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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the amendment filed on May 4, 2026. Claims 1, 3 and 5 have been amended. Claims 7-10 have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is maintained and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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.
Claims 1-10 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (2018/0370002) in view of Heath (2023/0271304).
In reference to claims 1, 3 and 5, Andrews discloses a press tool (Figures 1 and 10) for using a plurality of socket drives (160 and 180, Figure 10) each defining a square drive cavity (174 and 192 respectively, see paragraphs 56-57), a socket cavity (172), and a socket perimeter surface (i.e. outer surface of each socket) extending around the socket cavity to displace a first joint portion (i.e. left part of each socket in Figure 10) relative to a second joint portion (i.e. right part of each socket, Figure 10), the press tool comprising:
a drive system defining first (140) and second (142) drive portions (Figure 10), where the drive system is configured to allow at least one the first and second drive portions to be displaced relative to at least one of the first and second drive portions along a drive axis (D, Figure 10 and paragraph 52);
a first drive projection (176) defining a projection outer surface dimension (i.e. outer surface of 176) supported by the first drive portion (Figure 10);
whereby the first drive projection is adapted to be received at least partly within the square drive cavity of a first selected socket drive of the plurality of socket drives to allow the first selected drive socket to be detachably attached to the first drive portion (paragraphs 56-57) such that the socket cavity of a first selected drive socket selected from the plurality of socket drives defines a receiving cavity (172), and the socket perimeter surface of the first selected drive socket defines an engaging surface (paragraph 58).
The examiner notes the method claim 3 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 3.
Andrews lacks,
a first friction member/first O-ring member defining a friction/first O-ring member outer diameter that is arranged between the first drive projection and the square drive cavity of the first selected socket drive, such that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension.
However, Heath teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a socket (not shown but described in paragraph 13) to a first square drive projection/male drive (66, see Figure 1 and note the first drive projection/male drive is similar to the first drive projection 176, of Andrews) defining a projection outer surface (i.e. outer surface of a lower portion of 66, see figure below) by providing the first drive projection/male drive (66) with a first friction member/first O-ring member (formed from O-ring 74 or formed from O-ring 74 and retaining ring 78 or formed from retaining ring 78, Figure 3) defining a friction/first O-ring member outer diameter (see outer diameter of 74 or outer diameter of 74/78 or outer diameter of 78 in Figure 3 and see paragraph 13 disclosing, “The O-ring 74 and the retaining ring 78 extend beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66 and are compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66.”), such that the first friction member/first O-ring is arranged between (because it is “compressible” and is located on an outer surface of square drive 66, see Figure 2 and paragraph 13) the first drive projection/male drive and a square drive cavity (i.e. the square drive cavity 174, when combined with Andrews) of the first selected socket drive (Figures 1-4) and such that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension (again see paragraph 13 disclosing, “The O-ring 74 and the retaining ring 78 extend beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66 and are compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66.” Also, see annotated figure below showing that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension).
[AltContent: textbox (Outer diameter of first drive projection defining an outer surface dimension at a lower portion thereof )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer diameter of friction member)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
155
273
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the first drive projection, of Andrews, with the known technique of providing a first drive projection/male drive with the first friction member/first O-ring member, as taught by Heath, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively “retains” a socket during normal operation (see paragraph 13).
In reference to claims 2, 4 and 6, Andrews discloses further comprising:
a second drive projection (194); and
whereby the second drive projection is adapted to be received at least partly within the square drive cavity (192) of a second selected socket drive (180) of the plurality of socket drives to allow the second selected drive socket to be detachably attached to the second drive portion (paragraphs 56-57) such that the socket cavity of the second selected drive socket selected from the plurality of socket drives defines a receiving cavity (within 190), and the socket perimeter surface of the second selected drive socket defines an engaging surface (Figure 10).
The examiner notes the method claim 4 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 2 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 2 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 4.
Andrews lacks,
a second friction member/second O-ring that is arranged between the second drive projection and the square drive cavity of the second selected socket drive.
However, Heath teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a socket (not shown but described in paragraph 13) to a second square drive projection/male drive (66, see Figure 1 and note the second drive projection/male drive is similar to the first drive projection 176, of Andrews) by providing the second drive projection/male drive (66) with a second friction member/second O-ring (i.e. formed from O-ring 74 or formed from O-ring 74 and retaining ring 78 or formed from retaining ring 78, Figure 3. Note when combined with portion 194, of Andrews, it would form the second friction member/second O-ring) and such that the second friction member is arranged between (because it is “compressible” and is located on an outer surface of square drive 66, see Figure 2 and paragraph 13) the second drive projection/male drive and a square drive cavity (i.e. the square drive cavity 192, when combined with Andrews) of the second selected socket drive (Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the second drive projection, of Andrews, with the known technique of providing a second drive projection/male drive with the second friction member/second O-ring, as taught by Heath, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively “retains” a socket during normal operation (paragraph 13).
In reference to claims 7 and 9, Heath discloses that the first friction member comprises a first O-ring (74 and paragraph 13).
In reference to claims 8 and 10, Heath discloses that the second friction member comprises a first O-ring (74 and paragraph 13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “Further, Heath does not disclose the missing elements of claim 1 missing from Andrews, because although Heath discloses an O-ring, Heath does not disclose, teach, or suggest a first friction member with an outer diameter greater than the outer diameter of the projection. As shown in the table below, annotated images of Figures 6 and 19 of the present invention show that the first friction member has a greater outer diameter OD2 than the projection outer surface diameter OD1. In the same table, the annotated Figure 3 of Heath shows that the O-ring's outer diameter HOD2 is less than the outer surface diameter HOD1 of the projection 66.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has included an annotated figure above showing that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension. Additionally, paragraph 13 explicitly discloses that, “The O-ring 74 and the retaining ring 78 extend beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66 and are compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66.” Thus, at least before the socket is attached to the drive, the O-ring “extends beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66”, otherwise it could not be “compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66”, as explicitly disclosed by Heath (paragraph 13) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met, the examiner believes that the reaction is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “Further, Heath does not disclose the missing elements of claim 3 missing from Andrews, because although Heath discloses an O-ring, Heath does not disclose, teach, or suggest a first friction member with an outer diameter greater than the outer diameter of the projection. As shown in the table above, annotated images of Figures 6 and 19 of the present invention show that the first friction member has a greater outer diameter OD2 than the projection outer surface diameter OD1. In the same table, the annotated Figure 3 of Heath shows that the O-ring's outer diameter HOD2 is smaller the outer surface diameter HOD1 of the projection 66.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Again, the examiner has included an annotated figure above showing that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension. Additionally, paragraph 13 explicitly discloses that, “The O-ring 74 and the retaining ring 78 extend beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66 and are compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66.” Thus, at least before the socket is attached to the drive, the O-ring “extends beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66”, otherwise it could not be “compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66”, as explicitly disclosed by Heath (paragraph 13) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met, the examiner believes that the reaction is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant contends that, “Further, Heath does not disclose the missing elements of claim 5 missing from Andrews, because although Heath discloses an O-ring, Heath does not disclose, teach, or suggest an O-ring with an outer diameter greater than the outer diameter of the projection. As shown in the table above, annotated images of Figures 6 and 19 of the present invention show that the O-ring has a greater outer diameter OD2 than the projection outer surface diameter OD1. In the same table, the annotated Figure 3 of Heath shows that the O-ring's outer diameter HOD2 is smaller the outer surface diameter HOD1 of the projection 66.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Again, the examiner has included an annotated figure above showing that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension. Additionally, paragraph 13 explicitly discloses that, “The O-ring 74 and the retaining ring 78 extend beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66 and are compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66.” Thus, at least before the socket is attached to the drive, the O-ring “extends beyond the outer periphery of the male drive 66”, otherwise it could not be “compressible to retain a socket on the male drive 66”, as explicitly disclosed by Heath (paragraph 13) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met, the examiner believes that the reaction is proper and thus is maintained.
Conclusion
Again, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eggert et al. (2005/0160886) also teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a socket (20, Figure 1) to a first square drive projection (33, similar to the square drive 176, of Andrews) defining an outer surface dimension (i.e. outer surface of 33) by providing a first friction member/first O-ring member (i.e. O-ring, see last line of paragraph 34) defining a friction/first O-ring member outer diameter that is arranged between the first drive projection and a square drive cavity (22) of the first selected socket drive, such that the friction member outer diameter is greater than the projection outer surface dimension. Since, the O-ring is attached to the very end of the square “as opposed to being retained in a groove” (see paragraph 34) by means of a screw or a shouldered pin engaged axially in the end surface of the drive square, the O-ring would have a larger diameter than the square (Figure 2). Also, because the detent ball (35) is shown extending outwardly from the groove (34, Figure 2), when it is replaced with the “O-ring” (see paragraph 34 disclosing, “it will be appreciated that other retention means could be used, such as an O-ring attached to the very end of the square”), it would also extend outwardly from the square drive end (33) and thus have an outer diameter that is greater than the projection outer surface dimension.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights