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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on June 12, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 2 and 10 have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous rejections are maintained and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1 and 3-9 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 and 4 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305).
In reference to claim 1, Giordano, III et al. disclose a pounding, prying, and screwing hand tool (10) comprising:
a handle (20);
a hammerhead (30) attached to a first end (i.e. upper end) of the handle (Figure 1); wherein the hammerhead comprises a claw (42) opposingly positioned to a rounded face (see rounded face of 38 in Figure 2) defining a spherical cap (formed as the “partial sphere” of striking end 36, see paragraph 36 for disclosing, “Although the present invention has been described in terms of a tool head having a combination of the flat striking end and the claw-type end suitable for removal of nails and other fasteners, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art, that the present invention may be applied to other tool head types. For example, either the striking end or the claw-type end may be formed as a partial sphere.”. Since, striking end 36 is formed as a “partial sphere”, it meets the limitation of defining a spherical cap.), wherein the handle is configured for grasping in the hand of the user, positioning the user for selectively dimpling a sheet of drywall using the spherical cap and for removing fasteners by prying with the claw; and
a screw bit (80, Figure 4c) attached to, or selectively attachable to, a second end (i.e. lower end) of the handle, such that the screw bit extends axially from the handle, wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user (note; because the Title discloses a “Combination Hand Tool”, element 20 can be gripped by a user thereby meeting the limitation of the handle, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5a in the previous non-final action), positioning the user for selectively pounding and prying using the hammerhead and for selectively setting a respective screw using the screw bit (paragraph 31).
In reference to claim 3, Giordano, III et al. disclose that the screw bit comprises a Phillips head (92, Figure 4c and paragraph 31).
In reference to claim 4, Giordano, III et al. disclose further including:
the screw bit comprising a bit section (92) and a coupling section (80/82), the bit section being complementary to the respective screw (paragraph 31); and
a coupler (50) attached to the second end of the handle, the coupler being complementary to the coupling section of the screw bit, such that the coupler is positioned for selectively coupling to the coupling section for removably attaching the screw bit to the handle (paragraphs 27 and 28).
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.
Claim 5, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305) in view of Chacon (5720063) and Valdez et al. (2023/0081406).
In reference to claim 5, Giordano, III et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack disclosing that;
the coupler is magnetic and
the screw bit is paramagnetic.
However, Chacon teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (54, Figure 6) that is magnetic (Column 4, Lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a magnetic coupler, as taught by Chacon, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively releasably holds a bit (Column 4, Lines 15-17).
In addition, Valdez et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a screw bit (112, Figure 1) that is paramagnetic (paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the screw bit, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a screw bit that is paramagnetic, as taught by Valdez et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively causes ferrous fasteners such as self-tapping screws to stick to the tip of the tool bit so as to facilitate the user's efforts to accurately position the screw on a workpiece prior to beginning the driving operation (paragraph 71).
Claim 6, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305) in view of Davis et al. (6009581).
In reference to claim 6, Giordano, III et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further disclose that the coupler comprises a tube (52) attached to the handle and positioned in a channel (see figure below) extending into the handle (see paragraph 27 for disclosing that “…a first member 52 secured in the second end 24 of the elongated member 20 and axially extending therefrom.”), the tube having an inner surface (62, Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giordano, III et al. lack,
the inner surface having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile.
However, Davis et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (70, Figure 4) comprising an inner surface (i.e. within 70, Figure 4) having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile (see claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner surface of the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing an inner surface of a coupler having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile, as taught by Davis et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively receives various tool heads (see Abstract or Column 4, Lines 25-28).
Claim 7, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305) in view of Davis et al. (6009581) and Zurbuchen (5259277).
In reference to claim 7, Giordano, III et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lack having,
the tube being adhesively attached to the handle.
However, Zurbuchen teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a technique for attaching a similar bit receiving coupler including a tube (35, Figure 4) within a cavity (i.e. the opening extending longitudinally within 30, Figure 4) of a handle (30, note because element 30 can be grasped, it meets the limitation of being a handle) by adhesively attaching the tube to the handle (Column 3, Lines 3-7, Figures 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the technique of attaching the tube of the bit receiving coupler to the cavity of the handle, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of attaching the tube of the bit receiving coupler to the cavity of the handle, as taught by Zurbuchen, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures the bit receiving coupler in place (Column 3, Lines 3-7).
Claim 8, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305) in view of Davis et al. (6009581) and Bien (4890521).
In reference to claim 8, Giordano, III et al. disclose the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further include;
a segment (i.e. lower segment thereof in Figures 1 and 2) of the tube extending from the handle, a portion (i.e. portion that receives 56) of the segment distal from the handle being externally threaded (paragraph 27);
a collar (56), the collar being internally threaded, such that the collar is complementary to the portion of the segment of the tube (paragraph 27).
Giordano, III et al. also teach that the coupler (50) can be replaced with a well-known chuck (paragraph 29).
Giordano, III et al. lack,
an O-ring attached to and positioned in the collar proximate to a first side of the collar, such that the portion of the segment is threadedly insertable into a second side of the collar for compressing the O-ring between the collar and the screw bit for removably attaching the screw bit to the tube.
However, Bien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (14, Figures 1, 2 and 5) that is attached to a chuck (12) of a handle (10), wherein the bit receiving coupler includes a tube (16);
wherein a segment (i.e. lower segment of 16 in Figures 1 and 5) of the tube extends from the handle, a portion (i.e. 26) of the segment distal from the handle being externally threaded (Figure 5);
a collar (30), the collar being internally threaded (28), such that the collar is complementary to the portion of the segment of the tube (Figure 5); and
an O-ring (36) attached to and positioned in the collar proximate to a first side (i.e. lower side thereof in Figure 5) of the collar, such that the portion of the segment is threadedly insertable into a second side (i.e. upper side thereof in Figure 5) of the collar for compressing the O-ring between the collar and the screw bit for removably attaching the screw bit to the tube (Column 3, Lines 10-13).
Again, the examiner notes that Giordano, III et al. teach that the coupler (50) can be replaced with a well-known chuck (paragraph 29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a coupler that includes a chuck and also includes the bit receiving tube, the collar and the O-ring, as taught by Bien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively snugly telescopically receives the bit in an axially pressable manner (Column 3, Lines 10-13).
Claim 9, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giordano, III et al. (2006/0048305) in view of Chacon (5720063), Valdez et al. (2023/0081406), Davis et al. (6009581), Zurbuchen (5259277) and Bien (4890521).
In reference to claim 9, Giordano, III et al. disclose a pounding, prying, and screwing hand tool (10) comprising:
a handle (20);
a hammerhead (30) attached to a first end (i.e. upper end) of the handle (Figure 1), the hammerhead comprising a claw (40) opposingly positioned to a rounded face (see rounded face of 38 in Figure 2) defining a spherical cap (formed as the “partial sphere” of striking end 36, see paragraph 36 for disclosing, “Although the present invention has been described in terms of a tool head having a combination of the flat striking end and the claw-type end suitable for removal of nails and other fasteners, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art, that the present invention may be applied to other tool head types. For example, either the striking end or the claw-type end may be formed as a partial sphere.”. Since, striking end 36 is formed as a “partial sphere” it meets the limitation of defining a spherical cap.), wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user (note; because the Title discloses a “Combination Hand Tool”, element 20 can be gripped by a user thereby meeting the limitation of the handle, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5a in the previous non-final action), positioning the user for selectively dimpling a sheet of drywall using the spherical cap (because the spherical cap is capable of being used in such a manner, paragraph 26) and for removing fasteners by prying with the claw (because the claw 40 is capable of being used in such a manner, paragraph 26);
a screw bit (80, Figure 4c) attached to, or selectively attachable to, a second end (i.e. lower end) of the handle, such that the screw bit extends axially from the handle, wherein the handle is configured for grasping in a hand of a user (note; because the Title discloses a “Combination Hand Tool”, element 20 can be gripped by a user thereby meeting the limitation of the handle, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 5a in the previous non-final action), positioning the user for selectively pounding and prying using the hammerhead and for selectively setting a respective screw using the screw bit (paragraph 31), the screw bit comprises a Phillips head (92, Figure 4c and paragraph 31), the screw bit comprising a bit section (92) and a coupling section (80/82), the bit section being complementary to the respective screw (paragraph 31); and
a coupler (50) attached to the second end of the handle, the coupler being complementary to the coupling section of the screw bit, such that the coupler is positioned for selectively coupling to the coupling section for removably attaching the screw bit to the handle (paragraphs 27 and 28), the coupler comprising a tube (52) attached to the handle and positioned in a channel (see figure below) extending into the handle (see paragraph 27 for disclosing that “…a first member 52 secured in the second end 24 of the elongated member 20 and axially extending therefrom.”), the tube having an inner surface (62, Figure 3), a segment (i.e. lower segment thereof in Figures 1 and 2) of the tube extending from the handle, a portion (i.e. portion that receives 56) of the segment distal from the handle being externally threaded (paragraph 27);
a collar (56), the collar being internally threaded, such that the collar is complementary to the portion of the segment of the tube (paragraph 27).
PNG
media_image1.png
231
332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Giordano, III et al. lack,
the coupler is magnetic;
the screw bit is paramagnetic;
the inner surface having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile.
the tube being adhesively attached to the handle; and
an O-ring attached to and positioned in the collar proximate to a first side of the collar, such that the portion of the segment is threadedly insertable into a second side of the collar for compressing the O-ring between the collar and the screw bit for removably attaching the screw bit to the tube.
However, Chacon teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (54, Figure 6) that is magnetic (Column 4, Lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a magnetic coupler, as taught by Chacon, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively releasably holds a bit (Column 4, Lines 15-17).
Next, Valdez et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a screw bit (112, Figure 1) that is paramagnetic (paragraph 71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the screw bit, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a screw bit that is paramagnetic, as taught by Valdez et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively causes ferrous fasteners such as self-tapping screws to stick to the tip of the tool bit so as to facilitate the user's efforts to accurately position the screw on a workpiece prior to beginning the driving operation (paragraph 71).
Furthermore, Davis et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (70, Figure 4) comprising an inner surface (i.e. within 70, Figure 4) having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile (see claim 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner surface of the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing an inner surface of a coupler having a hexagonal cross-sectional profile, as taught by Davis et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively receives various tool heads (see Abstract or Column 4, Lines 25-28).
Additionally, Zurbuchen teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a technique for attaching a similar bit receiving coupler including a tube (35, Figure 4) within a cavity (i.e. the opening extending longitudinally within 30, Figure 4) of a handle (30, note because element 30 can be grasped, it meets the limitation of being a handle) by adhesively attaching the tube to the handle (Column 3, Lines 3-7, Figures 1 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the technique of attaching the tube of the bit receiving coupler to the cavity of the handle, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of attaching the tube of the bit receiving coupler to the cavity of the handle, as taught by Zurbuchen, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures the bit receiving coupler in place (Column 3, Lines 3-7).
And, Bien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar bit receiving coupler (14, Figures 1, 2 and 5) that is attached to a chuck (12) of a handle (10), wherein the bit receiving coupler includes a tube (16);
wherein a segment (i.e. lower segment of 16 in Figures 1 and 5) of the tube extends from the handle, a portion (i.e. 26) of the segment distal from the handle being externally threaded (Figure 5);
a collar (30), the collar being internally threaded (28), such that the collar is complementary to the portion of the segment of the tube (Figure 5); and
an O-ring (36) attached to and positioned in the collar proximate to a first side (i.e. lower side thereof in Figure 5) of the collar, such that the portion of the segment is threadedly insertable into a second side (i.e. upper side thereof in Figure 5) of the collar for compressing the O-ring between the collar and the screw bit for removably attaching the screw bit to the tube (Column 3, Lines 10-13).
Again, the examiner notes that Giordano, III et al. teach that the coupler (50) can be replaced with a well-known chuck (paragraph 29).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the coupler, of Giordano, III et al., with the known technique of providing a coupler that includes a chuck and also includes the bit receiving tube, the collar and the O-ring, as taught by Bien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively snugly telescopically receives the bit in an axially pressable manner (Column 3, Lines 10-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “Giordano discloses a hammer having a planar striking face such that Giordano does not clearly and definitely disclose the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is not anticipated and should be allowed. By virtue of dependence on claim 1, claims 3 and 4 are believed to be allowable. Claim 2 has been canceled. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested by the applicant.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. While, Giordano shows one embodiment including a planar striking face (38, Figure 1), the examiner notes that this is not the embodiment that the examiner has used in the rejection above. Specifically, in the rejection above, the examiner uses the embodiment where striking end (36) is formed as a, “partial sphere” not a planar flat striking end (see paragraph 36 for disclosing, “Although the present invention has been described in terms of a tool head having a combination of the flat striking end and the claw-type end suitable for removal of nails and other fasteners, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art, that the present invention may be applied to other tool head types. For example, either the striking end or the claw-type end may be formed as a partial sphere.”). Since, striking end (36) is formed as a “partial sphere”, face (38), would not be planar but instead would be formed as spherical face (at least partially) thereby meeting the limitation of the claim. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met, the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis et al. (2022/0297267) also teach that it is known in the art to form a hammer head (Figure 17c) with anyone of the following shapes including; “flat, round or spherical, bull-nosed, bullet shaped, wedge shaped, hour-glass shaped, conically shaped, and the like” (paragraph 51).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the hammer head to require a spherical shape.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723