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 September 26, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Currently, no claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 9-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans (3931749, i.e. the embodiment in Figure 13).
In reference to claims 1 and 17, Evans discloses a spanner tool (18, see Figure 13), comprising:
a proximal end (see figure below) having an interior surface (see figure below) and an exterior surface (see figure below), wherein the interior surface defines at least in part a span (see figure below) capable to accept a threaded connector (The examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “to accept a threaded connector” and since, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since the device, of Evans, has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims, it is capable of being used to accept a threaded connector);
a distal end (see figure below) connected to the exterior surface of the proximal end, wherein the distal end is able to receive a force (i.e. from square drive 66, similar to the square drive 116, as shown by applicant in Figure 1) to rotate the proximal end; and
a pair of prongs (see figure below) positioned at least partially on the interior surface and having opposing surfaces dimensioned to accept slotted surfaces of the threaded connector, the opposing surfaces to move together with the proximal end to rotate the threaded connector when in contact with the slotted surfaces.
The examiner notes the method claim 17 merely discloses the normal operation of the device of claim 1 and therefore the same reasoning as previously discussed above for claim 1 applies mutatis mutandis to the subject matter of claim 17.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
398
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, The examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “the threaded connector is a D38999 electrical connector.” and since, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since the device, of Evans, has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims, it is capable of being used to accept a D38999 electrical connector.
In reference to claim 3, Evans discloses that that the interior surface and the exterior surface define an open end (i.e. the upper end of the proximal end in the annotated figure above) of the proximal end (see figure above).
In reference to claim 4, Evans discloses that the proximal end includes a fixed jaw (i.e. at 28).
In reference to claim 5, Evans discloses that the distal end is able to receive (i.e. at 66) a removable ratcheting handle (Column 6, Lines 39-42).
In reference to claim 6, Evans discloses that the opposing surfaces of the pair of prongs are positioned 180 degrees apart (because they are located directly opposite to each other in Figure 13).
In reference to claim 9, Evans discloses a wrench head (18, Figure 13), comprising:
a main body (18);
a first tooth (see figure below) jutting inwardly from the main body; and
a second tooth (see figure below) jutting inwardly from the main body across from the first tooth, the first tooth and second tooth positioned to apply torque. The examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “in response to a rotation of the main body, to two corresponding grooves of a rotatable connector” and since, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since the device, of Evans, has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims, it is capable of being used for rotating “two corresponding grooves of a rotatable connector”).
[AltContent: textbox (Second tooth)][AltContent: textbox (First tooth)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Fixed distance)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
295
227
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 10, The examiner notes that the following limitation is considered intended use, “the rotatable connector is a 38999 Series III or Series IV connector.” and since, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this situation, since the device, of Evans, has met all of the previous structural limitations of the claims, it is capable of being used with a 38999 Series III or Series IV connector.
In reference to claim 11, Evans discloses that that the main body includes an open end (i.e. the upper end of the main body in the annotated figure above on page 7).
In reference to claim 12, Evans discloses that that the first tooth and the second tooth are separated by a fixed distance (see annotated figure above on page 7).
In reference to claim 13, Evans discloses that the main body is able to receive (i.e. at 66) a handle (Column 6, Lines 39-42).
In reference to claim 14, Evans discloses that the main body, the first tooth, and the second tooth are a single piece (Figure 13).
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 5, 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (3931749, i.e. the embodiment in Figure 13) in view of Saavedra et al. (2024/0359297).
In further reference to claim 5, and assuming arguendo that Evans lacks,
that the distal end is able to receive a removable ratcheting handle, then Saavedra et al. is used for such a teaching.
Saavedra et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar spanner wrench (20) comprising; a distal end (30) having a square drive (52) for receiving a removable ratcheting handle (60, paragraph 42 and Figure 4).
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 removable handle, of Evans, with the known technique of providing the removable ratcheting handle, as taught by Saavedra et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively receives a connector of a ratchet extension or a connector of a ratchet (paragraph 42) thereby allowing a user to more easily operate the device during normal operation.
In reference to claim 7, Evans discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
the opposing surfaces of the pair of prongs are at least partially comprised of a material softer than the slotted surfaces of the threaded connector.
However, Saavedra et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar spanner wrench (20) comprising; a removable sleeve/covering (26) made from a soft material (i.e. nylon, see paragraph 49) that “wraps circumferentially about (e.g., completely around) the respective head jaw 42.” (see paragraph 48), and wherein the material of the sleeve/covering (26), is configured to be a “softer surface to reduce process induced damage (PID) when removing and/or installing the mechanical component with the wrench 20.” (see paragraph 49).
Thus, when combined with Evans, the proximal end including the opposing surfaces of the pair of prongs/jaws (28), of Evans, would be covered with the sleeve/covering (26), as taught by Saavedra et al. (also see paragraph 48 for disclosing that, “The wrench adaptor 26 and each of its adaptor jaws 70 thereby at least partially (or completely) covers each respective head jaw 42.”). And, depending on the material of the slotted surfaces of the threaded connector, the nylon material, as taught by Saavedra et al., would obviously be softer than the slotted surfaces of the threaded connector.
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 spanner wrench, of Evans, with the known technique of providing a spanner wrench with the removable sleeve/covering, as taught by Saavedra et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively reduces process induced damage (PID) when removing and/or installing the mechanical component with the wrench (paragraph 49).
In reference to claims 8 and 16, Saavedra et al. disclose that the material is potentially removable (i.e. by overcoming the friction fit, see paragraph 48).
In reference to claim 15, Evans discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack,
at least one of the first tooth or the second tooth include a covering comprised of a material softer than the corresponding grooves of the rotatable connector.
However, Saavedra et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar spanner wrench (20) comprising; a removable sleeve/covering (26) made from a soft material (i.e. nylon, see paragraph 49) that “wraps circumferentially about (e.g., completely around) the respective head jaw 42.” (see paragraph 48), and wherein the material of the sleeve/covering (26), is configured to be a “softer surface to reduce process induced damage (PID) when removing and/or installing the mechanical component with the wrench 20.” (see paragraph 49).
Thus, when combined with Evans, the proximal end including the opposing surfaces of the pair of prongs/jaws (28), of Evans, would be covered with the sleeve/covering (26), as taught by Saavedra et al. (also see paragraph 48 for disclosing that, “The wrench adaptor 26 and each of its adaptor jaws 70 thereby at least partially (or completely) covers each respective head jaw 42.”). And, depending on the material of the slotted surfaces of the threaded connector, the nylon material, as taught by Saavedra et al., would obviously be softer than the slotted surfaces of the threaded connector.
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 spanner wrench, of Evans, with the known technique of providing a spanner wrench with the removable sleeve/covering, as taught by Saavedra et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively reduces process induced damage (PID) when removing and/or installing the mechanical component with the wrench (paragraph 49).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Evans (3931749, i.e. the embodiment in Figure 13) in view of Stier (6745648).
In reference to claim 18, Evans discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed above, but lacks,
the method step of positioning the threaded connector at a threaded opening before applying a force to the spanner device.
However, Stier teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar spanner wrench (20) with a method step of positioning a threaded connector (15) at a threaded opening (13) before applying a force to the spanner device (Figure 1).
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 spanner device, of Evans, with the known technique of providing a spanner device with the method step of positioning a threaded connector at a threaded opening before applying a force to the spanner device, as taught by Stier, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a threaded connector/lock nut that more effectively “mates with the spiral thread on the conduit end , and this is turned down into contact with the wall” (Column 3, Lines 12-14) and/or that facilities the speedy and efficient installation of electrical work in conduit (Column 1, Lines 9-11).
In reference to claim 19, Stier discloses that rotation of the threaded connector causes engagement or disengagement of the threaded connector with a threaded opening (Column 4, Lines 5-26).
In reference to claim 20, Stier discloses that receiving the pair of slotted surfaces further comprises: moving the spanner device, relative to the threaded connector, linearly along a rotational axis of a set of threads of the threaded connector (Column 4, Lines 5-26).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin (D1014208S) also discloses a spanner tool comprising: a proximal end (Figure 1) having an interior surface (Figure 1) and an exterior surface (Figure 1), wherein the interior surface defines at least in part a span (Figure 1) capable to accept a threaded connector; a distal end (Figure 1) connected to the exterior surface of the proximal end, wherein the distal end is able to receive a force (Figure 1) to rotate the proximal end; and a pair of prongs (Figure 1) positioned at least partially on the interior surface and having opposing surfaces dimensioned to accept slotted surfaces of the threaded connector, the opposing surfaces to move together with the proximal end to rotate the threaded connector when in contact with the slotted surfaces.
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