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
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 1-3, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egoitz (EP 1652623 A2) in view of Chen (US20200346331A1).
Regarding claim 1, Egoitz discloses a circlip pliers (see FIG. 10: pliers 1) comprising: a head section comprising a top jaw and a bottom jaw (conical grippers 5);
a handle section comprising a top handle and a bottom handle (two handles shown in FIG. 10);
a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section; (see FIG. 10: joint assembly operably coupling the grippers 5 to the handles)
and a tip assembly having a first tip disposed at a distal end of the top jaw and a second tip disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw; (a tip assembly having pins 6 and 6a disposed at the distal ends of conical grippers 5)
and wherein the first and second tips each comprise a base portion (concave curved profile 15) and a cylindrical body portion (see FIG. 11: cylindrical portion of pin 6a).
Egoitz does not disclose a retention lip disposed at a distal end of the cylindrical body portion.
However, Chen teaches circlip pliers with a retention lip disposed at a distal end of the partially cylindrical body portion of each of the tips (see Chen FIGS. 2-4: protruding blocks 3 disposed at the distal end of posts 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the circlip plier tips of Egoitz with a retention lip, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “[t]he snap ring 4 can be blocked by the two oblique stop portions 31 extending outwardly of the two protruding blocks 3, and is not pulled by the force of the outwardly opening of the two levers 1 to disengage from the posts 2, ensuring that the snap ring 4 can be controlled reliably and stably” (Chen ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Egoitz discloses a tip assembly for circlip pliers (see FIG. 10: an assembly of pins 6 and 6a for pliers 1) having a head section comprising a top jaw and a bottom jaw, (conical grippers 5)
a handle section comprising a top handle and a bottom handle, (two handles shown in FIG. 10)
and a joint assembly operably coupling the head section to the handle section, (see FIG. 10: joint assembly operably coupling the grippers 5 to the handles)
the tip assembly comprising: a first tip disposed at a distal end of the top jaw; and a second tip disposed at a distal end of the bottom jaw, (a tip assembly having pins 6 and 6a disposed at the distal ends of conical grippers 5)
wherein the first and second tips each comprise a base portion (concave curved profile 15) and a cylindrical body portion (see FIG. 11: cylindrical portion of pin 6a).
Egoitz does not disclose a retention lip disposed at a distal end of the cylindrical body portion.
However, Chen teaches circlip pliers with a retention lip disposed at a distal end of the partially cylindrical body portion of each of the tips (see Chen FIGS. 2-4: protruding blocks 3 disposed at the distal end of posts 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify each of the circlip plier tips of Egoitz with a retention lip, as taught by Chen.
One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “[t]he snap ring 4 can be blocked by the two oblique stop portions 31 extending outwardly of the two protruding blocks 3, and is not pulled by the force of the outwardly opening of the two levers 1 to disengage from the posts 2, ensuring that the snap ring 4 can be controlled reliably and stably” (Chen ¶[0022]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, the rejection of claims 1 and 12, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the cylindrical body portion comprises a first diameter and the retention lip comprises a second diameter, and wherein the second diameter is larger than the first diameter.
As shown in Reference Fig. 1 below, Chen shows that the diameter (D2) of the retention lip (protruding block 3) is larger than the diameter (D1) of the partially cylindrical body portion (post 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Fig. 1: Annotated Chen FIG. 4
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the retention lip of Egoitz, as modified, such that a diameter of the retention lip is larger than a diameter of the cylindrical body portion.
Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). The relative dimensions of the retention lip and the cylindrical body portion would be altered depending on the structural strength of the materials and dimensions that the circlip and the circlip plier tips are manufactured in.
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0043] of the specification that “the first diameter 240 corresponding to the cylindrical body portion 220 and the second diameter 250 corresponding to the retention lip 230 may have a specific relationship to define their respective sizes that may enable the tip assembly 200 to effectively operably couple to, and open or close, the circlip.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, further teaches that the retention lip is frustoconical in shape (the protruding block of Chen, discussed in the modification in the rejection of claim 1, is frustoconical in shape).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, the rejection of claims 1 and 12, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Chen, as used to modify Egoitz, shows that the cylindrical body portion (post 2) comprises a first length (L1) and the retention lip (protruding block 3) comprises a second length (L2), and wherein the second length is a percentage of the first length, (see Reference Fig. 2 below) but Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the second length is 10% to 25% of the first length.
PNG
media_image2.png
734
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference Fig. 2: Chen Annotated FIG. 4
Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). The relative dimensions of the retention lip and the cylindrical body portion would be altered depending on the structural strength of the materials and dimensions that the circlip to be used and the circlip plier tips are manufactured in.
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0048] of the specification that “[i]n some cases, the relative lengths of the retention lip 230 and the cylindrical body portion 220 may also be related to each other in critical ratios” and “[t]his ratio of second length 280 to first length 270 may be critical to enabling the tip assembly 200 to be easily inserted into the circlip orifices while still maintaining sufficient retention of the circlip on the tip assembly 200.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egoitz (EP 1652623 A2) in view of Chen (US20200346331A1), further in view of Hassard (US20100269325A1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the retention lip extends from the first diameter to the second diameter at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from the cylindrical body portion.
However, Hassard further teaches that the portion of the circlip tips that serves as a point of contact between the circlip and circlip plier tips is angled at approximately 25 to 50 degrees (see Hassard ¶[0044]).
MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical.
Hassard teaches in ¶[0009] and [0010] that the angle of the retention lip affects the ability of the tips “to engage and expand a gap of the snap ring.”
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0042] of the specification that “[t]he measurement of 30º may be critical to the operation of the tip assembly 200” and “the angle (α) being approximately 30º may be critical to provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200 and ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value of approximately 30 degrees from the range of 25 to 50 degrees given that Hassard teaches that an angle within this range facilitates the ability of the pliers to expand the circlip, with a reasonable expectation of success (Hassard ¶[0044]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 is incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, further teaches that the retention lip is frustoconical in shape (the protruding block of Chen, discussed in the modification in the rejection of claim 1, is frustoconical in shape).
Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the retention lip extends from the first diameter to the second diameter at an angle of approximately 30 degrees from the cylindrical body portion.
Hassard teaches in ¶[0009] and [0010] that the angle of the retention lip affects the ability of the tips “to engage and expand a gap of the snap ring.”
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0042] of the specification that “[t]he measurement of 30º may be critical to the operation of the tip assembly 200” and “the angle (α) being approximately 30º may be critical to provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200 and ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value of approximately 30 degrees from the range of 25 to 50 degrees given that Hassard teaches that an angle within this range facilitates the ability of the pliers to expand the circlip, with a reasonable expectation of success (Hassard ¶[0044]).
Claims 5, 6-10 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egoitz (EP 1652623 A2) in view of Chen (US20200346331A1), further in view of Yeazell (US 2553620 A).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first diameter is 85% to 95% of the second diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated” and “[t]he particular configuration or shape of the pins 24 and 25 may be varied according to the use to which the pliers are to be put,” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Thus, the claimed relative diameters of the different portions of the pins are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the shape and configuration of the circlip plier pins and arrive at the claimed relationship because Yeazell teaches that arriving at the claimed parameters would have required only routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0043] of the specification that “the first diameter 240 corresponding to the cylindrical body portion 220 and the second diameter 250 corresponding to the retention lip 230 may have a specific relationship to define their respective sizes that may enable the tip assembly 200 to effectively operably couple to, and open or close, the circlip.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for a first diameter of the tips to be 85% to 95% of a second diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the rejection of claims 5 and 13, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first diameter is 89% to 90% of the second diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated” and “[t]he particular configuration or shape of the pins 24 and 25 may be varied according to the use to which the pliers are to be put,” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Thus, the claimed relative diameters of the different portions of the pins are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the shape and configuration of the circlip plier pins and arrive at the claimed relationship because Yeazell teaches that arriving at the claimed parameters would have required only routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, in the instant application, the applicant has described in ¶[0043] of the specification that “the first diameter 240 corresponding to the cylindrical body portion 220 and the second diameter 250 corresponding to the retention lip 230 may have a specific relationship to define their respective sizes that may enable the tip assembly 200 to effectively operably couple to, and open or close, the circlip.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for a first diameter of the tips to be 89% to 90% of a second diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the rejection of claims 2 and 13, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first diameter is 85% to 95% of an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specification for tip diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated…the pins are merely provided with slender extensions of a diameter calculated to fit loosely within openings provided in the spring fastener” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Yezell teaches that “a diameter [of the pins] calculated to fit loosely within openings” or the tolerance is a customizable design feature based on circlip standards. Thus, the diameters of the circlip plier tip in relation to the orifice size of the intended circlip are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious through routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a value within the claimed range given other circlip standards, such as the ISO standard, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the applicant submits in ¶[0045]-[0047] in the specification of the instant application that “having the second diameter 250 larger than the ASME recommended tip diameter and the first diameter 240 smaller than the ASME recommended tip diameter may be critical to the improved operation of the hand tool 100” and “[t]hese ratios may provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200, ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired, and withstanding shear forces applied from the circlip on the cylindrical body portion 220 when the hand tool 100 may be in use.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for a first diameter of the tips to be 85% to 95% of an ASME specification for tip diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the rejection of claims 7 and 16, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first diameter is 87.8% to 89.5% of the ASME specification for tip diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated…the pins are merely provided with slender extensions of a diameter calculated to fit loosely within openings provided in the spring fastener” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Yezell teaches that “a diameter [of the pins] calculated to fit loosely within openings” or the tolerance is a customizable design feature based on circlip standards. Thus, the diameters of the circlip plier tip in relation to the orifice size of the intended circlip are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious through routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a value within the claimed range given other circlip standards, such as the ISO standard, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the applicant submits in ¶[0045]-[0047] in the specification of the instant application that “having the second diameter 250 larger than the ASME recommended tip diameter and the first diameter 240 smaller than the ASME recommended tip diameter may be critical to the improved operation of the hand tool 100” and “[t]hese ratios may provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200, ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired, and withstanding shear forces applied from the circlip on the cylindrical body portion 220 when the hand tool 100 may be in use.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for a first diameter of the tips to be 87.8% to 89.5% of the ASME specification for tip diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the rejection of claims 2 and 13, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the second diameter is 100% to 125% of an American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) specification for tip diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated…the pins are merely provided with slender extensions of a diameter calculated to fit loosely within openings provided in the spring fastener” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Yezell teaches that “a diameter [of the pins] calculated to fit loosely within openings” or the tolerance is a customizable design feature based on circlip standards. Thus, the diameters of the circlip plier tip in relation to the orifice size of the intended circlip are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious through routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a value within the claimed range given other circlip standards, such as the ISO standard, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the applicant submits in ¶[0045]-[0047] in the specification of the instant application that “having the second diameter 250 larger than the ASME recommended tip diameter and the first diameter 240 smaller than the ASME recommended tip diameter may be critical to the improved operation of the hand tool 100” and “[t]hese ratios may provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200, ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired, and withstanding shear forces applied from the circlip on the cylindrical body portion 220 when the hand tool 100 may be in use.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for the second diameter to be 100% to 125% of the ASME specification for tip diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the rejection of claims 9 and 18, respectively, are incorporated in this rejection. Egoitz, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the second diameter is 109.7% to 119.5% of the ASME specification for tip diameter.
Yeazell, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to circlip pliers, identifies the diameter dimensions of the free ends of the circlip plier pins as a desirable parameter to optimize, depending on the circlip properties: “The free ends of the pins 24 and 25 may have any appropriate shape or configuration for convenient application to various spring fasteners or other members to be manipulated…the pins are merely provided with slender extensions of a diameter calculated to fit loosely within openings provided in the spring fastener” (Yeazell Col. 3, Line 65 - Col. 4, Line 7).
Yezell teaches that “a diameter [of the pins] calculated to fit loosely within openings” or the tolerance is a customizable design feature based on circlip standards. Thus, the diameters of the circlip plier tip in relation to the orifice size of the intended circlip are recognized as a result effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. It would have been obvious through routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a value within the claimed range given other circlip standards, such as the ISO standard, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, the applicant submits in ¶[0045]-[0047] in the specification of the instant application that “having the second diameter 250 larger than the ASME recommended tip diameter and the first diameter 240 smaller than the ASME recommended tip diameter may be critical to the improved operation of the hand tool 100” and “[t]hese ratios may provide the best possible blend of ease of operably coupling to the circlip, ease of retaining the circlip on the tip assembly 200, ease of removing the circlip from the tip assembly 200 when desired, and withstanding shear forces applied from the circlip on the cylindrical body portion 220 when the hand tool 100 may be in use.” The repeated incorporation of the qualifier “may” in the discussion of the criticality of this limitation further equally suggests that this limitation may not be critical to the claimed invention.
It would then have been obvious through routine experimentation to select a value for the second diameter to be 109.7% to 119.5% of the ASME specification for tip diameter given that Yeasell teaches that the shapes and proportions of the pins be varied for the circlip to be used, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights