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 . 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.
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 1-6, 9-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek (US 2021/0370491) in view of Shaw (US 2008/0257118).
Regarding claim 1, Urbanek discloses a floating hand tool comprising:
a floating handle (Figs 7-8, below) including:
a handle portion 104 having a first end (left end, Fig 7), a second end (right end, Fig 7), and a conical cavity (central portion, Figs 7-8), the first end of the handle portion including an annular lip 124 (Fig 7, [0040-41]) disposed around the first end and an annular recess disposed adjacent to the annular lip, and
a cap 106 (Fig 7-8) having a first end (right end, Fig 7), a second end (left end, Fig 7), and a cylindrical cavity132 (Fig 8, [0047]), the first end including an annular recess (recessed groove adjacent 116, Fig 7) and an annular protrusion 116 (Fig 7, [0035]), the annular protrusion configured to be selectively coupled to the first end of the handle portion [0035, 0041] by engaging the annular lip of the handle portion;
an elongated member 102 (Figs 7-8) having a first end (left end, Fig 7), the first end including an anti-rotation means 140 [0049];
wherein the first end of the handle portion is coupled to the first end of the cap, the conical cavity of the handle portion and the cylindrical cavity of the cap is coupled to form an airtight chamber within the floating handle [0047], the second end of the handle portion is coupled to the elongated member (Fig 8), and the anti-rotation means of the first end of the elongated member prevents rotation of the elongated member relative to the second end of the handle portion [0049]; and
wherein the buoyancy of the airtight chamber of the floating handle in combination with the weight of the elongated member allows the floating hand tool to be capable of floating in a body of water at a vertical position with the cap fully visible above the water [0048], Examiner indicating that this is an intended use of the device and floating would depend on at least size and weight of the device along with density of the water.
PNG
media_image1.png
529
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
634
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Urbanek does not explicitly disclose that the annular lip at the first end of the handle portion defines includes a bevel that would engage the annular protrusion on the first end of the cap in coupling the two parts together.
Shaw is also concerned with a hand tool to be manipulated by a user and teaches providing bevels (chamfers 12-13, Fig 2, [0010]) that “aid[s] in reducing any sharp corners” [0010]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek by providing chamfers or bevels on sharp corners, including those at the annular lip of the first end (the most exposed portion of the first end) to provide a safer tool that would keep a user from injury of sharp corners.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses wherein the cap of the floating handle is a color visually contrasting from the color of the handle portion of the floating handle [0044] and wherein the color of the cap is orange, and the color of the handle portion is chartreuse [0044].
Regarding claims 4-6, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses
wherein the buoyancy of the airtight chamber of the floating handle in combination with the weight of the elongated member allows the floating hand tool to float in water at a vertical position with the cap fully visible above the water and a portion of the handle portion fully visible above the water [0048], Examiner indicating that this is an intended use of the device and floating would depend on at least size and weight of the device along with density of the water;
wherein a portion of the floating handle includes polypropylene [0039]; and
wherein the floating handle includes a textured surface to improve grip during wet conditions (the tool handgrip that “conform[s] to a hand of a user to increase comfort when the hand-tool is in use” [0015], the conforming surface defines a textured surface capable of improving grip during wet conditions).
Regarding claims 9-14, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses
wherein a sidewall of the handle portion is about one eighth of an inch thick [0039],
wherein a portion of the airtight chamber is conically shaped (Fig 8),
wherein the handle portion has a length of about five inches [0048],
wherein the handle portion has a length of about six and a half inches [0048],
wherein the cap is configured with a waterproof sealant around the recess [0042], and
wherein the cap includes an illuminating material, the illuminating material including a member selected from a group consisting of phosphorescent polypropylene, phosphorescent paint, and fluorescent paint ([0044] dayglo orange defines a fluorescent color and it would be obvious to use paint to color the device).
Regarding claim 18, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the method for constructing a floating hand tool, the method comprising the steps of:
providing the handle portion, the cap, and the elongated member of Claim 1 (as described above); coupling the first end of the handle portion to the first end of the cap [0035, 0041]; coupling the conical cavity of the handle portion and the cylindrical cavity of the cap [0035, 0041]; forming an airtight chamber within the floating handle [0036, 41]; coupling the second end of the handle portion to the elongated member [0049]; and embedding the anti-rotation means of the first end of the elongated member in the second end of the handle portion [0049].
Regarding claim 19, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a collection of floating hand tools capable of use with a diving belt, the collection comprising:
a plurality of tools (Figs 6 and 7), each tool including a floating hand tool according to claim 1 (as described above), each cap having an eyehole 128 but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of clip hooks, each clip hook configured to clip onto each eyehole of each cap respectively and configured to detachably clip onto the diving belt. However, Urbanek does suggest that rings 128 “may be sized and shaped in manner configured to accept a string, rope, cord, and or clip” [0043]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by providing respective clips to attach to the eyeholes 128, so that the device can be used as suggested by Urbanek. A skilled artisan would understand that these clips could be used on a diving belt.
With regard to the preamble, the recitation that the tool is “for use with a diving belt” has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. 88 USPQ 478
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek in view of Shaw, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Lin (US 6,270,134).
Regarding claim 7, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a temperature-resistant coating on the floating handle. However Lin is also concerned with hand tools and teaches providing a coating of dual layered synthetic rubber hand grip coverings to allow for a more sure and comfortable grip (Abstract and (1:48-64)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by providing the coating taught by Lin for a comfortable grip, understanding that this synthetic rubber coating would define a temperature resistant coating.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek in view of Shaw, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Anderson (US 6,082,232).
Regarding claim 8, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the device further comprising a magnetic element embedded within the floating handle.
However Anderson is also concerned with a hand tool with elongate tool members, where the tool members can be interchanged via a hexagonal socket and a magnetic element (Figs 12-13, 6:15-28, an anti-rotation means). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by substituting in place of the anti-rotation means of Urbanek, modified, the hex socket and magnet, as taught by Anderson, as a matter of simple substitution with the predictable result of an releasable anti-rotation means with the additional benefit of providing the interchanging of tools.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek in view of Shaw, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Danias-Borkin (US 2011/0072594).
Regarding claim 15, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose the cap includes an LED light proximate the first end of the handle portion.
Danias-Borkin is also concerned with a hand tool and teaches providing an LED light 112 that allows a user to shine light on a workpiece [0032-34]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by providing an LED light on the device of Urbanek, allowing a user to shine light on a workpiece, helping a user in darker conditions. A skilled artisan would understand it would be obvious to try various locations for the light, including on the first end of the cap proximate the first end of the handle portion.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek in view of Shaw, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Zurbuchen (US 6,408,723).
Regarding claim 16, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongated member includes a second end, the second end configured to be coupled with an interchangeable tool head.
Zurbuchen is also concerned with a and tool and teaches providing an elongate member 12 (Figs 1-3) that is configured to be coupled with an interchangeable tool head 20 (2:62-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by providing interchangeable tool heads to allow a variety of uses of the device.
With respect to claim 17, while the device of Zurbuchen does teach that the tool head 20 “can be otherwise configured to perform a variety of other functions” (3:1-3), Zurbuchen does not teach that the interchangeable tool head includes a member selected from a group consisting of an adjustable crescent wrench, a universal hex wrench, a screwdriver, and a swivel socket. However, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to incorporate an interchangeable screwdriver tool head, since Urbanek teaches using a screwdriver as a tool head (Fig 6).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanek in view of Shaw, as applied to claim 19, above, and further in view of Pascua (US 6,408,723).
Regarding claim 20, Urbanek, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 19, as described above, and further discloses the method steps of:
providing the collection of floating hand tools of claim 19 (as described above); and
clipping each clip hook onto each eyehole of each cap respectively (to use the device as described); but does not explicitly teach:
clipping each clip hook onto a diving belt;
submerging the diving belt and floating hand tools into a body of water; and
unclipping one of the floating hand tools in the collection for use underwater.
Pascua is also concerned with hand tools and teaches providing clip to attach the hand tool to a user’s belt with an eyelet/eyehole and hook attached thereto (3:59-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Urbanek as modified by clipping the various tools to a user’s belt, as taught by Pascua. A skilled artisan would find it obvious to unclip the tool when the use of the tool was no longer needed. With regard to using the clipped tools on a diving belt, in that Pascua teaches clipping to belts, one of ordinary skill would understand that clipping tools to diving belts would be obvious when the work required was underwater and diving equipment including diving belts was needed, where the diving belt and tools would necessarily be submerged as part of their use. Additionally, Examiner indicates that the step of “optionally reclipping the floating hand tool to the diving belt after use” is not required by the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D KELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8548. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Orlando Aviles-Bosques can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights