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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiu et al. (2018/0309271).
In reference to claim 15, Chiu et al. disclose a jaw assembly for a tool (100), the jaw assembly comprising:
a first jaw (i.e. left 1) comprising a first array of teeth (formed from upper teeth 121 and lower teeth 121, see Figures 1 and 2); and
a second jaw (i.e. right 1) comprising a second array of teeth (formed from upper teeth 121 and lower teeth 121, see Figures 1 and 2);
wherein the first array of teeth includes a first set of teeth (i.e. lower teeth 121) that are both wider and deeper than a majority of the teeth (i.e. upper teeth 121) that form the first array of teeth (Figures 1 and 2); and
wherein the second array of teeth includes a second set of teeth (i.e. lower teeth 121) that are both wider and deeper than a majority of the teeth (i.e. upper teeth 121) that form the second array of teeth (Figures 1 and 2).
In reference to claim 16 and 17, Chiu et al. disclose that apexes (i.e. tips) of each tooth of the first array of teeth lay in a first plane (i.e. a horizontal plane in Figure 2 for left/first jaw 1) and apexes (i.e. tips) of each tooth of the second array of teeth lies in a second plane (i.e. another horizontal plane, similar to the horizontal plane in Figure 2 but for right/second jaw 1), wherein the first and second planes are substantially parallel to each other over a range of distances defining a span of the jaw assembly (Figure 1).
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). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 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 CFR 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. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please 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.
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11911880.
In reference to claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses a tool comprising:
a first jaw comprising a first array of teeth (see claim 1); and
a second jaw comprising a second array of teeth (see claim 1);
wherein ridges of the teeth of the first array of teeth extend parallel to each other and ridges of the teeth of the second array of teeth extend parallel to each other (see claim 1);
wherein the first jaw is movable relative to second jaw to define an adjustable span between the first jaw and the second jaw to grip a working media between the first jaw and the second jaw (see claim 1);
wherein the first and second arrays of teeth comprise a narrower set of teeth having a first width and a wider set of teeth having a second width (see claim 1);
wherein the first width is less than the second width (see claim 1);
wherein a plurality of teeth of the narrower set of teeth are disposed between a first tooth of the wider set of teeth and a second tooth of the wider set of teeth (see claim 1).
In reference to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the narrower set of teeth have a first depth and the wider set of teeth have a second depth; wherein the first depth is less than the second depth (see claim 1).
In reference to claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first array of teeth further comprise a set of teeth having a third depth, wherein the third depth is a same depth as the first depth (see claims 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first array of teeth further comprise a set of teeth having a third width, wherein the third width is between the first width and the second width (see claims 2 and 3).
In reference to claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that a first apex of the first tooth of the wider set of teeth and a second apex of the second tooth of the wider set of teeth lie in a same plane as apexes of the plurality of teeth of the narrower set of teeth (see claim 4).
In reference to claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the wider set of teeth and the narrower set of teeth are centered on the first and second jaws such that a halfway point on each of the ridges of the wider set of teeth lies in a same plane as a halfway point on each of the ridges of the narrower set of teeth, and such that the wider set of teeth extend equally beyond both ends of the narrower set of teeth (claim 5).
In reference to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first and second jaws are configured to grip a cylindrical media extending through the first and second jaws by at least: the ridges of two teeth of the narrower set of teeth of each jaw contacting the cylindrical media with a first bite span, or ends of two teeth of the wider set of teeth of each of the first or second jaws contacting the cylindrical media with a second bite span wider than the first bite span (claim 6).
In reference to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that apexes of each tooth of the first array of teeth lay in a first plane and apexes of each tooth of the second array of teeth lay in a second plane (claim 8).
In reference to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first and second planes are substantially parallel to each other over a range of distances defining the span (claim 9).
In reference to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first jaw moves in a linear direction relative to the second jaw slide to adjust the span (claim 10).
In reference to claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first jaw pivots relative to the second jaw to adjust the span (claim 11).
In reference to claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the hand tool comprises adjustable pliers wherein the first jaw and the second jaw can slide and pivot relative to each other to adjust the span (claim 12).
In reference to claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that the first jaw and the second jaw are V-shaped (claim 13).
In reference to claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that at least three teeth of the narrower set of teeth are disposed between the first tooth of the wider set of teeth and the second tooth of the wider set of teeth (claim 14).
In reference to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses a hand tool comprising:
a handle section (claims 1, 15 and 18); and
a jaw assembly operably coupled to the handle section, the jaw assembly comprising a first jaw and a second jaw (claims 1, 15 and 18);
wherein the first jaw comprises a first array of teeth and the second jaw comprises a second array of teeth (claims 1, 15 and 18);
wherein a span defined between the first jaw and the second jaw is adjustable (claims 1, 15 and 18);
wherein first ridges of the first array of teeth are substantially aligned with a first plane and second ridges of the second array of teeth are substantially aligned with a second plane (claim 8);
wherein the first plane and the second plane are substantially parallel to each other (claim 9);
wherein each of the first array of teeth and the second array of teeth comprise: a first set of teeth having a first width and a first depth, and a second set of teeth that extend beyond the first width of the first set of teeth and have a second depth deeper than the first depth (claims 1, 15 and 18); and
wherein at least two teeth of the first set of teeth are disposed between two teeth of the second set of teeth (claims 1, 15 and 18).
In reference to claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses that each of the first and second arrays of teeth are configured such that: the first set of teeth grip a cylindrical object perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the handle section with a first bite span, and the second set of teeth grip the cylindrical object with a second bite span larger than the first bite span when the cylindrical object is angled away from perpendicular (claims 6 and 19).
In reference to claim 20, U.S. Patent No. 11911880 discloses a third set of teeth disposed outside the two teeth of the second set of teeth, wherein the third set of teeth has a width that is wider than the first set of teeth and narrower than the second set of teeth (claim 20).
Claim 10, is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11911880 and in view of Watson et al. (2016/0129565).
In further reference to claim 10, assuming arguendo that U.S. Patent No. 11911880 lacks,
the first jaw moves in a linear direction relative to the second jaw slide to adjust the span, than Watson et al. is used for such a teaching.
Watson et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a wrench (Figure 12) having a first jaw (134) that moves in a linear direction (i.e. along 130, Figure 13) relative to a second jaw (122) slide to adjust a span (mouth between the opposing jaws, Figure 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the device, of U.S. Patent No. 11911880, with the known technique of providing a first jaw that moves in the linear direction relative to the second jaw slide to adjust the span, as taught by Watson et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that can be operated as a pipe wrench (paragraph 48) thereby more effectively gripping cylindrical objects.
Claims 1-4 are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11511398.
In further reference to claim 1, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11511398 discloses a tool comprising:
a first jaw comprising a first array of teeth (see claims 1 and 10); and
a second jaw comprising a second array of teeth (see claims 1 and 10);
wherein ridges of the teeth of the first array of teeth extend parallel to each other and ridges of the teeth of the second array of teeth extend parallel to each other (see claims 1 and 10);
wherein the first jaw is movable relative to second jaw to define an adjustable span between the first jaw and the second jaw to grip a working media between the first jaw and the second jaw (see claims 1 and 10);
wherein the first and second arrays of teeth comprise a narrower set of teeth having a first width and a wider set of teeth having a second width (see claims 1 and 10);
wherein the first width is less than the second width (see claims 1 and 10);
wherein a plurality of teeth of the narrower set of teeth are disposed between a first tooth of the wider set of teeth and a second tooth of the wider set of teeth (see claims 2 and 10).
In further reference to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 11511398 discloses that the narrower set of teeth have a first depth and the wider set of teeth have a second depth; wherein the first depth is less than the second depth (see claims 1 and 10).
In further reference to claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 11511398 discloses that the first array of teeth further comprise a set of teeth having a third depth, wherein the third depth is a same depth as the first depth (see claims 1 and 10).
In further reference to claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 11511398 discloses that the first array of teeth further comprise a set of teeth having a third width, wherein the third width is between the first width and the second width (see claims 1 and 10).
Claim 18, is also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11511398 in view of Chiu et al. (2018/0309271).
In further reference to claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 11511398 discloses a hand tool comprising:
a handle section (claims 1 and 10); and
a jaw assembly operably coupled to the handle section, the jaw assembly comprising a first jaw and a second jaw (claims 1 and 10);
wherein the first jaw comprises a first array of teeth and the second jaw comprises a second array of teeth (claims 1 and 10);
wherein a span defined between the first jaw and the second jaw is adjustable (claims 1 and 10);
wherein each of the first array of teeth and the second array of teeth comprise: a first set of teeth having a first width and a first depth, and a second set of teeth that extend beyond the first width of the first set of teeth and have a second depth deeper than the first depth (claims 1 and 10); and
wherein at least two teeth of the first set of teeth are disposed between two teeth of the second set of teeth (claims 1 and 10).
U.S. Patent No. 11511398 lacks,
wherein first ridges of the first array of teeth are substantially aligned with a first plane and second ridges of the second array of teeth are substantially aligned with a second plane; wherein the first plane and the second plane are substantially parallel to each other.
However, Chiu et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar tool (100) comprising first ridges (tips) of first array of teeth (121) are substantially aligned with a first plane (i.e. a horizontal plane in Figure 2 for left/first jaw 1) and second ridges of second array of teeth (121) are substantially aligned with a second plane (i.e. another horizontal plane, similar to the horizontal plane in Figure 2 but for right/second jaw 1); wherein the first plane and the second plane are substantially parallel to each other (Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the first and second ridges, of U.S. Patent No. 11511398, with the known technique of providing first ridges aligned with a first plane and second ridges aligned with a second plane; wherein the first plane and the second plane are substantially parallel to each other, as taught by Chiu et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device clamping device that more effectively engages with a workpiece (paragraph 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 and 18-20 would be allowable after the applicant overcome the above made Double Patenting rejections by submitting proper terminal disclaimers for U.S. Patents 11911880 and 11511398
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance: The present invention pertains to a tool. It is the examiner's opinion that the art of record considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing; the first width is less than the second width; wherein a plurality of teeth of the narrower set of teeth are disposed between a first tooth of the wider set of teeth and a second tooth of the wider set of teeth (as in claim 1), nor renders obvious of providing; at least two teeth of the first set of teeth are disposed between two teeth of the second set of teeth (as in claim 18), together in combination with the rest of the limitations of the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Azkona (6199459) discloses a hand tool comprising: a handle section (1a a. and 1b), a working end (11 and 12) operably coupled to the handle section and a jaw assembly (11 and 12) disposed at the working end, the jaw assembly comprising a movable jaw (11) and a fixed jaw (12), wherein a span defined between the movable jaw and the fixed jaw is adjustable (within element 2), wherein each of the movable jaw and the fixed jaw includes an array of teeth defined by ridges that extend substantially parallel to each other (Figure 1), wherein the array of teeth on each of the fixed jaw and the movable jaw includes a first set of teeth having a first width and a first depth (see figure below), and a second set of teeth having a second width and a second depth (see the depth of each tooth in the second set as being greater than the depth of each tooth in the first set), wherein the first depth is less than the second depth.
PNG
media_image1.png
240
414
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hsieh (2006/0086212) teaches that it is known in the art to provide a jaws (26 and 28) with teeth having varying widths (see Figure 3 and paragraph 21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723