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 .
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 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbero et al. (EP 3623106, submitted by applicant via IDS) in view of Biddle (US Patent No. 4,399,938).
Claim 1:
Barbero teaches pliers (figure 1) for levelling spacers (C, E) comprising a wedge (C) and a disposable element (E), suitable for pushing a side face of the wedge so that it enters an opening of the disposable element so that the lower face of the wedge makes two adjacent tiles between which the disposable element is arranged, coplanar (figure 1), said pliers comprising: a handgrip (10) capable of being grasped by an operator; an elongated element (3) to which is fixed a stop element (figure 1) capable of coupling with the disposable element; a handle (22) movably attached to the handgrip (10) and suitable for pushing the wedge (figure 1).
Barbero does not explicitly teach that the handgrip (10) comprises at least one supporting body so as to support the pliers on at least one of the two tiles.
Biddle teaches a hand operated tool (figure 1) comprising: a handgrip (3) capable of being grasped by an operator; a handle (7) movably attached to the handgrip (3) and suitable for actuating the tool; and wherein the handgrip (3) comprises at least one supporting body (5, 2) so as to support the tool on the work surface (figure 1; see also figure 7 with support body 21, 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the hand tool support bodies of Biddle to the pliers of Barbero in order to provide a supporting surface on the pliers to reliably and repeatably apply even pressure between the tool and the tiles while operating the handle pivoting with respect to the handgrip.
Claim 2:
Biddle teaches that the handgrip comprises a gripping body (1) from which descend a first leg (5) and a second leg (2) to which are respectively joined a first supporting body (bottom surface of 5) and a second supporting body (bottom surface of 2) so as to allow the support of the pliers (of Barbero as modified by Biddle) to the tiles.
Claim 3:
Barbero in view of Biddle teaches the handgrip of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a spirit level incorporated therein. The examiner takes official notice that the incorporating of spirit levels into leveling tools is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated a spirit level into a visible location on the pliers of Barbero since the pliers of Barbero are designed to level adjoining tiles and the spirit level provides a verification indicator that the pliers are level to the tile on which they are supported.
Additionally, Barbero is concerned with leveling and aligning tiles with a pliers and wedge device. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious and would be motivated to provide an indication of the level of the workpiece on the tool that is acting on the workpiece. Such obviousness is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration in prior art. Spirit levels have been used on many hand tools to indicate alignment of plum of the tool and/or the workpiece, for example: Kennedy (USPN 2541366) teaches a spirit level arrangement attachment for any variety of hand tools (fig 1; col. 1); Black (US 2021/0189740) teaches a spirit level array incorporated into a trowel or float; Wood (USPN 6568021) teaches a trowel with a spirit level array incorporated therein to assist the operator in forming a level flooring surface (figure 1; col. 4, l. 30-40); Slattery (USPN 6668417) teaches a further hand float tool with integrated spirit level array (figures 24-25); Jacobsen (USPN 3330021) teaches a pipe aligning tool for aligning two pipes with a clamping tool inserted therein where the clamping tool includes an integral spirit level (335, 435) to ensure proper alignment. Accordingly, those having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to incorporate a spirit level in the pliers of Barbero since Barbero is concerned with levelling and aligning workpieces and the incorporation of spirit levels into alignment hand tools is routine.
Claim 4:
Barbero teaches that the handle (2) is pivoted (4) to the handgrip (10) and comprises a gripping element (bottom of 10) and a pushing lever (arm between handle 2 and pivot 4) for pushing the wedge (figure 1), elastic means (5) being provided between the gripping element and the handgrip for keeping the pliers open (figures 1 and 2).
Claim 5:
Barbero teaches that a pushing body (arm between pivot 4 and 21) is included for being pushed by the pushing lever so as to advance the wedge towards the disposable element.
Claim 6:
Barbero teaches that the pushing body comprises a front element (21) having a stop face suitable for engaging the side face of the wedge (figures 1 and 2).
Claim 7:
Barbero teaches that the stop face of the front element (21) has a conformation homologous to the side face of the wedge (both are planar).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbero in view of Biddle as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Nago (US Patent No. 7,114,229).
Claim 8:
Barbero as modified by Biddle teach the pliers of claim 5 above but do not explicitly teach that the pushing body is received in a guide so as to have a determined movement.
Nago teaches a hand operated tool (10, figure 1) comprising: a handgrip (12) capable of being grasped by an operator; a handle (14) movably attached to the handgrip and suitable for actuating the tool, wherein a pushing body (40) is included for being pushed by the pushing lever (58) so as to advance the insert towards the workpiece (figures 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the pivoting arrangement of Barbero to include a guided pusher, as taught by Nago, in order to translation the rotational pivoting movement of the lever into a translational movement to drive the wedge in order to provide a more consistent unidirectional force component to the wedge.
Claim 9:
Nago teaches that the at least one supporting body (24) is a first supporting body comprising the guide (32, 34) in which the pushing body (40, 42) is translatable.
Claim 10:
Nago teaches that the movement of the pushing body (40, 42) in the guide (32, 34) is parallel to a surface (on which the supporting body 24, 20 of Nago rests) on one of the two tiles (surface of Barbero) on which the pliers (of Barbero) rests.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/7/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/2026 with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, applicant alleges that numerals 2 and 5 of Biddle cannot be construed as a “supporting body” because they have additional functions as a pivoting foot and an ejection slot. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Numerals 2 and 5 clearly function to support the tool on the workpiece/worksurface and as such read as a “supporting body” since they support the tool on the surface. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this supporting function for a tool that is being pressed toward the workpiece would be applicable in other such arrangements where a pivoting lever arm is being pushed toward the workpiece and that the support would provide a beneficial counterforce during actuation of the tool.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not be obvious to incorporate a staple ejection port into the pliers of Barbero, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the examiner does not suggest changing the operation of Barbero to incorporate stapling, rather, that it is known to provide supporting members to counteract the force of the operator actuating the lever of the tool.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant traverses the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice that incorporating spirit levels into levelling tools (i.e., tools that perform a levelling or alignment function to a workpiece) is well known. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Barbero is concerned with leveling and aligning tiles with a pliers and wedge device. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious and would be motivated to provide an indication of the level of the workpiece on the tool that is acting on the workpiece. Such obviousness is capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration in prior art. Spirit levels have been used on many hand tools to indicate alignment of plum of the tool and/or the workpiece, for example: Kennedy (USPN 2541366) teaches a spirit level arrangement attachment for any variety of hand tools (fig 1; col. 1); Black (US 2021/0189740) teaches a spirit level array incorporated int to a trowel or float; Wood (USPN 6568021) teaches a trowel with a spirit level array incorporated therein to assist the operator in forming a level flooring surface (figure 1; col. 4, l. 30-40); Slattery (USPN 6668417) teaches a further hand float tool with integrated spirit level array (figures 24-25); Jacobsen (USPN 3330021) teaches a pipe aligning tool for aligning two pipes with a clamping tool inserted therein where the clamping tool includes an integral spirit level (335, 435) to ensure proper alignment. Accordingly, those having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to incorporate a spirit level in the pliers of Barbero since Barbero is concerned with levelling and aligning workpieces and the incorporation of spirit levels into alignment hand tools is routine.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at 571-272-4483. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M KOEHLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights