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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the response filed on May 31, 2026. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection is maintained. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 1-4 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (2332971).
In reference to claim 1, Johnson discloses a torque tool (i.e. the embodiment shown in Figures 3-5) comprising:
a hollow head (42) comprising a chamber (i.e. formed as the inner space within 42 that surrounds element 45 and as the inner space of 42 that surrounds element 59, which extends to the left of a threaded connection with handle 43, see figure below) and a wall (i.e. inner wall therein) extending around the chamber (Figure 3); and
a rotating unit comprising a rotor (45) formed with a periphery and notches (at 46 that are not engaged with element 59 and/or at 47 that are not engaged with element 48, in the annotated figure below) cut in the periphery (Figure 3), wherein the rotor is located in the chamber (Figure 3), wherein an area of contact (see figure below) of the periphery of the rotor with the wall (see Figure 3) around the chamber in the hollow head is reduced by the notches (Figure 3).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Notches 46 and/or 47 that reduce an area of contact with wall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
421
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
491
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Johnson discloses that the hollow head comprises a tubular section (44) in communication with the chamber, wherein the rotating unit comprises a lever (at 59. Note; the definition of the term “lever” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “a projecting piece by which a mechanism is operated or adjusted”. Since, element 59 is “a projecting piece [i.e. projects from piece 45] by which a mechanism [i.e. mechanism 45 or the “adjusting mechanism’ as described on Page 2, Column 2, Lines 46-50] is operated or adjusted”, it meets the definition above and thus the limitation of the claim) extending from the periphery of the rotor toward the tubular section (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 3, Johnson further comprising a tubular handle (43) inserted in the tubular section (Figures 3 and 4).
In reference to claim 4, Johnson further comprising a rod (i.e. at 56 or under a second interpretation formed from 61, 62 and 56, Figure 3) with a first section (i.e. at 56) extending in the tubular handle and a second section (i.e. at 57/58) extending in the chamber from the tubular handle, wherein the second section of the rod is operatively connected (i.e. at 60) to the lever.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends on pages 1-2 of the response that, “The applicant would like to draw the Examiner's attention to the functionality of the notches (37). The notches reduce the contact area between the periphery of the rotor and the wall around the chamber in the hollow head. Hence, the friction between the periphery of the rotor and the wall around the chamber is reduced. Johnson has been studied and found not to disclose the above-captioned feature of claim 1 of the present application. Johnson, Fig. 3, shows that the circular boss (45) is rotatable in the circular head (42). Several arcuate recesses (46) and several triangular recesses (47) are made in the periphery of the circular boss (45). One of the arcuate recesses (46) receives roller (59) at a time. However, Johnson fails to or show or disclose any other recesses of reducing friction between the wall of the arcuate recesses (46) and the roller (59). There is no need for such recesses because the roller (59) is allowed to roll relative to the circular boss (45). Moreover, one of the triangular recesses (47) at a time receives the stop-and-friction member (48) to engage the circular boss (45) with the stop-and-friction member (48), which is inserted in the circular head (42).Thus, the circular boss (45) is prevented from rotating relative to the circular head (42). The triangular recesses (47) are for increasing the friction between the circular boss (45) and the circular head (42), rather than for reducing the friction. The name of the stop-and-friction member (48) clearly indicates that it is intended to cooperate with the triangular recesses (47) to increase, rather than reduce, the friction between the circular boss (45) and the circular head (42).”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. In response to applicant's argument above that the references fails to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., the friction between the periphery of the rotor and the wall around the chamber is reduced) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). However, the examiner does note that the friction would similarly be reduced at the area between the notches and the wall because the notches are formed as empty spaces, which have no area of contact with the wall and which is structurally the same as claimed by the applicant.
The examiner has also provided an new annotated figure above that clearly shows that the notches (at 46 and/or 47) reduce an area of contact of the periphery of the rotor with the wall (again because they are notches, which is the same structural element as claimed by the applicant) thereby meeting the limitation of the claim. Furthermore, the examiner notes notches (46) that are not engaged with roller (59) reduce an area of contact with the wall (again because they are notches). And, notches (47) that are not engaged with stop-and-friction member (48) also reduce an area of contact with the wall (again because they are notches) thereby meeting the limitation of the claim. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights