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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
Claim 5 and 6 describes extension parts that are not labeled in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 § 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 1-10 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 1 recites,” which has two edges fitting side portions of two ends of a metal clamp”. It is unclear to the examiner how the cutting head has two edges that fit the side portions of two ends of the metal clamp simultaneously. Only one edge is able to fit a side portion of one end of the metal clamp. Examiner will interpret that each edge of the two edges fit a side portion of each respective end of the two ends of the metal clamp.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein a strip opening of the gap is oriented to one side of the plier handle” in lines 1-2. It is unclear to the examiner where the strip opening of the gap is oriented in relation to the plier handle. Examiner will interpret that a strip opening of the gap is oriented in a direction in which the top portion of the handle faces.
Claim 3 recites, ‘’ two pins symmetrically set on left and right” in line 3. It is unclear to the examiner what the two pins are symmetrically set on the left and right of. Is it the sides, the ends of the head, or somewhere else? Examiner will interpret that the pins are symmetrically set on the left and right of the side portions of plier head.
Claim 4 recites, ‘’ two pins symmetrically set on left and right” in line 3. It is unclear to the examiner what the two pins are symmetrically set on the left and right of. Is it the sides, the ends of the head, or somewhere else? Examiner will interpret that the pins are symmetrically set on the left and right of the side portions of plier head.
Claim 5 recites, “extension parts are from on a same side of the two side plates” in lines 2-3. It is unclear to the examiner how the extension parts are on the same side of the two end plates, as only one extension part is on the same side of one plate, not both end plates.
Claim 6 recites, “extension parts are from on a same side of the two side plates” in lines 2-3. It is unclear to the examiner how the extension parts are on the same side of the two end plates, as only one extension part is on the same side of one plate, not both end plates.
Claims 7 and 9 are also rejected due to initial dependency on claim 5.
Claims 8 and 10 are also rejected due to initial dependency on claim 6.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koelewyn (US 5,862,552).
Regarding Claim 1, Koelewyn teaches the multifunctional plier (Figure 1), comprising: a plier head, and a plier handle (Column 4, lines 44-47 and 50-52, formed from first handle 22 and second handle 32, respectively), wherein a cutting head (Column 6, lines 19-22 and 32-35, formed from first cutting jaw 112 and second cutting jaw 126) is provided at two side portions of the plier head, which has two edges (Column 6, lines 44-45, first cutting edge 114 and second cutting edge 128) fitting side portions of two ends of a metal clamp, and a gap (See Annotated Figure 1) is formed between the two edges for containing the two ends of the metal clamp.
PNG
media_image1.png
492
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1: Gap Between Two Edges for Containing Ends of Metal Clamp
Regarding claim 2, Koelewyn teaches the multifunctional pliers of claim 1, wherein a strip opening of the gap is oriented to one side of the plier handle (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
332
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2: Strip Opening of Gap Oriented to One Side of Plier Handle
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koelewyn (US 5,862,552 A) in view of Shen (U.S. 2023/0053854 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Koewelyn teaches the multifunctional pliers, as recited in claim 2.
Koewelyn does not teach wherein the plier head is a ring locking plier head for clamping the two ends of the metal clamp, which comprises two pins symmetrically set on left and right, and a positioning shaft located in a middle of the plier head; two clamping portions are formed at a front portion of the plier head, which are configured to clamp the side portions of the two ends of the metal clamp.
Shen teaches wherein the ring locking plier head for clamping the two ends of the metal clamp, which comprises two pins (Paragraph 0023, Line 2, two fixing pins 50) symmetrically set on left and right, and a positioning shaft (Paragraph 0024, Line 2, positioning shaft 70) located in a middle of the plier head; two clamping portions (Paragraph 0019, Lines 3-4, two heads 10) are formed at a front portion of the plier head, which are configured to clamp the side portions of the two ends of the metal clamp (Shen’s device is configured in such a way that permits this function).
Koewelyn and Shen are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pliers provided with auxiliary tool elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the multifunctional pliers of Koewelyn to incorporate the teachings of Shen to provide a multifunctional plier with a ring locking plier head comprising two pins, a positioning shaft, and two clamping portions formed at the front of the plier head. Doing so would provide the mechanical system for the clamping plier head to operate properly (Paragraph 0023 and 0024)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koewelyn (US) in view of Shen (U.S. 2023/0053854 A1) and Bernstein (US 8,176,814 B1).
Regarding clam 4, Koewelyn teaches the multifunctional plier as shown in claim 2.
Koewelyn does not teach the plier head is configured to cut the metal clamp, which comprises two pins symmetrically set on left and right, and a positioning shaft located in a middle of the plier head; a clamping head and an external edge are formed at a front portion of the plier head, wherein the clamping head is configured to extend into a pipe from an end thereof, while the external edge part is configured to cut the metal clamp from outside the pipe.
Shen teaches wherein the plier head is configured to cut the metal clamp, which comprises two pins (Paragraph 0023, Line 2, two fixing pins 50) symmetrically set on left and right, and a positioning shaft (Paragraph 0024, Line 2, positioning shaft 70) located in a middle of the plier head; a clamping head (Paragraph 0020, one of the two heads with a blunt cut 12) and an external edge (Paragraph 0019, one of the heads with a blade 11) are formed at a front portion of the plier head, while the external edge part is configured to cut the metal clamp from outside the pipe (device is capable of doing so).
Koewelyn and Shen are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pliers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the multifunctional pliers of Koewelyn to incorporate the teaching of Shen. Doing so would develop the mechanical system used to create the plier head configured to cut the metal clamp (Paragraph 0020).
Koewelyn, as modified by Shen, does not teach wherein the clamping head is configured to extend into a pipe from an end thereof.
Bernstein teaches wherein the clamping head is configured to extend into a pipe (See annotated figure 3) from an end thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
296
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3: Clamping Head Extends to a Pipe
Koewelyn, Shen, and Bernstein are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of pliers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the multifunctional pliers of Koewelyn, which includes the teaching of Shen, with the teaching of Bernstein. Doing so would develop the clamping head configured to extend into a pipe from and end thereof to hold, grab, and grip the material (Column 4, Lines 15-16).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 - 10 would be allowable if 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: The prior art of record fails to teach as a whole, alone, or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious of providing;
Multifunctional pliers as described in claims 1, 2, and 3 with the further limitation in claim 5 of extension parts are from on a same side of the two end plates, which are on one side of the plier head; the edges are formed on internal sides of tip ends of the extension parts.
Multifunctional pliers as described in claims 1, 2, and 4 with the further limitation in claim 6 of extension parts are from on a same side of the two end plates, which are on one side of the plier head; the edges are formed on internal sides of tip ends of the extension parts.
Multifunctional pliers as described in claims 7-10, as a result of dependency on claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Broadbooks (US 699,832) teaches a combined wire cutter and pliers
Werkzeugfabrik (US 2016/0016302) teaches a pliers with stripping and cutting ability.
Zhang (US 8051572 B2) teaches pliers for removing fastening ring with an adjusting device
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S LUNDY whose telephone number is (571)270-0752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:00pm.
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 5712724475. 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.
/Daniel Lundy/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
6/24/2023
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights