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 § 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 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 the limitation "the swinging angle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the side close" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the other side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the side away" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the upper end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the rotation axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (US20160008866A1) in view Mikhajlovich (RU2314899C1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Houle discloses a manual hydraulic pipe expander (abstract, paragraphs 0023-0031), comprising:
a handle (fig.3: (102)) provided with a gripping part (fig.3: the gripping right side of the handle (102));
a wrench (fig.3: (108)) swingable relative to the handle;
a plunger (fig.3: (141)) movable back and forth relative to the handle;
an oil bag (fig.3: (126)); and
a pipe expanding assembly comprising a pipe expanding tube (see fig.3 below), a piston (fig.3: (130)) and a cone head (fig.3: (118)) provided in the pipe expanding tube, and a pipe expanding head (fig.3: (104)) provided on the pipe expanding tube (see fig.3 below),
the pipe expanding assembly being provided with an oil path (fig.3: (134)) respectively communicated with the oil bag (fig.3: (143)), the plunger (fig.3: (141)) and the piston (fig.3: (130)),
Houle does not disclose the handle and the wrench being configured to, in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, projections of the wrench and the gripping part of the handle on a swinging plane formed by the wrench coinciding with each other.
PNG
media_image1.png
734
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mikhajlovich discloses a tool (paragraphs 0014-0016), comprising:
a handle (fig.1: (11)) provided with a gripping part (fig.1: the gripping left side of the handle (11));
a wrench (fig.1: (13)) swingable relative to the handle;
a plunger (fig.3: (3)) movable back and forth relative to the handle;
the handle and the wrench being configured to, in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, projections of the wrench and the gripping part of the handle on a swinging plane formed by the wrench coinciding with each other (fig.1).
Both of the prior arts of Houle and Mikhajlovich are related to a manual tool,
Therefore, 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 configuration of the handle and the wrench of the apparatus of Houle to have in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, projections of the wrench and the gripping part of the handle on a swinging plane formed by the wrench coinciding with each other as taught by Mikhajlovich, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Regarding claim 10, Mikhajlovich teaches wherein in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, the wrench and the handle are misaligned, and the projections of the wrench and the gripping part of the handle on the swinging plane formed by the wrench coincide with each other (fig.1).
Therefore, the modification of Houle in view Mikhajlovich the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 2-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (US20160008866A1) in view Mikhajlovich (RU2314899C1 attached NPL, English Machine translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN216731611U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claims 2-3, Houle in view Mikhajlovich does not disclose wherein the handle is provided with a wrench groove for accommodating the wrench; and wherein a middle of a thickness direction of the handle is provided with the wrench groove; in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, the wrench is only partially accommodated in the wrench groove.
Wang teaches a manual tool, comprising:
a handle (fig.1: (1)) is provided with a wrench groove for accommodating a wrench (fig.1: (5)); wherein a middle of a thickness direction of the handle is provided with the wrench groove (paragraph 0024))
Both of the prior arts of Houle and Wang are related to a manual tool,
Therefore, 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 configuration of the handle and the wrench of the apparatus of Houle in view Mikhajlovich of to have wherein the handle is provided with a wrench groove for accommodating the wrench; and wherein a middle of a thickness direction of the handle is provided with the wrench groove as taught by Wang, since it has been held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)]. Thereby having wherein a middle of a thickness direction of the handle is provided with the wrench groove; in a case that the swinging angle of the wrench is maximum, the wrench is only partially accommodated in the wrench groove.
Regrading claim 4, Houle in view Mikhajlovich and Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim;
However, having the mechanical device in a specific construction would have resulted from routine engineering practices and it therefore not patentable and would be obvious because there is no unexpected result in order to meet specific requirements of the manual hydraulic pipe expander as desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have wherein the handle comprises a first handle shell and a second handle shell that are in surface fit with each other, the first handle shell and the second handle shell are fixedly connected through screws along a thickness direction of the handle, and a positioning structure is formed between the first handle shell and the second handle shell; the manual hydraulic pipe expander further comprises a housing, the housing comprises a first shell and a second shell, the first shell and the second shell are fixedly connected through screws along the thickness direction of the handle, and a lower end of the housing is clamped with an upper end of the handle along a height direction;an angle between the housing and an end surface of the handle close to the wrench is between 95° and 120°, as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 9, Houle discloses wherein the oil bag (fig.3: (143)) is provided in the handle, the upper end of the wrench (fig.3: (143)) is rotatably connected with the handle, and the plunger (fig.3: (141)) is located below the rotation axis of the wrench.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the closet prior art is Houle (US20160008866A1), however in the opinion of the Examiner that the arts of record neither anticipates nor render obvious the limitations of the claim as recited.
Claims 6-7 are depended from claim 5.
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725