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 .
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.
The interpretation of the term “handle” is of great importance in these proceedings. In the field of hand tools, a “handle” is a part of a tool useful for be grasped or manipulated by a user’s hand which is distinct from the operative features of that tool. The handle serves as a means to grip the tool so that a user may have greater control, greater leverage, or apply greater force from their hand through the operative features of the tool. Thus for example a handle of a hammer is distinct from the head of a hammer even though in certain uses a user might grip the head of the hammer. In the field of hand-held rolling tools, the operative features are the rollers. The rest of the tool serves to enable a user to apply great leverage and force via the rollers onto a workpiece. Any portion of the hand-held roller that a user grips to do so is considered here to be part of the “handle.”
Consider Applicant’s tool shown below in which Applicant teaches everything within the bold box to be the “handle” including the portion between identifiers 40 and 44.
PNG
media_image1.png
282
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Consider next Carder’s tool (US 6,685,609) shown below (rotated for comparison) in which only item 13 is considered a “hand grip.” Item 11 is referred to as a “shaft.”
PNG
media_image2.png
301
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the shaft 11 is a handle. Consider that in the absence of hand grip 13 the tool would be essentially equally useful as a roller because the artisan would instead grasp the shaft 11 to apply leverage and force to a workpiece via the rollers. The shaft 11 does not cease being a handle when grip 13 is applied. Instead, the grip 13 and shaft 11 are considered together the “handle.”
Consider next Chang’s tool (CN 211139964 U) shown below (rotated for comparison) in which only section “5” is referred to as a handle. Sections 3 and 4 are referred to as an “arc-shaped shaft” and “connecting screw” respectively.
PNG
media_image3.png
423
560
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Even though sections 3 and 4 serve the named function of connecting section 5 to the connecting seat 2 of frame 1 (which holds the rollers 7), to an artisan in the field, during a rolling operation, sections 3 and 4 are equally as useful to be grasped/gripped as section 5. Sections 3 and 4 part of the tool’s handle even if they are not identified as such. Chang’s “handle” is sections 3, 4 and 5.
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 1-3, 5-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carder (US 6,685,609) in view of Osgood (US 2,056,054).
As to claim 1, Carder teaches a handle (shaft 11 and hand grip 13 are together a handle. See Fig 1. See discussion above) for a carpet seam roller (Carder’s tool 10 is a carpet seaming tool, see Abstract), the handle comprising: a first end (the end connected to bracket 14) and a second end (the free end of grip 13), the second end being spaced apart longitudinally from the first end and having an elongated axis extending from the second end toward the first end (as illustrated), wherein the first end is formed at an angle oblique to said elongated axis (as illustrated, the bracket 14 is attached to the shaft 11 oblique to the axis of shaft 11); a top and a bottom spaced apart from each other (as illustrated, the handle is roughly cylindrical and therefore has a top and bottom spaced from each other), the top and bottom each extending from the first end to the second end (as illustrated, the top side of the handle extends along the entire length of the handle. The bottom side extends along the entire length of the handle too); a first side and a second side spaced apart from each other (as illustrated, the handle is roughly cylindrical and therefore has right and left sides spaced from each other), a second recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a second hand of a user (See annotated Fig 1 below. There is a recess in the handle between the grip 13 and the bracket 14. This is considered a recess because the grip 13 extends above the surface of shaft 11 and bracket 14 extends above the surface of shaft 11. Importantly, this portion of the shaft 11 is considered part of the handle as 1. It is part of the shaft 11 and 2. It is useful for being gripped by a user during the course of using the tool and is distinct from the operative features of the tool (the rollers themselves).), wherein the second recess terminates at a plane formed at an angle oblique to said elongated access (the identified recess terminates at bracket 14, which has a plane formed oblique to the axis of the shaft 11 and grip 13 as discussed above.).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Carder does not teach a first recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a first hand of a user.
Rather, the shaft 11 and grip 13 of Carder form a handle which is roughly cylindrical and does not include any recess other than the above-identified second recess.
However, Osgood teaches a handle/grip useful for hand tools.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the grip 13 of Carder for the handle of Osgood. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In this case, as both handles are useful for holding hand tools, swapping one for another amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a hand tool having a handle. There is motivation to use Osgood’s handle because Osgood teaches it “can be grasped with assurance that slipping movement relatively of the hand and tool will not take place, although only a fairly tight hold is taken of the handle” (Page 1, Col 1, line 17-20).
PNG
media_image5.png
475
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Combination of Carder and Osgood
Carder in view of Osgood thus teach a longitudinal concaved depression 6 (Osgood Page 1 Col 2 line 30) which is interpreted as the claimed first recess.
As to claim 2, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first recess extends circumferentially around the handle (the depression 6 of Osgood is circumferential).
As to claim 3, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the second recess extends circumferentially around the handle (the recess identified between the grip 13 and bracket 14 of Carder is circumferential).
As to claim 5, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the top and bottom extend along said elongated axis (as illustrated).
As to claim 6, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first side and second side extend along said elongated axis (as illustrated).
As to claim 7, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first side and second side extend from the first end to the second end (as illustrated).
As to claim 8, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first recess terminates in a first projection offset from said first end toward said second end (as illustrated, the depression 6 is offset from the first end in the direction of the second end).
As to claim 9, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle body is of circular cross section (as illustrated).
As to claim 10, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the second recess terminates in a second projection adjacent the first end (the second recess terminates at bracket 14 which is adjacent the first end).
As to claim 12, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein said second end is perpendicular to said elongated axis (the butt end 10 of Osgood is curved such that a surface normal to the butt would be perpendicular to the axis of the handle).
As to claim 13, Carder teaches a carpet pile seam roller (Carder’s tool 10 is a carpet seaming tool, see Abstract) comprising: a handle (shaft 11 and hand grip 13 are together a handle. See Fig 1. See Examiner’s interpretation of “handle” above) comprising: a first end (the end connected to bracket 14) and a second end (the free end of grip 13), the second end being spaced apart longitudinally from the first end and having an elongated axis extending from the second end toward the first end (as illustrated), wherein the first end is formed at an angle oblique to said elongated axis (as illustrated, the bracket 14 is attached to the shaft 11 oblique to the axis of shaft 11); a top and a bottom spaced apart from each other (as illustrated, the handle is roughly cylindrical and therefore has a top and bottom spaced from each other), the top and bottom each extending from the first end to the second end (as illustrated, the top side of the handle extends along the entire length of the handle. The bottom side extends along the entire length of the handle too); a first side and a second side spaced apart from each other (as illustrated, the handle is roughly cylindrical and therefore has right and left sides spaced from each other); and a second recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a second hand of a user (See annotated Fig 1 below. There is a recess in the handle between the grip 13 and the bracket 14. This is considered a recess because the grip 13 extends above the surface of shaft 11 and bracket 14 extends above the surface of shaft 11. Importantly, this portion of the shaft 11 is considered part of the handle as 1. It is part of the shaft 11 and 2. It is useful for being gripped by a user during the course of using the tool and is distinct from the operative features of the tool (the rollers themselves).), wherein the second recess terminates at a plane formed at an angle oblique to said elongated access (the identified recess terminates at bracket 14, which has a plane formed oblique to the axis of the shaft 11 and grip 13 as discussed above.); and a yoke (U-shaped bracket 15), wherein said yoke is attached to said first end of said handle (as shown in Figs 1 and 2, the bracket 14/15 is attached to shaft 11); and a roller (roller 26) mounted for rotation on an axle (shaft 21), wherein the axle is attached to said yoke (the shaft 21 is connected to bracket 14/15 via openings 17 and 18. See Fig 2 and Col 4 lines 61-64).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Carder does not teach a first recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a first hand of a user.
Rather, the shaft 11 and grip 13 of Carder form a handle which is roughly cylindrical and does not include any recess other than the above-identified second recess.
However, Osgood teaches a handle/grip useful for hand tools.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the grip 13 of Carder for the handle of Osgood. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In this case, as both handles are useful for holding hand tools, swapping one for another amounts to a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of a hand tool having a handle. There is motivation to use Osgood’s handle because Osgood teaches it “can be grasped with assurance that slipping movement relatively of the hand and tool will not take place, although only a fairly tight hold is taken of the handle” (Page 1, Col 1, line 17-20).
PNG
media_image5.png
475
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Combination of Carder and Osgood
Carder in view of Osgood thus teach a longitudinal concaved depression 6 (Osgood Page 1 Col 2 line 30) which is interpreted as the claimed first recess.
As to claim 14, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the first recess extends circumferentially around the handle (the depression 6 of Osgood is circumferential).
As to claim 15, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the second recess extends circumferentially around the handle (the recess identified between the grip 13 and bracket 14 of Carder is circumferential).
As to claim 16, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the top and bottom extend along said elongated axis (as illustrated).
As to claim 17, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the first side and second side extend along said elongated axis (as illustrated).
As to claim 18, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the first side and second side extend from the first end to the second end (as illustrated).
As to claim 19, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the first recess terminates in a first projection offset from said first end toward said second end (as illustrated, the depression 6 is offset from the first end in the direction of the second end).
As to claim 20, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the handle body is of circular cross section (as illustrated).
As to claim 21, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein the second recess terminates in a second projection adjacent the first end (the second recess terminates at bracket 14 which is adjacent the first end).
As to claim 21, Carder in view of Osgood teaches the carpet pile seam roller of claim 13, wherein said second end is perpendicular to said elongated axis (the butt end 10 of Osgood is curved such that a surface normal to the butt would be perpendicular to the axis of the handle).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-10 and 12 are no longer rejected under 35 USC 102 under Osgood. Rather, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 103 under Carder in view of Osgood.
Applicant argues Osgood doesn’t teach a handle having a first end formed at an angle oblique to said elongate axis. Examiner agrees that Osgood’s handle doesn’t end in an oblique end. Rather, this limitation is taught by Carder which has shaft 11 connected to bracket 14 at an angle oblique to the axis of the shaft 11.
Claim 11 had previously been rejected under Osgood in view of Carder. The limitations of claim 11 have been incorporated into claim 1 and thus the arguments in view of claim 11 are applicable to claim 1.
Applicant argues that “neither Osgood nor Carder disclose a tool handle having a recess which terminates at an end of the handle formed at an angle oblique to the handle’s elongated axis.”
Examiner disagrees. As explained in the Claim Interpretation section and the rejection of claims 1 and 13 above, Carder’s tool has a “handle” which is comprised of the grip 13 as well as the shaft 11. The shaft 11 terminates at an angle oblique to the handle’s elongated axis as illustrated in Carder Fig 1. Moreover, at this end of the handle, Carder’s handle forms a recess identified in Examiner’s Figures above. An artisan practicing Carder would find it useful to grasp the tool at shaft 11, and moreover would feel that shaft 11 is recessed below the level of grip 13.
In the rejection above, Osgood is provided insofar as it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the grip 13 of Carder for the handle of Osgood. The resulting tool is shown in Examiner’s Figure’s above. Such a tool retains the disputed first “recess” on the handle while introducing a second recess (depression 6) useful for gripping the tool.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 3 June 2026
Prosecution Insights