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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 7-10 and 12 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite because the amended clauses add, inter alia, “and a driving portion integrally connected to the[[a]] second extendinq region and detachably connected to a workpiece.;” (note the period), before the original clause “and a driving portion integrally connected to a second end of the extending rod and detachably connected to a workpiece.” Thus, the claims is no longer a single sentence, and the recitations of “a driving portion integrally connected to the second extending region and detachably connected to a workpiece” and “a driving portion integrally connected to a second end of the extending rod and detachably connected to a workpiece” is unclear and confusing because it implies that there are two distinct “driving portion”(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11,376,716 B2 to (Chang).
(Chang) discloses a ratchet wrench structure 100, comprising: a handle portion 11; a head portion 12 connected to the handle portion 11; a ratchet hole (driving chamber 13) penetrating the head portion 12 and comprising a plurality of first tooth portions (a pawl 41 has teeth (not labeled)), and the ratchet hole 13 having a driving axis (Fig. 2); a ratchet portion (ratchet wheel 20) detachably disposed at the ratchet hole 13, the ratchet portion 20 comprising a plurality of second tooth portions (annular toothed portion 21), and the second tooth portions 21 corresponding to the first tooth portions (of pawl 41); an extending rod (shaft portion 23) extending along the driving axis and comprising: a first extending region (section 231) integrally connected to the ratchet portion 20 and having a first radial width; and a second extending region (section 232) integrally connected to the first extending region 231 and having a second maximum radial width, wherein the first radial width is larger (“large-diameter section 231”)(Col. 2, line 50) than the second maximum radial width (“small-diameter section 232”); and a driving portion (“The second shaft portion 23 is further extended with a connecting portion 24 for connecting a driven member, such as a sleeve”)(Col. 2, lines 55-57) integrally connected to the second extending region 232 and detachably connected to a workpiece (“such as a sleeve”)(Col. 2, lines 56-57).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Chang) as applied to claim 1 above.
(Chang) as applied to claim 1 above, provides a ratchet wrench structure according to claim 3, except for being silent regarding the dimensions of the first and second radial widths. However, absent a showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to manufacture the ratchet portion and the extending rod regions of particular radial dimensions suitable for ratchet wrench structures, e.g., such as a first radial width of the first extending region in the range of 15mm to 20 mm and the second radial width of the second extending region in the range of 14 mm to 19 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Chang), as applied to claim 1, as being obvious in view of US 2011/0094316 A1 to (HSIEH).
(Chang), as applied to claim 1 above, provides a ratchet wrench structure as claimed, except for the additional provision of a torque sensor configured for sensing a torque value of the driving portion acting on the workpiece.
(HSIEH) provides a torque-indicating extensive apparatus, i.e., a torque sensor, having, inter alia, two sensors (20) and a display unit (30). The torque gauge is positioned on an extensive rod (10), i.e., an extending rod, between the first engaging section (12) for engagement with a handle (40), and a second engaging section for engagement with a socket (51) (para. [0020]), the purpose of which is to measure and show a value of torque exerted on a fastener by a user. (HSIEH) teaches that
placing a torque sensor on the extensive rod, i.e., extending rod, enables a user to use a socket wrench in a narrow and deep environment and precisely exert a designated value of torque on a fastener (paras. [0005]-[0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified (Delaney et al.) by providing a torque sensor on the extending rod, as taught by (HSIEH), and having the predictable result of enabling a user to use a socket wrench in a narrow and deep environment and precisely exert a designated value of torque on a fastener.
Claim(s) 7, as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,376,716 B2 to (Chang) as being obvious in view of US 4,520,697 A to (Moetteli).
(Chang) provides a ratchet wrench structure 100, comprising: a handle portion 11; a head portion 12 connected to the handle portion 11; a ratchet hole (driving chamber 13) penetrating the head portion 12 and comprising a plurality of first tooth portions (a pawl 41 has teeth (not labeled)), and the ratchet hole 13 having a driving axis (Fig. 2); a ratchet portion (ratchet wheel 20) detachably disposed at the ratchet hole 13, the ratchet portion 20 comprising a plurality of second tooth portions (annular toothed portion 21), and the second tooth portions 21 corresponding to the first tooth portions (of pawl 41); an extending rod (shaft portion 23) extending along the driving axis and comprising: a first extending region (section 231) integrally connected to the ratchet portion 20 and having a first radial width; and a second extending region (section 232) integrally connected to the first extending region 231 and having a second maximum radial width, wherein the first radial width is larger (“large-diameter section 231”)(Col. 2, line 50) than the second maximum radial width (“small-diameter section 232”); and a driving portion (“The second shaft portion 23 is further extended with a connecting portion 24 for connecting a driven member, such as a sleeve”)(Col. 2, lines 55-57) integrally connected to the second extending region 232 and detachably connected to a workpiece (“such as a sleeve”)(Col. 2, lines 56-57).
Thus, (Chang) provides the invention as claimed except for the provision of a pivotal connection between the handle of the ratchet wrench structure, and the head portion of the ratchet wrench structure.
(Moetteli) provides several embodiments of ratchet wrenches (Figs. 1-8; Figs. 9-15; and Fig. 16) having, inter alia, a handle portion; a head portion; a ratchet hole; an extending rod; and sockets. In the first embodiment (Figs. 1-8) and the second embodiment (Figs. 9-15), the handle and head portion are unitary portions of wrench 10; whereas, in the embodiment of Fig. 16, (Moetteli) provides a breaker bar wrench (260) and teaches that
“The breaker bar wrench 260 includes a long handle 262 with an end 264 having a reduced portion and an aperture 266. A head 268 also forms a portion of the breaker bar wrench 260 which includes a clevis 270 having an aperture 272 through the two arms of the clevis. The reduced end 264 of handle 262 can be received between the arms of the clevis 270 and a pin 274 can be inserted through the apertures 266 and 272 to secure the handle and head together.” (Col. 9, lines 22-30)
such that the pin 274 permits the head 268 to rotate about the axis of the pin relative to handle 262 but limits motion in any other direction (Col. 9, lines 30-33), i.e., (Motteli) provides a handle portion 262 comprising a pivot hole 266; a head portion 268 pivotally connected (via apertures 272 of clevis 270 and pin 274) to the pivot hole 266 of the handle portion 262.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified (Delaney et al.) by providing a pivotal connection between the handle and head portion of the breaker bar, such as that as taught by (Moetteli), and having the predictable result of permitting the head to rotate about the axis of the pin relative to handle but limiting motion in any other direction.
Claim(s) 12, as well as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Chang) as modified in view of (Moetteli) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 2011/0094316 A1 to (HSIEH).
(Chang) as modified in view of (Moetteli) as applied to claim 7 above, provides a ratchet wrench structure as claimed, except for the additional provision of a torque sensor configured for sensing a torque value of the driving portion acting on the workpiece.
(HSIEH) provides a torque-indicating extensive apparatus, i.e., a torque sensor, having, inter alia, two sensors (20) and a display unit (30). The torque gauge is positioned on an extensive rod (10), i.e., an extending rod, between the first engaging section (12) for engagement with a handle (40), and a second engaging section for engagement with a socket (51) (para. [0020]), the purpose of which is to measure and show a value of torque exerted on a fastener by a user. (HSIEH) teaches that
placing a torque sensor on the extensive rod, i.e., extending rod, enables a user to use a socket wrench in a narrow and deep environment and precisely exert a designated value of torque on a fastener (paras. [0005]-[0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified (Chang) as modified by (Moetteli) by providing a torque sensor on the extending rod, as taught by (HSIEH), and having the predictable result of enabling a user to use a socket wrench in a narrow and deep environment and precisely exert a designated value of torque on a fastener.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claim 2 is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if claim 8 is rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: that the extending rod comprises: a first extending region integrally connected to the ratchet portion and having a first radial width; a tapering region integrally connected to the first extending region, wherein a radial width of the tapering region is tapered from an end of the tapering region connected to the first extending region towards the driving portion; and a second extending region integrally connected between the tapering region and the driving portion and having a second maximum radial width, wherein the first radial width is larger than the second maximum radial width, together in combination with the rest of the limitations in the respective independent claim, appears to be novel and unobvious over the prior art of record considered as a whole, alone, or in combination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as describing related tool structures.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Thomas whose telephone number is (571) 272-4497. The examiner’s e-mail address is: dave.thomas@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 11:30-7:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached on (. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David B. Thomas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DBT/
Prosecution Insights