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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC
§ 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that “In response, a portion of allowable claim 5 has been incorporated into independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 now recites "wherein the oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston." While claim 5 is indicated in the current Office Action as being allowable over the utilized prior art, it is respectfully submitted that this portion of claim 5 alone is allowable over the utilized prior art. For instance, in Houle, the cited oil bag 126 is not between the cited plunger 141 and the cited piston 130. Mikhajlovich is cited for the asserted teaching of features relating to the handle, wrench and plunger. This document fails to teach an oil bag or that an oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston.Wang is cited in the rejection of certain dependent claims. This document discloses a hose clamp that includes a handle, a pin shaft and a fixed plier head. This document also fails to teach an oil bag or that an oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is allowable over the utilized prior art.
In response to this argument, the prior art of Houle discloses a plunger (fig.3: (141)); an oil bag (fig.3: (126)); and a piston (fig.3: (130));
Houle does not disclose wherein the oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange a plunger; an oil bag; and a piston of Houle to be wherein the oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston, since it has held that Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). (MPEP 2144.04, VI C).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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 wherein the oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston;
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rearrange a plunger; an oil bag; and a piston of Houle to be wherein the oil bag is located between the plunger and the piston, since it has held that Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). (MPEP 2144.04, VI C).
PNG
media_image1.png
704
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Houle does not disclose the handle and the wrench being configured to, in a case that a 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.
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 a 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 a 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 8-9 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 claims 4 and 8, Houle in view Mikhajlovich and Wang does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4 and 8;
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°; and wherein an upper part of the handle extends towards a side away from the wrench to form a protruding part; the oil bag sleeves the pipe expanding tube; a plunger chamber is formed in the pipe expanding tube, and one end of the plunger is located in the plunger chamber, 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, an upper end of the wrench (fig.3: (143)) is rotatably connected with the handle, and the plunger (fig.3: (141)) is located below a rotation axis of the wrench.
Therefore, the modification of Houle in view Mikhajlovich and Wang the limitations of claim 9.
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.
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 limitation of “wherein the wrench groove comprises a side groove in a side close to the wrench and a top surface groove in a top of the handle, the side groove is communicated with the top groove, a pair of brackets are provided in the handle, upper ends of the brackets are higher than the handle, and the wrench is rotatably connected with the brackets; an upper end of the wrench is provided with two parallel parts, and a roller for abutting the plunger is provided between the two parallel parts, and a rotation axis of the roller is higher than a rotation axis of the wrench” in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 6-7 are depended from claim 5.
Claim 5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights