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 § 102
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 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, 5-6, 8-11, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Zanoni (US 20210347028 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Zanoni teaches a multi-piece pry bar, comprising:
a singular pry bar piece (Figure 1, element 101) having a shaft (Figure 1, element 1100-A) connected to a claw section (Figure 1, element 1401a)
the shaft having a shaft body with a top side (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a bottom side opposite to the top side (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a front shaft end connected to the claw section (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a rear shaft portion with an interlocking mechanism (Figure 1, element 1600-A is the interlocking mechanism and defines the start of the rear shaft portion)
and a first handle opening (Figure 1, element 1101d) extending longitudinally in between the front shaft end and the rear shaft portion (element 1101d extends in a longitudinal direction between the from and rear shaft portion)
the claw section (Figure 2, element 1400-A) having a curved body (Figure 1, see annotated figure above) with a rear planar segment (Figure 1, see annotated figure above) connected to the front shaft end (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a front planar segment (Figure 6, element 1401h) having a prying edge (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
PNG
media_image2.png
825
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a curved segment between the rear planar segment and the front planar segment (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
the curved segment having an outer curved surface making up a heel of the claw section (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
the heel being on a same side as the bottom side of the shaft body (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
and a handle extension piece (Figure 2, element 2200-A) removably attachable to the rear shaft portion of the singular pry bar piece via the interlocking mechanism (Figure 2, element 1600-A attaches the handle extension to the singular pry bar piece, element 101)
PNG
media_image3.png
785
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the handle extension piece (Figure 11, element 2200-A) having an extension body with an upper side that connects with the top side of the shaft body (Figure 11, see annotated figure above)
a lower side that connects with the bottom side of the shaft body (Figure 11, see annotated figure above)
a front extension end (Figure 11, element 201 defines the front extension end) configured to be attached to the rear shaft portion (Figure 11, element 202a is a locking hole that allows element 201 to be attached to the rear shaft portion’s interlock mechanism)
a rear extension portion (Figure 11, element F2-204 defines the rear extension portion)
and a second handle opening (Figure 11, element 202a is a second handle opening) extending longitudinally in between the front extension end and the rear extension portion (element 202a extends in a longitudinal direction between the front and rear extension end)
Regarding claim 5, Zanoni teaches wherein the first handle opening (Figure 1, element 1101d) and the second handle opening (Figure 11, element 202a is a second handle opening) are each large enough to be gripped by two hands (Figure 1, element 1101d and Figure 11, element 202a can both have two hands fit around them).
Regarding claim 6, Zanoni teaches further comprising at least one of a hammer extension piece, an axe extension piece (Figure 11, element 2300-A), or a wrench extension piece that are removably attachable to the rear shaft portion of the singular pry bar piece via the interlocking mechanism (Figure 11, element 202a is a locking hole in the axe that allows element 201 to be attached to the rear shaft portion’s interlock mechanism).
PNG
media_image4.png
627
878
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Zanoni teaches wherein the first handle opening (Figure 1, element 1101d) has a first longitudinal length between a first side near the claw section and a second side near the rear shaft portion (Figure 19a, see annotated figure above), the first longitudinal length inclining downwards from the first side towards the second side (Figure 19a, see annotated figure above).
PNG
media_image5.png
665
891
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Zanoni teaches wherein the second handle opening (Figure 11, element 202a is a second handle opening) has a second longitudinal length between a third side near the front extension end and a fourth side near the rear extension portion (Figure 12, see annotated figure above), the second longitudinal length inclining downwards from the third side towards the fourth side (Figure 12, see annotated figure above).
PNG
media_image6.png
627
878
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Zanoni teaches wherein the first handle opening (Figure 1, element 1101d) has a first longitudinal length between a first side near the claw section and a second side near the rear shaft portion (Figure 19a, see annotated figure above), the first longitudinal length inclining upwards from the first side towards the second side (Figure 19a, see annotated figure above).
PNG
media_image7.png
660
891
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Zanoni teaches wherein the second handle opening (Figure 11, element 202a is a second handle opening) has a second longitudinal length between a third side near the front extension end and a fourth side near the rear extension portion (Figure 12, see annotated figure above), the second longitudinal length inclining upwards from the third side towards the fourth side (Figure 12, see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 14, Zanoni teaches a tying hole (par. 0129, lines 4-5, the through hole could have something tied to it) near the rear extension portion (Figure 11, element F2-204 defines the rear extension portion) of the handle extension piece (Figure 11, element 2200-A).
PNG
media_image1.png
891
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Zanoni teaches a pry bar, comprising:
a shaft having a shaft body (Figure 1, element 1100-A) with a top side (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a bottom side opposite to the top side (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a front shaft end (Figure 1see annotated figure above)
a rear shaft portion (Figure 1, element 1600-A defines the start of the rear shaft portion)
and a first handle opening (Figure 1, element 1101d) extending longitudinally in between the front shaft end and the rear shaft portion (element 1101d extends in a longitudinal direction between the from and rear shaft portion)
and a claw section (Figure 2, element 1400-A) having a curved body (Figure 1, see annotated figure above) with a rear planar segment (Figure 1, see annotated figure above) connected to the front shaft end (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
a front planar segment having a prying edge (Figure 1, see annotated figure above)
PNG
media_image2.png
825
1024
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and a curved segment between the rear planar segment and the front planar segment (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
the curved segment having an outer curved surface making up a heel of the claw section (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
the heel being on a same side as the bottom side of the shaft body (Figure 4, see annotated figure above)
Regarding claim 16, Zanoni teaches wherein an L-shaped bracket is attachable to the top side of the shaft (Figure 1, see first annotated figure in this document, an L-shaped bracket could be attached to the top side of the shaft by a number of methods such as self-tapping screws or adhesive).
Regarding claim 20, Zanoni teaches wherein the shaft has a tying hole (Figure 1, element 1101F is a hole that could have something tied to it) proximate to the rear shaft portion (Figure 1, element 1600-A defines the start of the rear shaft portion).
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 2, 4, 7, 12-13, and 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zanoni (US 20210347028 A1).
PNG
media_image8.png
386
469
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Zanoni does not explicitly teach the multi-piece pry bar of claim 1, wherein the prying edge of the claw section has a V-shaped groove. However, Zanoni does teach a separate claw attachment (Figure 3, element 1500-A) with a V-shaped grove (Figure 3, see annotated figure above). In addition, this V-shaped groove is well known in the art for the purpose of removing nails. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the V-shaped groove to the other claw for the purpose of allowing nails to be removed with that claw.
Regarding claim 4, Zanoni does not teach wherein the shaft has a first width and the claw section has a second width, the second width being at least 1.5 times greater than the first width. However, it is well known in the art that adding material to a structure will generally make it stronger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the claw section wider than the shaft section including approximately being greater than 50% of the shaft width to make it strong enough to not break while prying. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 (II -A)
Regarding claim 7, Zanoni does not teach wherein the interlocking mechanism is a detent mechanism. However, paragraph 0013 of the background instant invention reveals “In some embodiments, the interlocking mechanism may be a detent mechanism.” Detent mechanisms are also well known in the art. In the absence of criticality to the exact interlocking mechanism chosen, it would it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a detent mechanism for the interlock as a sturdy, quick to actuate mechanism that does not take up much space.
8-11 here
Regarding claim 12, Zanoni does not teach wherein the first and second handle openings each have a plurality of finger gripping grooves. However, Zanoni does teach a grip aid which could be grooves (par. 0095, lines 7-10). In addition, paragraph 0016 of the instant invention reveals “In some embodiments, the first and second handle openings may each have a plurality of finger gripping grooves.” Grooves to improve the ability for fingers to grip something are also well known in the art. In the absence of criticality to the exact method of adding grip, it would it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add finger gripping groves to the openings as needed to improve a person’s grip on the pry bar to make it easier to use and prevent injury.
PNG
media_image9.png
359
789
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Zanoni teaches wherein the first handle opening is trapezoidal shaped (Figure 19a, see annotated figure above). Zandoni does not teach the second handle opening being trapezoidal. However, since Zanoni teaches trapezoidal openings, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Zanoni’s trapezoidal opening for both the first and second openings.
Regarding claim 19, Zanoni does not teach wherein the first handle opening is only large enough to be gripped by one hand. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first handle opening small enough for one hand only to prevent the hand in there from slipping along the length of the shaft.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zanoni (US 20210347028 A1) and Brandt (US 20020117521 A1).
PNG
media_image10.png
220
341
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Zanoni does not teach wherein the front planar segment of the claw section has a keyhole slot. Brandt does teach wherein the front planar segment of the claw section (Figure 1, see annotated figure above) has a keyhole slot (Figure 1, see annotated figure above). In addition, these keyhole slots are well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the keyhole slot to Zanoni to add an additional way to remove nails without damaging the surface below.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zanoni (US 20210347028 A1) and Bo (CN 219902042 U).
Regarding claim 18, Zanoni does not teach wherein a portion of the bottom side of the shaft near the front shaft end has a threaded hole for a hammer head to be attached to the pry bar. However, Bo teaches a hammer head (Figure 1, element 11) as part of a multi tool including a prybar attachment (Figure 1, element 33). In addition, threaded holes for attaching something to something else are well known in the art, as seen in Zanoni (par. 0016, “the pin of the quick-securing mechanism further comprises a threaded portion interlocked with the threaded portion of the dial.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a threaded hole to add a hammer head to the bottom front shaft end of Zanoni to allow the multi-functional prybar to have even more functions while not impeding the usability of the prying claw.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zanoni (US 20210347028 A1) and Sim (US 20100140574 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zanoni does not teach wherein an L-shaped bracket is integrated to the top side of the shaft. However, Sim teaches an L-Shaped bracket integrated into a side of the shaft (Figure 4, element 26). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the L-Bracket of Sim on the top side of the shaft to give an easy place for someone to grip on the pry bar while also giving them more leverage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA MOY whose telephone number is (571)272-0439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/JOSHUA MOY/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
