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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Invention I is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 11-12, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the axis of rotation” (claim 9, line 3) should be changed to --the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut--;
“the body” (claim 11, lines 6 and 8 (two instances)) should be changed to --the elongated body--;
“the rotational axis” (claim 12, line 2) should be changed to --a rotational axis--;
“the rotational axis” (claim 16, line 2) should be changed to --a rotational axis--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Huff
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2972918 A (“Huff”).
Regarding claim 1, Huff discloses a tool for servicing a gudgeon nut threadedly coupled to a gudgeon shaft for supporting a rotating frame of an industrial machine (Fig. 1, wrench for servicing a threaded nut, and is capable of the recited function depending on the size and design of the gudgeon nut and/or gudgeon shaft; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the tool comprising:
an elongated body (Fig. 1, elongated body at end of element 12 at nut 11, elongated in the axial direction of nut 11);
a surface positioned adjacent an end of the elongated body, the surface configured to engage the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, flat surface (e.g., one of the six flat surfaces forming a hexagonal shape) adjacent to an end of the elongated body are capable of engaging nut 11);
a lever frame coupled to the elongated body and oriented in a direction that is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, lever frame 12, coupled to elongated body and oriented as recited);
and an actuator coupled to the lever frame, operation of the actuator applying a force on the lever frame in a direction tangential to the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, actuator 13 (hydraulic ram) coupled to lever frame 12 and applies force in a direction tangential to axis of nut 11 (when engaged to nut 11); 1:65-2:22).
Regarding claim 2, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the actuator is a linear actuator that is operable to extend and retract, extension of the actuator applying the force on the lever frame, the lever frame configured to transmit a torque to the gudgeon nut to rotate the gudgeon nut in a first direction about the rotational axis (Fig. 1, actuator 13 (hydraulic ram) is a linear actuator that extends and retracts, and performs the recited function on nut 11 via lever frame 12; 1:65-2:22).
Regarding claim 3, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the elongated body is hollow and extends along an axis that is configured to be aligned with the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut while the surface engages the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, elongated body (at end of element 12 at nut 11) is hollow and extends in the axial direction of nut 11 and is aligned with the axis of nut 11 when the surface (e.g., one of the six flat surfaces) engage nut 11).
Regarding claim 9, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the lever frame is coupled to another end of the elongated body opposite the end adjacent the surface, the lever frame extending in a plane perpendicular to the [rotational axis of the gudgeon nut], wherein the actuator is positioned adjacent an end of the lever frame that is opposite the elongated body, the actuator configured to exert a force against a surface of the industrial machine (Fig. 1, lever frame 12, coupled to end of elongated body (e.g., end towards lever frame 12), opposite to the end adjacent the surface (e.g., end away from lever frame 12), the lever frame 12 extending in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of nut 11, actuator 13 is at an end of the lever frame 12 that is opposite the elongated body and capable of the recited function; 1:65-2:22).
Regarding claim 11, Huff discloses a tool for servicing a gudgeon nut coupled to a gudgeon shaft for supporting an upper portion of a chassis of an industrial machine for rotational movement relative to a lower portion of the chassis (Fig. 1, wrench for servicing a threaded nut, and is capable of the recited function depending on the size and design of the gudgeon nut and/or gudgeon shaft. Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)), the tool comprising:
an elongated body including a first end, a second end, and a body axis extending therebetween (Fig. 1, elongated body at end of element 12 at nut 11, having a first end (e.g., top end as shown in Fig. 1) and a second end (e.g., bottom end, not visible in Fig. 1), elongated in the axial direction of nut 11, and having a “body axis” at the center of the elongated body that is coaxial to the axis of nut 11 when engaged with nut 11);
a surface positioned adjacent the first end of the [elongated] body, the surface configured to engage an end of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, flat surface (e.g., one of the six flat surfaces forming a hexagonal shape) adjacent to the first end of the elongated body are capable of engaging an end of nut 11);
a lever positioned adjacent the second end of the [elongated] body, the lever protruding radially from the body axis and including a distal end spaced apart from the body axis by an offset distance (Fig. 1, lever 12 adjacent the second end and protruding radially from the body axis, having distal end (at reference 14) as recited);
and an actuator operable to exert a force on the lever adjacent the distal end, operation of the actuator exerting a torque on the elongated body to rotate the elongated body about the body axis (Fig. 1, actuator 13 (hydraulic ram) coupled to lever 12 and applies force at the distal end, resulting in a torque on the elongated body to rotate it about the body axis; 1:65-2:22).
Regarding claim 12, Huff discloses the tool of claim 11 as applied above and further discloses wherein the elongated body is hollow and the body axis is configured to be aligned with [a] rotational axis of the gudgeon nut while the surface engages the end of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, elongated body (at end of element 12 at nut 11) is hollow and the “body axis” at the center of the elongated body is coaxial to the axis of nut 11 when the surface (e.g., one of the six flat surfaces) engage an end of nut 11).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Huff in view of Pontieri
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2972918 A (“Huff”) in view of US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”).
Huff pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Fig. 1; ¶ 1:15-48). Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface is configured to engage an end surface of the gudgeon nut and to transmit torque to the gudgeon nut through the end surface. However, the Huff/Pontieri combination makes obvious this claim.
Pontieri discloses wherein the surface is configured to engage an end surface of the gudgeon nut and to transmit torque to the gudgeon nut through the end surface (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) is capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40, where torque is transmitted through end surface 49 via fasteners 34, elongated body 10, and lever frame 61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Pontieri with Huff by modifying the elongated body of Huff to have the construction of the socket 10 (“elongated body”) of Pontieri (which would be directly connected to lever frame 12 of Huff) to engage a gudgeon nut that can receive fasteners. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would give more versatility to the tool, such as being able to engage special nuts (by engaging the end surface of the gudgeon nut via fasteners) in situations where sufficient clearance is unavailable to engage the sides of the nut (Pontieri ¶¶ 0017-0018, “This arrangement has the advantage of applying the inventive spanner socket on mechanical fastening devices concentrically joined on an elongated work piece such as a pipe or conduit where neither end is accessible.”).
Regarding claim 5, the Huff/Pontieri combination makes obvious the tool of claim 4 as applied above. Pontieri further discloses a plurality of fasteners for coupling the surface to the gudgeon nut, each of the fasteners extending at least partially through the surface and at least partially through the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, fasteners 34 couple surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) to nut 40, where fasteners 34 extend through surface 20 and partially through nut 40).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 4.
Regarding claim 13, Huff discloses the tool of claim 11 as applied above. Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface is configured to engage the end of the gudgeon nut and to transmit torque to the gudgeon nut through the end of the gudgeon nut. However, the Huff/Pontieri combination makes obvious this claim.
Pontieri discloses wherein the surface is configured to engage the end of the gudgeon nut and to transmit torque to the gudgeon nut through the end of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) is capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40, where torque is transmitted through end surface 49 via fasteners 34, elongated body 10, and lever 61).
The obviousness rationale for claim 13 is the same as for claim 4, except as depending from claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, the Huff/Pontieri combination makes obvious the tool of claim 13 as applied above. Pontieri further discloses a plurality of fasteners for coupling the surface to the end of the gudgeon nut, each of the fasteners extending at least partially through the surface and at least partially through the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, fasteners 34 couple surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) to end 49 of nut 40, where fasteners 34 extend through surface 20 and partially through nut 40).
The obviousness rationale for claim 14 is the same as for claim 13.
Huff in view of Pontieri and Trout
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2972918 A (“Huff”) in view of US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) and US 20030047041 A1 (“Trout”).
Huff pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Fig. 1; ¶ 1:15-48). Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Trout pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 6, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the surface is configured to be welded to an end surface of the gudgeon nut. However, the Huff/Pontieri/Trout combination makes obvious this claim.
Pontieri discloses wherein a surface positioned adjacent an end of the elongated body, the surface configured to engage the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) is capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40, where torque is transmitted through end surface 49 via fasteners 34, elongated body 10, and lever frame 61).
Trout discloses wherein the surface is configured to be welded to an end surface of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-3, bottom surface of socket 14 (“elongated body”) is welded to end surface 18; ¶ 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Pontieri with Huff by modifying the elongated body of Huff to have the construction of the socket 10 (“elongated body”) of Pontieri (which would be directly connected to lever frame 12 of Huff) to engage a gudgeon nut for the same reasons discussed for claim 4. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Trout with the Huff/Pontieri combination by using a weld to connect surface 20 of socket 10 (“elongated body”) of Pontieri to the end surface of a gudgeon nut (instead of using fasteners). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is simple substitution, where connecting two surfaces in a wrenching assembly using a weld instead of fasteners is known with a predictable attachment result (Trout ¶ 0018, “Moreover, although the socket 14 is preferably welded to the first side 18 of the adaptor body 12, it is also contemplated that mechanical fastener(s), such as threaded fasteners or other means of securement may be used.”).
Huff in view of Bourne
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2972918 A (“Huff”) in view of US 2948174 A (“Bourne”).
Huff pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Fig. 1; ¶ 1:15-48). Bourne pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Figs. 1-7). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the lever frame includes two elongated members that are parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another, the lever frame further including a plurality of cross-braces extending between the elongated members. However, the Huff/Bourne combination makes obvious this claim.
Bourne discloses wherein the lever frame includes two elongated members that are parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another, the lever frame further including a plurality of cross-braces extending between the elongated members (Figs. 1-7, lever frame 10 has two parallel and spaced apart elongated members 14 with cross-braces 16 and 18 between members 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Bourne with Huff by modifying the lever frame 12 of Huff to have the construction of the handle 10 of Bourne. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice based on the expected torque that the tool would experience and balancing the needed strength of the lever frame 12 with the goal of using less material and reducing weight for better handling (e.g., if the expected torque would be significantly less than the elastic limit for the profile of lever frame 12 of Huff, then a skeletonized structure as taught by Bourne could be used). Applicant has not disclosed that the recited lever frame configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose (see Spec. ¶ 0021) and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 15, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the lever includes two elongated members that are parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another, the lever further including a plurality of cross-braces extending between the elongated members. However, the Huff/Bourne combination makes obvious this claim.
Bourne discloses wherein the lever includes two elongated members that are parallel to one another and spaced apart from one another, the lever further including a plurality of cross-braces extending between the elongated members (Figs. 1-7, lever 10 has two parallel and spaced apart elongated members 14 with cross-braces 16 and 18 between members 14).
The obviousness rationale for claim 15 is the same as for claim 7, except as depending from claim 11.
Huff in view of Bourne and Miller
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2972918 A (“Huff”) in view of US 2948174 A (“Bourne”) and US 952436 A (“Miller”).
Huff pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Fig. 1; ¶ 1:15-48). Bourne pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Figs. 1-7). Miller pertains to a ratchet wrench (Figs. 1-4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 8, the Huff/Bourne combination makes obvious the tool of claim 7 as applied above. Huff and Bourne do not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated members are formed from box-shaped tubing. However, the Huff/Bourne/Miller combination makes obvious this claim.
Miller discloses wherein the elongated members are formed from box-shaped tubing (Figs. 1-4; p. 1, lines 84-92, “The handle –2– is hollow and consists preferably of a steel tube formed square in cross-section”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Miller with the Huff/Bourne combination by further modifying the lever frame 12 to use elongated members of box-shaped tubing as taught by Miller (instead of solid box-shaped bar as used in Bourne). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is simply a design choice based on the expected torque that the tool would experience and balancing the needed strength of the lever frame 12 with the goal of using less material and reducing weight for better handling (e.g., if the expected torque would be significantly less than the elastic limit for the profile of lever frame 12 of Huff, then a skeletonized structure as taught by Bourne, along with box-shaped tubing as taught by Miller could be used). Applicant has not disclosed that the recited lever frame configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose (see Spec. ¶ 0021) and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Huff in view of Evans
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2972918 A (“Huff”) in view of US 20120297937 A1 (“Evans”).
Huff pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Fig. 1; ¶ 1:15-48). Evans pertains to socket wrench and extension (Figs. 1-23). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, Huff discloses the tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the actuator applies a force on the lever frame at an offset distance that is radially spaced apart from the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, actuator 13 (hydraulic ram) coupled to lever frame 12 and applies force on lever frame 12 at an offset distance radially spaced apart from the axis of nut 11 (when engaged to nut 11); 1:65-2:22). Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated body has a length that is at least 25% of the offset distance. However, the Huff/Evans combination makes obvious this claim.
Evans discloses wherein the elongated body has a length that is at least 25% of the offset distance (Fig. 9, elongated body 102 and 154 has a length at least 25% of the offset distance (length of lever frame 150 from reference 152 to opposite end of lever frame 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Evans with Huff by modifying the elongated body to have a longer length as recited. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would allow the elongated body to reach and engage a nut that is otherwise too far (due to an obstruction) to reach (see Evans Figs. 21-23). Applicant has not disclosed that the recited length provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose (see Spec. ¶ 0025, indicating some embodiments have a length that is at least 25%, 33%, or 40% of the offset distance) and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 16, Huff discloses the tool of claim 11 as applied above and further discloses wherein the actuator applies a force on the lever at an offset distance that is radially spaced apart from [a] rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, actuator 13 (hydraulic ram) coupled to lever 12 and applies force on lever 12 at an offset distance radially spaced apart from the axis of nut 11 (when engaged to nut 11); 1:65-2:22). Huff does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated body has a length that is at least 25% of the offset distance. However, the Huff/Evans combination makes obvious this claim.
Evans discloses wherein the elongated body has a length that is at least 25% of the offset distance (Fig. 9, elongated body 102 and 154 has a length at least 25% of the offset distance (length of lever 150 from reference 152 to opposite end of lever 150).
The obviousness rationale for claim 16 is the same as for claim 10, except as depending from claim 11.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723