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 § 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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims make extensive use of a claim limitation format citing “a range of about X mm to Y mm”. This is deemed to be indefinite language as the word “about” constitutes a range of values and listing “X mm to Y mm” also constitutes a range of values. This results in a range being modified by another range. As such, it cannot be clearly determined where the metes and bounds of the limitation begin and end.
Regarding Claim 12, it recites the limitation "the back grip upper concave radius of curvature" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites the limitation " the partial ellipse shape " in lines 33-34. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakakibara et al. (US 2011/0079409 A1) hereinafter referred to as Sakakibara.
Regarding claim 1, Sakakibara discloses a power tool (100; fig. 1) comprising:
a body (103) configured to house a motor (120) and a drive head (110 and portion it is mounted to; paragraph 0030 – “protruded end of the anvil”) rotationally coupled to the motor (paragraphs 0027-0030), the drive head being rotatable about a drive axis (axis of 110), the drive head being disposed on a front of the power tool (left side fig. 1), the power tool also having a back (right side fig. 1) which is disposed opposite of the front;
a handgrip (130) extending from a bottom of the body and a grip top along a handgrip axis to a grip bottom (figs. 1 and 4); the handgrip axis intersecting with the drive axis (fig. 1); the handgrip having a grip front (left side figs. 1 and 4) facing the front, a grip back (right side figs. 1 and 4) facing the back, a first grip side (bottom side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back, and a second grip side (top side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back and opposite the first grip side; the handgrip axis extending at an oblique angle to the drive axis (fig. 1); and
a trigger (131) configured to be depressible (paragraphs 0035, 0052, 0057 and 0065) between an extended position and a depressed position by an index finger such that the trigger actuates along a trigger actuating direction that is substantially parallel to the drive axis and intersects with the handgrip axis (figs. 1 and 10);
wherein the handgrip (130; paragraph 0039) comprises:
an index finger cross-sectional portion (135, fig. 5) at the grip top, the trigger being disposed within the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a middle finger cross-sectional portion (136, fig. 6; or 137, fig. 7) disposed below the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a ring finger cross-sectional portion (137, fig. 7; or 138, fig. 8) disposed below the middle finger cross-sectional portion; and
a little finger cross-sectional portion (139, fig. 9) disposed below the ring finger cross-sectional portion;
wherein the handgrip has a partial ellipse shape (fig. 5; paragraph 0041) at an index finger cross-section taken through the trigger and parallel to the drive axis in the index finger cross-sectional portion, the partial ellipse shape having a partial ellipse shape minor axis length (b1; paragraph 0041 – “31.2 mm +/- 2%”) that is within a range of about 29 millimeters (mm) to 33 mm;
wherein the handgrip has a first ellipse shape (fig. 6, paragraph 0042; or fig. 7, paragraph 0043) at a middle finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the middle finger cross-sectional portion, the first ellipse shape having a first ellipse shape minor axis length (b2 or b3) that is greater than the partial ellipse shape minor axis length (paragraphs 0041-0043; b1 “31.2 mm +/- 2%” < b2 “34.5 mm +/-2%” or b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%”);
wherein the handgrip has a second ellipse shape (fig. 7, paragraph 0043; or fig. 8, paragraph 0044) at a ring finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the ring finger cross-sectional portion, the second ellipse shape having a second ellipse shape minor axis length (b3, paragraph 0043 - “33.7 mm +/- 2%”; or b4, paragraph 0044 – “32.0 mm +/- 2%”) that is greater than the partial ellipse shape minor axis length (b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%” and b4 “32.0 mm +/- 2%” > b1 “31.2 mm +/- 2%”) and less than the first ellipse shape minor axis length (b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%” < b2 “34.5 mm +/-2%”; also b4 “32.0 mm +/- 2%” < b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%” and b2 “34.5 mm +/-2%”); and
wherein the handgrip has a third ellipse shape (fig. 9, paragraph 0045) at a little finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the little finger cross-sectional portion, the third ellipse shape having a third ellipse shape minor axis length (b5) that is less than the first ellipse shape minor axis length and the second ellipse shape minor axis length (paragraphs 0041-0045; b5 “29.4 mm +/- 2%” < b2 “34.5 mm +/-2%” or b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%” or b4 “32.0 mm +/- 2%”).
Regarding claim 3, Sakakibara discloses wherein a first ellipse shape (fig. 6 or fig. 7) major axis length (a2 or a3) of the first ellipse shape is about 41 mm to 45 mm (paragraph 0042 – “46.0 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 45 mm; or paragraph 0043 – “45.4 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 44.5 mm); wherein a second ellipse shape (fig. 8) major axis length (a4) of the second ellipse shape is about 40 mm to 44 mm (paragraph 0044 – “43.3 mm +/- 2%”); and wherein a third ellipse shape (fig. 9) major axis length (a5) of the third ellipse shape is about 36 mm to 40 mm (paragraph 0045 – “38.7 mm +/- 2%”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6-13 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara (US 2011/0079409 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sakakibara discloses a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger (paragraph 0035 – “the user holds the handgrip 130 and depresses the trigger 131 to throw a power switch”; paragraph 0052 – “The front surface of the trigger 131 comprises a contact region depressed in contact with the forefinger of the user”; claim 4); and wherein a trigger extended length (a1; fig. 5) from the trigger to the apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 53 mm to 57 mm (paragraph 0041 – “53.6 mm +/- 2%”).
Sakakibara discloses a trigger-depressed length, but fails to disclose a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 48 mm to 52 mm.
However, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger be about 48 mm to 52 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger-depressed length, a trigger extended length of about 53 mm to 57 mm and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 4, Sakakibara discloses a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger (paragraph 0035 – “the user holds the handgrip 130 and depresses the trigger 131 to throw a power switch”; paragraph 0052 – “The front surface of the trigger 131 comprises a contact region depressed in contact with the forefinger of the user”; claim 4); wherein a trigger extended length (a1; fig. 5) from the trigger to the apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 53 mm to 57 mm (paragraph 0041 – “53.6 mm +/- 2%”); wherein a first ellipse shape (fig. 6 or fig. 7) major axis length (a2 or a3) of the first ellipse shape is about 41 mm to 45 mm (paragraph 0042 – “46.0 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 45 mm; or paragraph 0043 – “45.4 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 44.5 mm); wherein a second ellipse shape (fig. 8) major axis length (a4) of the second ellipse shape is about 40 mm to 44 mm (paragraph 0044 – “43.3 mm +/- 2%”); and wherein a third ellipse shape (fig. 9) major axis length (a5) of the third ellipse shape is about 36 mm to 40 mm (paragraph 0045 – “38.7 mm +/- 2%”).
Sakakibara discloses a trigger-depressed length, but fails to disclose a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 48 mm to 52 mm.
However, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger be about 48 mm to 52 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger-depressed length, a trigger extended length of about 53 mm to 57 mm and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 6, Sakakibara discloses a width (see dashed line segment in annotated fig. 5 below) of the trigger is about more than half the width of the partial ellipse shape minor axis length (b1; paragraph 0041 – “31.2 mm +/- 2%”) which would result in a trigger width of about 16 mm to 20 mm.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a width of the trigger is about 16 mm to 20 mm is not specifically disclosed, the Office further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the width of the trigger about 16 mm to 20 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a width of the trigger is about more than half the width of the partial ellipse shape minor axis length (i.e. a width of about 16 mm) and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 7, Sakakibara discloses a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature (figs. 4 and 10) of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger (131); and wherein a trigger height (see line segment in annotated fig. 4 below) of the trigger is about 24 mm to 28 mm (paragraph 0039 – “the second to fifth grip regions 136-139 are arranged, for example, within the range of 47.0 mm +/- 2%”; annotated fig. 4 shows that the trigger height is slightly more than half the distance between regions 136-139 which would make the trigger height about 24 mm to 28 mm).
PNG
media_image2.png
782
856
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sakakibara discloses a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger, but fails to disclose the radius of curvature is about 18 mm to 22 mm.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger Sakakibara to have a radius of curvature is about 18 mm to 22 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a trigger height of the trigger is about 24 mm to 28 mm is not specifically disclosed, the Office further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the height of the trigger about 24 mm to 28 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger height is slightly more than half the distance between regions 136-139 (paragraph 0039 – 47 mm) and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 8, Sakakibara discloses a grip front upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 10; shows a concave surface on the front side underneath trigger 131 and above section 137) of a front surface (left side fig. 10) of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion (136).
Sakakibara discloses a grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radius of curvature is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion of Sakakibara to have a radius of curvature is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 9, Sakakibara discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 10; shows a convex radius of curvature for sections 137-138) of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138); and a grip front lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4; shows a concave radius of curvature in the front portion of section 139) of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139).
Sakakibara discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and a grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 280 mm to 320 mm and 8 mm to 12 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that the grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion to be about 280 mm to 320 mm and also to modify the grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion to be about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and a grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 10, Sakakibara discloses a grip back upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 135 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130a) of a back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip (130) within the index finger cross-sectional portion (135); a grip back middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a convex radius of curvature for sections 137-138 on the back side of the grip) of the back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138); and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 139 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130b) of the back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139).
Sakakibara discloses a grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion; a grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion; and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 12 mm to 16 mm, 210 mm to 250 mm and 8 mm to 12 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that a grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion is about 12 mm to 16 mm; a grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion is about 210 mm to 250 mm; and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 11, Sakakibara discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 2 shows concave radius of curvature near arrow 130a) of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion (135; figs. 2 and 4); wherein a grip side middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 2 shows a convex radius of curvature at portion halfway between arrow 130a and 130b) of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138; figs. 2 and 4); and wherein a grip back lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 139 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130b) of the back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139).
Sakakibara discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 12 mm to 16 mm, 450 mm to 550 mm and 8 mm to 12 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion is about 12 mm to 16 mm; a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion is about 450 mm to 550 mm; and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 12, Sakakibara discloses wherein a grip side upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 2 shows concave radius of curvature near arrow 130a) of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion (135; figs. 2 and 4); a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature (figs. 4 and 10) of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger (131); wherein the back grip upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature near arrow 130a) defines a back grip upper center (see fig. 4 below) of curvature and, when the trigger is in an extended position, the trigger vertical concave radius of curvature defines an extended trigger vertical center of curvature (see fig. 4 below); and wherein a line (see fig. 4 below) through the back grip upper center of curvature and the extended trigger vertical center of curvature intersects the drive axis (see fig. 4 below; top of slide button is parallel with drive axis of 110 as seen in fig. 1) at a narrow acute angle (see fig. 4 below. The line through the centers of curvature slowly approaches the drive axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
1042
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sakakibara discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger and wherein a line through the back grip upper center of curvature and the extended trigger vertical center of curvature intersects the drive axis at a narrow acute angle, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 12 mm to 16 mm and 18 mm to 22 mm respectively and that the narrow acute angle is an angle of about two degrees.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion is about 12 mm to 16 mm, a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger is about 18 mm to 22 mm and wherein a line through the back grip upper center of curvature and the extended trigger vertical center of curvature intersects the drive axis at an angle of about two degrees.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger, wherein a line through the back grip upper center of curvature and the extended trigger vertical center of curvature intersects the drive axis at a narrow acute angle and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 13, Sakakibara discloses a power tool (100; fig. 1) comprising:
a body (103) configured to house a motor (120) and a drive head (110 and portion it is mounted to; paragraph 0030 – “protruded end of the anvil”) rotationally coupled to the motor (paragraphs 0027-0030), the drive head being rotatable about a drive axis (axis of 110), the drive head being disposed on a front of the power tool (left side fig. 1), the power tool also having a back (right side fig. 1) which is disposed opposite of the front;
a handgrip (130) extending from a bottom of the body and a grip top along a handgrip axis to a grip bottom (figs. 1 and 4); the handgrip axis intersecting with the drive axis (fig. 1); the handgrip having a grip front (left side figs. 1 and 4) facing the front, a grip back (right side figs. 1 and 4) facing the back, a first grip side (bottom side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back, and a second grip side (top side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back and opposite the first grip side; the handgrip axis extending at an oblique angle to the drive axis (fig. 1); and
a trigger (131) configured to be depressible (paragraphs 0035, 0052, 0057 and 0065) between an extended position and a depressed position by an index finger such that the trigger actuates along a trigger actuating direction that is substantially parallel to the drive axis and intersects with the handgrip axis (figs. 1 and 10);
a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger (paragraph 0035 – “the user holds the handgrip 130 and depresses the trigger 131 to throw a power switch”; paragraph 0052 – “The front surface of the trigger 131 comprises a contact region depressed in contact with the forefinger of the user”; claim 4);
wherein a trigger extended distance (a1; fig. 5) from the trigger to the apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 53 mm to 57 mm (paragraph 0041 – “53.6 mm +/- 2%”);
wherein a width (see dashed line segment in annotated fig. 5 in rejection of claim 6 above) of the trigger is between about 16 mm to 20 mm (b1; paragraph 0041 – “31.2 mm +/- 2%”; the trigger is about more than half of b1 which would make it about 16 mm or slightly more);
wherein a trigger height (see line segment in annotated fig. 4 in rejection of claim 7 above) of the trigger is about 24 mm to 28 mm (paragraph 0039 – “the second to fifth grip regions 136-139 are arranged, for example, within the range of 47.0 mm +/- 2%”; annotated fig. 4 shows that the trigger height is slightly more than half the distance between regions 136-139 which would make the trigger height about 24 mm to 28 mm);
a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature (figs. 4 and 10) of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger.
Sakakibara discloses a trigger-depressed length, but fails to disclose a trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger is about 48 mm to 52 mm.
However, the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the trigger-depressed length from the trigger to an apex of the partial ellipse shape opposite the trigger be about 48 mm to 52 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger-depressed length, a trigger extended length of about 53 mm to 57 mm and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a width of the trigger is about 16 mm to 20 mm is not specifically disclosed, the Office further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the width of the trigger about 16 mm to 20 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a width of the trigger is about more than half the width of the partial ellipse shape minor axis length (i.e. a width of about 16 mm) and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a trigger height of the trigger is about 24 mm to 28 mm is not specifically disclosed, the Office further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara to have the height of the trigger about 24 mm to 28 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger height is slightly more than half the distance between regions 136-139 (paragraph 0039 – 47 mm) and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Sakakibara discloses a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger, but fails to disclose the radius of curvature is about 18 mm to 22 mm.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger of Sakakibara to have a radius of curvature is about 18 mm to 22 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a trigger vertical concave radius of curvature of a finger engaging front surface of the trigger and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 17, Sakakibara discloses a power tool (100; fig. 1) comprising:
a body (103) configured to house a motor (120) and a drive head (110 and portion it is mounted to; paragraph 0030 – “protruded end of the anvil”) rotationally coupled to the motor (paragraphs 0027-0030), the drive head being rotatable about a drive axis (axis of 110), the drive head being disposed on a front (left side fig. 1) of the power tool with an opposite face being a back (right side fig. 1) of the power tool;
a handgrip (130) extending from a bottom of the body and a grip top along a handgrip axis to a grip bottom (figs. 1 and 4); the handgrip axis intersecting with the drive axis (fig. 1); the handgrip having a grip front (left side figs. 1 and 4) facing the front, a grip back (right side figs. 1 and 4) facing the back, a first grip side (bottom side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back, and a second grip side (top side figs. 5-9) disposed between the grip front and the grip back and opposite the first grip side; the handgrip axis extending at an oblique angle to the drive axis (fig. 1); and
a trigger (131) configured to be depressible (paragraphs 0035, 0052, 0057 and 0065) between an extended position and a depressed position by an index finger such that the trigger actuates along a trigger actuating direction that is substantially parallel to the drive axis and intersects with the handgrip axis (figs. 1 and 10);
wherein the handgrip (130; paragraph 0039) comprises:
an index finger cross-sectional portion (135, fig. 5) at the grip top, the trigger being disposed within the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a middle finger cross-sectional portion (136, fig. 6; or 137, fig. 7) disposed below the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a ring finger cross-sectional portion (137, fig. 7; or 138, fig. 8) disposed below the middle finger cross-sectional portion; and
a little finger cross-sectional portion (139, fig. 9) disposed below the ring finger cross-sectional portion;
a grip front upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 10; shows a concave surface on the front side underneath trigger 131 and above section 137) of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion (at least 136);
a grip back upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 135 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130a) of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion (135).
Sakakibara discloses a grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 8 mm to 12 mm and 12 mm to 16 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara such that the grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion and the grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion to had radii of curvature of about 8 mm to 12 mm and 12 mm to 16 mm, respectively.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip front upper concave radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the middle finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back upper concave radius of curvature of a back surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 18, Sakakibara discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 10; shows a convex radius of curvature for sections 137-138) of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138) and a grip back middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a convex radius of curvature for sections 137-138 on the back side of the grip) of the back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138).
Sakakibara discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 280 mm to 320 mm and 210 mm to 250 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Sakakibara such that the grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion to be about 280 mm to 320 mm and the grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion is about 210 mm to 250 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip front middle convex radius of curvature of a front surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back middle convex radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 19, Sakakibara discloses a grip front lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4; shows a concave radius of curvature in the front portion of section 139) of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139); a grip back lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 139 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130b) of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139).
Sakakibara discloses a grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 8 mm to 12 mm in each.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that a grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion is about 8 mm to 12 mm and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip front lower concave radius of curvature of the front surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 20, Sakakibara discloses wherein a grip side upper concave radius of curvature (fig. 2 shows concave radius of curvature near arrow 130a) of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion (135; figs. 2 and 4); a grip side middle convex radius of curvature (fig. 2 shows a convex radius of curvature at portion halfway between arrow 130a and 130b) of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion (137 or 138; figs. 2 and 4); and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature (fig. 4 shows a concave radius of curvature for section 139 on the back side of the grip near arrow 130b) of the back surface (fig. 4 – right side) of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion (139).
Sakakibara discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion, but fails to disclose the radii of curvature are about 12 mm to 16 mm, 450 mm to 550 mm and 8 mm to 12 mm, respectively.
However the Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the disclosure of Sakakibara such that a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion is about 12 mm to 16 mm; a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion is about 450 mm to 550 mm; and a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion is about 8 mm to 12 mm.
Sakakibara already discloses a grip side upper concave radius of curvature of a side surface of the handgrip within the index finger cross-sectional portion, a grip side middle convex radius of curvature of the side surface of the handgrip within the ring finger cross-sectional portion, a grip back lower concave radius of curvature of the back surface of the handgrip within the little finger cross-sectional portion and is also concerned with the same problem as the instant invention in terms of having handgrip dimensions designed for ergonomics (paragraphs 0053-0054, 0058, and 0063). 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. Providing the claimed ranges is a matter of routine optimization and would have been obvious for the purposes of finding associated handgrip and trigger dimensions that are more comfortable to various users (MPEP 2144.05 II; In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Claim(s) 5 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakibara (US 2011/0079409 A1) in view of Leupert et al. (US 2014/0196923 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sakakibara discloses wherein the handgrip axis extends at the oblique angle toward the back of the power tool (figs. 1 and 10), but does not disclose the oblique angle being about 72 to 78 degrees relative to the drive axis.
However, Leupert teaches a power tool (100; fig. 1) wherein the handgrip axis (114) extends at the oblique angle (116) toward the back of the power tool, the oblique angle being about 72 to 78 degrees (paragraph 0044 - predetermined angle 116 is… approximately 72.5 degrees”) relative to the drive axis (112).
Given the teachings of Leupert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the oblique angle of Sakakibara such that it was about 72 to 78 degrees relative to the drive axis as in Leupert. Both references are concerned with the problem of properly orienting a handgrip so that it may be more easily used by a user. Using such an angle would help to properly orient the drive axis relative to the work when the user was holding the tool. This type of angle is one commonly used in the hand tool art.
Regarding claim 14, Sakakibara discloses wherein the handgrip axis extends at the oblique angle toward the back of the power tool (figs. 1 and 10), but does not disclose the oblique angle being about 72 to 78 degrees relative to the drive axis.
However, Leupert teaches a power tool (100; fig. 1) wherein the handgrip axis (114) extends at the oblique angle (116) toward the back of the power tool, the oblique angle being about 72 to 78 degrees (paragraph 0044 - predetermined angle 116 is… approximately 72.5 degrees”) relative to the drive axis (112).
Given the teachings of Leupert, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the oblique angle of Sakakibara such that it was about 72 to 78 degrees relative to the drive axis as in Leupert. Both references are concerned with the problem of properly orienting a handgrip so that it may be more easily used by a user. Using such an angle would help to properly orient the drive axis relative to the work when the user was holding the tool. This type of angle is one commonly used in the hand tool art.
Regarding claim 15, Sakakibara discloses wherein the handgrip (130; paragraph 0039) comprises:
an index finger cross-sectional portion (135, fig. 5) at the grip top, the trigger being disposed within the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a middle finger cross-sectional portion (136, fig. 6; or 137, fig. 7) disposed below the index finger cross-sectional portion;
a ring finger cross-sectional portion (137, fig. 7; or 138, fig. 8) disposed below the middle finger cross-sectional portion; and
a little finger cross-sectional portion (139, fig. 9) disposed below the ring finger cross-sectional portion;
wherein the handgrip has a partial ellipse shape (fig. 5; paragraph 0041) at an index finger cross-section taken through the trigger and parallel to the drive axis in the index finger cross-sectional portion, the partial ellipse shape having a partial ellipse shape minor axis length (b1; paragraph 0041 – “31.2 mm +/- 2%”) that is within a range of about 29 millimeters (mm) to 33 mm;
wherein the handgrip has a first ellipse shape (fig. 6, paragraph 0042; or fig. 7, paragraph 0043) at a middle finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the middle finger cross-sectional portion, the first ellipse shape having a first ellipse shape minor axis length (b2 or b3) of about 31 mm to about 35mm (paragraphs 0041-0043; b2 “34.5 mm +/-2%” or b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%”);
wherein the handgrip has a second ellipse shape (fig. 7, paragraph 0043; or fig. 8, paragraph 0044) at a ring finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the ring finger cross-sectional portion, the second ellipse shape having a second ellipse shape minor axis length (b3, paragraph 0043 - “33.7 mm +/- 2%”; or b4, paragraph 0044 – “32.0 mm +/- 2%”) of about 30mm to 34mm (b3 “33.7 mm +/- 2%” and b4 “32.0 mm +/- 2%”); and
wherein the handgrip has a third ellipse shape (fig. 9, paragraph 0045) at a little finger cross-section taken perpendicular to the handgrip axis in the little finger cross-sectional portion, the third ellipse shape having a third ellipse shape minor axis length (b5) of about 29 mm to 33 mm (paragraph 0045; b5 “29.4 mm +/- 2%”).
Regarding claim 16, Sakakibara discloses wherein a first ellipse shape (fig. 6 or fig. 7) major axis length (a2 or a3) of the first ellipse shape is about 41 mm to 45 mm (paragraph 0042 – “46.0 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 45 mm; or paragraph 0043 – “45.4 mm +/- 2%”, this range includes 44.5 mm); wherein a second ellipse shape (fig. 8) major axis length (a4) of the second ellipse shape is about 40 mm to 44 mm (paragraph 0044 – “43.3 mm +/- 2%”); and wherein a third ellipse shape (fig. 9) major axis length (a5) of the third ellipse shape is about 36 mm to 40 mm (paragraph 0045 – “38.7 mm +/- 2%”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. The prior art of record generally pertains to ergonomic designs for power tool handles with Lopano et al. (US 11,260,518 B2) being a reference exemplary of this.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights