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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 62/328102, PCT/IB2017/052453, 15/601864, PCT/IB2017/054379, and 16/107842, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. None of the above-identified applications provide adequate support for a fastener extractor device comprising an external thread, tubular sleeve, or internal thread. The earliest support for the claimed subject matter appears in provisional application 62/733507. Accordingly, the current claims are afforded the effective filing date of this provisional application, which is 19 Sep 2018.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the concave bracing surface of claim 5, convex bracing surface of claim 6, the shank body in the form of a rectangular prism of claim 19, and the “not flat” first base of claims 21 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12403574 (hereinafter ‘574). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘574 fully encompass or render obvious the subject matter of the claims in the instant application.
Specifically, claim 1 of ‘574 discloses the entirety of claim 1, using the same language, except for the internal thread being positioned within the tubular sleeve, the torque-tool body being positioned opposite to the drive head, along the shank body; the torque tool body extending radially outward from a rotation axis of the torque tool body, and the external thread being laterally connected to the shank body. However, these limitations from the instant application are indicated by different phrases in ‘574. In particular, the language of ‘574 indicates the torque-tool body being positioned opposite to the drive head, along the shank body (in ‘574: “the external thread extending along the shank body in between the torque-tool body and the drive head” indicating the torque-tool body and drive head being on opposite sides of the shank body); the torque tool body extending radially outward from a rotation axis of the torque tool body (in ‘574: “the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls being radially positioned about a rotation axis of the torque-tool body”, indicating the sidewalls, which are a part of the torque-tool body are radially outward from the rotational axis), and the external thread being laterally connected to the shank body (in ‘574: “the external thread extending along the shank body”). While claim 1 of ‘574 does not explicitly recite that the internal thread is positioned within the tubular sleeve, ‘574 does recite the device including a tubular sleeve and an internal thread, and describes an external thread on the shank body. As the term “sleeve” implies the tubular sleeve is intended to be placed over the shank body, and the shank body has an external thread, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the internal thread within the tubular sleeve, achieving the predictable result of threadedly connecting the tubular sleeve and shank body. Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application is rendered obvious by claim 1 of ‘574.
Regarding claims 2-18 and 20 of the instant application, these limitations are anticipated by limitations found in claims 1-15 of ‘574. Specifically, the limitations of claim 2 are found in claims 1 and 2 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 3 are found in claims 1 and 3 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 4 are found in claims 1 and 4 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 5 are found in claims 1 and 5 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 6 are found in claims 1 and 6 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 7 are implied in claim 8 of ‘574 (claim 8 of ‘574 recites the shank body is concentrically positioned within the tubular sleeve, which would necessitate a first end positioned adjacent to the torque-tool body with an opening greater than the diameter of the torque-tool body as claimed); the limitations of claim 8 are found in claim 8 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 9 are found in claim 9 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 10 are found in claim 10 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 11 are found in claim 1 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 12 are found in claims 1 and 2 of ‘574 (claim 1 of ‘574 recites at least part of a cross section being uniform and non-tapering from the first base toward the second base, indicating a parallel cross-section); the limitations of claim 13 are found in claims 1 and 14 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 14 are found in claim 11 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 15 are found in claim 12 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 16 are indicated in claim 1 of ‘574 (the body and tubular sleeve are two pieces); the limitations of claim 17 are found in claim 1 of ‘574; the limitations of claim 18 are indicated in claim 1 of ‘574 (the device includes the tubular sleeve); the limitations of claim 20 are found in claim 1 of ‘574.
Regarding instant claim 19, claim 1 of ‘574 teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. ‘574 does not teach the shank body being in the form of a solid prism. However, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious modifications for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). As the shape of the shank body would not change the function of the extractor, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shank body of ‘574 in the shape of a rectangular prism, still achieving its purpose of providing a connection between the torque-tool body and drive head.
Claims 21-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12403574 (hereinafter ‘574) in view of Jackman (US 2121197).
Regarding claims 21-22, claims 1 and 14 of ‘574 teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as described above. ‘574 does not teach the first base being not flat in shape. Jackman teaches a fastener extractor device (fig 1) wherein the base (10) is not flat in shape (hemispherical shape shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first base of ‘574 to be not flat, as a hemispherical shape allows the tool to be self-centering as taught by Jackman (p 2, col 1, lines 10-13).
Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11154969 (hereinafter ‘969). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘969 anticipate or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Specifically claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the limitations found in claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969, which uses the same language as the instant application, except for the torque-tool body extending radially outward from a rotation axis of the torque-tool body. While this limitation is not explicitly recited in the claims of ‘969, this structure is indicated by claim 1 of ‘969, which recites “the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls being radially positioned about a rotation axis of the torque-tool body”, indicating the sidewalls, which are a part of the torque-tool body, are radially outward from the rotational axis. Thus, claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969 anticipate claim 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claims 2-4, 7-16, 18, and 20 of the instant application, these limitations are anticipated by limitations found in claims 1-12 of ‘969. Specifically, the limitations of claims 2-4 are found in claim 1 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 7 are implied in claim 8 of ‘969 (claim 8 of ‘969 recites the shank body is concentrically positioned within the tubular sleeve, which would necessitate a first end positioned adjacent to the torque-tool body with an opening greater than the diameter of the torque-tool body as claimed); the limitations of claim 8 are found in claim 8 of ‘969; the limitations of claims 9 are found in claim 9 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 10 are found in claim 2 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 11 are found in claim 3 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 12 are found in claim 4 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 13 are found in claim 6 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 14 are found in claim 10 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 15 are found in claim 11 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 16 are found in claim 7 of ‘969 (the tubular sleeve and shank body are two pieces as claimed); the limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 8 of ‘969; the limitations of claim 20 are found in claim 1 of ‘969.
Regarding instant claim 19, claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. ‘969 does not teach the shank body being in the form of a solid prism. However, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious modifications for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). As the shape of the shank body would not change the function of the extractor, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shank body of ‘969 in the shape of a rectangular prism, still achieving its purpose of providing a connection between the torque-tool body and drive head.
Claims 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11154969 (hereinafter ‘969) in view of Nigra (US 1875484).
Claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969 teach all the elements of claim 1 of the instant application as detailed above, and further teach all the elements of claim 5 (found in claim 1 of ‘969), except for the bracing surface being a concave surface. Nigra teaches a fastener extractor device including a bracing surface (16, 17) being a concave surface (fig 5). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bracing surface of ‘969 to be concave, as this allows the extractor to exert rotational force upon the fastener while minimizing expansion forces as taught by Nigra (p 2, col 1, lines 45-56).
Claims 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11154969 (hereinafter ‘969) in view of Pool (US 6098499).
Claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969 teach all the elements of claim 1 of the instant application as detailed above, and further teach all the elements of claim 5 (found in claim 1 of ‘969), except for the bracing surface being a convex surface. Pool teaches a fastener extractor device including a bracing surface (70) being a convex surface (fig 3; col 3, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bracing surface of ‘969 to be convex, as this prevents the extractor from breaking when exposed to high forces as taught by Pool (col 3, lines 53-57).
Claim 17, 21, and 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11154969 (hereinafter ‘969) in view of Jackman.
Regarding claim 17, claims 1, 7, and 8 of ‘969 teach all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. ‘969 does not teach the at least one engagement feature being configured to cut into a fastener sidewall. Jackman teaches a fastener extractor device with an engagement feature configured to cut into a fastener sidewall (p2, col 2, lines 5-9). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the engagement features of ‘969 to cut into a fastener sidewall, as this provides increased gripping strength to the tool as taught by Jackman (p2, col 2, lines 5-9).
Regarding claims 21-22, claims 1, 3, and 6-8 of ‘969 teach all the limitations of claims 11 and 13 as described above. ‘969 does not teach the first base being not flat in shape. Jackman teaches a fastener extractor device (fig 1) wherein the base (10) is not flat in shape (hemispherical shape shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first base of ‘969 to be not flat, as a hemispherical shape allows the tool to be self-centering as taught by Jackman (p 2, col 1, lines 10-13).
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 7, 12, 14-15 and 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the opening" in the fourth line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if an opening is necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, “the opening” will be read as “an opening” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the entire cross section" in the third line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what element is being referred to here and if a particular cross section of the engagement cavity is being defined here. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “the shank body” in the 6th line and “the torque-tool body” in the 8th line. However, there is antecedent basis for first and second shank bodies and first and second torque-tool bodies, making it unclear which is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 15 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 14.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being formed as the at least one corner" in the second to last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one corner” in the claim. It is unclear what element is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be interpreted as defining the first and second lateral edges forming a corner, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the claim.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackman (US 2121197) in view of Miyazaki (JP 2017-042898, see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Jackman teaches a fastener extractor device comprising: a drive head (13); at least one torque-tool body (5’); the drive head being terminally and concentrically connected to the torque-tool body (as shown in fig 6); the torque-tool body being positioned opposite to the drive head, along the body (shown in fig 1); the torque tool body extending radially outward from a rotation axis of the torque tool body (torque tool body extends outward from central vertical axis as viewed in fig 6); the torque-tool body being terminally and concentrically connected to the drive head (shown in fig 1); the torque-tool body comprising a plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls (see annotated fig 9 below) and at least one engagement feature; the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls being radially positioned about the rotation axis of the torque-tool body (as shown in fig 9); each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls comprising at least one lateral edge (see annotated fig below); the at least one lateral edge being parallel with the rotation axis (as shown in fig 6); and the at least one engagement feature being integrated into a specific sidewall among the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls (as shown in fig 9).
Jackman does not teach the fastener extractor including an external thread extending along a shank body between the torque-tool body and drive head, or an internal thread positioned within a tubular sleeve. Miyazaki teaches a fastener extractor device including at least one shank body (fig 6; section of tool with thread 10), an external thread (10), a tubular sleeve (14; fig 7), an internal thread (15) being positioned within the tubular sleeve (fig 7), wherein a drive head (12) terminally and concentrically connected to the shank body (fig 6), a torque-tool body (11) is positioned opposite to the drive head and being terminally and concentrically connected to the shank body (fig 6), wherein the external thread extends along the shank body in between the torque-tool body and the drive head (fig 6), wherein the external thread is laterally connected to the shank body (fig 6). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shank body with an external thread terminally connected between the torque-tool body and drive head of Jackman, and provide a tubular sleeve with an internal thread within, as this allows a threaded connection to the tubular sleeve, which assists the user in removing a fastener from the torque-tool body as taught by Miyazaki ([0053]).
Regarding claim 2, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising a bracing surface (see annotated fig below); the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface; the at least one engagement feature being an engagement cavity; an entire cross-section of the at least one engagement cavity comprising a curved portion and a straight portion; the curved portion being positioned adjacent to the first lateral edge of the specific sidewall; the straight portion being positioned adjacent to the curved portion, opposite the first lateral edge of the specific sidewall; and, the straight portion extending from the curved portion to the second lateral edge of the specific sidewall (as shown in annotated fig 9 below).
Regarding claim 3, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising (see annotated fig below) a bracing surface; the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface (as shown); the at least one engagement feature being an engagement cavity; and the at least one engagement cavity partially traversing normal and into the bracing surface of the specific sidewall such that at least one engagement tooth is formed on the bracing surface of the specific sidewall (see annotated fig below).
Regarding claim 4, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising (see annotated fig 9 below) a bracing surface; the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface; and the bracing surface being a flat surface (as shown in fig 9).
Regarding claim 7, Jackman, as modified by Miyazaki, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miyazaki further teaches a first end of the tubular sleeve (included in the modification as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) being positioned adjacent to the at least one torque-tool body (bottom end as shown in fig 8); and an opening of the first end having a diameter greater than a diameter of the at least one torque-tool body (as shown in fig 8).
Regarding claim 8, Jackman, as modified by Miyazaki, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miyazaki further teaches the internal thread (included in the modification as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) extending along the tubular sleeve (fig 6); the internal thread traversing into the tubular sleeve; the shank body being concentrically positioned within the tubular sleeve (as shown in fig 8); and the internal thread being mechanically engaged to the external thread ([0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Jackman, as modified by Miyazaki, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miyazaki further teaches a nut (13; included in the sleeve provided by Jackman), and the shank body being positioned within the nut (as shown in fig 8).
Regarding claims 10-12, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches the at least one engagement feature comprises a plurality of engagement features (fig 9) the plurality of engagement features being radially positioned about the rotation axis of the torque-tool body and, each of the plurality of engagement features being integrated into a corresponding sidewall from the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls (see fig 9); the torque-tool body comprising a first base (tip at bottom as shown in fig 6) and a second base (horizontal cross section at top of engagement features as viewed in fig 6), the first base and the second base each being oriented perpendicular to each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls (horizontally oriented in fig 6) and, the shank body being adjacently connected to the second base, opposite to the first base (when the shank body of Miyazaki is included between the torque-tool body and drive head as described in the rejection of claim 1 above); and the at least one engagement feature being an engagement cavity (see annotated fig), and an entire cross-section of the engagement cavity being parallel to the first base and the second base (cross section shown in fig 9 is parallel to the first and second bases).
Regarding claim 16-18 and 20, Jackman, as modified by Miyazaki, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches the fastener extractor device is formed in two pieces (when the tubular sleeve of Miyazaki is employed as described in the rejection of claim 1 above); the at least one engagement feature being configured to cut into a fastener sidewall (as shown in fig 9); the tubular sleeve is integrated into the fastener extractor device (when the tubular sleeve of Miyazaki is employed as described in the rejection of claim 1 above); and each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising (see annotated fig below) a bracing surface, the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge, the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface, and the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge forming at least one corner (see corners at each lateral edge).
Regarding claim 19, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman and Miyazaki do not teach the shank body being in the form of a solid prism (it is unclear if the shank body of Miyazaki is a solid prism, but it appears to be cylindrical rather than prismatic). However, it has been held that changes in shape are obvious modifications for a person of ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.). As the shape of the shank body would not change the function of the extractor, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the shank body of Jackman in the shape of a rectangular prism, still achieving its purpose of providing a connection between the torque-tool body and drive head.
Regarding claim 21, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Jackman, in the relied upon embodiment of fig 6, does not teach the first base being not flat in shape (as shown in fig 6, the base at the bottom tip of the device is flat). However, Jackman further teaches another embodiment (fig 1) wherein the base (10) is not flat in shape (hemispherical shape shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first base of Jackman to be not flat, as a hemispherical shape allows the tool to be self-centering as taught by Jackman (p 2, col 1, lines 10-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
794
978
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackman and Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nigra (US 1875484).
Regarding claim 5, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising (see annotated fig 9 below) a bracing surface; the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface. Jackman does not teach the bracing surface is a concave surface (in Jackman the bracing surface is flat). Nigra teaches a fastener extractor device including a bracing surface (16, 17) being a concave surface (fig 5). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bracing surface of Jackman to be concave, as this allows the extractor to exert rotational force upon the fastener while minimizing expansion forces as taught by Nigra (p 2, col 1, lines 45-56).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackman and Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pool (US 6098499).
Regarding claim 6, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches each of the plurality of laterally-bracing sidewalls further comprising (see annotated fig 9 below) a bracing surface; the at least one lateral edge comprising a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge; the first lateral edge and the second lateral edge being positioned opposite to each other across the bracing surface. Jackman does not teach the bracing surface being a convex surface. Pool teaches a fastener extractor device including a bracing surface (70) being a convex surface (fig 3; col 3, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the bracing surface of ‘969 to be convex, as this prevents the extractor from breaking when exposed to high forces as taught by Pool (col 3, lines 53-57).
Claim(s) 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackman and Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jorneus (US 6419489).
Regarding claim 13, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman further teaches the torque-tool body comprising a first base (tip at bottom as shown in fig 6) and a second base (horizontal cross section at top of engagement features as viewed in fig 6), the shank body being adjacently connected to the second base, opposite to the first base (when the shank body of Miyazaki is included between the torque-tool body and drive head as described in the rejection of claim 1 above). Jackman does not teach the torque-tool body tapering from the second base towards the first base. Jorneus teaches a fastener extractor device including a torque-tool body (21) tapering from a second base toward a first base (fig 5; tapers from element 23 toward tip). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the torque-tool body of Jackman to taper from the second base toward the first base, as this allows the device to firmly wedge into a fastener as taught by Jorneus (col 4, lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 22, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Jackman, in the relied upon embodiment of fig 6, does not teach the first base being not flat in shape (as shown in fig 6, the base at the bottom tip of the device is flat). However, Jackman further teaches another embodiment (fig 1) wherein the base (10) is not flat in shape (hemispherical shape shown in fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first base of Jackman to be not flat, as a hemispherical shape allows the tool to be self-centering as taught by Jackman (p 2, col 1, lines 10-13).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jackman and Miyazaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fruhm (US 6352011).
Regarding claim 14, Jackman as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jackman, as modified, teaches the extractor device includes a first shank body and first torque tool body (at “at least one” shank body and torque tool body identified in the rejection of claim 1 above). Jackman does not teach a second shank body and second torque-tool body having substantially the same arrangement and structure of the first shank body and first torque-tool body. Fruhm teaches an extractor device including a drive head (14), first and second shank bodies (28, 30), and first and second torque tool bodies (24, 26), the drive head being terminally and concentrically connected to the first shank body and the second shank body (fig 1), the first shank body and second shank body being positioned opposite to each other across the drive head (fig 1); the first and second torque tool bodies being terminally and concentrically connected to the first and second shank bodies opposite the drive head (fig 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing the invention to provide the fastener extractor device of Jackman with a second shank body and second torque tool body arranged opposite each other across a drive head to provide the device with the capability of engaging differently sized fasteners and allowing a chuck tool to drive the tool as taught by Fruhm (col 1, lines 39-43; col 3, lines 36-41).
Regarding claim 15, Jackman, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Miyazaki further teaches the at least one external thread comprises a first external thread (10; the external thread described in the rejection of claim 1 above) extending along a first shank body in between a first torque tool body and a drive head and being laterally connected to the first shank body (as shown in fig 6). While Jackman only teaches a single external thread, as detailed in the rejection of claim 14 above, Fruhm renders obvious the use of first and second shank bodies on opposite sides of the drive head. When applied to Jackman, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second external thread on and laterally connected to the second shank body between the second torque-tool body and drive head, as this allows the tubular sleeve to be threadedly connected to the second shank body, which assists the user in removing a fastener from the torque-tool body as taught by Miyazaki ([0053]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar extractor devices are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723