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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed July 10, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 4-26 are currently pending and have been examined. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1-2, 4-7, and 10-14. Claim 3 is cancelled by applicant. Claims 15-26 are newly presented. The previous double patent rejection is withdrawn due to the newly submitted and accepted “Terminal Disclaimer” dated 07/13/2026. The previous claim objections, 112a rejections, and 112b rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. The 102 and 103 rejections have been modified due to applicant’s amendments. For the reason(s) set forth below, applicant’s arguments have not been found persuasive. The action is Final.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schulz (US Pub. No. 2020/0070321).
Regarding claim 1, Schulz discloses: an anti-slip fastener remover tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0018) comprises:
a torque-tool body (element 102);
a plurality of paired engagement features (elements 106a-106f);
a plurality of intersection points (elements 104a-104f);
each of the plurality of paired engagement features comprising a first engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and a second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B);
a cross section (see figure 1 annotated below) for the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature each comprising a bracing section (element 108a/108b), a cavity section (element 112a/112b/114), and a connector section (element 110a/110b), wherein the bracing section is flat (see paragraph 0021-0022 where the prior art discloses elements 108a and 108b as being “straight portions” also being referred to as “flat”);
the plurality of paired engagement features being radially distributed about a rotational axis (see figure 1 annotated below Detail X) of the torque-tool body;
the bracing section and the cavity section being connected to each other by the connector section for each of the first and second engagement features (see figure 1 annotated below);
the connector section being a convex segment (see figure 1 annotated above (page 20) showing the connector section (element 110a/110b) being convex, thus having a convex segment);
the connector section being oriented away from the rotational axis (see figure 1 annotated below);
the cavity section of the first engagement feature being connected to the cavity section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below);
the cavity section of the first engagement feature and the cavity section of the second engagement feature being oriented towards the rotational axis (see figure 1 annotated below showing both cavity sections (elements 112a/112b) having inward walls that oriented towards the rotational axis (Detail X));
the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature being oppositely positioned of each other about the cavity section of the first engagement feature and the cavity section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below);
an arbitrary paired engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C) from the plurality of paired engagement features and an adjacent paired engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail D) from the plurality of paired engagement features being connected to each other through a corresponding intersection point (element 104f) from the plurality of intersection points;
a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail E/G) of the intersection point being larger than a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail F) of each point on the connector section of the first engagement feature when measured along the same cross section as the intersection point (see figure 1 annotated 2 below showing an illustrative circle passing each intersection portion (elements 104a-104f) including the intersection point (element 104a) having the radial distance (Detail E) and see also each point of the connector section (element 110a)) of the first engagement feature (Detail A) having the radial distance (Detail F) within the illustrative circle, thus the radial distance of the intersection point is larger than the radial distance of each point on the connector section of the first engagement feature); and
the radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail G) of the intersection point being larger than a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail H) of each point on the connector section of the second engagement feature when measured along the same cross section as the intersection point (see figure 1 annotated 2 below showing an illustrative circle passing each intersection portion (elements 104a-104f) including the intersection point (element 104b) having the radial distance (Detail G) and see also each point of the connector section (element 110b)) of the second engagement feature (Detail B) having the radial distance (Detail G) within the illustrative circle, thus the radial distance of the intersection point is larger than the radial distance of each point on the connector section of the second engagement feature).
PNG
media_image1.png
988
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
988
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the torque-tool body is outwardly extended from the rotational axis to the plurality of paired engagement features (see figure 1 annotated above (page 6)).
Regarding claim 7, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature are positioned offset of each other (see figure 1 annotated above (page 6)) showing the bracing section (element 108a) of the first engagement feature (Detail A) .
Regarding claim 8, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, comprising:
an attachment body (element 302);
the attachment body being centrally positioned around and along the rotational axis (see figure 3 annotated below); and
the attachment body being adjacently connected to the torque-tool body (see figure 3 annotated below showing the attachment body (element 302) being adjacently connected to the torque-tool body (element 102)).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating a radial profile (see figure 1 showing portions of the cavity section (elements 112a/112b) delineating a radial profile).
Regarding claim 13, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating a radii profile (see figure 1 showing portions of the cavity section (elements 112a/112b) delineating a radii profile).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 5-6, 12, 14-21, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US Pub. No. 2020/0070321).
Regarding claim 2, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein a first angle (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) between the first engagement feature, and wherein a second angle (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) between the second engagement feature.
PNG
media_image4.png
988
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the first angle is 30 degrees and the second angle is 30 degrees.
However, it there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle of the first and second angle between the first/second engagement features would result in a difference in function of the Schulz et al. anti-slip remover tool. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the angle of Schulz, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the first angle between the first engagement feature and second angle between the second engagement feature to be 30 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 22-24), therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 5, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the radial distance (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) of the intersection point is larger than a first-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the first engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below showing the radial distance (Detail A) being larger than the first-length (Detail B)).
PNG
media_image5.png
988
932
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the first-length for the bracing section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the first-length for the bracing section since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed radial distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 5-6), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, wherein the radial distance (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) of the intersection point is larger than a second-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below showing the radial distance (Detail A) being larger than the second-length (Detail B)).
PNG
media_image6.png
988
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the second-length for the bracing section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the second-length for the bracing section, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed radial distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 5-7), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 12, Schulz discloses all the elements as claimed in claim 1, but appears to be silent wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating an angular profile.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to provide wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating an angular profile, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the cavity section of the engagement features with a desired profile including the claimed angular profile would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the engagement features to securely engage different portions of the fastener head during operations (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem and offers other acceptable profiles (see specification page 0010, ll. 23-28), therefore there is no criticality placed on the angular profile claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 14, Schulz discloses: the anti-slip remover tool of claim 1, wherein a first-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) for the bracing section of the first engagement feature is not equal to a second-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
PNG
media_image7.png
988
932
media_image7.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the first-length is not equal to the second-length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the first-length is not equal to the second-length, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed first-length being not equal to the second-length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0018, ll. 4-7), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 15, Schulz discloses: an anti-slip fastener remover tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0018) comprises:
a torque-tool body (element 102);
a plurality of paired engagement features (elements 106a-106f);
a plurality of intersection points (elements 104a-104f);
each of the plurality of paired engagement features comprising a first engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and a second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B);
a cross section (see figure 1 annotated below) for the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature each comprising a bracing section (element 108a/108b), a cavity section (element 112a/112b/114), and a connector section (element 110a/110b), wherein the bracing section is flat (see paragraph 0021-0022 where the prior art discloses elements 108a and 108b as being “straight portions” also being referred to as “flat”);
the plurality of paired engagement features being radially distributed about a rotational axis (see figure 1 annotated below Detail X) of the torque-tool body;
the bracing section and the cavity section being connected to each other by the connector section for each of the first and second engagement features (see figure 1 annotated below);
the cavity section of the first engagement feature being connected to the cavity section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below);
the cavity section of the first engagement feature and the cavity section of the second engagement feature being oriented towards the rotational axis (see figure 1 annotated below showing both cavity sections (elements 112a/112b) having inward walls that oriented towards the rotational axis (Detail X));
the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature being oppositely positioned of each other about the cavity section of the first engagement feature and the cavity section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below);
a first-length (see figure 1 annotated 3 below Detail I) for the bracing section of the first engagement feature being not equal to a second-length (see figure 1 annotated 3 below Detail J) for the bracing section of the second engagement feature;
an arbitrary paired engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C) from the plurality of paired engagement features and an adjacent paired engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below Detail D) from the plurality of paired engagement features being connected to each other through a corresponding intersection point (element 104f) from the plurality of intersection points;
a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail E) of the intersection point being larger than a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail F) of each point on the connector section of the first engagement feature when measured along the same cross section as the intersection point (see figure 1 annotated 2 below showing an illustrative circle passing each intersection portion (elements 104a-104f) including the intersection point (element 104a) having the radial distance (Detail E) and see also each point of the connector section (element 110a)) of the first engagement feature (Detail A) having the radial distance (Detail F) within the illustrative circle, thus the radial distance of the intersection point is larger than the radial distance of each point on the connector section of the first engagement feature); and
the radial distance of the intersection point being larger than a radial distance (see figure 1 annotated 2 below Detail H) of each point on the connector section of the second engagement feature when measured along the same cross section as the intersection point (see figure 1 annotated 2 below showing an illustrative circle passing each intersection portion (elements 104a-104f) including the intersection point (element 104b) having the radial distance (Detail G) and see also each point of the connector section (element 110b)) of the second engagement feature (Detail B) having the radial distance (Detail G) within the illustrative circle, thus the radial distance of the intersection point is larger than the radial distance of each point on the connector section of the second engagement feature).
PNG
media_image1.png
988
972
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
988
932
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
584
580
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the first-length being not equal to the second-length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the first-length being not equal to the second-length, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed first-length being not equal to the second-length. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0018, ll. 4-7), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 16, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein a first angle (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) between the first engagement feature, and wherein a second angle (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) between the second engagement feature.
PNG
media_image4.png
988
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the first angle is 30 degrees and the second angle is 30 degrees.
However, it there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angle of the first and second angle between the first/second engagement features would result in a difference in function of the Schulz et al. anti-slip remover tool. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the angle of Schulz, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle of the first angle between the first engagement feature and second angle between the second engagement feature to be 30 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 22-24), therefore there is no criticality placed on the angle claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 17, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the torque-tool body is outwardly extended from the rotational axis to the plurality of paired engagement features (see figure 1 annotated above (page 20)).
Regarding claim 18, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the radial distance (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) of the intersection point is larger than a first-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the first engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below showing the radial distance (Detail A) being larger than the first-length (Detail B)).
PNG
media_image5.png
988
932
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz modified appears to be silent wherein the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the first-length for the bracing section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the first-length for the bracing section since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed radial distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 5-6), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 19, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the radial distance (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) of the intersection point is larger than a second-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the second engagement feature (see figure 1 annotated below showing the radial distance (Detail A) being larger than the second-length (Detail B)).
PNG
media_image6.png
988
932
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz modified appears to be silent wherein the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the second-length for the bracing section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the radial distance of the intersection point is 4 to 12 times larger than the second-length for the bracing section, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed radial distance. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0013, ll. 5-7), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 20, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature are positioned offset of each other (see figure 1 annotated above (page 20)) showing the bracing section (element 108a) of the first engagement feature (Detail A).
Regarding claim 21, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, comprising:
an attachment body (element 302);
the attachment body being centrally positioned around and along the rotational axis (see figure 3 annotated below); and
the attachment body being adjacently connected to the torque-tool body (see figure 3 annotated below showing the attachment body (element 302) being adjacently connected to the torque-tool body (element 102)).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating a radial profile (see figure 1 showing portions of the cavity section (elements 112a/112b) delineating a radial profile).
Regarding claim 25, Schulz modified discloses all the elements as claimed in claim 15, but appears to be silent wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating an angular profile.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to provide wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating an angular profile, since a change in shape of an element involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the cavity section of the engagement features with a desired profile including the claimed angular profile would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing the engagement features to securely engage different portions of the fastener head during operations (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem and offers other acceptable profiles (see specification page 0010, ll. 23-28), therefore there is no criticality placed on the angular profile claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 26, Schulz modified discloses: the anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature delineating a radii profile (see figure 1 showing portions of the cavity section (elements 112a/112b) delineating a radii profile).
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US Pub. No. 2020/0070321) in view of Kukucka (WO 2020039285).
Regarding claim 9, Schulz discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1 and 8, but appears to be silent comprising an engagement bore; and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body.
Kukucka is also concern in providing anti-slip remover tool (Figure 6 and see also page 007, ll. 12-21) comprising a torque-tool body (element 1), a plurality of engagement features (elements 5/8), a rotational axis (element 16), an attachment body (element 19), and further comprising an engagement bore (element 20); and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body (see figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Kukucka to provide an engagement bore; and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the anti-slip remover tool comprise an engagement bore would necessarily allow the present invention to be attached to a male attachment member of an external torque tool, such as a socket wrench or a screw driver as disclosed by Kukucka (see page 007, ll. 12-15).
Regarding claim 22, Schulz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 15 and 21, but appears to be silent comprising an engagement bore; and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body.
Kukucka is also concern in providing anti-slip remover tool (Figure 6 and see also page 007, ll. 12-21) comprising a torque-tool body (element 1), a plurality of engagement features (elements 5/8), a rotational axis (element 16), an attachment body (element 19), and further comprising an engagement bore (element 20); and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body (see figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Kukucka to provide an engagement bore; and the engagement bore traversing into the attachment body along the rotational axis, opposite of the torque-tool body. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the anti-slip remover tool comprise an engagement bore would necessarily allow the present invention to be attached to a male attachment member of an external torque tool, such as a socket wrench or a screw driver as disclosed by Kukucka (see page 007, ll. 12-15).
Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz (US Pub. No. 2020/0070321) in view of Dace (US Patent No. 7,992,878).
Regarding claim 10, Schulz discloses: anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 1, further comprising:
the torque-tool body further comprising a first base (see figure 4 annotated below Box 1) and a second base (see figure 4 annotated below Box 2);
the first base being oriented parallel with the second base (see figure 4 annotated below showing portions (wall) of the second base oriented parallel with a portion (wall) of the first base);
the plurality of engagement features being arranged between the first base and the second base (see figure 4 annotated below);
wherein a cavity width (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than a cavity width (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B) taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
PNG
media_image9.png
480
1105
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz appears to be silent wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base and wherein the cavity width taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than the cavity width taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
Dace is also concern in providing an anti-slip remover tool (Figures 1-8B and see also col. 2, ll. 64-67) comprising a torque-tool body (element 22), a plurality of engagement features (elements 32/34/36) having a first engagement feature (element 32) and second engagement feature (element 36) each having a cavity section (see figures 4-5 annotated below Detail A), a first base (see figure 5 annotated below Box 1), a second base (see figure 5 annotated below Box 2), and wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base (see figure 5 annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
500
587
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
748
1136
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Dace to provide wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the tapered engagement features would necessarily grab the edges of the fastener and force the fastener into alignment if misaligned without having to rotate the fastener as disclosed by Dace (see col. 1, ll. 57-63 and col. 2, ll. 58-63), thus providing a better and more precise connection between the tool and the fastener to be worked upon through aligning the fastener with the tool.
However, Schulz modified appears to be silent wherein the cavity width taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than the cavity width taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the cavity width taken along the first base be greater than the cavity width taken along the second base, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed the cavity width taken along the first base be greater than the cavity width taken along the second base. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0005, ll. 21-22 and page 0022, ll. 21-26), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 23, Schulz modified discloses: anti-slip fastener remover tool of claim 15, further comprising:
the torque-tool body further comprising a first base (see figure 4 annotated below Box 1) and a second base (see figure 4 annotated below Box 2);
the first base being oriented parallel with the second base (see figure 4 annotated below showing portions (wall) of the second base oriented parallel with a portion (wall) of the first base);
the plurality of engagement features being arranged between the first base and the second base (see figure 4 annotated below);
wherein a cavity width (see figure 4 annotated below Detail A) taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than a cavity width (see figure 4 annotated below Detail B) taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
PNG
media_image9.png
480
1105
media_image9.png
Greyscale
However, Schulz modified appears to be silent wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base and wherein the cavity width taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than the cavity width taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
Dace is also concern in providing an anti-slip remover tool (Figures 1-8B and see also col. 2, ll. 64-67) comprising a torque-tool body (element 22), a plurality of engagement features (elements 32/34/36) having a first engagement feature (element 32) and second engagement feature (element 36) each having a cavity section (see figures 4-5 annotated below Detail A), a first base (see figure 5 annotated below Box 1), a second base (see figure 5 annotated below Box 2), and wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base (see figure 5 annotated below).
PNG
media_image10.png
500
587
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
748
1136
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Dace to provide wherein the cavity section for each of the first engagement feature and the second engagement feature tapering from the first base towards the second base. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that incorporating the tapered engagement features would necessarily grab the edges of the fastener and force the fastener into alignment if misaligned without having to rotate the fastener as disclosed by Dace (see col. 1, ll. 57-63 and col. 2, ll. 58-63), thus providing a better and more precise connection between the tool and the fastener to be worked upon through aligning the fastener with the tool.
However, Schulz modified appears to be silent wherein the cavity width taken along the first base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature is greater than the cavity width taken along the second base measured between the bracing section of the first engagement feature and the bracing section of the second engagement feature.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anti-slip remover tool of Schulz et al. to have the cavity width taken along the first base be greater than the cavity width taken along the second base, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Schulz would not operate differently with the claimed the cavity width taken along the first base be greater than the cavity width taken along the second base. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem (see specification page 0005, ll. 21-22 and page 0022, ll. 21-26), therefore there is no criticality placed on the radial distance claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the amended claim of claim 1, specifically:
Schulz does not discloses a convex-shaped connector section.
The Examiner rejected the cited limitations above in original claim 3 as being anticipated by Schulz: "See figure 1 annotated showing the connector section (element 110a/110b) being convex, thus having a convex segment" (office action, page 21).
The Applicant respectfully disagrees with Examiner's interpretation of the "convex segment." The convex segment in the present invention is not merely a rounded corner. Rather, the convex segment is a protrusion oriented away from the rotational axis 2. This is further supported by the magnified view in FIG. 5 below which clearly shows the connector section 31 protruding outward from the inside corner of the cavity section 5.
This arrangement provides "greater surface contact when torque is applied. The connector section 31 is a novel improvement to the interchange between the flat bracing section 4 and the cavity section 5, wherein the connector section 31 gives the user an additional engagement surface." (spec, page 11, lines 20-28).
In contrast, FIG. 1 of Schulz merely depicts the connector sections (110a/110b) as being rounded corners. From the spec, 110a is described as "a first curved portion (also referred to as a first radius portion 110a)" [0021]. Similarly, 110b is described in the spec as "a fourth curved portion (also referred to as a fourth radius portion 110b). The fourth curved portion 110b has a similar curvature as the first curved portion110a" [0022].
Moreover, "the first curved portion 110a has a first blend radius (BRA) that defines the radius of curvature of the first curved portion 110a as it blends the first corner flat 108a into the second curved portion 112a" [0030].
Thus, the connector sections 110a/110b of Schulz cannot be interpreted as being convex segments as is claimed in the present invention. The rounded/blended corners of Schulz do not provide any additional grip and are merely used for the general purpose of improving wear resistance by eliminating high stress points.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, the prior art of Schulz discloses: an anti-slip fastener remover tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0018) comprising a bracing section (element 108a/108b), a cavity section (element 112a/112b/114), and a connector section (element 110a/110b) connecting the bracing section to the cavity section (see figure 1). Furthermore, as best shown in figure 1, the prior art shows the connector section (elements 110a/110b) curving/rounded outwardly from portions of both the bracing section (element 108a/108b) and cavity section (element 112a/112b/114). Thus, the prior art of Schulz discloses the connector section being a convex segment and meeting the claim limitation. Therefore, arguments are found unpersuasive.
On pages 13-14 of the “Remarks”, the applicant argues the amended limitations of claim 15, specifically:
“a first-length for the bracing section of the first engagement feature being not equal to a second-length for the bracing section of the second engagement feature”
The Examiner rejected the cited limitations above in original claim 14 as being unpatentable over Schulz: "wherein a first-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) for the bracing section of the first engagement feature is not equal to a second-length (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) for the bracing section of the second engagement feature" (office action, page 30).
The Applicant respectfully disagrees. "In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 10- 15, the first-length 36 may be equal to the second length 37 for each of the plurality of paired engagement 5 features 3, while in other embodiments, the first length 36 may be greater than or less than the second length 37 for each of the plurality of paired engagement features 3" (spec, page 18, lines 4-7).
In contrast, Schulz discloses that the first and second lengths of the bracing sections are equal to each other. More specifically, Schulz states "it will be appreciated that each half of each of the corners 104a-f and of the sidewalls 106a-f has a similar geometry. For example, the first corner flat 108a and second corner flat 108b have a similar geometry; the first curved portion 110a and fourth curved portion 110b have a similar geometry; and the second curved portion 112a and third curved portion 112b have a similar geometry." [0025]
For the reasons stated above, the first and second lengths 108a/108b of Schulz cannot be interpreted as being "not equal" as is claimed in the present invention. The other cited prior arts are silent and thus fail to cure the deficiencies in Schulz.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner acknowledges that the prior art of Schulz discloses that the selected portions (elements 106a-106d) of the engagement features including the bracing section (elements 108a/108b) having “similar geometry” (see paragraph 0025). However, the term “similar” does not necessarily mean that the lengths are equal to or exact. As evident in accordance to article of “Merriam Webster” (NPL Reference) as shown below, the term “similar” is having “characteristics in common” and “not differing in shape but only in size or position”. Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses similar geometry it does not explicitly disclose or define that the term similar is equal, thus as modified in the rejection above, the prior art of Schulz can be interpreted as a first length for the bracing section of the first engagement feature being not equal to a second-length for the bracing section of the second engagement feature. Thus, arguments are found unpersuasive.
PNG
media_image12.png
540
658
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights