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 The previous 112 rejections to claims 2, 8, 12-13, and 19-20 are withdrawn. The previous 103 rejections are withdrawn.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 6 and 17 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 6 and 17 relies on the limitation “a distance between the first and second gripping surfaces and the bores.” When looking to the specification, the claim relies on a dimension D3. D3 has different values (shown in the annotated Fig. 7 below), which is confusing because it is unclear which distance D3 should be used for comparing against the “3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth.” For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “each of the distances between the first and second gripping surfaces and the first and second bores, respectively, along the axial length of the bore.”
PNG
media_image1.png
668
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heinsohn (US 20070074610A1).
Regarding claim 1, Heinsohn discloses a hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (see FIG. 1: two pliers tips 5)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (see FIG. 1: two grips 4)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (joint assembly at pivot pin 3 coupling the limbs 2 to the grips 4)
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; (a first insertion tip 6 at a distal end of one plier tip 5 and a second insertion tip 6 at a distal end of the other plier tip 5)
and a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw proximate to the first pin and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw proximate to the second pin, (see FIG. 2: the first and second surfaces of pliers tips 5 in contact with each other—identified in the annotated FIG. 2 below—are disposed proximate to the first and second insertion tips 6, respectively; see also ¶[0017])
PNG
media_image2.png
671
727
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the first and second gripping surfaces grip objects therebetween responsive to the top jaw and the bottom jaw moving towards each other, (the gripping surfaces are capable of gripping objects responsive to the pliers tips 5 moving towards each other)
wherein a longitudinal centerline of the first pin is disposed at an angle relative to a plane in which the first gripping surface lies, (see FIG. 2 and ¶[0021]-[0023]: the longitudinal axis x-x of the first insertion tip 6 is disposed at an angle relative to the plane of the first gripping surface)
and wherein a longitudinal centerline of the second pin is disposed at the angle relative to a plane in which the second gripping surfaces lies (see FIG. 2 and ¶[0021]-[0023]: the longitudinal axis x-x of the second insertion tip 6 is disposed at the angle relative to the plane of the second gripping surface).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn teaches the hand tool of claim 1, wherein the gripping assembly and the pin assembly provide a dual function head section tool in which a first function comprises operably coupling with a circlip via the pin assembly (see ¶[0004]: circlips are operably coupled via the insertion tips 6) and a second function comprises gripping an object with the gripping assembly (the gripping assembly is capable of gripping objects in between pliers tips 5).
Regarding claim 11, Heinsohn discloses a dual function hand tool, the dual function hand tool comprising: a head section including a top jaw and a bottom jaw; (see FIG. 1: two pliers tips 5)
a handle section including a top handle and a bottom handle; (see FIG. 1: two grips 4)
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (joint assembly at pivot pin 3 coupling the limbs 2 to the grips 4)
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; (a first insertion tip 6 at a distal end of one plier tip 5 and a second insertion tip 6 at a distal end of the other plier tip 5)
and a gripping assembly comprising a first gripping surface disposed at the top jaw proximate to the first pin and a second gripping surface disposed at the bottom jaw proximate to the second pin, (see FIG. 2: the first and second surfaces of pliers tips 5 in contact with each other—identified in the annotated FIG. 2 below—are disposed proximate to the first and second insertion tips 6, respectively; see also ¶[0017])
wherein the dual function hand tool operably couples with a circlip via the pin assembly to define a first function (see ¶[0004]: circlips are operably coupled via the insertion tips 6) and grips an object with the gripping assembly to define a second function, (the gripping assembly is capable of gripping objects in between pliers tips 5).
wherein a longitudinal centerline of the first pin is disposed at an angle relative to a plane in which the first gripping surface lies, (see FIG. 2 and ¶[0021]-[0023]: the longitudinal axis x-x of the first insertion tip 6 is disposed at an angle relative to the plane of the first gripping surface)
and wherein a longitudinal centerline of the second pin is disposed at the angle relative to a plane in which the second gripping surfaces lies (see FIG. 2 and ¶[0021]-[0023]: the longitudinal axis x-x of the second insertion tip 6 is disposed at the angle relative to the plane of the second gripping surface).
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn (US 2007074610 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn does not explicitly teach that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is 10% of a length of the top and bottom jaws, respectively. However, Heinsohn teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is less than 25% of a length of the top and bottom jaws (a distance D1 of the gripping surface is less than 25% of D2, a length of the pliers tips 5, see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
482
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 length of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn to be roughly 10% of the overall jaw length. Such a modification is viewed as change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the length of the gripping surface would affect the area in which the plier interacted with the object being worked upon, which would change for different intended functions. Further in the instant application, there is no criticality/unexpected results that come from the 10% limitation (see Detailed Description, ¶[0025]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Heinsohn teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws, respectively, towards the joint assembly (see FIG. 2: the surfaces that can be used for gripping on the inside of pliers tips 5 extend from the distal end of the plier tips 5 toward the pivot pin 3).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn does not explicitly teach that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is 10% of a length of the top and bottom jaws, respectively. However, Heinsohn teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend a distance that is less than 25% of a length of the top and bottom jaws (a distance D1 of the gripping surface is less than 25% of D2, a length of the pliers tips 5, see annotated Fig. 1 above in the discussion of claim 2).
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 length of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn to be roughly 10% of the overall jaw length. Such a modification is viewed as change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Changing the length of the gripping surface would affect the area in which the plier interacted with the object being worked upon, which would change for different intended functions. Further in the instant application, there is no criticality/unexpected results that come from the 10% limitation (see Detailed Description, ¶[0025]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Heinsohn teaches that the first and second gripping surfaces extend from the distal end of the top and bottom jaws, respectively, towards the joint assembly (see FIG. 2: the surfaces that can be used for gripping on the inside of pliers tips 5 extend from the distal end of the plier tips 5 toward the pivot pin 3).
Claims 4-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heinsohn (US 2007074610 A1) in view of Tseng (US 6786117 B1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Heinsohn does not teach that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw.
However, Tseng, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to pliers, further discloses that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw (the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 each comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface 76 interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface 84 when the top jaw 18 is proximate to the bottom jaw 20 as shown in Fig. 1).
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 first and second gripping surfaces of Heinsohn to comprise teeth, wherein the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw, as taught by Tseng. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to better grip an exterior object (see Col. 4, Lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, further teaches that the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively (see Heinsohn ¶[0021] and Fig. 2: insertion tips 6 are disposed in respective eyelets 7).
Regarding claim 6 (as best understood), the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Heinsohn and Tseng do not teach that each of the distances between the first and second gripping surfaces and the first and second bores, respectively, along the axial length of the bore is within a range of 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. 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 distances between the gripping surfaces and the respective bores of Heinsohn, as modified by Tseng, to be roughly 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool has enough clearance to adequately manipulate a particular style of circlip. Further, in ¶[0029]-[0030] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Heinsohn and Tseng do not teach that the first and second gripping surfaces have a smallest width proximate to the distal end of the head section that is greater than two times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be greater than two times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, does not teach that the first and second gripping surfaces have a largest width disposed a length away from a smallest width, that is equal to three times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be equal to three times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, does not teach that a length of the first and second gripping surfaces is substantially equal to a depth of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be substantially equal to a depth of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool would to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0034] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Heinsohn does not teach that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth.
However, Tseng, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to pliers, further discloses that the first and second gripping surfaces each comprise teeth (see Tseng FIG. 1: the serrated gripping planar surfaces 76 and 84 each comprise teeth).
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 first and second gripping surfaces of Heinsohn to comprise teeth, as taught by Tseng. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to better grip an exterior object (see Col. 4, Lines 24-32).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 14 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, further teaches that the teeth of the first gripping surface interlace with the teeth of the second gripping surface when the top jaw is proximate to the bottom jaw (see Heinsohn ¶[0017]: the first and second gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, modified with interlacing teeth of Tseng in the discussion of claim 14, contact one another).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, teaches that the first and second pins are disposed in respective bores formed in the top and bottom jaws, respectively (see Heinsohn ¶[0021] and Fig. 2: insertion tips 6 are disposed in respective eyelets 7).
Regarding claim 17 (as best understood), the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Heinsohn and Tseng do not teach that each of the distances between the first and second gripping surfaces and the first and second bores, respectively, along the axial length of the bore is within a range of 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. 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 distances between the gripping surfaces and the respective bores of Heinsohn, as modified by Tseng, to be roughly 3 to 4 times a depth of the teeth. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool has enough clearance to adequately manipulate a particular style of circlip. Further, in ¶[0029]-[0030] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, does not teach that the first and second gripping surfaces have a largest width disposed a length away from a smallest width, that is equal to three times a diameter of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a width of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be equal to three times a diameter of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0031]-[0032] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 18 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, does not teach that a length of the first and second gripping surfaces is substantially equal to a depth of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be substantially equal to a depth of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool would to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0034] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Heinsohn, as modified, does not teach that a length of the first and second gripping surfaces is substantially equal to a depth of the bores. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a length of the gripping surfaces of Heinsohn, as modified, to be substantially equal to a depth of the bores. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the intended function and base material, a manufacturer would modify this dimension to ensure the tool would to ensure the pins have sufficient support to manipulate a particular style of circlip without causing damage or deformation to the tool. Further, in ¶[0034] of the instant application, there is no criticality or unexpected results discussed on why this dimension would be used. The discussion of adequate strength is not an unexpected result—it is simply a design criterion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights