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 § 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20080088098) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hsu discloses a prior art/known tool apparatus (Fig. 6) comprising a first end equipped with a chuck key 91 equipped with teeth circumscribing a cylindrical center 911 which is raised above said teeth. A second end equipped with a hex bit 921 is opposite to said first end and connected therewith via a cylindrical shaft 92. Hsu does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the hex bit, and therefore does not explicitly anticipate the claimed ¼” hex bit.
However, Applicant’s Specification at Page 6, the first complete paragraph, describes the instant invention being used in connection with a “conventional ¼” impact driver”. The disclosure of a ¼” hex drive being ‘conventional’, i.e. known in the art at the time of filing, renders it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the hex bit of Hsu to be ¼”, and utilized with a conventional driving tool 93.
Alternatively, if Applicant does not agree that AAPA discloses such an arrangement, Examiner takes Official Notice that ¼” hex drive bits are well known in the art at the time of filing, and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the bit of Hsu to have a ¼” hex drive bit to be able to be used with any conventional driver at the operator’s disposal.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 20150336252) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hicks discloses a tool apparatus comprising a first end, said first end equipped with a chuck key 48. The chuck key is equipped with teeth 54, said teeth circumscribing a cylindrical center which is raised above said teeth (see e.g. Fig. 1). A second end 46 is equipped with a hex bit and is connected to said first end via a hexagonal shaft (see e.g. Fig. 3, the shaft being the exposed hexagonal portion between the upper end of the tool 30 and the chuck key). Hicks does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the hex bit, and therefore does not explicitly anticipate the claimed ¼” hex bit.
However, Applicant’s Specification at Page 6, the first complete paragraph, describes the instant invention being used in connection with a “conventional ¼” impact driver”. The disclosure of a ¼” hex drive being ‘conventional’, i.e. known in the art at the time of filing, renders it obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the hex bit of Hicks to be ¼”, and utilized with a conventional driving tool 93.
Alternatively, if Applicant does not agree that AAPA discloses such an arrangement, Examiner takes Official Notice that ¼” hex drive bits are well known in the art at the time of filing, and one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the bit of Hicks to have a ¼” hex drive bit to be able to be used with any conventional driver at the operator’s disposal.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20080088098) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bedoian (US 5332240).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7, the modified tool apparatus of claim 1 above does not disclose specific dimensions of the tool apparatus.
Bedoian discloses a similar tool apparatus (see Fig. 1), wherein the tool apparatus is two to three inches long in total (Col. 3, Lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claim 1 by forming the shaft with a length of one or two inches and an overall distance between the first and second end of 2.75 inches as taught by Bedoian, in order to provide adequate clearance between the tool driving the tool apparatus and the drill chuck without making the tool apparatus too long and unwieldy. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Claims 4-5, 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 20150336252) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Bedoian (US 5332240).
Regarding claims 4-5, 7-8 and 10, the modified tool apparatus of claim 1 above does not disclose specific dimensions of the tool apparatus.
Bedoian discloses a similar tool apparatus (see Fig. 1), wherein the tool apparatus is two to three inches long in total (Col. 3, Lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claim 1/2 by forming the shaft with a length of one or two inches and an overall distance between the first and second end of 2.75 inches as taught by Bedoian, in order to provide adequate clearance between the tool driving the tool apparatus and the drill chuck without making the tool apparatus too long and unwieldy. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20080088098) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shepard et al. (US 9481023, hereinafter ‘Shepard’).
Regarding claim 6, Hsu does not disclose the material from which the tool apparatus is made.
Shepard discloses a tool steel that has been inductively-hardened to increase impact resistance (Col. 18, Line 52 – Col. 19, Line 28 and Col. 19, Line 32 – Col. 20, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claim 1 to be made of induction-hardened alloy steel, as taught by Shepard, in order to achieve a durable and long-lasting tool apparatus that is not damaged from use. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US 20080088098) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice and Shepard et al. (US 9481023, hereinafter ‘Shepard’) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bedoian (US 5332240).
Regarding claim 11, the modified tool apparatus of claim 6 above does not disclose specific dimensions of the tool apparatus.
Bedoian discloses a similar tool apparatus (see Fig. 1), wherein the tool apparatus is two to three inches long in total (Col. 3, Lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claim 6 by forming the overall distance between the first and second end as 2.75 inches as taught by Bedoian, in order to provide adequate clearance between the tool driving the tool apparatus and the drill chuck without making the tool apparatus too long and unwieldy. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 20150336252) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Shepard et al. (US 9481023, hereinafter ‘Shepard’).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Hicks does not disclose the material from which the tool apparatus is made.
Shepard discloses a tool steel that has been inductively-hardened to increase impact resistance (Col. 18, Line 52 – Col. 19, Line 28 and Col. 19, Line 32 – Col. 20, Line 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claims 1 and 2 to be made of induction-hardened alloy steel, as taught by Shepard, in order to achieve a durable and long-lasting tool apparatus that is not damaged from use. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks (US 20150336252) in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and/or Official Notice and as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bedoian (US 5332240).
Regarding claim 11, the modified tool apparatus of claim 6 above does not disclose specific dimensions of the tool apparatus.
Bedoian discloses a similar tool apparatus (see Fig. 1), wherein the tool apparatus is two to three inches long in total (Col. 3, Lines 14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool apparatus of claim 6 by forming the overall distance between the first and second end as 2.75 inches as taught by Bedoian, in order to provide adequate clearance between the tool driving the tool apparatus and the drill chuck without making the tool apparatus too long and unwieldy. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dean (US 20200198108) discloses elements of, or similar to, the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722