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 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 5-7, 9, and 12 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.
The term “generally” in the claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osgood (US 2,056,054).
As to claim 1, Osgood teaches a handle (Col 1 line 1: “My invention relates to improvements in tool handles…” See Figures 1-3) for a carpet seam roller (this is the intended use of the handle. See MPEP § 2114. The handle of Osgood is inherently capable of being used on a carpet seam roller.), the handle having a first end (the top end having ferrule 4 in the orientation shown in Fig 1 is interpreted as the first end) and a second end (butt end 10), the second end being spaced apart longitudinally from the first end (as illustrated) and having an elongated axis extending from the second end toward the first end (there is inherently an axis between the top end and the butt end); the handle having a top and a bottom spaced apart from each other (Osgood’s handle appears to be radially symmetric about the axis (in the manner of a cylinder). The top part is the half facing the viewer of Fig 1. The bottom part is facing into the page.), the top and bottom each extending from the first end to the second end (as illustrated, the top part extends the entire length of the handle from the ferrule to the butt. As does the bottom part due to the radial symmetry.); the handle having a first side and a second side spaced apart from each other (the left side in the orientation shown in Fig 1 is a first side. The right side in the orientation shown in Fig 1 is the right side); the handle including a first recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a first hand of a user (transverse depression 9 is a first recess. The recess is capable of receiving at least a first portion of a first hand of a user as illustrated in Figs 2 and 3); and the handle including a second recess (concave depression 6) adapted to receive at least a first portion of a second hand of a user (the concave depression 6 is capable of receiving a first portion of a second hand of a user as illustrated in Fig 2.1).
As to claim 2, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first recess extends circumferentially around the handle (as the handle is radially symmetrical, the depression 9 extends circumferentially around the handle).
As to claim 3, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the second recess extends circumferentially around the handle (as the handle is radially symmetrical, the depression 6 extends circumferentially around the handle).
As to claim 4, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 3, wherein the first recess extends circumferentially around the handle as the handle is radially symmetrical, the depression 9 extends circumferentially around the handle.
As to claim 5, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the top and bottom extend generally parallel to said elongated axis (The axis is through the middle of the handle, and the top and bottom (out of and into the page) extend parallel to that axis).
As to claim 6, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first side and second side extend generally parallel to said elongated axis (The axis is through the middle of the handle, and the left and right sides extend parallel to that axis).
As to claim 7, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first side and second side extend generally from the first end to the second end (as illustrated, each side of the handle extends the entire length of the handle).
As to claim 8, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the first recess (depression 9) terminates in a first projection (enlargement 8) offset from said first end toward said second end (the enlargement 8 is offset from the ferule 4 in the direction of the butt 10).
As to claim 9, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the handle body is of generally circular cross section (the handle is radially symmetrical and thus has a generally circular cross section).
As to claim 10, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein the second recess (depression 6) terminates in a second projection (enlargement 7) adjacent the first end (the enlargement 7 is adjacent the ferrule 4).
As to claim 12, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, wherein said second end is generally perpendicular to said axis (the butt is perpendicular to the axis of the handle).
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osgood (US 2,056,054) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carder (US 6,685,609).
As to claim 11, Osgood teaches the handle of claim 1, but does not teach said first end is formed at an angle transverse to said elongated axis.
Rather, the handle of Osgood terminates at a top end in a ferrule which appears to be perpendicular to an axis of the handle, not transverse.
However, in the field of hand tools, and specifically in the field of carpet seam rollers, forming a connection between the handle and the roller at a transverse angle was known at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Carder which teaches a carpet seam roller 10 having wheel 26 connected to handle 13 via a shaft 11 and central section 14 of a generally U-shaped metal bracket 15. Carder Col 3 lines 16-18 teaches “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 the shaft 11 is secured to bracket 15 in such a manner that its axial centerline extends transversely of, and is inclined at approximately 45° to the bracket center section 14.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the handle of Osgood to match the angle of the components of Carder. Thus the first end of the handle to have been formed at an angle transverse to said elongated axis. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve a comfortable angle with which to press a carpet seal. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the angle of Carder is combined with the handle device of Osgood, according to known manufacturing methods such as cutting a shaped wooden dowel at any chosen angle, including 45°.
Claim 13 is 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 13, Carder teaches a carpet pile seam roller (“carpet Seaming tool” (Abstract)) comprising: a yoke (bracket 15), a roller (wheels 26) mounted for rotation on an axle (shaft 21), the axle attached to said yoke (as shown for example in Fig 2), said yoke attached to said first end of said handle (as illustrated in Fig 2). Carder does not teach a handle according to claim 1.
Instead, the handle of Carder is not illustrated as having first and second recesses.
However, Osgood teaches a handle useful for hand tools, and which meets all the limitations of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
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 handle 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.
Conclusion
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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 15 October 2025
1 In one interpretation, the limitation “a second recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a second hand of a user” need not be concurrent with the limitation “a first recess adapted to receive at least a first portion of a first hand of a user.” That is, a user may first grasp the handle with a first hand, and then separately switch hands to grasp the handle with a second hand. As the hand is shown grasping both recesses in Fig 2, the claim limitations are met (either hand can grasp either recess, or either hand grasps both recesses at the same time). In a narrower interpretation, the identified limitations must be performed concurrently. This limitation is not required as it is merely an intended use of the device. In any case, the handle of Osgood is capable of being used with both hands at the same time, as the handle is large enough to allow a first hand to grasp recess 9 and a second hand to concurrently grasp recess 6. This is confirmed by Osgood’s teaching of the size of the handle in relation to the size of a user’s hand as shown in Fig 2.