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 7 and 18 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.
Claims 7 and 18 recite “the cylinder.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6, upon which claim 7 depends, and claim 13, upon which claim 18 depends, have two different cylinders: the first and second pins. Therefore, it is unclear which cylinder is being referred to and the scope of the claims are unclear. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted “the cylinder” as “the first and second cylindrical pins.”
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, 6-7, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn (US20070074610A1) in view of Nakamoto (DE19725597A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heinsohn teaches a hand tool (circlip pliers 1 in Fig. 1) comprising a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw (a head section including pliers tips 5);
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle (a handle section including pliers limbs 2);
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section (joint assembly centered around pivot pin 3 operably couples the pliers tips 5 to pliers limbs 2);
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 (pin assembly having insertion tips 6 disposed at the distal end of pliers tips 5).
Heinsohn does not teach having a high friction surface is disposed over at least a portion of the first and second pins. However, Nakamoto, in the same field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, teaches a hand tool with a high friction surface disposed over at least a portion of the tips disposed at the distal end of a top jaw and a bottom jaw (fine grooves 69 and 70 disposed over retaining ring holding parts 39 and 40 at the distal end of actuating levers 10 and 11). 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 pin assembly of Heinsohn, to have a high friction surface disposed over at least a portion of the assembly, as taught by Nakamoto. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to keep the tips engaged with the circlip while the circlip is being attached or removed (Trans. Pg. 19, Lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, further discloses that the first and second pins are substantially cylindrical (the insertion tips 6 are substantially cylindrical, as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified by Nakamoto as outlined above, would teach a high friction surface disposed on a curved surface of the cylinders as a result of the modification applied in the discussion of claim 1 above (Nakamoto teaches fine grooves 69 and 70 disposed on a curved surface of retaining ring holding parts 39 and 40).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Nakamoto, as used to modify Heinsohn, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches 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 (Fig. 17(c) and Trans. Pg. 20, Lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this modification to expand circlips purposed to fit around a shaft (Trans. Pg. 3, Lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Nakamoto, as used to modify Heinsohn, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches 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 (Fig. 17(b) and Trans. Pg. 20, Lines 29-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this modification to compress circlips purposed for fitting a bore (Trans. Pg. 3, Lines 6-10).
Regarding claim 13, Heinsohn teaches a pin assembly for a hand tool comprising: a first pin disposed at a distal end of a top jaw of the hand tool and a second pin disposed at a distal end of a bottom jaw of the hand tool (pin assembly having insertion tips 6 disposed at the distal end of pliers tips 5). Heinsohn does not teach having a high friction surface is disposed over at least a portion of the first and second pins. However, Nakamoto, in the same field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, teaches a hand tool with a high friction surface disposed over at least a portion of the tips (fine grooves 69 and 70 disposed over retaining ring holding parts 39 and 40). 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 pin assembly of Heinsohn, to have a high friction surface disposed over at least a portion of the pins, as taught by Nakamoto. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to keep the tips engaged with the circlip while the circlip is being attached or removed (Trans. Pg. 19, Lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, further discloses that the first and second pins are substantially cylindrical in shape (the insertion tips 6 are substantially cylindrical, as shown in Fig. 2). Heinsohn, as modified by Nakamoto as outlined above, would further teach a high friction surface disposed on a curved surface of the cylinders as a result of the modification applied in the discussion of claim 13 above.
Claims 2-5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn in view of Nakamoto, further in view of Strauch (EP 1237682 B1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn and Nakamoto do not explicitly 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 Heinsohn combined with Nakamoto 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, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Strauch, as used to modify Heinsohn and Nakamoto as outlined above, further discloses 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; Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 1-3; and Pg. 4, Lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this modification because 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 Heinsohn and Nakamoto 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. While Heinsohn and Nakamoto do not teach that the high friction surface comprises grains embedded in a base material disposed on the first and second pins, Strauch 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 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Heinsohn and Nakamoto do not explicitly 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 Heinsohn combined with Nakamoto 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 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Strauch, as used to modify Heinsohn and Nakamoto as outlined above, further discloses 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; Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 1-3; and Pg. 4, Lines 11-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make this modification because the “shape of the grooves prevents these from filling with abrasion” (Trans. Pg. 2, Line 19).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Strauch, as used to modify Heinsohn and Nakamoto 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. While Heinsohn and Nakamoto do not teach that the high friction surface comprises grains embedded in a base material disposed on the first and second pins, Strauch 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.
Claims 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn in view of Nakamoto, further in view of Carr (US 5062191 A).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, 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 circlip pliers, teaches 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 Heinsohn, combined with Nakamoto, to 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. Heinsohn, as modified, further teaches that the high friction surface is disposed along an exposed length of the first and second pins as a result of the modification applied in the discussion of claim 1 above (Nakamoto teaches fine grooves 69 and 70 disposed along an exposed length of retaining ring holding parts 39 and 40).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, teaches that the high friction surface is disposed along a length of the first and second pins as a result of the modification applied in claim 13 (Nakamoto teaches fine grooves 69 and 70 disposed along a length of retaining ring holding parts 39 and 40). Heinsohn, as modified, 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 circlip pliers, teaches 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 Heinsohn, combined with Nakamoto, 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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn in view of Nakamoto, further in view of Kulp (US 3040420 A).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn, 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 Heinsohn, combined with Nakamoto, 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).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated. Heinsohn, 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 Heinsohn, combined with Nakamoto, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farzin-Nia (US5257558A) teaches a pair of pliers with embedded particles in the surface.
Tsai (US20150290777A1) teaches a hand tool with a surface comprising embedded particles.
Anderson (US20090056509A1) teaches a set of pliers comprising particles.
Jansson (WO 9510394 A1) teaches circlip pliers in which the tips are curved.
Aramberri (EP 1652623 A2) teaches circlip pliers in which the tips flare out.
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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723