DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 5-7, 9, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderson (1,529,683).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson teaches a chisel comprising:
a body formed of a first material and including
a first end having a shank 19,
a second end having a first planar side 5 that defines a first plane, a second planar side 6 that is opposite the first planar side and defines a second plane, a third side extending between the first planar side and the second planar side, and a fourth side that is opposite the third side and extending between the first planar side and the second planar side,
a channel 4 formed in an edge of the second end between the first planar side and the second planar side, the channel extending from the third side to the fourth side, and
a longitudinal axis extending through the first end and the second end; and
a head 11 formed of a second material that is harder than the first material, the head received in the channel, positioned between the first and second planes, extending continuously between the third side and the fourth side, and defining a working surface of the chisel,
wherein a portion 12 of the head positioned within the channel is larger than a portion of the head extending from the body (the tang 12 having a “larger” thickness compare to the tip of the blade which extends from the body or the length of the tang being “larger” than the width of the blade portion which extends from the body).
See Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 5, the channel 4 having a substantially rectangular shape is best seen in Fig. 2. The head 11 having a plate-shape and two ends is best seen in Figs
. 1-2.
Regarding claim 6, the structure of the head is best seen in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 7, the first and second planar surfaces extending beyond the second end of the body is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 9, depressions (7, 8) is best seen in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claims 21 and 25, the thickness of the first planar surface and the second planar surface substantially uniform is best seen in Fig. 2.
Claims 1, 5-14, 21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Batty (2014/0216605).
Regarding claim 1, Batty teaches a chisel comprising:
a body formed of a first material and including
a first end having a shank 20,
a second end 28 having a first planar side that defines a first plane, a second planar side that is opposite the first planar side and defines a second plane, a third side extending between the first planar side and the second planar side, and a fourth side that is opposite the third side and extending between the first planar side and the second planar side,
a channel formed in an edge of the second end between the first planar side and the second planar side, the channel extending from the third side to the fourth side, and
a longitudinal axis extending through the first end and the second end; and
a head (44, 46, 50, 52, 56) formed of a second material that is harder than the first material, the head received in the channel, positioned between the first and second planes, extending continuously between the third side and the fourth side, and defining a working surface of the chisel,
wherein a portion of the head positioned within the channel is larger than a portion of the head extending from the body.
See Figs. 1-14.
Regarding claim 5, the channel having a substantially rectangular shape is best seen in Fig. 2. The head 46 having a plate-shape and two ends is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 6, the structure of the head is best seen in Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 7, the first and second planar surfaces extending beyond the second end of the body is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 8, the first end of the head (46, 50, 52, 56) having a chamfered edge is best seen in Figs. 2-5
Regarding claim 9, depressions formed by elements (26, 24) is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 25, the thickness of the first planar surface and the second planar surface substantially uniform is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, Batty teaches a chisel comprising:
a body formed of a first material and including
a first end having a shank 20,
a second end 28 having a first planar side that defines a first plane, a second planar side that is opposite the first planar side and defines a second plane, a third side extending between the first planar side and the second planar side, and a fourth side that is opposite the third side and extending between the first planar side and the second planar side,
a recess formed in the second end between the first plane and second plane,
a longitudinal axis extending through the first end and the second end; and
a plate (44, 46, 50, 52, 56) formed of a second material that is harder than the first material, the plate received in the recess, positioned between the first and second planes, and defining a working surface of the chisel,
wherein a length of a portion of the plate received within the recess is greater than a length of a portion of the plate extending from the body, such that a majority of the plate is positioned within the recess.
See Figs. 1-14.
Regarding claim 11, the plate 46 positioned between two planar sides is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, the plate 30 having an upper surface flush with the first planar side 24 is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, an angled working surface of the plate is best seen in Figs. 1-10.
Regarding claim 14, the first working surface and the second working surface converging to form a cutting edge is best seen in Figs. 3, 5, 6, and 9.
Regarding claim 21, the thickness of the first planar surface and the second planar surface substantially uniform is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 23, the plate (46, 50, 52) having a uniform width and the width of the plate being equal to the width defined by the third side and the fourth side are best seen in Figs. 2-4 and 6-8.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (1,529,683) in view of Kniff (3,807,804) and DeHaan (4,566,467).
Anderson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the first end having chamfered edges.
Kniff teaches an impacting head 16 similar to the chisel head of the invention having a chamfered edge at a first end 26. See Fig. 1. DeHaan teaches a head 14 having a chamfered edge 32 at a first end 30. See Fig. 2. The chamfered edge 32 makes a first end of a head 14 slightly smaller than a bore 16 of a body for easy guiding and inserting the head into the bore. See col. 4, lines 57-62.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the first end of the head in Anderson chamfered edges as taught by Kniff and DeHaan for easy guiding and inserting the head into the bore.
Claims 10, 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (1,529,683) in view of Batty (2014/0216605).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson teaches a chisel substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a body formed of a first material and including
a first end having a shank 19,
a second end having a first planar side 5 that defines a first plane, a second planar side 6 that is opposite the first planar side and defines a second plane, a third side extending between the first planar side and the second planar side, and a fourth side that is opposite the third side and extending between the first planar side and the second planar side,
a recess 4 formed in the second end between the first plane and second plane,
a longitudinal axis extending through the first end and the second end; and
a plate 11 formed of a second material that is harder than the first material, the plate received in the recess, positioned between the first and second planes, and defining a working surface of the chisel,
wherein a length of a portion of the plate received within the recess is greater than a length of a portion of the plate extending from the body, such that a majority of the plate is positioned within the recess.
See Figs. 1-3.
Anderson does not teach “wherein a length of a portion of the plate received within the recess is greater than a length of a portion of the plate extending from the body, such that a majority of the plate is positioned within the recess.”
Batty teaches a chisel “wherein a length of a portion of the plate (50, 46, 52) received within the recess is greater than a length of a portion of the plate extending from the body, such that a majority of the plate is positioned within the recess.” See Figs. 10 and 12.
The short plate as taught by Batty and the long plate as taught by Anderson are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a plate “wherein a length of a portion of the plate received within the recess is greater than a length of a portion of the plate extending from the body, such that a majority of the plate is positioned within the recess” in the chisel of Anderson since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Regarding claim 11, the plate 11 being disposed between the first planar side 5 and the second planar side 6 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, a beveled working surface is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 14, two beveled working surfaces are best seen in Fig. 2.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (1,529,683) in view of Evans et al. (2010/0237058), hereinafter Evans.
Anderson teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the chisel blade attached to the to body by welding or brazing or soldering.
Evans teaches a chisel having a chisel head 402 attached to a chisel body 404 by welding.
To attach a chisel blade to its body by screws or welding are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to attach the chisel blade to its body by welding since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batty (2014/0216605) in view of Evans et al. (2010/0237058), hereinafter Evans.
Batty teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the chisel blade attached to the to body by welding or brazing or soldering.
Evans teaches a chisel having a chisel head 402 attached to a chisel body 404 by welding.
To attach a chisel blade to its body by screws or welding are art equivalents known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to attach the chisel blade to its body by welding since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to Anderson, the term “larger portion” in claim 1 is broad. Therefore, the thickness of the tang is compared to the thickness of the cutting edge area or the length of the tang is compared to the width of the blade to meet the claim language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights