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) 1-8, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norquist et al. (US 2020/0298388) in view of Weigand (US Patent No. 4,842,249).
Claim 1:
Norquist teaches a crimping head (at least figures 1 and 7A-C) coupled to a hydraulic power unit (100), the crimping head comprising: a clevis (108) having a first arm (602) and a second arm (604) defining a gap therebetween in which a workpiece to be crimped is positioned, a nest (700) having a first end (702) pivotably coupled to the first arm with a first pin (706) and an opposite, second end (704) selectively coupled to the second arm (604) with a second pin (708) to rigidly affix the nest to the clevis, a first bore in the first arm (para. [0080]; figures 7), the first pin being received within the first bore for relative rotation therewith (para. [0080]; figures 7), and a second bore in the second arm (para. [0081]; figures 7), the second pin being selectively received within the second bore (paras. [0081]-[0090]; figures 7).
Norquist does not explicitly teach a first sleeve received within a first bore in the first arm, a second sleeve received within a second bore in the second arm, a third sleeve received within the first bore opposite the first sleeve, a fourth sleeve received within the second bore opposite the second sleeve, wherein the first pin is received within bot the first sleeve and the third sleeve for relative rotation therewith, wherein the second pin is slidable received within both the second sleeve and the fourth sleeve, and wherein a hardness of the first, second, third and fourth sleeves is greater than a hardness of the clevis.
Weigand teaches inserting sleeves (60, 80) within the bores of a clamping tool (20) (see figures 1-7) which sleeves receive respective pins (66, 102), wherein a hardness of the sleeve is greater than a hardness of the tool arm (24) (sleeves 60, 80 made of hardened steel; arm 24 made of aluminum alloy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated sleeves formed of material harder than the bore for receiving the pins, as taught by Weigand, in the crimping head of Norquist in order to provide sufficient strength and hardness to the bore to provide the necessary crimping force while enabling the body of the tool to be formed of a more ductile and resilient material to promote greater tool life.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the bores with either a single sleeve, as explicitly shown in Weigand, or a pair of sleeves since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements, and/or mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Here, the provision of pairs of sleeves would allow the sleeves to be inserted from opposite sides of the bore thereby significantly reducing the distance that the sleeves would need to be pressed in order to be fully inserted.
Claim 2:
Norquist teaches that the first pin (706) includes a first end (top, figure 7B) and an opposite, second end (bottom), wherein the first pin includes a radially outward extending flange at the first end engaged with the first arm (figure 7B), wherein the first pin includes a circumferential groove at the second end (bottom figure 7B) in which a retaining clip (figure 1 shows a clip on the fixed pin, 124) is received, and wherein the flange and retaining clip, collectively, axially retain the first pin within the first bore (figures 1 and 7).
Claim 3:
Norquist teaches a quick-release latch (726) selectively locking the second pin within the second bore.
Claim 4:
Norquist teaches that the quick-release latch is movable between a locked position, in which the second pin is axially retained within the second bore, and a release position, in which the second pin is removable from the second bore to permit the nest to pivot about the first pin away from the clevis (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 5:
Norquist teaches that the quick-release latch is pivotable between the locked position and the release position, and wherein the quick-release latch is biased towards the locked position (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 6:
Norquist teaches a spring biasing the second pin out of the second bore to facilitate removal of the second pin from the second bore when the quick-release latch is in the release position (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 7:
Norquist, as modified by Weigand, teaches that each of the first and second sleeves is made from steel, and wherein the clevis is made from Aluminum (Weigand; sleeves 60, 80 made of hardened steel; arm 24 made of aluminum alloy).
Claim 8:
Weigand teaches that the pins (66) are made from steel (c. 2, l. 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the hardened steel pins of Weigand as the material for the pins in the device of Norquist since Norquist is silent as to the material of the pins and Weigand teaches that hardened steel is suitable in the context of clamping and compression tools with pinned connections.
Claim 18:
Norquist teaches a hydraulic power tool (figures 1 and 7A-C) comprising: a hydraulic power unit (100); and a crimping head coupled to the hydraulic power unit, the crimping head including a clevis (108) having a first arm (602) and a second arm (604) defining a gap therebetween in which a workpiece to be crimped is positioned, a nest (700) having a first end (702) pivotably coupled to the first arm with a first pin (706) and an opposite, second end (704) selectively coupled to the second arm (604) with a second pin (708) to rigidly affix the nest to the clevis, a first bore in the first arm (para. [0080]; figures 7), the first pin being received within the first bore for relative rotation therewith (para. [0080]; figures 7), and a second bore in the second arm (para. [0081]; figures 7), the second pin being selectively received within the second bore (paras. [0081]-[0090]; figures 7).
Norquist does not explicitly teach a first sleeve received within a first bore in the first arm, a second sleeve received within a second bore in the second arm, a third sleeve received within the first bore opposite the first sleeve, and a fourth sleeve received within the second bore opposite the second sleeve, wherein the first pin is received within both the first sleeve and the third sleeve for relative rotation therewith, wherein the second pin is slidably received within both the second sleeve and the fourth sleeve, and wherein a hardness of the first, second, third, and fourth sleeves is greater than a hardness of the clevis.
Weigand teaches inserting sleeves (60, 80) within the bores of a clamping tool (20) (see figures 1-7) which sleeves receive respective pins (66, 102), wherein a hardness of the sleeve is greater than a hardness of the tool arm (24) (sleeves 60, 80 made of hardened steel; arm 24 made of aluminum alloy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated sleeves formed of material harder than the bore for receiving the pins, as taught by Weigand, in the crimping head of Norquist in order to provide sufficient strength and hardness to the bore to provide the necessary crimping force while enabling the body of the tool to be formed of a more ductile and resilient material to promote greater tool life.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the bores with either a single sleeve, as explicitly shown in Weigand, or a pair of sleeves since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements, and/or mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Here, the provision of pairs of sleeves would allow the sleeves to be inserted from opposite sides of the bore thereby significantly reducing the distance that the sleeves would need to be pressed in order to be fully inserted.
Claim 11:
Norquist teaches a quick-release latch (726) selectively locking the second pin within the second bore.
Claim 12:
Norquist teaches that the quick-release latch is movable between a locked position, in which the second pin is axially retained within the second bore, and a release position, in which the second pin is removable from the second bore to permit the nest to pivot about the first pin away from the clevis (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 13:
Norquist teaches that the quick-release latch is pivotable between the locked position and the release position, and wherein the quick-release latch is biased towards the locked position (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 14:
Norquist teaches that the crimping head further comprises a spring biasing the second pin out of the second bore to facilitate removal of the second pin from the second bore when the quick-release latch is in the release position (paras. [0082]-[0090]).
Claim 15:
Norquist, as modified by Weigand, teaches that each of the first and second sleeves is made from steel, and wherein the clevis is made from Aluminum (Weigand; sleeves 60, 80 made of hardened steel; arm 24 made of aluminum alloy).
Claim 16:
Weigand teaches that the pins (66) are made from steel (c. 2, l. 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the hardened steel pins of Weigand as the material for the pins in the device of Norquist since Norquist is silent as to the material of the pins and Weigand teaches that hardened steel is suitable in the context of clamping and compression tools with pinned connections.
Claim 17:
Weigand teaches that the first sleeve is removably coupled to the first bore and the second sleeve is removably coupled to the second bore (figures 1-7).
Claim 19:
Norquist, as modified by Weigand, teaches that each of the sleeves is made from steel, and wherein the clevis is made from Aluminum (Weigand; sleeves 60, 80 made of hardened steel; arm 24 made of aluminum alloy). Weigand further teaches that the pins (66) are made from steel (c. 2, l. 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the hardened steel pins of Weigand as the material for the pins in the device of Norquist since Norquist is silent as to the material of the pins and Weigand teaches that hardened steel is suitable in the context of clamping and compression tools with pinned connections.
Claim 20:
Norquist teaches that the crimping head further comprises a quick-release latch (726) selectively locking the second pin within the second bore, wherein the first pin (706) includes a first end (top, figure 7B) and an opposite, second end (bottom), wherein the first pin includes a radially outward extending flange at the first end engaged with the first arm (figure 7B), wherein the first pin includes a circumferential groove at the second end (bottom figure 7B) in which a retaining clip (figure 1 shows a clip on the fixed pin, 124) is received, and wherein the flange and retaining clip, collectively, axially retain the first pin within the first bore (figures 1 and 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With reference to original claim 18, applicant alleges that:
“Weigand does not teach or suggest a first sleeve and a third sleeve received within opposite sides of a first bore collectively supporting rotational movement of a first pin, or a second sleeve and a fourth sleeve received within opposite sides of a second bore collectively supporting a sliding movement of a second pin. More specifically, Weigand does not teach or suggest a pin extending through and being supported by two separate sleeves received within opposite sides of a bore. Rather, Weigand discloses only a single sleeve 60, 80 associated with each pin 66, 102 and therefore does not disclose the claimed four-sleeve arrangement.
(Remarks, pg. 8)
The examiner notes that the previous (and current) rejection of claim 18 relies on Weigand for the teaching of providing sleeves within bores of a clamping tool, wherein the sleeves receive pins, and wherein a hardness of the sleeve is greater than the tool/clevis. The examiner does not allege that Weigand, in isolation, teaches two sleeves on each pin. In fact, the examiner agrees with applicant’s conclusion that “Weigand discloses only a single sleeve 60, 80 associated with each pin 66, 102 and therefore does not disclose the claimed four-sleeve arrangement,” which is noted in the previous rejection.
However, the mere fact that Weigand fails to explicitly disclose the claimed four-sleeve arrangement is not dispositive of the obviousness of the four-sleeve arrangement to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed in light of the cited art. When considering the obviousness of the four-sleeve arrangement in light of the teachings of the prior art, the examiner noted that:
“it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide each of the bores with either a single sleeve, as explicitly shown in Weigand, or a pair of sleeves since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements, and/or mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179; St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.”
Further, the examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to construct a formerly integral sleeve structure in various elements, particularly duplicates of the essential parts, since “the provision of pairs of sleeves would allow the sleeves to be inserted from opposite sides of the bore thereby significantly reducing the distance that the sleeves would need to be pressed in order to be fully inserted.”
Accordingly the applicant’s remarks with respect to claim 18 have not been found persuasive to overcome the evidence of obviousness.
Independent claim 1 was amended to incorporate the structure of claim 18 discussed above and is similarly rejected for the reasons stated by the examiner.
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
