and/or distal portion of the elongated body from the central portion of the elongated body.
As for claim 20, the modified Fournier teaches wherein the plurality of cutouts includes :a first group of cutouts in the proximal portion; and a second group of cutouts in the distal portion. Bondar teaches wherein the plurality of cutouts (23) are provided along the elongated body (18) it therefore would’ve been obvious to group the plurality of cutouts along the proximal and distal end of the elongated body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights