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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/14/2026 has been entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: locking device in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function (a hook – paragraph 53), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-19 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “the shaft” in line 16. It is not necessarily clear to which shaft (of the tool or of the engine) this refers. For examination purposes, it will be treated as the shaft of the anti-rotation tool.
Claims 23, 24 similar recites “the shaft” and is unclear for similar reasons.
Claims 17-19 and 21-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 16.
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 16-17, 21-22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daybreak Aviation (YouTube video, hereafter “Daybreak”) in view of Ritchie (U.S. Patent 9,108,302), Morimoto et al. (U.S. PGPub 2008/0287238), and Wallace (U.S. Patent 1,480,971).
Claim 16: Daybreak discloses a method for applying a counter moment force to a freely-rotatable component (e.g. a propeller) installed on an aircraft engine (evident in the video) while installing or removing a threaded mechanical fastener (bolts) from the freely-rotatable component, the method comprising: applying a counter moment force to the freely-rotatable component (the operators are using their hands and bodies to hold the propeller against rotation) while installing or removing the threaded mechanical fastener from the freely-rotatable component by rotating the threaded mechanical fastener (using wrenches as shown) about a fastener axis substantially parallel to the rotational axis, the fastener axis radially outward of the rotational axis (bolt circle evident in still frames 4-5) , wherein the freely-rotatable component is an engine shaft of the aircraft engine (evident in the video). Daybreak does not use an anti-rotation tool as claimed in performing the above method.
However, Ritchie discloses a method for applying a counter moment force to a freely-rotatable component (e.g. yoke 50) while installing or removing a threaded mechanical fastener from the freely-rotatable component (implied in column 2, lines 60-62), the method comprising: installing an anti-rotation tool (10) on the freely-rotatable component (50) rotatable about a rotational axis (implied as cited above) with a head (28) of the anti-rotation tool fixedly coupled with the freely-rotatable component; rotationally fixing (“holding…in a static position”, Id.) the anti-rotation tool relative to the rotational axis by positionally fixing a shaft (12/14) of the anti-rotation tool connected to the head; and applying a counter moment force (by the inherent action-reaction interaction) to the freely-rotatable component with the anti-rotation tool, rotationally fixed relative to the rotational axis, while installing or removing the threaded mechanical fastener from the freely-rotatable component by rotating the threaded mechanical fastener about a fastener axis substantially parallel to the rotational axis (implicitly by the driving tool 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the tool of Ritchie in an aircraft engine application as in Daybreak to have provided mechanical advantage for the predictable result of providing an anti-rotation counter-holding effect in the aircraft assembly/disassembly method (MPEP 2143 I. D.). The anti-rotational tool of Ritchie further includes: the shaft (12/14) extending between and to a proximal shaft end and a distal shaft end (evident in figures); the head extending between and to an inner head end and an outer head end, the inner head end disposed at the proximal shaft end (as shown). Ritchie also discloses various alternative head embodiments, such as in Figs. 3-4 and 11, comprising the head (32) forming a cradle (112) along the outer head end, the cradle forming a component mating surface (evident in Fig. 11); a band (chain 86) extending between and to a proximal band end (88/92) and a distal band end (90), the proximal band end fixedly mounted to the head (see Fig. 3 and column 3, lines 21-33), and a locking device (hook 108) positionable in a locked condition or an unlocked condition with the roller band (engaged or disengaged from the hook – column 3, lines 41-44), the locking device in the locked condition fixing a portion of the band between the proximal band end and the distal band end (Id.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied this chain head to the freely-rotatable component, for example depending on the shape or size of the freely-rotatable component, and since it is adjustable.
The specifics of the chain are not disclosed, and so Ritchie is silent regarding a roller band (chain) having the various elements as claimed. However, Morimoto discloses a roller band (chain 100) including a first lateral chain (111, left – paragraph 38), a second lateral chain (111, right – Id.), a plurality of pins (140), and a plurality of rollers (113 – paragraph 39), the plurality of pins distributed along the roller band from the proximal band end to the distal band end, each of the plurality of pins extending between and to the first lateral chain and the second lateral chain, each of the plurality of rollers rotatably mounted on a respective one of the plurality of pins between the first lateral chain and the second lateral chain, the plurality of rollers forming a component mating interface (evident in Figs. 1-2 and paragraphs 38-39), and each of the plurality of rollers includes a resilient roller material (various materials including rubber and plastic are contemplated – paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a chain as taught by Morimoto since it transmits large power (paragraph 1).
Daybreak, Ritchie, and Morimoto teach a method substantially as claimed except for a friction arm as claimed. However, Wallace teaches a similar tool comprising a friction arm (15a), the friction arm extending between and to a proximal arm end and a distal arm end, the proximal arm end pivotably mounted to the head (at 15b), the friction arm is pivotable between an engaged position and a retracted position, the distal arm end contacts the roller band in the engaged position of the friction arm, and the friction arm is separated from the roller band in the retracted position of the friction arm (page 2, lines 29-35 and 52-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the too with a friction arm in order to have prevented slackening of the chain during refreshing of a user’s grip and starting a new turning motion.
Claim 17: Referring to Ritchie, the shaft (12/14) of the anti-rotation tool extends along a shaft axis (generally along its length) between a proximal shaft end and a distal shaft end, the proximal shaft end is disposed at the head (end connected to 28), and the shaft axis is orthogonal to the rotational axis (evident in Fig. 9).
Claim 21: The chain variant of the Ritchie tool is installed on a component including positioning the component between the head and the roller band (Fig. 11),and so it would have been obvious to have analogously applied it to the freely-rotatable component as discussed above.
Claim 22: Referring further to Morimoto, each of the plurality of pins (140) extends laterally between and to a first lateral end and a second lateral end, the first lateral end is disposed 'laterally outside of the first lateral chain, the second lateral end is disposed laterally outside of the second lateral chain (e.g. Fig. 2). Referring to Ritchie, the locking device includes a hook (108) operable to engage a selected one of the plurality of pins at the first lateral end and the second lateral end (as cited above).
Claim 26: Referring to Ritchie, the mating surface (112) is a concave surface (Fig. 3).
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto et al., and Wallace as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent 8,516,927).
Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto, and Wallace teach a method substantially as claimed, including wherein the shaft (12/14 of Ritchie) has a length between the proximal shaft end and the distal shaft end (its length as shown), except for wherein the shaft is adjustable to selectively vary the length. However, Wang et al. teaches a wrench having a shaft (handle) wherein the shaft is adjustable to selectively vary the length (column 2, lines 61-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the shaft with an adjustable length, for example in order to have provided an adjustable leverage. Furthermore, it has been held that adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Please note that in the instant application, e.g. paragraphs 7, 21, and 47, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for this feature.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto et al., Wallace, Wang et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Harrison (U.S. Patent 3,129,619).
Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto, Wallace, and Wang et al. teach a method substantially as claimed except for increasing the length to position the distal shaft end in fixed contact with a ground. However, Harrison teaches using an anti-rotation tool by increasing the length of a shaft (55) to position the distal shaft end in fixed contact with a ground (59-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increased the length of the shaft to position the distal shaft end in fixed contact with a ground in order to have provided a firm support for the shaft during use (Id.).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto et al., and Wallace as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Wilson (U.S. Patent 2,042,137).
Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto, and Wallace teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein the hook is pivotably mounted to the shaft. However, Wilson teaches a similar chain wrench tool wherein the hook (11/13) is pivotably mounted to the shaft (at 12 – left column, lines 15-27 and right column, lines 10-32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made pivotably mounted the hook to the shaft in order to have made the engagement and disengagement easier (Id.).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto et al., and Wallace as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Markwardt (U.S. Patent 9,339,916, cited in IDS).
Daybreak, Ritchie, Morimoto, and Wallace teach a method substantially as claimed except for wherein the head includes a resilient material liner forming the mating surface (for example, Ritchie does not disclose the material of surface 112). However, Markwardt teaches a similar tool having a resilient material liner (64) forming the mating surface (column 3, lines 33-38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a resilient material liner in order to have allow the tool to press firmly against the workpiece without nicking or gouging it (Id.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments simply move subject matter from previous claims 21, 27, and 28 into claim 16. Applicant then argues that the combination of Daybreak and Ritchie fail to teach the claimed features without substantively addressing the previous rejections made to claims 21, 27, and 28 over additional references. The new grounds of rejection above merely combine previous grounds of rejection into one.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights