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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3, “therethough” should read --therethrough--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3-6 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 3 recites the limitation “chain having an aspect ratio H/A ranging from 1.1 to 1 .4” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because “aspect ratio” is previously claimed in claim 2. It is not clear if they are the same or different.
Claims 4-6 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a plurality of chains with respective mutually different aspect ratios”. Claim 1 recites “a chain”. It is not clear if they are the same or different.
Claims 9-10 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Domanico (US 20080066587 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Domanico teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. 1 below) an elongate wrench for rotating a threaded fastener (abstract: the last link of the flexible wrench is connected a link with an open-end wrench head, closed-end wrench head, ratcheting head, or other fastening tool head for the removal of fasteners such as bolts, nuts, and other fasteners), the wrench defining a longitudinal axis (L) and comprising: a handle having a first handle end and a second handle end opposed thereto; a chain (par. 0033: “flexible chain links”) having a first chain end joined to the handle and a second chain end opposed thereto and spaced outwardly from the handle; and a drive shaft joined to the second end of the chain and configured to insert into a bore of a socket (drive square of the tool is inserted into square drive socket of the socket), whereby the chain is articulable about a plurality of transverse axes (T) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and can apply torque about the longitudinal axis in response to a user (par. 0010: “apply torque to the flexible wrench from a solid handle capable of multiple angles” and claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Domanico teaches the chain has an aspect ratio ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 (see A and H in reproduced and annotated Fig. 1 above and Figs. 7-8 below) (A is less than twice bigger than H).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Domanico teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the links comprise elongate serial interconnected link plates having opposed ends, each opposed end having a link plate hole therethrough (hole through which pin 22 passes), the interconnected link plates being joined by pins (mushroom head steel pin 22) through the respective link plate holes, the link plates having a height H, the chain having an overall width A, the chain having an aspect ratio H/A ranging from 1.1 to 1 .4 (A is less than twice bigger than H).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domanico.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 8, Domanico does not explicitly teach the size of the chain.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different size for the ratchet flexible handle chain portion depending on the use and reach of the ratchet.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domanico in view of Quentyn73 Kobalt 4-in-1 ratcheting handle 72T 1/4 & 3/8 removable heads 5062986 found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs6w2-dDAuQ
Regarding claims 9-10, Domanico does not teach interchangeable drive shafts.
Quentyn73 teaches a ratchet with interchangeable 1/4 & 3/8 drive shafts.
PNG
media_image3.png
964
1366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use interchangeable ratchet heads to make the tool useable for different sockets.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domanico in view of Kobalt 30 -Piece Metric and standard (SAE) Mechanics Tool Set with Hard Case | 86761 (hereinafter Dad)found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDfQH8BZrQ
Regarding claim 7, Domanico teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a kit comprising a modular elongate wrench for rotating a threaded fastener (abstract: the last link of the flexible wrench is connected a link with an open-end wrench head, closed-end wrench head, ratcheting head, or other fastening tool head for the removal of fasteners such as bolts, nuts, and other fasteners), the wrench defining a longitudinal axis (L), the kit comprising: at least one elongate handle coincident the longitudinal axis and having a first handle end and a second handle end opposed thereto; at least one chain having a proximal end removably joinable (by mushroom head steel pin 22) to the handle proximate the second handle end and having a distal end opposed to the proximal end and being spaced away from the handle; and at least one drive shaft removably joinable (by mushroom head steel pin 22) to the distal end of the chain and configured to insert into a bore of a socket, whereby the chain is articulable about a plurality of transverse axes perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and can apply torque about the longitudinal axis (par. 0010: “apply torque to the flexible wrench from a solid handle capable of multiple angles” and claim 1).Drawings of Domanico do not show the sockets connected to the drive square of the drive head.
Dad shows using socket wrenches on ratchet drive shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different sockets on drive shaft for fastening/unfastening fasteners.
Regarding claim 11, Domanico teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a method of tightening or loosening a threaded fastener (abstract: the last link of the flexible wrench is connected a link with an open-end wrench head, closed-end wrench head, ratcheting head, or other fastening tool head for the removal of fasteners such as bolts, nuts, and other fasteners), the method comprising, in order, the steps of: providing a modular wrench for rotating a threaded fastener and defining a longitudinal axis (L), the wrench having at least one elongate handle coincident the longitudinal axis with a first handle end and a second handle end opposed thereto, at least one chain having a proximal end removably joined to the handle and a distal end opposed thereto and spaced outwardly from the handle, whereby the chain is articulable about a plurality of transverse axis (T) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, and a drive shaft removably joined to the distal end of the chain (by mushroom head steel pin 22) and configured to insert into a bore of a socket; (abstract: the last link of the flexible wrench is connected a link with an open-end wrench head, closed-end wrench head, ratcheting head, or other fastening tool head for the removal of fasteners such as bolts, nuts, and other fasteners); and applying torque about the longitudinal axis of the wrench to thereby rotate the threaded fastener about a respective threaded fastener axis (par. 0010: “apply torque to the flexible wrench from a solid handle capable of multiple angles” and claim 1). Figs. of Domanico does not show the sockets connected to the drive square of the drive head (square drive head of Domanico is connectable to sockets).
Dad shows using socket wrenches on ratchet drive shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different sockets on drive shaft for fastening/unfastening fasteners.
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domanico in view of Barnes (CA 2264444 C).
Regarding claims 11-12 , ratchet tool of Domanico is used in “small or confined areas” (abstract) and “in confined or difficult-to-reach locations” (par. 0006). However Domanico does not show that in drawings and Drawings of Domanico do not show the sockets connected to the drive square of the drive head.
Figures of Barnes show (reproduced and annotated below) a flex handle ratchet’s first socket (S) is inserted into a confined space (“hard to reach location”) before engaging the first socket with the threaded fastener.
PNG
media_image4.png
639
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the socket of Domanico into the confined space before fastening/unfastening the threaded faster as taught by Barnes.
Regarding claim 13, Domanico teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the step of selecting the chain from a kit having a plurality of chains, each chain of the plurality of chains having an aspect ratio ranging from 1.1 to 2.0 (see A and H in reproduced and annotated Fig. 1 above and Figs. 7-8 above), and attaching the selected chain to the handle (with steel screw 34) before applying torque about the longitudinal axis (par. 0010: “apply torque to the flexible wrench from a solid handle capable of multiple angles” and claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, flexible handle ratchet of Domanico has one set of chain.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different chains with different sizes based on accessibility and torque required.
Regarding claim 16, combined device of Domanico and Barnes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the step of articulating the chain about plural transverse axes (T) after removably attaching the first socket to the drive shaft and before engaging the first socket with the threaded fastener.
Regarding claim 17, combined device of Domanico and Barnes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the articulating the chain in plural angles about each of plural transverse articulating axes (T in fastening mode) while rotating the threaded fastener about a respective threaded fastener axis (S).
Regarding claim 18, combined device of Domanico and Barnes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the step of articulating the chain in plural angles about each of the plural transverse articulating axes comprises the step of articulating the chain in opposed directions (T in unfastening mode) about at least one of the transverse articulating axes (S).
Regarding claim 19, combined device of Domanico and Barnes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the step of articulating the chain in plural angles about each of the plural transverse articulating axes comprises the step of articulating the chain in opposed directions about at least two of the transverse articulating axes (T in both fastening and unfastening mode).
Regarding claim 20, combined device of Domanico and Barnes teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the at least two transverse articulating axes have at least one transverse axis therebetween not subjected to articulating in opposed directions.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domanico in view of Barnes and further in view of Quentyn73.
Regarding claim 15, flexible handle ratchet of Domanico has one set of chain. Also drive shaft of Domanico is removable and replaceable by removing mushroom head steel pin 22. However Domanico does not show different size drive shafts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different chains with different sizes based on accessibility and torque required.
Quentyn73 teaches a ratchet with interchangeable 1/4 & 3/8 drive shafts.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use interchangeable ratchet heads to make the tool useable for different sockets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights