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 statements (IDS) submitted on August 13, 2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 and all disclose, “a socket perimeter surface extending around the socket cavity to displace a first part relative to a second part.” However, it is unclear what element(s) forms the first part and the second part. Are these parts merely formed from first (left) and second (right) parts of the socket? Are these parts formed from the workpiece (i.e. nut) that the tool is being used with? In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the first and second parts as being; first (left) and second (right) parts/sides of the socket. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-6 are rejected As Best Understood 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, As Best Understood, 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, see paragraphs 56-57), a socket cavity (172), and a socket perimeter surface (outer surface of each socket) extending around the socket cavity to displace a first part (left part of each socket in Figure 10) relative to a second part (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) supported by the first drive portion;
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 that is arranged between the first drive projection and the square drive cavity of the first 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 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) by providing the first drive projection/male drive (66) with a first friction member/first O-ring (i.e. O-ring 74, Figures 1 and 2) and 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).
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, 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 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 of a second selected socket drive 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 a 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. O-ring 74, Figures 1 and 2 and note when combined to 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dugan (2003/0010160) also teaches that it is known in the art to attach a socket (3000, Figure 30) to a drive (3010) by including an O-ring (3004) for engagement with indentations (3002) inside the socket (Figure 30).
Eggert et al. (2005/0160886) also teach that it is known in the art to attach a socket (20, Figure 1) to a drive (30) by using “other retention means could be used, such as an O-ring attached to the very end of the square” (see paragraph 34).
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