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
Claims 1-22 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-14 and 19 are amended. Claims 3-4 are cancelled. New claims 23-24 are added.
Priority
Benefit of earlier filing date of 10/23/2020 of provisional application No. 63/104,793 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119.
Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date for all features of the instant invention as follows: Figs. 3A-3E, 4, 5A-5B, 6A-6B and 12 of the instant application showing half-pipe cavity 154 seat 150 for engagement of steel branch 64 of tent pin stake 60 and Figs. 13A-13B of the instant application showing handle grip 180 do not have support in Provisional Patent Application 63/104,793 and therefore does not benefit from the earlier date of 10/23/2020.
Benefit of earlier filing date of 05/04/2021 of provisional application No. 63/183,973 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119.Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date for all features of the instant invention as follows: Figs. 13A-13B of the instant application showing handle grip 180 do not have support in Provisional Patent Application 63/104,793 and therefore does not benefit from the earlier date of 05/04/2021.
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 12 and 14 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 12 is dependent on a cancelled claim 3 and is rejected as indefinite (See MPEP 2660.03). For the purpose of this examination claim 12 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 12.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 13 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 9-10, “a stake head” should read --a head of a stake--;line 15, “a stake” should read --the stake-- and “a stake protrusion seat” should read --a seat for a protrusion of the stake--.
Claim 6, “the stake protrusion seat” should read --the seat for the protrusion of the stake--
Claim 7, “to facilitate extraction of a stake” should read --to facilitate extraction of the stake--.
Claim 10, “a fulcrum for stake extraction” should read --a fulcrum for extraction of the stake--.
Claim 11, “a fulcrum for stake extraction” should read --a fulcrum for extraction of the stake--.
Claim 11, line 3, “as least a” should read --at least a--.
Claim 13, “a stake” should read --the stake--.
Claim 22, “the base of the head” should read --a base of the head--.
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 1-2, 7, 9-11, 18-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Steidmann (US 10464198 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a head for a multifunctional hammer (hammer 10) comprising an impact portion, an extraction portion, and a central portion therebetween, the impact portion and the central portion forming a main body of the head, the extraction portion flaring outward from the main body and tapering in thickness and branching with two claws from a base to a forked tip end forming an opening, the impact portion of the head having a face end opposite the forked tip end, the head having a top surface (top surface comprises a+b+c) extending from the face end to the forked tip end, the main body having two cheek surfaces extending downward from the top surface to a bottom surface, wherein the opening of the extraction portion is configured to receive a stake head (par. 36: “the head has a traditional rip claw 86 for pulling nails”), the opening of the extraction portion being substantially symmetrical having first width at the forked tip end (W1) tapering inwardly to opposed edges having a second width (W2) and forming a seat at a base of the two claws; the extraction portion further comprises an extraction bottom surface (extraction bottom surface is interpreted to be the curved lower surface of the claws opposite curved section of top surface) extending from a back surface of the main body (back surface of the main body is interpreted to be the flat surface opposite flat section of top surface) to the forked tip end, the extraction bottom surface configured to facilitate extraction of a stake (tip of the nail is engaged with the curved extraction bottom surface);the extraction portion further comprises a stake protrusion seat (see half circle at the end of opposed edges) in the extraction bottom surface of the extraction portion, the stake protrusion seat formed by a rounded indentation (see half circle at the end of opposed edges) across the two claws and a width of the extraction portion near a back surface of the main body.
PNG
media_image1.png
986
1031
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the opening of the extraction portion further comprises a contoured section extending inwardly from the opposed edges (see half circle at the end of opposed edges).
Regarding claim 7, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top surface has a curved shape (part c of top surface a+b+c) extending from the main body to the forked tip end, the top surface configured to facilitate (by curved fulcrum feature sitting on the ground) extraction of a stake.
Regarding claim 9, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the head weighs between about 2 and about 8 pounds (0.425kg=0.94lb, 1.35kg=2.97lb which is about 2 pounds).
PNG
media_image2.png
84
908
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top surface of the main body further comprises a concave indentation extending from the face end and having a curved perimeter, the concave indentation configured to receive a boot tip to act as a fulcrum for stake extraction (device of Steidmann is capable of this intended use; any portion of the top surface of the head is capable to be supported on a surface including operator’s boot tip and act as a fulcrum).
Regarding claim 11, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the top surface of the main body further comprises a linear indentation (A) between the face end and the central portion, the linear indentation being substantially parallel to the face end and configured to receive as least a portion of a block to act as a fulcrum for stake extraction (device of Steidmann is capable of this intended use; any portion of the top surface of the head is capable to be supported on a surface including operator’s boot tip and act as a fulcrum).
Regarding claim 18, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a handle having a proximal end and a distal end, the handle attached to the head.
Regarding claim 19, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the main body of the head comprises an aperture (head void 134) through the central portion of the head, the aperture extending from the top surface of the head to the bottom surface, and wherein the proximal end of the handle is secured in the aperture of the head..
Regarding claim 21, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the handle has a length of about 12 to about 36 inches.
PNG
media_image3.png
98
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Steidmann teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a combined overstrike protector (overstrike portion 126) and handle grip (power gripping section 96a) attached to the handle at a portion abutting the base of the head.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann in view of Wood (US 4266587 A).
Regarding claims 12-14, Steidmann does not teach the claimed markers with dark detectable material.
Wood in par. 2 teaches at least ½ inch dark visible marking/coating 30 on hand tools for better visibility in relative dark work areas.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Wood and use dark visible marking/coating in hammer head of Steidmann. Doing so would make the hammer head visible in in relative dark work areas.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann in view of Steck (US D255320 S).
Regarding claims 5-6, Steidmann does not teach the claimed third width in the opening of the claws and the collar.
Steck teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a pry tool with an opening between two claws; the opening comprises the claimed first (W1), second (W2) and third (W3) widths and half pipe cavity; Steck further teaches the claimed tapered collar.
PNG
media_image4.png
816
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Steck in hammer device of Steidmann for better guiding and gripping of the nail/stake head.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann in view of Hung (US 20180207780 A1).
Regarding claim 15, in tool of Steidmann the extraction portion is fixedly attached to the main body.
Hung teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a head for a multifunctional hammer comprising an impact portion, an extraction portion, and a central portion therebetween, the impact portion and the central portion forming a main body of the head, the extraction portion is detachably attached to the main body with a fastener which makes it possible to be replaced when damaged (see par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the extraction portion of Steidmann detachable. Doing so would make it possible to replace it when damaged.
PNG
media_image5.png
754
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann in view of Seomoon (KR 20180063790 A).
Regarding claims 16-17, in tool of Steidmann the extraction portion is fixedly attached to the main body and connection of the extraction portion to the main body is not a keyed protrusion and a keyed groove as claimed.
Seomoon teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a hammer with a head, the head comprises an impact portion (500), an extraction portion (510), and a central portion (20) therebetween; the impact portion and the central portion forming a main body of the head, the extraction portion is detachably attached to the main body; the extraction portion further comprises a base surface and a keyed protrusion (512) extending from the base surface and the main body has a keyed groove (230) configured to receive the keyed protrusion of the extraction portion; the extraction portion is secured to the main body via one or more fasteners (501, 511).
PNG
media_image6.png
840
538
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use keyed locking feature of Seomoon to hammer head of Steidmann for the extraction portion. Doing so would make it possible to replace and discard the extraction portion when damaged or replace with a different size if needed.
PNG
media_image7.png
74
912
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann in view of West (US 20160039078 A1).
Regarding claim 20, in hammer tool of Steidmann the head and the handle are fabricated in two pieces.
West teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a head for a multifunctional hammer comprising an impact portion, an extraction portion, and a central portion therebetween, the impact portion and the central portion forming a main body of the head; the head and the handle are fabricated in one piece to increase the strength and life of the tool (par. 0009-0010).
PNG
media_image8.png
840
449
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of West in hammer tool of Seomoon increase the strength and life of the tool as set forth in West.
Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steidmann.
Regarding claims 23-24, Steidmann teaches magnet insert 40. But does not teach magnets within the seat or at the base of the two claws.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the magnet in different locations of the hammer head base on the needs. Changing location of the magnets on the hammer head is an obvious matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments with respect to amended claim 1 regarding limitation “a rounded indentation across both claws and the width of the extraction claw portion near the back surface of the main body in the extraction bottom surface” is fully considered, but is not found persuasive. Because although the rounded indentation (see rounded bottom of 38) is not created on the claws and the extraction bottom surface (not claimed), but it passes across both claws (direction-wise).
Applicant arguments with respect to amended claim 1 regarding “three distinct and separately recited claim elements, namely the seat at the base of the two claws [], the contoured section [], and the stake protrusion seat” is fully considered, but is not found persuasive.
As shown in annotated Fig. below, Steidmann teaches all three elements:
PNG
media_image9.png
812
636
media_image9.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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Floyd (US 4890518 A) teaches a seat formed by a rounded indentation across two claws.
PNG
media_image10.png
594
503
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights