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 .
Response to Amendment/Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment dated July 23, 2026. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Prior drawing objections have been overcome by amendment to the specification. Prior claim objections have been overcome by amendment. Prior double patenting rejections have been overcome by Terminal Disclaimer with co-pending application 18/632820. Prior 112(b) and 112(d) rejections have been overcome by amendment.
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 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) 1-5, 10-11, 13-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiu et al. TW I220122 B (Herein Shiu).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
464
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shiu Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
672
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Shiu Figure 2, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 1)
Regarding claim 1, Shiu teaches an electric ratchet wrench (English Translation pg. 2, ln 1) comprising: a tool head unit (20) that extends along a first axis (See Annotated Figure 1); an output unit that includes a head driver (21) mounted on said tool head unit (20), that extends along a second axis (See Annotated Figure 1) transverse to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), and that is configured to rotate in a selected direction and output rotational energy; a wrench body unit (10) that extends along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), that is detachably connected to said tool head unit (English Translation pg. 6, ln 10-11), that defines a front space (See Annotated Figure 1) proximate to said tool head unit (20), a rear space (See Annotated Figure 1) opposite to said front space (See Annotated Figure 1) along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), and a middle space (See Annotated Figure 1) disposed between and in spatial communication with said front space (See Annotated Figure 1) and said rear space (See Annotated Figure 1), that has a maximum gripping length extending along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), and that includes a sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) extending along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), having an outer surface that surrounds the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1) and a maximum width that is normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), that passes through two ends of said outer surface opposite in a first direction normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), and that is greater than widths of remaining portions of said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), an electric unit (See Annotated Figure 1) that includes an electric motor (14) mounted in said middle space (See Annotated Figure 1),
connected to said rear ring section (132), and operable for converting electrical energy to kinetic energy,
and a transmission subunit (16) mounted in said front space (See Annotated Figure 1), connected to said
front ring section (17), and configured for transmitting the kinetic energy to said head driver (21); and a
control unit (See Annotated Figure 1) that is mounted to said wrench body unit (10) and that includes a
control module (19) signally connected to said electric motor (14), and a battery module (15) disposed in
said rear space (See Annotated Figure 1), electrically connected to said control module (19), and
configured to provide the electrical energy.
Shiu does not disclose a ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width ranging from 3 to 9.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum width and maximum gripping length along the first axis with a ratio of 3 to 9 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 6).
Regarding claim 2, Shiu teaches said wrench body unit (10) further includes a support ring (See Annotated Figure 1) that has a portion surrounded by said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) which defines said rear space (See Annotated Figure 1), and that includes a front ring section (17) defining said front space (See Annotated Figure 1) and connected to said tool head unit (20), and a rear ring section (132) being opposite to said front ring section (17) along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1) and defining said middle space (See Annotated Figure 1); and said electric motor (14) is connected to said support ring (See Annotated Figure 1) and has a first length along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1) smaller than a second length of said rear ring section (132) along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
512
773
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Shiu Figure 3, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 2)
Regarding claim 3, Shiu teaches said electric motor (14) includes a spindle (See Annotated Figure 2) extending into said front space (See Annotated Figure 1) and rotatable about the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1); and said transmission subunit (16) includes an internal gear ring (168) engaging said front ring section (17), a plurality of planetary gears (166) connected co-rotatably to said spindle (See Annotated Figure 2) and meshing with said internal gear ring (164), and a gear plate (162) meshing with and driven by said planetary gears (166) to rotate and transmit the kinetic energy to said head driver (21).
PNG
media_image4.png
528
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Shiu Figure 3, cropped and annotated (herein Annotated Figure 3)
Regarding claim 4, Shiu teaches said front ring section (17) of said support ring (See Annotated Figure 1) has a plurality of grooves (See Annotated Figure 3) formed in an inner surface (See Annotated Figure 3) thereof and extending from a rim (See Annotated Figure 3) thereof toward said rear ring section (132), and said internal gear ring (17) includes a plurality of ribs (See Annotated Figure 3) formed on a second outer surface (See Annotated Figure 3) thereof and engaging respectively said grooves (See Annotated Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Shiu teaches said wrench body unit (10) further includes a connecting ring (18) threadedly engaging said front ring section (17) of said support ring (See Annotated Figure 1) and said tool head unit (20) such that said wrench body unit (10) is connected to said tool head unit (20) and is detachable (English Translation pg. 6, ln 10-11) from said tool head unit (20) along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Shiu teaches said wrench body unit (10) and said tool head unit (20) are arranged along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1) and have a maximum total length along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
Shiu does not teach a second ratio between the maximum total length and the maximum width ranges from 4.5 to 11.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum total length and the maximum width ranges along the first axis with a ratio of 4.5 to 11 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 45).
Regarding claim 11, Shiu teaches said wrench body unit (10) and said tool head unit (20) are arranged along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1) and have a maximum total length along the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
Shiu does not teach the second ratio between the maximum total length and the maximum width ranges from 4.5 to 6.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum total length and the maximum width that ranges from 4.5 to 6 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 45).
Regarding claim 13, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 10 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach the maximum total length ranges between 121 mm to 260 mm, and the maximum gripping length ranges from 70 mm to 200 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum total length ranging between 121 mm to 260 mm, and a maximum gripping length ranging from 70 mm to 200 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 44).
Regarding claim 14, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 13 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach the maximum total length ranges from 210 mm to 220 mm, and the maximum gripping length ranges from 145 mm to 155 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum total length ranging between 210 mm to 220 mm, and the maximum gripping length ranges from 145 mm to 155 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 44).
Regarding claim 15, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 14 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach a first ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width ranges from 4 to 9.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a third ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width that ranges from 4 to 9 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 45).
Regarding claim 16, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach the maximum width is in one of ranges of 34 mm to 59 mm, and 34 mm to 46 mm
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a maximum width in one of ranges of 34 mm to 59 mm, and 34 mm to 46 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 44).
Regarding claim 17, Shiu teaches said sleeve member further has a minimum width being normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), passing through another two ends of said first outer surface opposite in a fourth direction transverse to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), passing through the middle space (See Annotated Figure 1), being smallest among widths of said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
Shiu does not teach a minimum width ranging from 35 mm to 48 mm, and a maximum width passing through said rear space and ranges from 45.5 mm to 59 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a minimum width ranging from 35 mm to 48 mm, and a maximum width passing through said rear space and ranges from 45.5 mm to 59 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 44).
Regarding claim 18, Shiu teaches said sleeve member further has a minimum width being normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), passing through another two ends of said first outer surface opposite in a fourth direction transverse to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1), passing through the middle space (See Annotated Figure 1), being smallest among widths of said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) normal to the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1).
Shiu does not teach a minimum width ranging from 34 mm to 49 mm, and the maximum width passing through said rear space and ranges from 39 mm to 56 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a minimum width ranging from 34 mm to 49 mm, and the maximum width passing through said rear space and ranges from 39 mm to 56 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 44).
Regarding claim 21, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 14 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach a second ratio between the maximum total length and the maximum width ranges from 6 to 11.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a third ratio between the maximum total length and the maximum that ranges from 6 to 11 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 45).
Regarding claim 22, Shiu teaches the limitations of claim 14 as claimed.
Shiu does not teach a first ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width ranges from 3 to 4.2.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of the reference application to have a third ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width that ranges from 3 to 4.2 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the ratio is within the claimed ranges (instant specification para 45).
Claims 6-9, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiu et al. TW I220122 B (Herein Shiu) in view of Zhao US 11338413 B2.
PNG
media_image5.png
448
397
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Shiu Figure 1, annotated and cropped (herein Annotated Figure 4)
Regarding claim 6, Shiu teaches said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1) has two receiving portion defining walls (See Annotated Figure 4) extending from said first outer surface (See Annotated Figure 4) thereof in a second direction substantially parallel to the second axis (See Annotated Figure 1) and toward said support ring (See Annotated Figure 1) to define a receiving portion (See Annotated Figure 4), and said control unit (See Annotated Figure 1) further includes a trigger (192) connected to said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1), disposed in said receiving portion (See Annotated Figure 4), operable to turn on said electric motor (14).
Shiu does not teach the receiving portion defining walls having two guiding grooves, the trigger being rotatable or the trigger having two flanges designed to be revived in said guiding grooves.
PNG
media_image6.png
470
753
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Zhao Figure 4, annotated
However, in a related device Zhao teaches two guiding grooves (See Annotated Figure) formed in receiving portion defining walls (See Annotated Figure), and a rotatable trigger (68) including two flange portions (See Annotated Figure) that are formed at two opposite sides thereof, that are received respectively in said guiding grooves (See Annotated Figure), and that are movable relative to said guiding grooves (See Annotated Figure) in directions parallel to a second axis (See Annotated Figure). Zhao further teaches that the lever separating the guiding grooves advantageously allows for the tool to be locked in either an open or closed position with the use of a switch (col 9, ln 7-10). A person skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, would have been able to apply the grooves and flanges of Zhao to the trigger mechanism of Shiu to advantageously allow for the trigger to be locked into a position (col 9, ln 7-10). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shiu and Zhao teaches said control unit (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu) further includes a sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) electrically connected to said control module (19 of Shiu), said trigger (192 of Shiu) further includes a triggering portion (194 of Shiu) extending toward and movable relative to said sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) in the second direction substantially parallel to the second axis (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), and said control module (19 of Shiu) is configured to turn on said electric motor (14 of Shiu) upon receipt of a sensing signal from said sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) when said sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) is pressed by said triggering portion (194 of Shiu).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shiu and Zhao teaches said trigger (68 of Zhao) is connected pivotably (col 8, ln 48-49 of Zhao) to said sleeve member (40 of Zhao), and is pivotable relative to said sleeve member (40 of Zhao) between a pressing position, where said triggering portion (194 of Shiu) of said trigger (68 of Zhao) presses against said sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu), and a normal position, where said triggering portion is spaced apart from said sensor (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) and said trigger (68 of Zhao) cooperates with the first axis (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu).
The combination of Shiu and Zhao does not teach that the trigger, in cooperation with the first axis, defines an included angle ranging from 2 degrees to 5 degrees therebetween.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of reasonable skill in the art to modify the combination of Shiu and Zhao to have the trigger, in cooperation with the first axis, define an included angle ranging from 2 degrees to 5 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of the combination of Shiu and Zhao would not operate differently with the claimed angle of the trigger relative to the first axis.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shiu and Zhao teaches said control unit (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) further includes a light emitting element (122 of Zhao) mounted to said sleeve member (40 of Zhao), electrically connected to said control module (19 of Shiu), disposed between said tool head unit (20 of Shiu) and said trigger (192 of Shiu), and configured to emit a light beam substantially toward said second axis (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu)(col 10, ln 63-65 of Zhao).
The combination of Shiu and Zhao does not teach that an included angle is defined between the light beam emitted by said light emitting member and the first axis, and ranges from 40 degrees to 50 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of reasonable skill in the art to modify the combination of Shiu and Zhao to angle the light emitting element within the sleeve member so as to have the light beam define an angle with the first axis between 40 and 50 degrees since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of the combination of Shiu and Zhao would not operate differently with the claimed angle of the light and it is within the teaching of the combination of Shiu and Zhao to angle the light toward the head driver in order to illuminate the working area (col 10, ln 63-65 of Zhao).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Shiu and Zhao teaches said control unit (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) further includes a trigger (68 of Zhao) connected to said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), disposed adjacent to said front space (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), and operable to turn on said electric motor (14 of Shiu), and a light emitting element (122 of Zhao) mounted to said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), electrically connected to said control module (19 of Shiu), disposed between said tool head unit (20 of Shiu) and said trigger (198 of Shiu), and configured to emit a light beam substantially toward the second axis (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu).
The combination of Shiu and Zhao does not teach the maximum width passes through said middle space and said light emitting element.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of reasonable skill in the art to modify the combination of Shiu and Zhao to reposition the light emitting element at the point of maximum width since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, only displaying the limitation in the drawings and in text specifying that it is not a feature of disclosed embodiments (instant specification para 46).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Shiu and Zhao teaches said control unit (See Annotated Figure 4 of Shiu) further includes a trigger (68 of Zhao) connected to said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), disposed adjacent to said front space (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), and operable to turn on said electric motor (14 of Shiu), and a light emitting element (122 of Zhao) mounted to said sleeve member (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu), electrically connected to said control module (19 of Shiu), disposed between said tool head unit (20 of Shiu) and said trigger (198 of Shiu), and configured to emit a light beam substantially toward the second axis (See Annotated Figure 1 of Shiu).
The combination of Shiu and Zhao does not teach the maximum width passes through said middle space and said light emitting element.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of reasonable skill in the art to modify the combination of Shiu and Zhao to reposition the light emitting element at the point of maximum width since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the dimension claimed, only displaying the limitation in the drawings and in text specifying that it is not a feature of disclosed embodiments (instant specification para 46).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiu et al. TW I220122 B (Herein Shiu), in view of Yoshitake JP 2012135567 A.
Regarding claim 11, Shiu teaches the electric ratchet wrench as claimed in claim 1.
Shiu does not teach the control unit including any method to indicate residual power in the battery.
PNG
media_image7.png
384
213
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Yoshitake Figure 3
However, in a related device, Yoshitake teaches, a control unit (18) which includes a plurality of light emitting elements (31-34) electrically connected to a control module (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 3) and arranged in a direction parallel to a first axis said indicating member (30) includes a plurality of windows (47) that are arranged in a direction parallel to the first axis and that are light transmissive (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 27-28), and a plurality of light guiding strips (41-44), each of which is disposed between a respective one of said light emitting elements (31-34) and a respective one of said windows (47) for guiding a light beam emitted from the respective one of said light emitting elements (31-34) toward the respective one of said windows (47), and said control unit (18) is further configured to turn on said light emitting elements (31-34) based on the residual power of a battery module (17), a number of said light emitting elements (31-34) that are turned on being in positive correlation to the residual power of said battery module (17) (English Translation, pg. 4. ln 43-45). Yoshitake further teaches that the indicating member advantageously allows for the display of the charging state of the battery (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 9-10). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, apply the indicating member of Yoshitake to the tool of Shiu in order to allow a user to advantageously visualize the charging state of the battery of Shiu (English Translation , pg. 3, ln 9-10). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has argued that the ratio between the maximum gripping length and the maximum width, defined in claim 1 as ranging from 3 to 9, is critical. Applicant further the claimed ratio is critical to achieving a balance between sufficient gripping leverage and a compact form factor, and that the claimed ratio would not be considered a relative dimension or a routine design choice as cited in Gardner v. TC Syst., Inc. as Shiu does not teach a motivation to arrive at a ratio to achieve the dual objectives of stability and compactness (Amendment dated July 23, 2026, pg. 16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It has been held that arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (MPEP 716.01(c)(II)). Further, the specification of the application does not recite the argued critical purpose of the limitation, merely reciting the ratio without providing criticality (specification para 6 and para 45).
Applicant further argues that claims 2-20 are allowable due to being dependent on claim 1 as argued above.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as claim 1 is rejected as presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In regards to unclaimed feature of a time delayed power off for the light emitting element, Ely et al. US 20160354889 A1 is made of record.
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 GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm EST.
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 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.
/G.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights