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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 02/19/2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second brace” (claim 24) must be clearly shown or the feature should be canceled from the claims. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10-12, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“an end surface of the gudgeon nut” (claim 6, lines 1-2) should be changed to --the end surface of the gudgeon nut--;
“a force on the lever frame” (claim 10, line 1) should be changed to --the force on the lever frame--;
“a force” (claim 11, line 15) should be changed to --the force--;
“a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut” (claim 12, line 2) should be changed to --the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut--;
“an end surface of the gudgeon nut” (claim 22, lines 3-4) should be changed to --the end surface of the gudgeon nut--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “a second brace positioned below the brace adjacent the end surface.” This amended limitation is new matter because the specification and the drawings do not describe this configuration. While “multiple braces” are disclosed (Spec. ¶ 0020), there are no details concerning a second brace (or any brace other than the first brace) other than it may be included with the “socket body 64”, including no details about its position relative to the first brace. The drawings do not show a second brace and cannot provide support for its recited position.
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 9, 11-16, and 21-24 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the lever frame extending in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut” (lines 2-3). Does this limitation refer to the same plane recited in claim 1 (lines 3-4), or is this a different plane; and if this is a different plane, how is it distinguishable from the plane recited in claim 1? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an offset distance” (line 15). Does this limitation refer to the same “offset distance” recited earlier (line 8) or is this a different offset distance? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 12-16 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the offset distance” (line 3). Which of the two “offset distance” recited in claim 11 (line 8; line 15) does this refer to? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein the end surface is oriented in a plane and is securable to the gudgeon nut to transfer torque from the tool to the gudgeon nut.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, is “the end surface” here referring to the “end surface of the gudgeon nut” of claim 1, or is this referring to the “surface” that is configured to engage the “end surface” (see claim 1)? If this limitation refers to the “end surface of the gudgeon nut”, this limitation does not appear to make sense and also seems to lack support (how is the “end surface” securable to the gudgeon nut?). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a plane” (line 1). Does this limitation refer to the same plane recited in claim 1 (lines 3-4), or is this a different plane; and if this is a different plane, how is it distinguishable from the plane recited in claim 1? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “wherein the end surface includes a plurality of bores spaced circumferentially about the surface, each bore configured to receive a fastener, and wherein each bore of the plurality of bores is configured to align with a corresponding tapped bore on an end surface of the gudgeon nut.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, is “the end surface” here referring to the “end surface of the gudgeon nut” of claim 1, or is this referring to the “surface” that is configured to engage the “end surface” (see claim 1)? If this limitation refers to the “end surface of the gudgeon nut”, this limitation does not appear to make sense and also seems to lack support (how is the “end surface” securable to the gudgeon nut?). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut” (lines 2-3). Does this limitation refer to the same plane recited in claim 1 (lines 3-4), or is this a different plane; and if this is a different plane, how is it distinguishable from the plane recited in claim 1? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 24 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 23.
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.
Pontieri in view of Junkers
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) in view of US 6105472 A (“Junkers”).
Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Junkers pertains to a fluid-operated wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Pontieri discloses a tool for servicing a gudgeon nut threadedly coupled to a gudgeon shaft for supporting a rotating frame of an industrial machine (Figs. 1-4, tool as shown for servicing a threaded nut 40, 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:
a lever frame extending within a plane configured to be oriented perpendicular to a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, lever frame 61, extending in a plane (e.g., left to right along the length of the handle in view of Fig. 3) perpendicular to axis A-A’ of nut 40);
an elongated body extending along a body axis oriented perpendicular to the plane of the lever frame (Figs. 1-4, elongated body 10, extending along “body axis” A-A’ that is perpendicular to the plane of the lever frame 61);
a surface positioned adjacent an end of the elongated body spaced apart from the lever frame along the body axis, the surface configured to engage an end surface of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 adjacent an end of elongated body 10, surface spaced apart from lever frame 61 and capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40; Examiner interprets “configured to engage an end surface of the gudgeon nut” to mean “configured to make contact with an end surface of the gudgeon nut”, where the “end surface” is at an end of the nut (e.g., if the nut is shaped as a cylinder, the “end surface” is the circular surface at one end of the cylindrical nut and not any portion of the cylindrical surface)).
Pontieri does not explicitly disclose 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. However, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious this claim.
Junkers discloses:
a lever frame extending within a plane configured to be oriented perpendicular to a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1, lever frame 2, extending in a plane perpendicular to axis A of a nut situated in ratchet 3);
an elongated body extending along a body axis oriented perpendicular to the plane of the lever frame (Fig. 1, elongated body 3, extending along “body axis” A that is perpendicular to the plane of the lever frame 2);
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; 2:41-65, actuator 5 coupled to lever frame 2 via elements 13 and 16 attached to pivots B and C respectively, and is capable of applying a force on lever frame 2 that is tangential to axis A when operated; Examiner interprets “an actuator coupled to the lever frame” as requiring an “actuator” device, such as a hydraulic ram (Spec. ¶ 0023), to be physically attached to the lever frame and not merely “supported separately from the wrench” (Spec. ¶ 0024), which is a different embodiment).
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 Junkers with Pontieri by adding and attaching actuator 5 to the lever frame 61 of Pontieri 61 (e.g., attaching actuator 5 to the end of lever frame 61 (see Junkers Fig. 1, element 2 at reference B)). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the addition of an actuator device, such as the fluid-operated tool 5 of Pontieri, allows a user to easily loosen or tighten a fastener that is located in a narrow space and/or requires a large amount of torque, as compared to not having an actuator: “Fluid-operated tools are well known and widely used in industry. When a space to apply the tool is narrow, limited clearance fluid-operated tools are utilized.” (Pontieri 1:6-9).
Regarding claim 2, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Junkers 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 5 (including cylinder-piston units 9 and 10) is a linear actuator that extends and retracts, and performs the recited function a nut 11 via lever frame 2; 2:41-3:49).
The obviousness rationale for claim 2 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri 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 (Figs. 1-4, elongated body 10 is hollow and extends along axis A-A’ of nut 40 when surface 20 engages the end surface 49 of nut 40).
Regarding claim 5, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri further discloses a plurality of fasteners for coupling the surface to the gudgeon nut, each of the plurality of 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 elongated body 10 to nut 40, where fasteners 34 extend through surface 20 and partially through nut 40).
Regarding claim 9, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri 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 (Figs. 1-4, lever frame 61 coupled to end 24 of elongated body 10 (opposite the end having surface 20), lever frame 61 extending in a plane (e.g., left to right along the length of the handle in view of Fig. 3) perpendicular to axis A-A’ of nut 40).
For the limitation “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”, this is met by the Pontieri/Junkers combination, where the actuator is positioned as recited and is capable of the recited function (see Junkers Fig. 1, at “REACTION FORCE” location; 3:27-3:49, “The reaction force which is created during the forward stroke and urges to move the housing portions 6 and 7 in directions opposite to the active stroke of their cylinder-piston units is counteracted by the reaction plate 22 which abuts against a neighboring object, such as for example a neighboring nut or the like.”)).
Regarding claim 11, Pontieri 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 (Figs. 1-4, tool as shown for servicing a threaded nut 40, 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:
a lever extending within a plane (Figs. 1-4, lever 61, extending in a plane (e.g., left to right along the length of the handle in view of Fig. 3) perpendicular to axis A-A’ of nut 40);
an elongated body including a first end, a second end, and a body axis extending therebetween, the body axis oriented perpendicular to the plane of the lever, wherein the lever is positioned adjacent the second end of the elongated body and protrudes radially from the body axis and includes a distal end spaced apart from the body axis by an offset distance (Figs. 1-4, elongated body 10 with first end (at reference 20) and second end (at reference 24), extending along “body axis” A-A’ that is perpendicular to the plane of the lever 61, where lever 61 is adjacent the second end (at reference 24) and protrudes radially from axis A-A’ to a distal end (near reference 61));
a surface positioned adjacent the first end of the elongated body and spaced apart from the lever, the surface configured to engage an end of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 adjacent the first end of elongated body 10, surface spaced apart from lever 61 and capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40; Examiner interprets “configured to engage an end of the gudgeon nut” to mean “configured to make contact with an end surface of the gudgeon nut” (e.g., if the nut is shaped as a cylinder, the end surface is the circular surface at one end of the cylindrical nut and not any portion of the cylindrical surface)).
Pontieri does not explicitly disclose 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, the actuator applying [the] force on the lever at an offset distance that is radially spaced apart from a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut. However, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious this claim.
Junkers discloses:
a lever extending within a plane (Fig. 1, lever 2, extending in a plane perpendicular to axis A of a nut situated in ratchet 3);
an elongated body including a first end, a second end, and a body axis extending therebetween, the body axis oriented perpendicular to the plane of the lever, wherein the lever is positioned adjacent the second end of the elongated body and protrudes radially from the body axis and includes a distal end spaced apart from the body axis by an offset distance (Fig. 1, elongated body 3 with first end (surface of element 3 as seen in Fig. 1) and second end (surface of element 3 underneath and not visible in Fig. 1), extending along “body axis” A that is perpendicular to the plane of the lever 2, where lever 2 is adjacent the second end and protrudes radially from axis A to a distal end (near reference B));
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, the actuator applying [the] force on the lever at an offset distance that is radially spaced apart from a rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (Fig. 1; 2:41-65, actuator 5 coupled to lever 2 via elements 13 and 16 attached to pivots B and C respectively, and is capable of applying a force on lever 2 that is tangential to (and at a radially spaced apart distance from) axis A when operated, to perform the recited function).
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 Junkers with Pontieri by adding and attaching actuator 5 to the lever 61 of Pontieri 61 (e.g., attaching actuator 5 to the end of lever frame 61 (see Junkers Fig. 1, element 2 at reference B)). The obviousness rationale is the same as for claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as claim 3, except as depending from claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 11 as applied above. Pontieri further 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 elongated body 10 is capable of engaging end surface 49 of nut 40, where torque is transmitted through end surface 49 of nut 40 via fasteners 34, elongated body 10, and lever 61).
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 5, except as depending from claim 13.
Regarding claim 21, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri further discloses wherein the end surface is oriented in a plane and is securable to the gudgeon nut to transfer torque from the tool to the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 is oriented in a plane and securable to nut 40 via fasteners 34 to transfer torque as recited).
Regarding claim 22, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri further discloses wherein the end surface includes a plurality of bores spaced circumferentially about the surface, each bore configured to receive a fastener, and wherein each bore of the plurality of bores is configured to align with a corresponding tapped bore on [the] end surface of the gudgeon nut (Figs. 1-4, surface 20 has bores 32 spaced circumferentially for fasteners 34, which align with bores 50 on end surface 49 of nut 40).
Pontieri in view of Junkers and Trout
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) in view of US 6105472 A (“Junkers”) and US 20030047041 A1 (“Trout”).
Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Junkers pertains to a fluid-operated wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). 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, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri and Junkers do not explicitly disclose wherein the surface is configured to be welded to [the] end surface of the gudgeon nut. However, the Pontieri/Junkers/Trout combination makes obvious this claim.
Trout discloses wherein the surface is configured to be welded to [the] 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 Trout with the Pontieri/Junkers combination by using a weld to connect surface 20 of elongated body 10 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.”).
Pontieri in view of Junkers and Bourne
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) in view of US 6105472 A (“Junkers”) and US 2948174 A (“Bourne”).
Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Junkers pertains to a fluid-operated wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Bourne pertains to a hydraulic wrench (Figs. 1-7). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 7, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. Pontieri and Junkers do 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 two elongated members. However, the Pontieri/Junkers/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 two 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 the Pontieri/Junkers combination by modifying the lever frame 61 of Pontieri 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 61 of Pontieri, 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).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, except as depending from claim 11.
Pontieri in view of Junkers, Bourne, and Miller
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) in view of US 6105472 A (“Junkers”), US 2948174 A (“Bourne”), and US 952436 A (“Miller”).
Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Junkers pertains to a fluid-operated wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). 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 Pontieri/Junkers/Bourne combination makes obvious the tool of claim 7 as applied above. Pontieri, Junkers, and Bourne do not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated members are formed from box-shaped tubing. However, the Pontieri/Junkers/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 Pontieri/Junkers/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 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 61 of Pontieri, 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).
Pontieri in view of Junkers and Evans
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060169109 A1 (“Pontieri”) in view of US 6105472 A (“Junkers”) and US 20120297937 A1 (“Evans”).
Pontieri pertains to a socket wrench and socket assembly (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Junkers pertains to a fluid-operated wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). Evans pertains to socket wrench and extension (Figs. 1-23). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. As modified in the Pontieri/Junkers combination, the limitation “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” is met (see Junkers Fig. 1; 2:41-65, actuator 5 coupled to lever frame 2 via elements 13 and 16 attached to pivots B and C respectively, and is capable of applying a force on lever frame 2 that is tangential to axis A when operated).
Pontieri and Junkers do not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated body has a length that is at least 25% of the offset distance. However, the Pontieri/Junkers/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 the Pontieri/Junkers combination 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).
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as claim 10, except as depending from claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as set forth in this Office action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 23, the Pontieri/Junkers combination makes obvious the tool of claim 1 as applied above. However, Pontieri and Junkers do not explicitly disclose a brace adjacent the end surface, the brace extending across an interior of the elongated body and in a plane perpendicular to the rotational axis of the gudgeon nut (“a plane” in this context is interpreted as a different plane from the “plane” recited in claim 1).
The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious all of the limitations of claim 23 in the combination as claimed. The addition of a brace as recited does not appear to be an obvious combination with Pontieri and Junkers that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at without hindsight based on Applicant’s disclosure. For example, it would appear that a brace as recited may only be necessary when the size of the “elongated body” is extremely large in diameter (much larger than a typical socket), which does not seem to be compatible with the Pontieri reference and may interfere with the fit of Pontieri’s elongated body with a target nut assembly.
Claim 24 is allowable for depending from claim 23 (subject to addressing the drawing objection and § 112 rejections).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Claims – The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 4 and 17-20 have been canceled. New claims 21-24 have been added. Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21-24 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5-16, and 21-24 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 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 arguments.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to ***windshield wipers using electronic controls and techniques related to determining the position of the wipers and/or determination of wiper motor current usage.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights