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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24, and 26-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hediel (US Patent No. 9089953).
In regards claim 21, Heidel discloses
Heidel discloses
a ratchet head (tool head 29, fig. 1-7) comprising:
a recessed housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) comprising
a ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) engaged with
a ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) where gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) fully engage
a first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) simultaneously with
a first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6,9; see fig. 9 - ann. 1) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) fully contacting
a first flat sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing while
a second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9),
separated from the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) by
a recessed area (see fig. 9 - ann. 1), is fully disengaged from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) and
PNG
media_image1.png
750
1243
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6,9; see fig. 9 - ann. 1) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) is fully disconnected from
a second flat sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing and a length of the second flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6,9; see fig. 9 - ann. 1) extends into and overlaps (col 8. Lines 12-18) a lever (switching mechanism 40, fig. 4; see fig. 7/9 – ann. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
524
1204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 23, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where the first flat sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) is at an acute angle (see fig. 9 – ann. 2) relative the second flat sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7).
PNG
media_image3.png
720
1261
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 24, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where an angle between the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9; fig. 9 – ann. 1) and the second flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9; fig. 9 – ann. 1) is less than an angle between first flat sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) and the second flat sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing.
PNG
media_image4.png
549
874
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 26, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where a position of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) within the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) is configured to change (column 6 lines 13-20) within the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) and relative to the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) by way of the lever (switching mechanism 40, fig. 4) extending into the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7).
column 6 lines 13-20: The locking pawl 62 is pivotally provided in the drive housing 12. Upon actuation of the operating element 38 the switching pin 54 affects the locking pawl 62 via the hinge connection 64. The locking pawl 62 then swivels about its pivot axis 66. The locking pawl 62 is provided with a toothing 68 facing the rotary part 26 (see also FIG. 4). A diametrical hole 70 with a spring 72 is provided in the switching pin 54.
In regards claim 27, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where the recessed area (see fig. 9 – ann. 4) is concave and forms a third arc between (see fig. 9 – ann. 4) the concave surface of the first set of (see fig. 9 – ann. 4) and the concave surface of the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann. 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
335
1020
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 28, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where the recessed area (see fig. 9 – ann. 5) extends further into the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) than the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9).
PNG
media_image6.png
346
1006
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 29, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where the bottom of the recessed area (see fig. 9 – ann. 6) is spaced from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9).
PNG
media_image7.png
355
1076
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 30, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where rotational stress on the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) transfers from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) to the first flat interior sidewall by way of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) from each tooth of the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann. 1) through the entire length of the substantially first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9).
Examiner’s Note: As Heidel anticipates the structure respectively recited in claim 1, then it would be anticipated that the rotational stress experienced by the tool and its distribution would occur in the same manner.
In regards claim 31, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) transfers between (column 6 lines 6-16) the first flat sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) and the second flat sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) and additionally rotates within the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) when transferring.
column 6 lines 6-16: The locking pawl 62 is pivotally provided in the drive housing 12. Upon actuation of the operating element 38 the switching pin 54 affects the locking pawl 62 via the hinge connection 64. The locking pawl 62 then swivels about its pivot axis 66.
In regards claim 32, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, wherein the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann.7) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann.7) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) extend across separate respective concave surfaces, each comprising the same radius as a radius (see fig. 5 and 9 as the pawl teeth are shown engaging the gear teeth) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) with the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9), opposite the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9), where the respective concave surfaces of the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann. 7) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann.7) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) are on different oriented arcs
PNG
media_image8.png
384
968
media_image8.png
Greyscale
to support the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann. 7) being fully engaged (col. 6 line 58 – col 7 line 1) with the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) while the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 – ann.7) are fully disengaged (see fig. 9; col. 6 line 58 – col. 7 line 1) from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9).
Examiner’s Note: As best understood, a skilled artisan would understand “corresponding engagement” and “release” would be understood as pertaining to the pawl transitioning from a stage of engagement with the gear to being disengaged from the pawl.
In regards claim 33, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 21, where a width of the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) varies (see fig. 9 – ann. 8).
PNG
media_image9.png
369
951
media_image9.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 34, Heidel discloses
a ratchet head (tool head 29, fig. 1-7) comprising:
a recessed housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) comprising
a ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) engaged with
a ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) therein, the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) having gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) about a perimeter and
a drive body (connector 20, fig. 1, 3, 5-7, 9) for engaging and rotating a workpiece; the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) having a concave face for engaging the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) where the concave face comprises
a first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 9) and
a second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 9) separated by a recessed area (see fig. 9 - ann. 9),
PNG
media_image10.png
362
1027
media_image10.png
Greyscale
the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) additionally comprising
a first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) and
a second flat stop wall (right side of wedge-like shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) extending from adjacent the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1), respectively, in a direction away from the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9);
an entire length (portion that contacts the housing surface) of the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) engages a first sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9) of the recessed housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) as all teeth of the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) fully engage the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 1) are fully disengaged (see fig. 9; col. 6 line 58 – col. 7 line 1) from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) and
a length of the second flat stop wall (right side of wedge-like shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) extends into and overlaps (col 8. Lines 12-18) a lever (switching mechanism 40, fig. 4; see fig. 7/9 - ann. 1).
In regards claim 35, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 34, where the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) and the first sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9) of the recessed housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) are opposing mating surfaces and the second flat stop wall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) and a second sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9) are opposing mating surfaces (see fig. 5 and 9).
In regards claim 36, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 34, where the recessed area (fig. 9 – ann. 10) is centrally positioned on and recessed (fig. 9 – ann. 10) into a front face of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9).
PNG
media_image11.png
372
965
media_image11.png
Greyscale
In regards claim 37, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head of claim 34, wherein the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) extend across separate respective concave surfaces, each comprising the same radius as a radius (see fig. 5 and 9 as the pawl teeth are shown engaging the gear teeth) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) with the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9), opposite the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9), where the separate respective concave surfaces of the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) and the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) of the ratchet pawl (locking pawl 62, fig. 3-7,9) are on different oriented arcs
PNG
media_image8.png
384
968
media_image8.png
Greyscale
to support having the first set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) fully engaged (col. 6 line 58 – col 7 line 1) with the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9) while the second set of teeth (see fig. 9 - ann. 7) are fully disengaged from the gear teeth (fine toothing, fig. 3-7,9) of the ratchet gear (rotary part 26, fig. 1,3-7,9).
Examiner’s Note: As best understood, a skilled artisan would understand “corresponding engagement” and “release” would be understood as pertaining to the pawl transitioning from a stage of engagement with the gear to being disengaged from the pawl.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidel (US Patent No. 9089953).
In regards to claim 22, Heidel discloses
the ratchet head (tool head 29, fig. 1-7) of claim 1, where the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) is at an acute angle relative the second flat stop wall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05(II), it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying angle between the two flat stop walls to have an angle within the claimed range, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Heidel discloses that there is an angle between the two flat stop walls, but is silent to the specific range for the angle to fall within. In other words, Heidel fails to explicitly disclose definite values the of angle of the between the two flat walls is to range between 0 to 90 degrees. The angle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that changing of this angle is directly proportional to the dimensions of the pawl, and thus its ability to engage the ratchet wheel. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle, was disclosed in the prior art by Heidel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the angle between the two flat stop walls disclosed by Heidel having a range between 0 to 90 degrees.
In regards claim 25,
the ratchet head of claim 24, where the angle between the first flat stop wall (outer surface of wedge-likes shape 88, fig. 4-6, 9) and the second flat stop wall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6, and 9) is within 10 to 20 degrees of the angle between the first flat sidewall (left housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7) and the second flat sidewall (right housing surface 90, fig. 5, 6 and 9) of the housing (drive housing 12, fig. 1-7).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05(II), it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying an angle between the two flat stop walls and two flat sidewalls to have a value within the claimed range, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Heidel discloses that there is an angle between the two flat stop walls and two flat sidewalls, but is silent to the specific range for the angle to fall within. In other words, Heidel fails to explicitly disclose definite values the of angle of the between the two flat walls is to range between 10 to 20 degrees. The angle is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that changing of this angle is directly proportional to the dimensions of the pawl, and thus its ability to engage the ratchet wheel. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the angle, was disclosed in the prior art by Heidel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the angle between the two flat stop walls and two flat sidewalls disclosed by Heidel having a range between 10 to 20 degrees.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights