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/Restrictions
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 13, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton (US Patent 4,192,171).
With regards to claim 1, Hamilton discloses a bump-crimping device comprising:
a body (12) comprised of an opening (74) and a receiving area (surface of element 34); and
a punch (70) positioned within the body via the opening, wherein the opening aligns with the receiving area, as seen in Figures 1 and 6.
With regards to claim 4, Hamilton discloses wherein the body (12) is comprised of a rectangular shape, as seen in at least Figure 1.
With regards to claim 7, Hamilton discloses a bump-crimping device comprising:
a body (12) comprised of a first opening (74), a receiving area (surface of element 34), and a handle (22); and
a punch (38, 26, 70, and 72) positioned within the body via the first opening, wherein the first opening aligns with the receiving area, as seen in Figures 1 and 6.
With regards to claim 8, Hamilton discloses wherein the body is comprised of a support member (26).
With regards to claim 9, Hamilton discloses wherein the support member is comprised of a second opening (76).
With regards to claim 10, Hamilton discloses wherein the second opening aligns with the first opening, as seen in Figure 6.
With regards to claim 11, Hamilton discloses wherein the second opening aligns with the receiving area, as seen in Figure 6
With regards to claim 12, Hamilton discloses wherein the handle is comprised of a grip area [Column 3, lines 38-42].
With regards to claim 16, Hamilton discloses wherein the handle removably attaches to the body [Column 3, lines 38-42].
With regards to claim 17, Hamilton discloses wherein the receiving area is comprised of a first edge and a second edge, as seen in at least Figure 1
With regards to claim 18, Hamilton discloses wherein the first edge and the second edge form an angle less than 180 degrees, as seen in at least Figure 1.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cochran et al. (hereafter “Cochran”)(US Patent 4,459,839).
With regards to claim 1, Cochran discloses a bump-crimping device comprising:
a body (3) comprised of an opening (not labeled, as seen in at least Figure 7) and a receiving area (31); and
a punch (13) positioned within the body via the opening, wherein the opening aligns with the receiving area, as seen in at least Figure 7.
With regards to claim 2, Cochran discloses wherein the receiving area forms an acute angle, as seen in at least Figures 1 and 5.
With regards to claim 3, Cochran discloses wherein a second end of the punch is comprised of a rounded tip, as seen in at least Figures 5 and 7.
With regards to claim 4, Cochran discloses wherein the body is comprised of a rectangular shape, as seen in at least Figures 5 and 7.
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.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton and Cochran.
Both Hamilton and Cochran disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the body is comprised of a metal or plastic. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particularly claimed material composition of the structure since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanically efficiency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Bachki et al. (hereafter “Bachki”) (US Patent 2,489,360).
Hamilton discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the grip area is comprised of a raised texture and wherein the grip area is comprised of a recessed texture. Bachki is relied upon to teach a hand tool having a handle with a knurled portion (28, knurled portion; that is, recesses and raised textures) in order to providing a gripping surface [Column 2, lines 30-35]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hamilton’s handle/grip area with a knurled texture because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton.
Hamilton discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the grip area is comprised of a rubber material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the particularly claimed material composition of the structure since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of mechanically efficiency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725