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 because reference numerals cannot be underlined unless they do not have a reference line and are found on top of a structure, see 37CFR1.84(q). 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it discusses the purported merits, e.g. “labor-saving”, “daily use…improvement…labor-saving”, “strong gripping force and cutting force”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “Brief Description of Drawings” should not contain a list of reference numerals found in the figures. This should be saved for the “Detailed Description.”
37 CFR 1.74 Reference to drawings.
When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures, and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vassiliou (U.S Patent No. 4,890,520).
Regarding claim 1, Vasiliou teaches (Figures 1 and 2) a pair of pliers. The pair of pliers comprises a first jaw (14) connected to a first handle (30) as an integral structure, a second jaw (16), and a second handle (32). The first and second jaws are hinged via a hinge pivot (46). A downward outer tooth part (44) is provided at a transition between the first jaw and first handle (Figure 2) and a handle tooth part (50) provided at the top of the second handle (32) meshes with the downward outer tooth part. An upper part of the second handle (32) is hinged to the second jaw (16) via a second hinge pivot (54).
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 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasiliou in view of Kleffman (U.S Patent No. 930,973).
Regarding claim 2, Vasiliou teaches (Figure 1) it is known to have multiple “use locations” (17 and 19) on the jaws (14 and 16) of a plier. However, Vasiliou fails to explicitly set forth the grips including flat grips at the top of the first and second jaw, pipe grips arranged below the flat grips, and cutters arranged at a lower part of the pipe grips.
Regarding claim 4, Vasiliou fails to teach a wire gripping part provided at a lower part of the hinge of the first and second handles.
Kleffman teaches (Figure 1) it is known in plier type tools to utilize a variety of jaw faces on opposing first and second jaws including flat clamping faces (23) at a top of each jaw followed by pipe gripping faces (15) and wire cutting faces (14). In addition, the handles have opposing surfaces (including surface 24) capable of interacting with each other to grip a wire. The device contains all of these tools to increase the tool’s utility and efficiency (page 1, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to have modified Vasiliou to incorporate the teachings of Kleffman to incorporate various cooperating faces into the first and second jaws, include flat clamping faces, gripping faces, and cutting faces, as well as utilize the handles to corresponding complete other tasks, including gripping wires for the express purpose of increasing the tool’s utility and efficiency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasiliou in view of Linden (U.S Patent No. 5,570,510).
Note: Linden also appears to anticipate both claims 1 and 3 as they are presently written.
Regarding claim 3, all of the elements of the current invention as stated above except the second handle having a groove where the handle tooth part is arranged at the top of the groove and the second jaw is overlapped on an inner surface of the groove.
Linden teaches (Figures 3 and 4) it is known in tools with pivoting handles and jaws that when connecting a second handle (14) to a second jaw (36) for the handle to have a groove (generally 94) which a tang (42) of the second jaw (36) rests adjacent to. Teeth (82) are located on the handle at the top of the groove and engage with cooperating teeth (80) on a first handle and jaw (12 and 22 respectively).
Vasiliou and Linden together teach known alternative for orienting and connecting a jaw relative to a handle, i.e. with a groove in the handle and without. Further, both options appear to work identically and effectively, i.e. there is no significant advantage of either, and as such does not constitute a patentable advance. Therefore it would have been to one of ordinary skill to modify Vasiliou by trying the grooved handle configuration as set forth by Linden as doing so would have yielded the predictable result of allowing a user to open and close the jaws while gripping the handles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Erickson (U.S Patent No. 2,084,633), Huang (U.S Patent No. 6,345,446), Adams (U.S Publication No. 20240123577), Zook (U.S Patent No. 6,552,522), and Seber (U.S Patent No. 5,964,131) teach elements of the current invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD F LANDRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-5567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero can be reached at 571-272-7839. 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.
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights