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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the claims filed 1/8/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/8/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 – 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent to Chick (7,000,897).
Examiner is interpreting the limitation “for operating a ball valve” to be an intended use limitation, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Examiner maintains the references cited satisfy the structural limitations of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Chick discloses a base component (104, 106, Fig. 1); a T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1); and a specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1); wherein the T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1) is secured to the base component (104, 106, Fig. 1); wherein the specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1) is secured to the base component (104, 106, Fig. 1); and further the specialized bottom capable of mating with a ball valve handle to facilitate opening or closing of ball valves in an underground valve box.
Regarding claim 2, Chick discloses the claimed length (Col. 5, Lines 14 – 20).
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 3 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Chick (7,000,897) in view of US Patent to Silano (5,638,590).
Regarding claim 3, Chick discloses the first end and the second end. Chick further discloses a round cross section (Col. 4, Lines 26 – 28).
Chick does not disclose the claimed diameter.
However, Silano also teaching a tool for operating a remote valve teaches the tool base to be 1’’ outer diameter (Col. 2, Lines 51 – 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve tool disclosed by Chick with readily available 1” outer diameter base taught by Silano as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination Chick discloses the T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1) is positioned on the first end of the base component (104, 106, Fig. 1) and secured (by element 110).
Regarding claim 5, in the combination Chick discloses T-shaped handle comprises a non-moving base section (104, 106, Fig. 1) with extendable handles (102, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, in the combination Chick discloses the extendable handles are positioned, one on either side of the base section (104, 106, Fig. 1) and secured via a hinge (110, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, in the combination Chick discloses the extendable handles (102, Fig. 1) pivot up and down, as needed (Col. 3, Lines 54 – 64).
Regarding claim 8, in the combination Chick discloses wherein once the extendable handles (102, Fig. 1) are pivoted up, the extendable handles are locked into position to generate additional torque.
Regarding claim 9, in the combination Chick discloses the extendable handles (102, Fig. 1) are locked into position via a clasp (110, Fig. 1) that can be released, as needed, allowing the extendable handles to pivot down for storage against sides of the base component (Col. 3, Lines 54 – 64).
Regarding claim 10, in the combination Chick discloses the specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1) is positioned on the second end of the base component (104, 106, Fig. 1).
Claims 11 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Chick (7,000,897) in view of US Patent to Silano (5,638,590) and in further view of US Patent to Block (1,181,565).
Chick does not disclose a cup- like working end with two notches to accommodate a ball valve handle.
However, Block also teaching a valve operator used to operate valves in inaccessible locations teaches a cup shaped structure (Fig. 1) with two notches (between walls 4) used to accommodate a valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve handle taught by Chick with the working end taught by Block as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claims 12 – 14, the combination of Chick, Silano and Block discloses the claimed invention, except for utilization of the specific lengths recited. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to lengths of the bottom and notches ranges recited, since 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 15 - 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Chick (7,000,897) in view of US Patent to Block (1,181,565).
Regarding claim 15, Chick discloses a base component (104, 106, Fig. 1) configured in a rod-like shape with a first end and an opposing second end; a T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1) comprises a non-moving base section with extendable handles; and a specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1) and wherein the T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1) is secured to the first end of the base component (104, 106 Fig. 1); wherein the extendable handles are positioned, one on either side of the base section and secured via a hinge (110, Fig. 1) to pivot up and down, as needed; wherein once the extendable handles are pivoted up, the extendable handles are locked into position to generate additional torque; wherein the specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1) is secured to the opposing second end of the base component (104, 106 Fig. 1); wherein the specialized bottom mates with the ball valve handle to facilitate opening or closing of ball valves in an underground valve box; and further wherein a user then grasps the T-shaped handle and twists the base component in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction to open or close a ball valve.
Chick does not disclose a cup- like working end with two notches to accommodate a ball valve handle.
However, Block also teaching a valve operator used to operate valves in inaccessible locations teaches a cup shaped structure (Fig. 1) with two notches (between walls 4) used to accommodate a valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified valve handle taught by Chick with the working end taught by Block as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, in the combination Chick discloses the base component (104, 106 Fig. 1) is telescoping, and comprises at least one telescoping segment and slip lock (120, Fig. 1) for extending or retracting a length of the base component.
Regarding claim 17, in the combination Chick discloses the valve key device is manufactured from steel (Col. 1, Lines 17 – 21).
Regarding claim 19, in the combination Chick discloses the extendable handles (102, Fig. 1) are locked into position via a clasp (110, Fig. 1) that can be released, as needed, allowing the extendable handles to pivot down for storage against sides of the base component (Col. 3, Lines 54 – 64).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Chick (7,000,897) in view of US Patent to Block (1,181,565) and further view of US Patent Application Publication to Gross (2003/0038267).
Regarding claim 18, Chick does not disclose a plurality of indicia.
However, providing an indicia on a tool is well known in the art as taught by Gross. Gross teaches indicia (GROCO, Fig. 3) on a tool used to operate a valve as means of indicating the manufacturer of the that tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have modified the valve operating tool disclosed by Chick with the indica indicating the manufacturer of the tool taught by Gross as means of building brand awareness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent to Chick (7,000,897) in view of US Patent to Stinnett (6,364,285).
Regarding claim 20, Chick discloses providing a valve key device comprising an elongated base (104, 106, Fig. 1) component with a T-shaped handle (102, Fig. 1) and specialized bottom (108, Fig. 1); securing the specialized bottom to a valve; extending the handles of the T-shaped handle and locking them into position; twisting the valve key device to open or close the valve; and removing the valve key device after use.
Chick discloses the handle is used for underground water valve but does not disclose valve is a ball valve. However, Stennett also teaching a valve handle for utility valves teaches the handle is used for opening and closing ball valves (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective filing date of the application to have used the handle disclosed by Chick to the application taught by Stennett as a combination of prior art elements to yield predictable results.
In the combination of the prior art elements, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the elements to maintain their respective properties or functions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent to Sammiya (5,044,192) and US Patent to Harris et al. (4,348,922).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisors Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Ken Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/UMASHANKAR VENKATESAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753