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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn. The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn. New rejections are set forth herein and are made final.
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 13, 14, and 16-20 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “circle patterns immediately adjacent to each other”. It is unclear what immediately adjacent to each other means. When looking to the specification there is no definition for the term. Thus in a broad sense, it is unclear the meets and bounds of the claim. As such the claim is determined to be indefinite. For Examination purposes, as long as the circle patterns are near each other without anything in-between, they will fulfill the claim.
Claims 14 and 16-20 are rejected dude to dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being obvious by Schoening (US 1122165 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schoening discloses a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (see FIG. 1: a hand tool comprising a head section with a top jaw and a bottom jaw)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including levers 1 and 1’)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (a joint assembly at pin 2 coupling the head section to the levers 1 and 1’)
and a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw, (see FIG. 1: a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw)
wherein a high friction surface is disposed over at least a portion of the first and second pins, (teeth 10 disposed over a portion of the first and second pins)
and wherein the high friction surface is disposed over an entirety of a longitudinally extending exposed length of the first pin and the second pin (teeth 10 are disposed over an entirety of the longitudinally extending exposed length of the first and second pin).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening further discloses that the first and second pins are substantially cylindrical (see FIG. 1: the pins are substantially cylindrical).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Schoening further teaches that the high friction surface is disposed on a curved surface of the first and second cylindrical pins (teeth 10 are disposed on a curved surface of the first and second cylindrical pins).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening further discloses that the hand tool is a set of external circlip pliers, wherein the top jaw moves away from the bottom jaw responsive to the top handle moving towards the bottom handle (the pliers would be capable of use with external circlips in the mode shown in FIG. 2, wherein the top jaw moves away from the bottom jaw responsive to top lever 1’ moving towards bottom lever 1; see also Page 1, Lines 26-34 and Lines 60-71).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening further discloses that the hand tool is a set of internal circlip pliers, wherein the top jaw moves towards the bottom jaw responsive to the top handle moving towards the bottom handle (the pliers would be capable of use with internal circlips in the mode shown in FIG. 1, wherein the top jaw moves towards the bottom jaw responsive to top lever 1’ moving towards bottom lever 1; see also Page 1, Lines 26-34 and Lines 60-71).
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 2-5, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoening (US 1122165 A) in view of Strauch (EP 1237682 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Schoening does not disclose that the high friction surface comprises laser etching. However, Strauch, in the same field of endeavor related to hand tools, teaches modifying pliers with a high friction surface that comprises laser etching (Trans. Pg. 1, Lines 37-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high friction surface of the pliers of Schoening to comprise laser etching, as taught by Strauch. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the roughness for better friction and increase the hardness of the material (Pg. 1, Lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 3, Schoening discloses a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (see FIG. 1: a hand tool comprising a head section with a top jaw and a bottom jaw)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (a handle section including levers 1 and 1’)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (a joint assembly at pin 2 coupling the head section to the levers 1 and 1’)
and a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw, (see FIG. 1: a pin assembly having a first pin disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second pin disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw)
wherein a high friction surface is disposed over at least a portion of the first and second pins (teeth 10 disposed over a portion of the first and second pins).
Schoening does not teach that the high friction surface comprises a parallel circle pattern comprising grooves and raised portions.
However, Strauch further teaches that the high friction surface comprises a parallel circle pattern comprising grooves and raised portions (crater 9 and edge-side corrugations 10 in Fig. 9, Ring shape in Figure 15; see also Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 1-3; and Pg. 4, Lines 11-12 and 58-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the high friction surface comprise parallel circles as taught by Strauch. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Strauch further teaches the benefit of the “shape of the grooves prevents these from filling with abrasion” (Trans. Pg. 2, Line 19).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Strauch, as used to modify Schoening as outlined above, further discloses that the grooves are consecutive melt pools formed by ablating material of a surface of the first and second pins with a laser, and wherein consecutive grooves are separated by the raised portions (craters 9 are consecutive melt pools formed by ablating material of a surface of the hand tool with a laser, and consecutive craters 9 are separated by edge-side corrugations 10 in Fig. 9; Trans. Pg. 3, Lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, does not teach that the high friction surface comprises grains embedded in a base material disposed on the first and second pins. However, Strauch further teaches implementing on the surface of pliers a high friction surface comprising grains embedded in a base material (diamond chips embedded in a nickel layer; Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high friction surface disposed on the first and second pins of Schoening, as modified, to comprise grains embedded in a base material, as further taught by Strauch. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that this implementation further increases the friction of the hand tool for better handling of circlips.
Regarding claim 13, Schoening discloses a pin assembly for a hand tool, the pin assembly comprising: a first pin disposed at a distal end of a top jaw of the hand tool; a second pin disposed at a distal end of a bottom jaw of the hand tool; (see FIG. 1: a pin assembly with a first pin at the distal end of the top jaw and a second pin at the distal end of the bottom jaw)
and a high friction surface disposed over at least a portion of the first and second pins (teeth 10 disposed over a portion of the first and second pins).
Schoening does not disclose that the high friction surface comprises parallel circle patterns immediately adjacent to each other, the parallel circle patterns comprising grooves and raised portions.
However, Strauch further teaches that the high friction surface comprises parallel circle patterns immediately adjacent to each other on ring pliers tips in an embodiment shown in FIG. 15 (see FIG. 15: the profile strips 6 show parallel circle patterns immediately adjacent to each other) and shows in detail in an embodiment in FIG. 9 parallel circle patterns comprising grooves and raised portions (crater 9 and edge-side corrugations 10 in Fig. 9; see also Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 1-3; and Pg. 4, Lines 11-12 and 58-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the high friction surface comprise parallel circles as taught by Strauch. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Strauch further teaches the benefit of the “shape of the grooves prevents these from filling with abrasion” (Trans. Pg. 2, Line 19) and “the working tips can be prevented from sliding out of the openings of the saw ring” (Page 4, Lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, does not teach that the high friction surface comprises laser etching. However, Strauch further teaches modifying pliers with a high friction surface that comprises laser etching (Trans. Pg. 1, Lines 37-39). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high friction surface of the pliers of Schoening, as modified, to further comprise laser etching, as taught by Strauch. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the roughness for better friction and increase the hardness of the material (Trans. Pg. 1, Lines 53-56).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Strauch, as used to modify Schoening as outlined above, further discloses that the grooves are consecutive melt pools formed by ablating material of a surface of the first and second pins with a laser, and wherein consecutive grooves are separated by the raised portions (craters 9 are consecutive melt pools formed by ablating material of a surface of the hand tool with a laser, and consecutive craters 9 are separated by edge-side corrugations 10 in Fig. 9; Trans. Pg. 3, Lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, does not teach that the high friction surface comprises grains embedded in a base material disposed on the first and second pins. However, Strauch further teaches implementing on the surface of pliers a high friction surface comprising grains embedded in a base material (diamond chips embedded in a nickel layer; Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high friction surface disposed on the first and second pins of Heinsohn, combined with Nakamoto, to comprise grains embedded in a base material. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that this implementation further increases the friction of the hand tool for better handling of circlips.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of clam 13 is incorporated in this rejection. Schoening further discloses that the first and second pins are substantially cylindrical in shape, (see FIG. 1) and wherein the high friction surface is disposed on a curved surface of the first and second cylindrical pins (teeth 10 are disposed on a curved surface of the first and second cylindrical pins).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoening (US 1122165 A) in view of Carr (US 5062191 A).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening does not disclose that the first and second pins are conical, frustoconical or tapered in shape. However, Carr, in the same field of endeavor related to pliers, teaches the pins of the circlip pliers are conical (“a conically beveled first forward end 16a and a second conically beveled forward end 28a may be formed to the forward terminal ends of the first and second support pins, as illustrated in FIG. 5”; Col. 4, Lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pins of Schoening to be conical, as taught by Carr. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that making the pins tapered in shape would allow the pliers to be compatible with circlips of varying sizes.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, further teaches that the high friction surface is disposed along an exposed length of the first and second pins (see Schoening FIG. 1: teeth 10 disposed over a portion of the first and second pins).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoening (US 1122165 A) in view of Kulp (US 3040420 A).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Schoening does not disclose that the first and second pins are flared or inverted frustoconical at a distal end of each pin. However, Kulp, in the same field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, teaches circlip pliers in which the pins are inverted frustoconical at a distal end of each pin (frusto-conical tip 87 in Fig. 10 and Col. 2, Lines 64-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pins of Schoening to be inverted frustoconical, as taught by Kulp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve “the ability of each tip to remain in its respective hole in the snap ring” while the ring is being spread by preventing the ring from moving up on the tip (Col. 3, Lines 5-18).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoening (US 1122165 A) in view of Strauch (EP 1237682 B1), further in view of Carr (US 5062191 A).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, teaches that the high friction surface is disposed along a length of the first and second pins (teeth 10 disposed along the length of the first and second pins). Schoening, as modified, does not teach that the first and second pins are conical, frustoconical or tapered in shape. However, Carr teaches that the pins of circlip pliers are conical (“a conically beveled first forward end 16a and a second conically beveled forward end 28a may be formed to the forward terminal ends of the first and second support pins, as illustrated in FIG. 5”; Col. 4, Lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pins of Schoening, as modified, to be conical as taught by Carr. It would have been readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that making the pins tapered in shape would allow the pliers to be compatible with circlips of varying sizes. This modification would have resulted in the first and second pins being conical in shape, wherein the high friction surface is disposed along a length of the first and second pins.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoening (US 1122165 A) in view of Strauch (EP 1237682 B1), further in view of Kulp (US 3040420 A).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Schoening, as modified, does not teach that the first and second pins are flared or inverted frustoconical at a distal end of each pin. However, Kulp, in the same field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, teaches circlip pliers in which the pins are inverted frustoconical at a distal end of each pin (frusto-conical tip 87 in Fig. 10 and Col. 2, Lines 64-70). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pins of Schoening, as modified, to be inverted frustoconical, as taught by Kulp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve “the ability of each tip to remain in its respective hole in the snap ring” while the ring is being spread by preventing the ring from moving up on the tip (Col. 3, Lines 5-18).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments directed towards the rejection of claim 3 (Applicant Response Pages 8-9), the examiner notes that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and the specification of the instant application does not provide a special definition of a “groove.” A groove, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, is “a long, narrow, hollow space cut into a surface.” As shown in FIG. 9 of Strauch, the groove (9) is an elliptical hollow space cut into the surface (11), then shown in Fig 15, these can be in ring shapes. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would lack motivation to modify the base reference with the teachings of Strauch, as Strauch further demonstrates an application of the grooves to the tips of ring pliers in the embodiments demonstrated in FIGS. 14-15 and provides that “the working tips can be prevented from sliding out of the openings of the saw ring” (Page 4, Lines 53-56). Applicant further argues the circular features shown in Fig 15 are not immediately adjacent each other. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Strauch shows a ring, a section of pin, then another ring. This is the same structure as the instant application. As discussed above, it is unclear what the term immediately adjacent means in this situation since the structure of the instant application and Strauch except there may be different spacing, but neither is discussed in the instant or the prior art.
With respect to the arguments for amended claim 13 (Applicant Response, Pages 9-10), the claims do not require a set number of grooves and raised patterns and the specification does not provide a definition of what distance should be considered “immediately adjacent” or not. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification, the examiner believes the repeating circle patterns are immediately adjacent to each other.
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 CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights