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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/27/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US 11,247,308 B2 or US 11,850,707 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/27/2026 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. With respect to the indicated non-patent literature documents, they have been submitted but are illegible. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, and 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the distal ends” (claim 5, line 2) should be changed to --distal ends--;
“the degree” (claim 5, line 2) should be changed to --a degree--;
“the link lock member” (claim 8, lines 4 and 6) should be changed to --the lock link member--;
“pivotally” (claim 22, lines 2) should be changed to --pivotably--;
“wherein when the locking mechanism is configured to lock the position a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw, the release lever configures the locking mechanism to unlock the position a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw.” (claim 23, lines 1-4) is awkward as written but understandable (notwithstanding the typos of “the position a position” (lines 2 and 3). Examiner suggests changing this to --wherein when the position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw is locked via the locking mechanism, the release lever is capable of interacting with the locking mechanism to unlock the position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an adjustment member” (claim 8).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Keiser in view of Wu
Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2584353 A (“Keiser”) in view of US 20170246731 A1 (“Wu”).
Keiser pertains to locking pliers (Figs. 1-5; 1:1-5). Wu pertains to locking pliers (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Keiser discloses locking pliers (Figs. 1-5, pliers as shown), comprising:
a first assembly comprising: a first handle; and a first jaw comprising a first jaw face and a second jaw face (Figs. 1-5, first assembly including first handle 11, first jaw 16 with first jaw face (Fig. 1, left face of element 32) and second jaw face (Fig. 1, right face of element 32));
a second assembly comprising: a second handle; a second jaw comprising: a third jaw face; and a fourth jaw face (Figs. 1-5, second assembly including second handle 10, second jaw 15 with third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) and fourth jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1));
a pivot joint coupling the first assembly to the second assembly such that the second handle is movable relative to the first handle to move the second jaw relative to the first jaw (Figs. 1-5, pivot joint 18 provides for the recited function);
wherein...the third jaw face, and the fourth jaw face each comprise teeth (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) and fourth jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) have teeth);
wherein the third jaw face is pivotable relative to the fourth jaw face such that a first clamping diameter defined between the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face decreases as torque is applied to a workpiece (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to fourth jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1), and a “first clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces decreases as torque is applied to workpiece 33 (torque is applied in the clockwise rotation of the pliers relative to a stationary workpiece 33; Fig. 2 shows a release position, Fig. 1 shows a torque-applied position where eccentric cam 23 (having the third jaw face 27) pivots relative to the fourth jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) such that the “first clamping diameter” decreases, thereby increasing the plier’s grip on workpiece 33); 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2; see annotated Figs. 1-2, 4 below; Examiner interprets this claim to not require a method step of using the locking pliers, but rather to require that the pliers are configured to perform the recited function if a torque is applied to a workpiece that is being clamped by the pliers).
Keiser does not explicitly disclose wherein the first jaw face, the second jaw face, the third jaw face, and the fourth jaw face each comprise teeth;
However, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious this claim.
Wu discloses wherein the first jaw face, the second jaw face, the third jaw face, and the fourth jaw face each comprise teeth (Figs. 4-10, each of the four jaw faces have teeth 461, 462, 591, 592).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Wu with Keiser by modifying the first jaw face and second jaw face of Keiser to each have teeth. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a design choice, where teeth on the first jaw face and the second jaw face (in addition to the existing teeth of the third and fourth jaw faces) would allow for better gripping of a workpiece to allow more torque to be applied to the workpiece without slipping, as compared to not having teeth on the first and second jaw faces, where the lack of teeth would be suited to allow for slippage under low torque conditions (e.g., to more easily rotate the pliers relative to the workpiece during repositioning of the pliers).
Regarding claim 2, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein the first clamping diameter is a diameter of a circle that is tangent to each of the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face (Fig. 2, the workpiece as shown is in a release (or starting) position, where its circumference (and associated diameter) is tangent to the recited faces).
Regarding claim 3, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein, when the third jaw face pivots, the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face define a second clamping diameter between the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots as torque is applied to workpiece 33 (Fig. 1), resulting in a “second clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces (compared to a larger “first clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces in the release position of Fig. 2); 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2; Examiner interprets this claim to not require a method step of using the locking pliers, but rather to require the recited limitation when the third jaw face pivots).
Regarding claim 4, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 3 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein the second clamping diameter is less than the first clamping diameter (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots as torque is applied to workpiece 33 (Fig. 1), resulting in a “second clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces (compared to a larger “first clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces in the release position of Fig. 2); 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 3 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein when a distance between [] distal ends of the first jaw and second jaw are in a fixed position, [a] degree or pivoting of the third jaw face away from the distal end of the second jaw is large enough that a difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than... (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots as torque is applied to workpiece 33 (Fig. 1), where the distal ends of the first and second jaws (left ends as shown in Fig. 1) are fixed relative to each other, resulting in a “second clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces (compared to a larger “first clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces in the release position of Fig. 2); 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2).
Keiser does not explicitly disclose:
[a] degree or pivoting of the third jaw face away from the distal end of the second jaw is large enough that a difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than 1.75 millimeters.
However, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Keiser/Wu combination (e.g., by modifying the geometry pertaining to the pivoting eccentric cam 23) such that the difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than 1.75 millimeters because this is simply a design choice that results in a certain amount of diameter difference (resulting in a certain amount of additional grip on the workpiece) per unit of rotation. For example, modifying the toothed surface 27 of the eccentric cam 23 to have a larger eccentricity relative to pivot 26 would result in a greater difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter for a unit of clockwise rotation, which would allow for the quicker increase of grip on the workpiece for the unit of rotation (compared to a toothed surface 27 with a lower eccentricity relative to pivot 26). Applicant has not disclosed that the “greater than 1.75 millimeters” dimension provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this positioning as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement (see Spec. ¶ 0044, referring to one embodiment having a greater than 1.58mm difference, while some other embodiments having a greater than 1.75mm difference). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 6, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein, when a clamping force is applied to the first handle and the second handle and the first handle and the second handle are rotated in a clockwise direction, a torque causes the third jaw face to pivot (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots due to a torque when the first and second handles are clamped together on a workpiece 33 and rotated clockwise (e.g., from Fig. 2 position to Fig. 1 position), which increases the plier’s grip on workpiece 33; 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2; see annotated Figs. 1-2, 4 below; Examiner interprets this claim to not require a method step of using the locking pliers (i.e., by applying a clamping force and rotating the first/second handles as recited), but rather to require that the pliers are configured to perform the recited function (“a torque causes the third jaw face to pivot”) if the pliers are used as recited).
Regarding claim 7, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein, when a force is applied to the first handle and the second handle in a first rotational direction, the third jaw face pivots in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on a workpiece in the first rotational direction (Figs. 1-5, third jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots (in the same first rotational direction relative to its pivot pin 26) due to a torque when the first and second handles are clamped together on a workpiece 33 and rotated clockwise (e.g., from Fig. 2 position to Fig. 1 position), which causes the third jaw face 27 to apply a torque on workpiece 33 and increases the plier’s grip on workpiece 33; 2:40-3:2, “If the handles be now swung in the direction of the arrow “A” in Fig. 1, the eccentric surface of the ratcheting foot 23 will roll against the article 33, constantly increasing the pressure thereagainst due to the eccentricity of the surface, until sufficient grip has been obtained from the teeth 27 to rotate the article 33.”; 2:12-18, “The arcuate surface upon which the teeth 27 are formed is eccentric to the axis of the opening 25”; claims 1-2; see annotated Figs. 1-2, 4 below; Examiner interprets this claim to not require a method step of using the locking pliers (i.e., by applying a clamping force and rotating the first/second handles as recited), but rather to require that the pliers are configured to perform the recited function if the pliers are used as recited).
Regarding claim 8, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses:
a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw; the locking mechanism comprising a lock link member and an adjustment member (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, locking mechanism include lock link 12 and adjustment member 13; “adjustment member” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes element 50, and equivalents thereof (Spec. ¶¶ 0038-0040; Figs. 1-2));
wherein the [lock link] member is between the first handle and the second handle (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, lock link 12 is between the first handle and second handle);
wherein the adjustment member engages the [lock link] member, holding the second handle in a position relative to the first handle (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, left end of adjustment member 13 engages lock link 12 to perform the recited function).
Regarding claim 21, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein the second handle is pivotably coupled to the second jaw (Figs. 1-5, second handle 10 is pivotably coupled to the eccentric cam 23 (having the third jaw face 27) of the second jaw 15 (via pivot pin 246).
Regarding claim 22, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 8 as applied above. Keiser further discloses a release lever, wherein the release lever is pivota[b]ly coupled to the second handle (Figs. 1-5, release lever (right part of handle 11 in Fig. 1) is pivotably coupled to second handle 10 via at least pins 19 and 18).
Regarding claim 23, the Keiser/Wu combination makes obvious the locking pliers of claim 22 as applied above. Keiser further discloses wherein when the locking mechanism is configured to lock the position [] of the first jaw relative to the second jaw, the release lever configures the locking mechanism to unlock the position [] of the first jaw relative to the second jaw (Figs. 1-5, release lever (right part of handle 11 in Fig. 1) is capable of unlocking the locking mechanism to move the position of the first jaw relative to the position of the second jaw).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 9-20 have been canceled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are pending.
Claims 1-8 and 21-23 are rejected.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the drawings and specification.
Claims – The objection to claim 2 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(a) and (b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The nonstatutory double patent rejection is withdrawn in view of the filed terminal disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 arguments.
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights