DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country, such as DE 202023107117 U1.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation that the rod body “including a longitudinal direction” suggests that the rod has a direction. However, it would be more accurate/appropriate to indicate that the rod body “defines a longitudinal axis extending in a longitudinal direction”.
The term “limitation teeth” is not a common term in the art, and should be amended to either delete the word “limitation” or provide a more art relevant term, such as “ratchet teeth”.
The limitation “between the driving member, the lid and the barrel” may be confusing, as something is typically “between” two components. It would be more appropriate to define that the ratchet assembly is “enclosed by the driving member, the lid and the barrel”.
Also regarding claim 2, The limitation that the meshing teeth are “meshed with the plurality of limitation (ratchet) teeth” is only optionally applicable, as a function of the teeth, which intermittently disengage with the teeth during ratcheting. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to “for intermittently meshing with the plurality of ratchet teeth”.
Also regarding claim 6, the terms “buckle” and “buckled” as applied in the last clause of claim 1 are not understood to be commonly applicable terms for the structure and function that they relate to. It is suggested that a more accurate term be used, such as “a connecting member, the connecting member being inserted in and connected with the pin”, or some equivalent thereto.
The limitation that the “pin and the at least one positioning portion are interlocked with each other” is only optionally applicable when the pin is interlocked with one of the at least one positioning portions. Therefore, the limitation should be amended to ““pin and one of the at least one positioning portions are optionally interlocked with each other”.
Regarding claim 2, the term “detent” is not typically applicable to the disclosed corresponding structure in the art. It is suggested that the term be replaced by a more relevant term such as “pawl” or “toothed block”
NOTE: all amendments suggested above should also have corresponding amendments to the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 1:
The limitation “a working end and a grip at two ends” is unclear, because it may be interpreted to suggest that a working end and grip are both positioned at two ends. It is suggested that the applicant amend the limitation to more clearly indicate ““a working end and a grip at opposite respective ends”.
The limitation that the “limitation” teeth are arranged around the axis is unclear and does not appear to be supported by the drawings, because “the axis” is previously defined as the axis about which the barrel is rotatable, shown as axis “A” in the drawings. However, the teeth being claimed are understood to be defined about a central axis of the barrel, which is perpendicular to “the axis”. It is suggested that the “barrel” be defined as having a cylindrical or ring shape, with the teeth either defined as being arranged around the internal peripheral surface of the barrel or further defining the barrel as having a central axis extending through a center thereof, with the teeth defined as being arranged radially around the central axis of the barrel.
The limitation that the lid “being covered on an end of the barrel” is unclear, because the lid is not covered. To the contrary, the lid is understood to “cover one of the open ends of the barrel”, and the claim should be amended to clarify the function/location of the lid.
The limitation that the fastener is “non-movable” relative to the driving member is unclear, because it is best understood that the threaded fastener must be movable relative to the driving member to function as intended. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the fastener is threadedly secured to the driving member, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Also applicable to claim 9, the term “locking elastic member” is unclear, because the elastic member (spring 42) does not perform a locking function in itself. It is suggested that the word “locking” be deleted from all occurrences of the term “locking elastic member”.
The limitation that the slidable member is radially inserted in the rod body is unclear because the limitation does not clarify what the “radial” direction is defined by, and there is no previous radius or curved structure claimed to define a radial direction. Further, the slidable member of the disclosed invention is not completely inserted into the rod body, but only the “buckle (connecting) member” is inserted thereto. It is suggested that the limitation be amended to “a slidable member at least partially inserted into the rod body in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction”.
Regarding claim 3:
The limitation that the positioning portions are arranged around the axis is unclear, because “the axis” is disclosed as the axis about which the barrel rotates (axis “A” in the drawings) as discussed above, and further unclear because, even the central axis of the barrel is an imaginary line that extends through the barrel, and does not provide any structure. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the plurality of positioning portions are arranged on an external peripheral surface of the barrel, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
The limitation “gradually deeper than one another in a direction directed inward from a periphery” is unclear, because the portions are not defined in any way to have a depth, and it is also unclear which periphery is being referenced to clarify what dimension is considered to be the depth.
The limitation “arranged in a high low manner” is also unclear, having no common meaning in the art, and no clarifying disclosure in the application as a whole. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that “the positioning portions are located at different positions along the central axis of the barrel, relative to one another”, to provide the disclosed function of locking in different angular orientations relative to the rod body, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Further regarding claim 6, the limitation that each of the hooks project “radially” is unclear, because the limitation does not clarify what the “radial” direction is defined by, and there is no previous radius or curved structure claimed to define a radial direction. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that each of the legs has a longitudinal dimension, with the hook projecting in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation that the hole has an “expanding section” is unclear, because it may be interpreted to suggest that the hole is capable of expanding or changing dimension. However, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the hole includes a tapered section, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (7,992,471) in view of Anders (2014/0060258).
Regarding claim 1, Tsai discloses a ratchet wrench including: a rod body (1) defining a longitudinal axis extending in a longitudinal direction, and a working end (11) and a grip (seen in Fig. 7) at respective ends in the longitudinal direction; a barrel (2) connected to the working end and rotatable about an axis (coaxial with pins 22) transverse to the longitudinal direction, an outer surface of the barrel including at least one positioning portion (23 in Fig. 9); a driving assembly rotatably disposed within the barrel and including a driving member (square shank seen in all drawings but not numbered), a lid (also shown but not numbered), a fastener (also shown but not numbered), and a ratchet assembly (although not shown, the head 2 is disclosed as a ratchet wrench, thus having some form of ratchet assembly), the driving member including a connection portion projecting out of the barrel and configured to be assembled with an object (socket, as shown in phantom in Fig. 7), the lid covering on an open end of the barrel opposite to the connection portion; and a locking mechanism including a pin (42) movably received in the rod body, an elastic member (41) received in the rod body, and a slidable member (3) at least partially inserted in the rod body, the slidable member being movable relative to the rod body in the longitudinal direction, the slidable member including a connecting member (31), the connecting member being inserted in and connected with the pin, the elastic member biasing the pin toward the barrel so that the pin and at least one of the at least one positioning portion are optionally interlocked with each other. However, Tsai fails to disclose any internal structure of the ratchet mechanism. Anders discloses a very similar ratchet head, also having a driving member (46), a lid (42), a fastener (44) and a ratchet assembly (34, 36, 38), and further teaching that an inner peripheral surface of the barrel (36) includes a plurality of ratchet teeth, the driving member including a connection portion (46) projecting out of the barrel and configured to be assembled with an object, the lid covering an open end of the barrel opposite to the connection portion, the driving member and the lid being connected to each other by the fastener (seen in Figs. 5A-5B), the fastener being axially threadedly connected to the driving member, the ratchet assembly being enclosed by the driving member, the lid and the barrel, the ratchet assembly including a plurality of meshing teeth (on pawl 34) configured to intermittently mesh with the plurality of ratchet teeth during use, the ratchet assembly being movable by operation of the lid (40 disclosed as a direction change lever). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to look to the additional detail of Anders for the internal ratchet structure of Tsai, having very similar structure and functions and being a well-known ratchet structure in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Anders further discloses that the ratchet assembly includes a pawl (34) and a switching elastic member (38), and the switching elastic member biases the detent so that the plurality of meshing teeth are intermittently meshed with the plurality of ratchet teeth during operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
129
239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Tsai further discloses that the at least one positioning portion includes a plurality of positioning portions that are arranged on an external peripheral surface of the barrel, and depths of the plurality of positioning portions are gradually deeper than one another in a direction directed inward from a periphery of the barrel (some are deeper than other relative to a tangent along the outer surface of the barrel, as shown here in annotated Fig. 10, with D2>D1; best understood to be equivalent to the disclosed structure of the current application) and are arranged at different positions along the central axis of the barrel, relative to one another (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above).
Regarding claim 4, Anders further discloses that the driving member further includes a threaded hole (disclosed as being connected to the screw 44 and shown in Figs. 5A-5B as receiving the threaded end thereof), the fastener includes a threaded section (lowermost portion of screw 44 in Fig. 2) screwed to the threaded hole, the fastener further includes a head section (uppermost portion of screw 44 in Fig. 2), a distal section and a middle section (between threaded section and head) connected between the head section and the distal section, the distal section includes the threaded section, the middle section has a diametric dimension smaller than a diametric dimension of the head section and larger than a diametric dimension of the distal section, and the lid is restricted between the head section and the driving member (Figs. 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 5, Anders further discloses that the middle section is axially abutted against the driving member (Figs. 5A-5B).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (7,992,471) in view of Anders (2014/0060258) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ketchum et al. (6,312,020).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai discloses that the connecting member (31) may be a threaded fastener, but fails to disclose the claimed structure of claim 6. Ketcham discloses a connecting member for joining two parts, and teaches that a resilient pin (104 in Fig. 3) is a known alternative to a threaded member (44 of prior art Fig. 1 or 212 of Fig. 7) as the connecting member, wherein the resilient pin includes two legs (152) distanced from each other, each of the two legs includes a hook (162) projecting in a direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal dimension of the legs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide a similar resilient pin, in place of the threaded fastener (31) taught by Tsai, being taught by Ketcham as a known alternative to threaded fasteners for joining parts, and also being understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to be faster and easier to assemble, as well as eliminating the potential for the threaded fastener to loosen over time and potentially fall out. Ketcham further discloses that the part that engaged with the hook end of the resilient pin preferably includes a receiving portion with (136) an insertion hole, such that the hooks of the two legs have a distance larger than a diametric dimension of the insertion hole, the two legs are disposed through the insertion hole, and the hooks of the two legs hook on the receiving portion of the part around the insertion hole. Thus, it further would have been obvious to provide the pin (42) to which the fastener (31) of Tsai is connected, with a similarly shaped hole therein, as taught by Ketcham, to allow connection with the resilient pin, such that the insertion hold of the pin would obviously receive the hooks of the two legs, which will have a distance larger than a diametric dimension of the insertion hole, the two legs being disposed through the insertion hole, and the hooks of the two legs will hook on a portion of the pin around the insertion hole.
Regarding claim 7, Ketcham further discloses that an end of the insertion hole opposite to the hooks of the two legs (when inserted therein) includes a tapered section (138) to cause the hooks and leges to flex inwardly during insertion of the pin, and allow the hooks to enter the insertion hole (Col. 5, lines 36-40). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also provide the insertion hole of Tsai with a similar tapered section, to allow the hooks to enter the insertion hole during insertion and assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Ketcham further discloses that opposing sides of a distal end of the resilient pin receiving hole includes a shallow recessed portion (138, having the tapered portion thereon, in the same manner as the applicant’s disclosed invention) and a deep recessed portion (142), respectively, such that the two legs are disposed through the shallow recessed portion and the deep recessed portion, the expanding section is disposed on the shallow recessed portion, and the hooks of the two legs are located within the deep recessed portion when the resilient pin is received therein. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to also provide the insertion hole of Tsai with a similar shallow recessed portion and deep recessed portion, to allow the pin to extend therein and receive the hooks in the same manner taught by Ketcham, to prevent unwanted removal of the resilient pin.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (7,992,471) in view of Anders (2014/0060258) and Ketchum et al. (6,312,020), as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Abel et al. (7,878,091).
Tsai discloses that the elastic member (41) is pressed against a bottom of the pin (42) and requires a separate base (43) to retain the spring. However, Tsai fails to disclose that the elastic member may be abutted against the connecting member. Abel discloses another ratchet wrench, being very similar in structure and function to Tsai, and teaches that the slidable member (213) is connected through the rod body to another opposed slidable member via hooks (218) that also secure the slidable members to the pin, and that the hooks also function to engage and support the elastic member (214), which biases the pin into the locked position, to bias the pin and slidable members to the locked position (Col. 12, lines 41-64). Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the pin and elastic member of Tsai, particularly when modified as taught by Ketchum to include the resilient pin as the connecting member extending through the pin, with a similar elastic member that fits around an outside of the pin to be supported by engagement with the resilient pin passing through the pin, in a similar manner taught by Abel, to provide a known alternative to the biasing structure that will eliminate the need for the separate base (43) of Tsai, which would be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the total number of components to save on production costs and assembly time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai (7,992,471) in view of Anders (2014/0060258) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Chien (9,808,917).
Tsai discloses the adjustable orientation of the head relative to the rod, via the locking pin engaging with one of the positioning portions, and also having an aperture in the head of the fastener, but fails to specifically disclose that the aperture is capable of interlocking with the pin. Chien discloses another ratchet wrench, being very similar in structure and function to Tsai, and teaches that the ratchet head includes an aperture aligned with the axis of the driving member, to allow the head to be fixed in a position that the driving member is axially aligned with the rod body (Fig. 7), which will provide an additional orientation for the head as needed. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the aperture on the head of the fastener of Tsai to be capable of interlocking with the pin in a similar manner taught by Chien, to allow for the additional axially aligned orientation of the head to increase functionality of the wrench of Tsai.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Cheng (8,505,419) and Saucier (1,453,607) disclose wrenches having similar structure as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 7 January 2026