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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V, claim 1 and 5-14 in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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, 9-11, 13, and 14 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.
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 claim 10, 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 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.
See Figs. 1-3.
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 10 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gordon et al. (178,627), hereinafter Gordon.
Regarding claim 10, Gordon teaches a chisel comprising:
a body formed of a first material and including
a first end having a shank (B),
a second end having a first planar side (B1) 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 (B2) 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 (A) 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.
See Figs. 1-3.
As to the material of the body and the plate, it is known in the art that the plate (A) is made from hardened metal due to its cutting function to prevent the plate wearing out quickly and the handle is made from a softer material.
To the degree the Applicant would argue to select a harder material for the plate is not obvious to one skilled in the art, then claim 1 is un-obvious over Gordon in view of Anderson in which Anderson teaches the body and the plate are made from different materials or to select a well-known material such as hardened metal would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, the plate (A) positioned between two planar sides is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 12, the plate (A) having an upper surface flush with the first planar side (B1) is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 13, an angled working surface of the plate (A) is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 14, the first working surface and the second working surface converging to form a cutting edge is best seen in Fig. 2.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chisels of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
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