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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Species (claims 1-8) is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/08/2023 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. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed on 11/08/2023 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner notes that none of the indicated references were filed in this application, and the file histories of the parent applications do not have a corresponding legible copy and/or concise explanation for the indicated references, despite the previous examiner’s signoff of the earlier information disclosure statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference number(s) mentioned in the description: 94, 102, 134 (Spec. ¶¶ 0043-0044).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) or amendment to the specification to delete the reference number(s) (and any related portions) in the description in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the first clamping diameter is the diameter of a circle that is tangent to each of the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face” (claim 2) must be clearly shown (the figures do not provide sufficient details for a proper understanding of the claimed invention, or the features should be canceled from the claims. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 3, reference number 38 “engagement surface” is not pointing to the correct object.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the diameter of a circle” (claim 2, lines 1-2) should be changed to --a diameter of a circle--.
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:
“a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw...wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking member, holding the second handle in a position relative to the first handle” (claim 8);
“a locking 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. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “herein the first clamping diameter is the diameter of a circle that is tangent to each of the first jaw face, the second jaw face, and the third jaw face.” Although this claim language matches language in the specification, this particular arrangement as claimed is not actually supported by the specification. The specification discusses this limitation in the context of Figs. 4-5 (Spec. ¶¶ 0043-0044). However, the discussion pertains to “first, second, and third jaw faces 94, 102, 134”, which are not shown in the drawings (see drawing objection above). Even assuming these jaw faces correspond to “engagement surfaces” elements 36, 38, 40, and 42, the specification does not support claim 2 (which is not an original claim) because claim 2 recites that a circle is tangent to each of the first, second, and third jaw faces, but claim 2 (from claim 1) also requires the second and third jaw faces to be on the “second assembly”, where the second jaw face is pivotable relative to the third jaw face. In contrast, the specification appears to show a circle that is tangent to each of jaw faces 36, 38, and 40 but not tangent to jaw face 42 (Figs. 4-5). This appears to conflict with claim 2 because as claimed, the specification would need to show that the circle is tangent to each of jaw faces 40, 42, and either 36 or 38 (or both). In other words, as claimed, the second jaw face would need to be 42 and the third jaw face would need to be 40 (or vice versa), and Figs. 4-5 show that a circle is not tangent to both of those faces simultaneously. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”); MPEP § 2163.03(V). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
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 5 and 8 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein a difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than 1.75 millimeters.” This limitation is indefinite because this limitation (specifically, “greater than 1.75 millimeters”) depends on the size, geometry, and composition of the “workpiece” as recited in claim 1, as well as other parameters such as temperature, all of which are variable and not claimed in any manner to limit the scope. For example, given the same environmental conditions and workpiece size, a steel rod workpiece would cause the pliers (when used to apply torque to the workpiece) to have a certain difference between the first and second clamping diameters; whereas a rubber rod workpiece would cause the pliers to have a larger difference between the first and second clamping diameters. Thus, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation as written. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking member”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. The specification states, “The locking mechanism 46 includes a lock link member 48 and an adjustment member 50” (Spec. Figs. 1-2; ¶ 0038). But as claimed, it is unclear how the locking mechanism 46 could engage with a part of itself (i.e., how can an assembly engage with one of its parts “the locking member”). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892-93 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1). For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 C.F.R. § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. MPEP §§ 706.07(e), 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claims 1 and 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 7 of US 11247308 B2 and claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 of US 11850707 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows.
Instant Application 18/504,663
Reference US 11,247,308 B2
1. Locking pliers, comprising:
a first assembly comprising: a first handle; and a first jaw comprising a first jaw face;
a second assembly comprising: a second handle; a second jaw comprising: a second jaw face; and a third jaw face;
and 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;
wherein the second jaw face is pivotable relative to the third 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.
1. Locking pliers, comprising:
an upper handle;
an upper jaw coupled to the upper handle, the upper jaw comprising a first set of teeth configured to engage a workpiece;
a lower handle;
a lower jaw coupled to the lower handle, the lower jaw comprising a second set of teeth and a third set of teeth,
a first pivot joint coupling the lower handle to the upper handle such that the upper handle is movable relative to the lower handle to move the lower jaw relative to the upper jaw;
a working area defined between the upper jaw and the lower jaw;
a second pivot joint coupling the second set of teeth to the lower jaw, wherein the third set of teeth on the lower jaw are pivotable about the first pivot joint and the second set of teeth on the lower jaw are pivotable about the first pivot joint and about the second pivot joint;
wherein when the upper handle and the lower handle are clamped and rotated in a clockwise direction when a torque causes the second set of teeth on the lower jaw to pivot about the second pivot joint to decrease the working area between the upper jaw and the lower jaw.
6. The locking pliers of claim 1, 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 second jaw face to pivot.
5. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein, when a force is applied to the upper handle and the lower handle in a first rotational direction, the second set of teeth pivot about the second pivot joint in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on the workpiece in the first rotational direction.
7. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein, when a force is applied to the first handle and the second handle in a first rotational direction, the second jaw face pivots in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on a workpiece in the first rotational direction.
5. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein, when a force is applied to the upper handle and the lower handle in a first rotational direction, the second set of teeth pivot about the second pivot joint in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on the workpiece in the first rotational direction.
8. The locking pliers of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw and a locking member between the first handle and the second handle, wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking member, holding the second handle in a position relative to the first handle.
From claim 1:
a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the upper jaw relative to the lower jaw; wherein when the upper handle and the lower handle are clamped and rotated in a clockwise direction when a torque causes the second set of teeth on the lower jaw to pivot about the second pivot joint to decrease the working area between the upper jaw and the lower jaw.
7. The locking pliers of claim 1, further comprising a locking link extending between the upper handle and the lower handle, wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking link, locking the lower handle in position relative to the upper handle such that the lower jaw is locked relative to the upper jaw.
Instant Application 18/504,663
Reference US 11,850,707 B2
1. Locking pliers, comprising:
a first assembly comprising: a first handle; and a first jaw comprising a first jaw face;
a second assembly comprising: a second handle; a second jaw comprising: a second jaw face; and a third jaw face;
and 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;
wherein the second jaw face is pivotable relative to the third 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.
1. Locking pliers, comprising:
an upper handle;
an upper jaw coupled to the upper handle, the upper jaw comprising a first set of teeth;
a lower handle;
a lower jaw coupled to the lower handle, the lower jaw comprising a second set of teeth and a third set of teeth,
a first pivot joint coupling the lower handle to the upper handle such that the upper handle is movable relative to the lower handle to move the lower jaw relative to the upper jaw;
a working area defined between the upper jaw and the lower jaw;
and a second pivot joint coupling the second set of teeth to the lower jaw, wherein the third set of teeth on the lower jaw are pivotable about the first pivot joint and the second set of teeth on the lower jaw are pivotable about the first pivot joint and about the second pivot joint;
wherein the working area decreases as the second set of teeth rotate about the second pivot joint.
6. The locking pliers of claim 1, 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 second jaw face to pivot.
2. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein when a clamping force is applied to the upper handle and the lower handle and the upper handle and the lower handle are rotated in a clockwise direction, a torque causes the second set of teeth to pivot about the second pivot joint.
7. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein, when a force is applied to the first handle and the second handle in a first rotational direction, the second jaw face pivots in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on a workpiece in the first rotational direction.
4. The locking pliers of claim 1, wherein, when a force is applied to the upper handle and the lower handle in a first rotational direction, the second set of teeth pivot about the second pivot joint in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on a workpiece in the first rotational direction.
8. The locking pliers of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw and a locking member between the first handle and the second handle, wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking member, holding the second handle in a position relative to the first handle.
6. The locking pliers of claim 1, further comprising a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the upper jaw relative to the lower jaw.
7. The locking pliers of claim 6, further comprising a locking link extending between the upper handle and the lower handle, wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking link, locking the lower handle in position relative to the upper handle such that the lower jaw is locked relative to the upper jaw.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Keiser
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2584353 A (“Keiser”).
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 (Figs. 1-5, first assembly including first handle 11, first jaw 16 with first jaw face (including toothed portion and portion at reference 32));
a second assembly comprising: a second handle; a second jaw comprising: a second jaw face; and a third jaw face (Figs. 1-5, second assembly including second handle 10, second jaw 15 with second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) and third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1));
and 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 second jaw face is pivotable relative to the third 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, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third 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 second jaw face) pivots relative to the third jaw face to decrease the “first clamping diameter”, 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).
[AltContent: textbox (Due to the eccentricity of cam 23 (having the second jaw face 27), the “first clamping diameter” located between the first/second/third jaw faces decreases as torque is applied to the pliers in the clockwise direction as shown in Fig. 1 (compared to the “first clamping diameter” as shown in Fig. 2 when in the release position). Note that handles 10 and 11 remain in the same relative position in both Figs. 1 and 2 (i.e., they do not move relative to each other).)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
562
695
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keiser Figs. 1-2, 4 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above and 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 (see annotated Fig. 4 below; see § 112(a) rejection).
[AltContent: textbox (Circle of the “first clamping diameter” for claim 2 only)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
407
434
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Keiser Fig. 4 (annotated for claim 2)
Regarding claim 3, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein, when the second 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, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) 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 second jaw face pivots).
Regarding claim 4, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 3 as applied above and further discloses wherein the second clamping diameter is less than the first clamping diameter (Figs. 1-5, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) 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 6, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above and 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 second jaw face to pivot (Figs. 1-5, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) 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 second jaw face to pivot”) if the pliers are used as recited).
Regarding claim 7, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein, when a force is applied to the first handle and the second handle in a first rotational direction, the second jaw face pivots in the first rotational direction to apply a torque on a workpiece in the first rotational direction (Figs. 1-5, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) 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 if the pliers are used as recited).
Regarding claim 8, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses:
a locking mechanism configured to lock a position of the first jaw relative to the second jaw (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, locking mechanism 13; this limitation (along with the limitation after the “wherein” below) is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes elements 46, 48, and/or 50, and equivalents thereof (Spec. ¶¶ 0038-0041; Figs. 1-2),
and a locking member between the first handle and the second handle (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, locking member 12; the limitation “a locking member” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes element 48, and equivalents thereof (Spec. ¶¶ 0038-0041; Figs. 1-2),
wherein the locking mechanism engages the locking member, holding the second handle in a position relative to the first handle (Fig. 1; 1:52-2:4, left end of locking mechanism 13 engages locking member 12 to perform the recited function).
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
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2584353 A (“Keiser”).
Keiser pertains to locking pliers (Figs. 1-5; 1:1-5) and is in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 5, Keiser discloses the locking pliers of claim 3 as applied above and further discloses wherein a difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than... (Figs. 1-5, second jaw face 27 (of eccentric cam 23) pivots relative to third jaw face (leftmost reference 27 in Fig. 1) 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).
Keiser does not explicitly disclose wherein a difference between the first clamping diameter and the second clamping diameter is greater than 1.75 millimeters. However, Keiser 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 modify Keiser (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).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 9-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 1576918 A (“Lidell”) discloses a wrench with a pivoting jaw arrangement (Figs. 1-2);
US 2463774 A (“Jensen”) discloses a wrench with a pivoting jaw arrangement (Figs. 1-3);
US 1182763 (“Green”) discloses a wrench with a pivoting jaw arrangement (Figs. 1-2 and 4).
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