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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 6, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “locking member is…disposed around…at least a portion of the torque adjuster” (as in claims 10 and 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Note, Figures 1 and 4 show that the “locking member is…disposed around at least a portion of the handle (i.e. at portion 160) and is adjacent to at least a portion of the torque adjuster.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a torque adjuster” in claims 1 and 11. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the torque adjuster” as being, “a movable member 152 and a fixed member 154 that may be operably coupled to each other” (see paragraph 17). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a torque adjuster”, is being interpreted as a movable member and a fixed member and/or equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a locking member” in claim 1. However, claim limitations are read in view of the specification. In the instant case, the Specification in applicant’s PG-PUB describes “the locking member” as being, “annular in shape” (see paragraph 23). Thus, in view of the specification, the limitation, “a locking member”, is being interpreted as anything that is annular in shape and/or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-7 and 10-20 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 4 discloses that, “the locking member is permanently operably coupled to the torque wrench.” However, if the locking member is permanently coupled to the torque wrench, how would the torque adjuster “enable a torque setting…to be adjusted” (as required by independent claim 1)? In other words, if the locking member is permanently coupled to the torque wrench, how does the torque adjuster operate? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 5 discloses that, “the locking member must be removed from the torque wrench to change the torque setting via the torque adjuster.” However, independent claim 1 previously required the locking member to, “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (see last two lines of claim 1). Thus, if the locking member is removed from the wrench, how would it “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (as required in independent claim 1)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 6 discloses that, “locking member must be broken to be removed from the torque wrench.” However, independent claim 1 previously required the locking member to, “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (see last two lines of claim 1). Thus, if the locking member is removed from the wrench, how would it “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (as required in independent claim 1)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 7 discloses that the, “locking member cannot be reinstalled onto the torque wrench after being removed.” However, independent claim 1 previously required the locking member to, “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (see last two lines of claim 1). Thus, after the locking member has removed from the wrench, how would it “block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting” (as required in independent claim 1)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 10 discloses that the, “locking member is a heat shrunk wrap disposed around…at least a portion of the torque adjuster”. However, Figures 1 and 4 clearly show that the “locking member is a heat shrunk wrap disposed…adjacent to at least a portion of the torque adjuster. If the locking member was disposed around at least a portion of the torque adjuster, it is unclear how it would also be “disposed within the adjustment channel” which is located “between the handle and the torque adjuster” (as previously required by independent claim 1). It is also unclear how torque adjuster would properly operate (i.e. to “enable a torque setting…to be adjusted”) if the locking member was a heat shrunk wrap. Wouldn’t the heat shrunk wrap be a permanent attachment? If, the locking member is permanently attached to the wrench how would the torque adjuster enable a torque setting…to be adjusted? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 11 discloses that, “the locking member is permanently operably coupled to the torque wrench.” However, if the locking member is permanently coupled to the torque wrench, how would the torque adjuster be able to “change a torque setting” (as required by independent claim 11)? In other words, if the locking member is permanently coupled to the torque wrench, how does the torque adjuster operate? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 14 discloses that, “the locking member must be removed from the torque wrench to change the torque setting via the torque adjuster.” However, independent claim 11 previously required the locking member is, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (see last two lines of claim 11). Thus, if the locking member is removed from the wrench, how would it be, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (as required in independent claim 11)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 15 discloses that, “locking member must be broken to be removed from the torque wrench.” However, independent claim 11 previously required the locking member is, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (see last two lines of claim 11). Thus, if the locking member is removed from the wrench, how would it be, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (as required in independent claim 11)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 16 discloses that the, “locking member cannot be reinstalled onto the torque wrench after being removed.” However, independent claim 11 previously required the locking member is, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (see last two lines of claim 11). Thus, after the locking member has been removed from the wrench, how would it be, “permanently operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench” (as required in independent claim 11)? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 19 discloses that the, “locking member is a heat shrunk wrap disposed around…at least a portion of the torque adjuster”. However, Figures 1 and 4 clearly show that the “locking member is…disposed…adjacent to at least a portion of the torque adjuster. If the locking member was disposed around at least a portion of the torque adjuster, it is unclear how it would also be “disposed within the adjustment channel” which is located “between the handle and the torque adjuster” (as previously required by independent claim 11). It is also unclear how torque adjuster would properly operate (i.e. to “enable a torque setting…to be adjusted”) if the locking member was a heat shrunk wrap. Wouldn’t the heat shrunk wrap be a permanent attachment? If, the locking member is permanently attached to the wrench how would the torque adjuster enable a torque setting…to be adjusted? Further clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beckwith et al. (2021/0069877).
In reference to claim 1, Beckwith et al. disclose a torque wrench (100) comprising:
a head (110) including a driving member (114) configured to be operably coupled to a socket (Figures 1a-1b);
a handle (132);
a lever arm (120) operably coupled to the head and the handle at respective opposing ends thereof (Figures 1a-1b);
a torque adjuster (i.e. movable member 152 and fixed member 154, see Figure 2, which meet the limitation of the torque adjuster, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) configured to enable a torque setting of the torque wrench to be adjusted (see following portion of paragraph 8 disclosing that, “a torque adjuster configured to enable a torque setting of the torque wrench to be adjusted.”); and
an adjustment channel (see figure below but is generally formed as the space between 152 and 132 in Figure 5) disposed between the handle and the torque adjuster;
wherein a locking member (at annular portion 144 or under a second interpretation at annular portion 146 or under a third interpretation at annular portions 144 and 146, Figure 2, all of which meet the limitation of the annular locking member, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) is disposed within the adjustment channel to block the torque adjuster from changing the torque setting (see following portion of paragraph 25 disclosing that, “The second end cap 144 may be moved (e.g., by either being rotated or pulled in the direction of the force arrow in FIG. 3) between a locked position and an unlocked position. When the second end cap 144 is in the locked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be inhibited. When the second end cap 144 is in the unlocked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be permitted and such movement may correspondingly adjust the tension of the spring.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
331
494
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 2 and 12, Beckwith et al. disclose that the torque adjuster comprises a collar (i.e. at 152 or at 144 under the second interpretation of the locking member as previously discussed above) slidable between an unlocked position, in which the torque setting is adjustable, and a locked position, in which the torque setting is fixed.
In reference to claims 3 and 13, Beckwith et al. disclose that the locking member blocks the collar from sliding into the unlocked position (see following portion of paragraph 25 disclosing that, “The second end cap 144 may be moved (e.g., by either being rotated or pulled in the direction of the force arrow in FIG. 3) between a locked position and an unlocked position. When the second end cap 144 is in the locked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be inhibited. When the second end cap 144 is in the unlocked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be permitted and such movement may correspondingly adjust the tension of the spring.”).
In reference to claim 4, Beckwith et al. disclose that the locking member is permanently operably coupled to the torque wrench (at least when the tool has been fully assembled).
In reference to claims 5 and 14, As Best Understood, Beckwith et al. disclose that the locking member must be removed from the torque wrench (i.e. removed from the locked position of the torque wrench) to change the torque setting via the torque adjuster (see following portion of paragraph 25 disclosing that, “The second end cap 144 may be moved (e.g., by either being rotated or pulled in the direction of the force arrow in FIG. 3) between a locked position and an unlocked position. When the second end cap 144 is in the locked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be inhibited. When the second end cap 144 is in the unlocked position, movement of the movable member 152 may be permitted and such movement may correspondingly adjust the tension of the spring.”).
In reference to claims 6 and 15, As Best Understood, the examiner notes that this claim includes an intended use limitation (i.e. the “locking member must be broken to be removed from the torque wrench.”). However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this situation, the locking member is capable of being broken thereby meeting the limitation of the claim.
In reference to claims 7 and 16, As Best Understood, after the locking member has been broken, it cannot be reinstalled onto the torque wrench after being removed, again because it has been broken.
In reference to claims 10 and 19, As Best Understood, the examiner notes that these claims disclose method steps of forming the device (i.e. the locking member is a heat shrunk wrap), and the method of forming the device (i.e. heat shrinking the locking member) is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation of “the locking member is a heat shrunk wrap” has not been given patentable weight. Thus, since the locking member (at annular portion 144 or under a second interpretation at annular portion 146 or under a third interpretation at annular portions 144 and 146) is a wrap (see Figure 4), it meets the limitation of the claim.
In reference to claim 11, As Best Understood, Beckwith et al. disclose a locking member (at annular portion 144 or under a second interpretation at annular portion 146 or under a third interpretation at annular portions 144 and 146, Figure 2, all of which meet the limitation of the annular locking member, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6b above) for an adjustable torque wrench (100),
wherein the locking member prohibits the adjustable torque wrench from changing a torque setting by blocking a torque adjuster (i.e. movable member 152 and fixed member 154, see Figure 2, which meet the limitation of the torque adjuster, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 6a above) of the adjustable torque wrench,
wherein the locking member is disposed within an adjustment channel (see figure on page 12 above but is generally formed as the space between 152 and 132 in Figure 5) of the torque wrench that is disposed between a handle (132) and the torque adjuster, and wherein the locking member is permanently (at least when the tool has been fully assembled) operably coupled to the adjustable torque wrench (Figure 1).
In reference to claim 20, Beckwith et al. disclose that the locking member (note; all the interpretations of the locking portion as previously discussed above with respect to claim 11 are annular in shape) is annular in shape (Figure 5).
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 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckwith et al. (2021/0069877) in view of Ballsieper et al. (2018/0050442).
In reference to claims 8, 9, 17 and 18, Beckwith et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack explicitly disclosing that,
the locking member is comprised of a plastic material or an epoxy.
However, Ballsieper et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a locking member (i.e. locking ring 8) from a plastic material or an epoxy material (see paragraph 40 and note “epoxy” is a type of plastic material. Thus, disclosing the use of plastic includes epoxy materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the material of the locking member, of Beckwith et al., with the known technique of forming a locking member from the plastic material or the epoxy material, as taught by Ballsieper et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a locking component having a desired strength (because it can be made from “different materials or from hybrid component”, paragraph 40) as needed by the user.
Claims 10 and 19 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beckwith et al. (2021/0069877) in view of DeBaker (2011/0197721).
In further reference to claims 10 and 19, Beckwith et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the locking member is a heat shrunk wrap disposed around at least a portion of the handle and at least a portion of the torque adjuster.
However, DeBaker also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a sleeve (i.e. at 50, which is similar to the sleeve like locking member of Beckwith et al.) by heat-shrinking (paragraph 65) the sleeve around a portion (at 54, Figure 6) of a handle (at 14 or at 22, Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the attachment of the locking member around a portion of the handle, of Beckwith et al., with the known technique of attaching a similar sleeve like member around a portion of a handle by heat-shrinking, as taught by DeBaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively attaches and shrinks the locking member around at least a portion of the handle (paragraph 65) thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Olashaw (3868874) teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to attach a sleeve (i.e. at 44, which is similar to the sleeve like locking member of Beckwith et al.) by heat-shrinking (Column 2, Lines 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights