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 Invention I is acknowledged. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) because reference number 122 has been used to designate different holes (compare hole 122 in Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D with hole 122 in Figs. 1C, 1E).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) because reference numbers 110 and 105 are pointing to the wrong objects in Fig. 1C.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) because they are inconsistent and fail to show the various holes in all of the related figures. Figures 1A-E are believed to pertain to the same embodiment. However, holes 124, 126, 128 in Fig. 1A do not appear where they are expected to appear in Figs. 1B and 1C. Further, hole 122 of Figs. 1C and 1E does not appear in any of the other views, including Fig. 1D. Additionally, it is not clear how the Allen wrench in Fig. 1C is capable of fitting (and being removed) in the configuration shown, based on the size and geometry of the Allen wrench, the size and location of slot 127, and the size and location of holes 122 and 128. Thus, Figs. 1A-E fail to provide for proper understanding of these various holes as described in the specification (Spec. ¶¶ 0030-0042). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence refers to purported merits of the invention. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“or a hardened polymer” (claim 4, line 3) should be changed to --and a hardened polymer-- (for proper Markush format (MPEP § 2173.05(h)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation “wherein the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the first hole of the elongated screwdriver handle and the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the fourth hole of the elongated screwdriver handle.” This claim is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“it is unclear whether infringement...occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information...or...when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information”); MPEP § 2173.05(p). This limitation is a method step of using the tool of claim 1 (from which claim 6 depends), and placing an Allen wrench in the tool so that the two portions of the Allen wrench extend as recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the second hole of the elongated screwdriver handle and the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench is disposed within the first hole extending from the top portion of the elongated screwdriver handle.” Claim 7 is rejected on a similar basis as claim 6 for being a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Gallegos in view of Lin
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130305886 A1 (“Gallegos”) in view of US 5722116 A (“Lin”).
Gallegos pertains to an Allen wrench tool grip (Abstr.; Figs. 7-11, 12A-B). Lin pertains to a tool grip (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Gallegos discloses a handle style Allen wrench grip (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B, handle as shown), comprising:
an elongated screwdriver handle having an elongated gripping surface..., a raised portion, and a top portion (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B, handle 1001 with elongated gripping surface as shown, raised portion (at reference 1002), and top portion (starting at reference 1002 and towards top of Fig. 10));
a plurality of holes including a first hole, a second hole, a third hole, and a fourth hole, the first hole is disposed on the top portion of the elongated screwdriver handle to accommodate an Allen wrench; wherein the second hole, the third hole, and the fourth hole are disposed on the elongated screwdriver handle to accommodate the Allen wrench (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B, first hole 1106 at top portion and is capable of accommodating Allen wrench 1150, second, third, and fourth holes 1040 on handle 1001 (Fig. 10) and are capable of accommodating Allen wrench 1150; ¶¶ 0041-0047);
and wherein the Allen wrench includes a first elongated portion, a second elongated portion, a first end, and a second end (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B, Allen wrench 1150 with first elongated portion and first end (at reference 1150) and second elongated portion and second end (at the opposite end of the Allen wrench); Examiner notes that the Allen wrench is not positively claimed).
Gallegos does not explicitly disclose an indented portion. However, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious this claim.
Lin discloses an elongated screwdriver handle having an elongated gripping surface, an indented portion, a raised portion, and a top portion (Figs. 5-6, handle 20 with elongated gripping surface as shown, indented portion (between references 24 and 26), raised portion 26, and top portion (starting at reference 26 towards reference 1 (Fig. 5)).
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 Lin with Gallegos by modifying the handle design of Gallegos. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the design features of the Lin handle provide for a more ergonomic grip when using the tool to push/pull axially (the indented portion with raised ribs (between references 24 and 26 (Fig. 5)) or when using the tool rotationally (cross-sectional shape (Fig. 6) with elastomer ridges 22), allowing for additional force to be applied to the tool compared to a simple cylindrical handle (Lin 1:25-28, “The primary objective of the present invention is to provide a tool handgrip including a greatly simplified configuration that is excellent for manufacturing purposes and for facilitating the gripping thereof.”).
Regarding claim 3, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Lin further discloses wherein the indented portion of the elongated screwdriver handle includes a plurality of raised edges that facilitate grasping the elongated screwdriver handle (Figs. 5-6, indented portion (between references 24 and 26) with raised edges that are capable of facilitating grasping the handle).
The obviousness rationale for claim 3 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Gallegos further discloses wherein the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is longer than the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench and the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is perpendicularly extended from the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B, Allen wrench 1150 with first elongated portion and first end (at reference 1150) and second elongated portion and second end (at the opposite end of the Allen wrench), where the first elongated portion is longer and perpendicularly extended from the second extended portion; Examiner notes that the Allen wrench is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 6, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Gallegos further discloses wherein the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the first hole of the elongated screwdriver handle and the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the fourth hole of the elongated screwdriver handle (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B; ¶ 0043, Allen wrench 1250 with first elongated portion (at reference 1250) is capable of being extended through the first hole and the second elongated portion of Allen wrench 1250 is capable of being extended through the fourth hole (Fig. 12A); Examiner notes that the Allen wrench is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 7, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Gallegos further discloses wherein the first elongated portion of the Allen wrench is extended through the second hole of the elongated screwdriver handle and the second elongated portion of the Allen wrench is disposed within the first hole extending from the top portion of the elongated screwdriver handle (Figs. 7-11, 12A-B; ¶ 0044, Allen wrench 1250 with first elongated portion (at reference 1250) is capable of being extended through the second hole and the second elongated portion of Allen wrench 1250 is capable of being disposed within the first hole extending from the top portion (Fig. 12B); Examiner notes that the Allen wrench is not positively claimed).
Gallegos in view of Lin and Bandera
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130305886 A1 (“Gallegos”) in view of US 5722116 A (“Lin”) and US 4739536 A (“Bandera”).
Gallegos pertains to an Allen wrench tool grip (Abstr.; Figs. 7-11, 12A-B). Lin pertains to a tool grip (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). Bandera pertains to a driving tool and grip handle (Abstr.; Figs. 1-11) These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Lin further discloses wherein the elongated gripping surface includes a plurality of hard, smooth plastic strips disposed lengthwise across the elongated screwdriver handle and a plurality of soft, tactile rubber strips disposed lengthwise across the elongated screwdriver handle that are directly grasped by a user (Figs. 5-6, handle 20 with lengthwise hard, smooth plastic strips (exposed part of hard plastic core 21), and with lengthwise soft, tactile rubber strips 22; 2:4-44)).
To the extent Lin does not explicitly disclose “plastic strips” and “rubber strips”, the Gallegos/Lin/Bandera 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 combine the teachings of Bandera with the Gallegos/Lin combination by using plastic and rubber materials for the portions of the elongated gripping surface of the handle as recited. Although Lin does not explicitly state that the materials for core 21 and strips 22 are plastic and rubber respectively, a person of ordinary skill would recognize that Lin is referring to such. Lin provides the range of hardness (Shore D) for each, where the strips 22 are softer than the core 21 (Lin 2:4-13), and also states that the core 21 and strips 22 are to be extruded, which is a typical manufacturing process for plastic and rubber parts. Further, Lin refers to Bandera (which describes the use of hard plastic and soft rubber for the handle (Bandera Figs. 7-10; 4:36-50, 6:5-68)) when describing the manufacturing process for the soft and hard portions of the handle (Lin 1:10-22). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the materials Lin is referring to include plastic and rubber. Further, like Lin, Bandera teaches that the use of hard, smooth plastic strips and soft, tactile rubber strips for the handle is advantageous because it provides for a comfortable, ergonomic grip that allows for greater torque to be transmitted (Bandera Figs. 7-10; 4:36-50, 6:5-68, 1:46-50).
Regarding claim 4, the Gallegos/Lin combination makes obvious the handle style Allen wrench grip of claim 1 as applied above. Lin further discloses wherein the elongated screwdriver handle is made of a material selected from the group consisting of a hardened plastic, a hardened rubber, [and] a hardened polymer (Figs. 5-6; 2:4-13, handle 20 (core portion 21) is made of a hardened plastic (having Shore D hardness of 65-75)).
To the extent Lin does not explicitly disclose this limitation, the Gallegos/Lin/Bandera combination makes obvious this claim.
Bandera describes the use of hard plastic and soft rubber for portions of the handle (Bandera Figs. 7-10; 4:36-50, 6:5-68), and the obviousness rationale for claim 4 is the same as for claim 2.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 4640155 A (“Condon”) discloses a handle for an Allen wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8);
US 20160207189 A1 (“Chen”) discloses a handle for an Allen wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9);
US 20210001460 A1 (“Tsai”) discloses a handle for an Allen wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 1-16);
US 20100058898 (“Liu”) discloses a handle for an Allen wrench (Abstr.; Figs. 3-5).
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