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 § 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 1-8 and 21 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steel et al. (2012/0000019 “Steel”) in view of Seemangal (8,800,411).
PNG
media_image1.png
452
649
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Steel meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a pliers comprising:
a first jaw upper 26, Fig. 1 comprising:
a first plurality of ridges 42 at a distal end of the first jaw; and
a first blade 50, Fig. 2;
a lower handle lower 30, Fig. 1 coupled to the first jaw, the lower handle extending along a length of the pliers Fig. 1;
a second jaw lower 26, Fig. 1 pivotally coupled to the first jaw and rotatable about a rotational axis defined by pivot 22, the second jaw and the first jaw together define a head 26, Fig. 1, the second jaw comprising:
a second plurality of ridges 42 at a distal end of the second jaw, wherein the first plurality of ridges and the second plurality of ridges together define a gripping portion 44, Fig. 1; and
a second blade 50, wherein the first blade and the second blade together define a cutting portion 52; and
PNG
media_image2.png
434
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an upper handle upper 30, Fig. 1 coupled to the second jaw lower 26, wherein the head comprising a planar upper surface 26, 54 similar to the instant application that has a non-zero angle orientation relative to the length of pliers that extends along the length of the pliers , except for the upper surface 54 to be disclosed as a striking surface.
Seemangal teaches a pair of pliers having first and second jaws 13 defining a head, wherein the head to comprise a striking surface 16 that extends along the length of the pliers Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify one or both jaws of Steel with striking surface extending along the length of the pilers as taught by Seemangal to diversify the tool with a hammer.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Steel modified by Seemangal) meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 1, further comprising a second planar striking surface both jaw modified by Seemangal the striking surface 16 Seemangal that extends in a generally parallel orientation to the length of the pliers Fig. 1 modified 26 of Steel generally parallel orientation generally zero angle relative to the length of the pliers Fig. 4 Steel, portion of the lower jaw below the pivot point.
PNG
media_image3.png
227
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 1, wherein the gripping portion 44 has a first length, and the striking surface 16 Seemangal provided for 26 has a second length, and wherein the first length is different than the second length 44 smaller than 26, Fig. 4 Steel. It is noted, however that
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 4, wherein the second length is greater than the first length Fig. 4 Steel.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 1, wherein the striking surface is positioned on the first jaw 16 Seemangal on both jaws.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 6, wherein the second jaw further comprises a reaming surface 54, the reaming surface positioned on a portion of the second jaw Fig. 5 that opposes the second plurality of ridges.
PNG
media_image4.png
288
351
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (DISTAL END)]Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 1, wherein the striking surface both 26 modified for 16 is positioned on the second jaw Fig. 3 Seemangal.
Regarding claim 21, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 1, wherein the end is a distal end, and wherein the striking surface extends continuously from the distal end of the head annotated partial Fig. 1.
Claim 2 in the alternative, is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braganza et al. (D592,475).
PA (prior art, Steel modified by Seemangal) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 3, except for, in the alternative, for the striking surface to extend generally parallel relative to the length of the pliers.
PNG
media_image6.png
364
499
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Braganza et al. teaches pliers hammer head, wherein the jaws including the hammer extend at a non-zero angled orientation relative to the extension of the handles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with angled jaws as taught by Braganza et al. in adapting the tool for a particular type of pliers intended for a particular operations and since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954).
PNG
media_image7.png
555
98
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Damoff (D123,463).
PA (prior art, Steel modified by Seemangal) as applied to claim 1 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 5, except for the striking surface to includes a plurality of projections extending away from the head, such that the striking surface is textured.
Damoff teaches a combination tool with a pliers head comprising a hammer with a texted striking face Fig. 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with angled jaws as taught by Braganza et al. in adapting the tool for a particular type of pliers intended for a particular operations and since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954).
Claims 10, 14, 15 and 22 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braganza et al. (D592,475) (2004/0163505 “Braganza”) in view of Steel.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (LOWER JAW)][AltContent: textbox (2nd NECK)][AltContent: arrow] Braganza appears to disclose all of the limitations of claim 10, however Steel is utilized. Durham meets all of the limitations of claim 10, i.e., a pliers comprising:
a first member opposite 2nd annotated here extending along a longitudinal axis, the first member comprising:
an upper jaw Fig. 2 comprising:
a lower handle annotated Fig. 2; and
a first neck portion opposite 2nd annotated Fig. 2 positioned between a distal portion of the lower handle and the upper jaw; and
a second member annotated Fig. 2 pivotally coupled to the first member and rotatable about a pivot axis, the second member comprising:
a lower jaw annotated Fig. 2, the upper jaw and the lower together define a head, the lower jaw comprising:
an upper handle Fig. 2 coupled to the lower jaw; and
a second neck portion annotated Fig. 2 positioned between a distal portion of the upper handle and the lower jaw, the second neck portion crossing over the first neck portion to define a neck Fig. 2;
PNG
media_image8.png
218
699
media_image8.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (DISTAL END)]wherein the head comprises a first striking surface solid line Fig. 2 extending continuously from a distal end of the head annotated Fig. 2, the first striking surface extends along the longitudinal axis and is an angled, upward facing surface Fig. 2, except for explicitly disclosing the plurality of teeth and the upper and lower blades defining a cutting portion.
PNG
media_image10.png
196
305
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Steel teaches a pair of pliers having a first plurality of teeth 42 at a distal end of an upper jaw 26; and an upper blade 50; a second plurality of teeth 42 at a distal end of a lower jaw 26, Fig. 5 partially shown here, wherein the first plurality of teeth 42 and the second plurality of teeth 42 together define a gripping portion 44; and a lower blade 50, wherein the upper blade and the lower blade together define a cutting portion 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the pliers of Braganza with gripping and cutting portions as taught by Steel to diversify the tool with a gripping portion and a cutting portion.
Regarding claim 14, PA (prior art, Braganza modified by Steel) meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 10, wherein the cutting portion is positioned between the gripping portion and the neck Fig. 2 Braganza.
[AltContent: textbox (SMOOTH
SURFACE)]Regarding claim 15, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 10, wherein the first member and the second member are each formed from a single, integral piece of material Fig. 2 Braganza. It is noted however that forming the members form a single material, as an alternative means of forming would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since such method of forming are known in the art.
[AltContent: arrow]Regarding claim 22, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 10, wherein the first striking surface comprises a smooth surface at an end of the head and a rear portion comprising a plurality of projections extending away from the head, wherein the rear portion is positioned between the smooth surface and the pivot axis.
Claims 11-13 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Seemangal (8,800,411).
PNG
media_image2.png
434
152
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PA (prior art, Braganza modified by Steel) as applied to claim 10 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 11, except for the head to further comprise a second striking surface extending along the longitudinal axis.
Seemangal teaches a pliers head comprising a hammer 16 provided on both jaws Fig. 3 that is planar and extends along the axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with another striking surface on the other jaw as taught by Seemangal to further diversify the tool.
Regarding claim 12, PA (prior art, Braganza modified by Steel and Seemangal) meets the limitations, except for the orientation of the striking surface. Seemangal forms the striking surface on a flat portion of the jaws extending parallel to the longitudinal axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to further modify the invention by providing the hammer portion on a level surface extending parallel to the longitudinal axis as taught by Seemangal in adapting the tool for a particular application for better access.
Regarding claim 13, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 11, wherein the first striking surface Braganza is positioned on the upper jaw and the second striking surface modified by Seemangal is positioned on the lower jaw.
Claims 16 and 17 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seemangal in view of Steel.
Seemangal meets all of the limitations of claim 16, i.e., a pliers comprising:
a first jaw annotated Fig. 3, partially shown here comprising:
a first blade @20;
a lower handle opposite upper handle annotated here coupled to the first jaw, the lower handle extending along a length of the pliers Fig. 1;
a second jaw annotated Fig. 3 pivotally coupled to the first jaw and rotatable about a rotational axis defined by pivot 15, the second jaw comprising:
wherein the first jaw and the second jaw together define a gripping portion @18, Fig. 1; and
a second blade @20, wherein the first blade and the second blade together define a cutting portion 20; and
an upper handle 13 coupled to the second jaw annotated Fig. 3 partially shown here; wherein the first jaw and the second jaw together define a head Fig. 1, the head comprising:
a first striking surface 16 on the first jaw, wherein the first striking surface extends from the distal end of the jaw along the length of the pliers and is positioned at a zero angle relative to the length of the pliers; and a second striking surface 16 on the second jaw, except for a first and a second plurality of ridges at a distal end of the respective first second jaw and for the striking surface to extend at a non-zero angle.
PNG
media_image10.png
196
305
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Steel teaches a pair of pliers having a first plurality of teeth 42 at a distal end of an upper jaw 26 with ridges 54 that extends at a non-zero angle relative to the axis; and an upper blade 50; a second plurality of teeth 42 at a distal end of a lower jaw 26, Fig. 5 partially shown here, wherein the first plurality of teeth 42 and the second plurality of teeth 42 together define a gripping portion 44; and a lower blade 50, wherein the upper blade and the lower blade together define a cutting portion 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the pliers of Seemangal with the angled upper working jaw surface, gripping and cutting portions as taught by Steel to diversify the tool with a gripping portion and a cutting portion adapted for a particular application requiring angled striking jaw surfaces.
Regarding claim 17, PA (prior art, Seemangal modified by Steel) meets the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 16, wherein second striking surface 16, lower jaw extends in a generally parallel orientation to the length of the pliers Fig. 1 Seemangal.
Claims 17, in the alternative and 18-20 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Braganza et al.
PA (prior art, Seemangal modified by Steel) as applied to claim 16 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 17, except for, in the alternative, for the striking surface to extend at a non-zero angled orientation relative to the length of the pliers. Braganza et al. teaches pliers hammer head, wherein the jaws including the hammer extend at a non-zero angle relative to the extension of the handles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to further modify the modified invention of PA with angled jaws as taught by Braganza et al. in adapting the tool for a particular type of pliers intended for a particular operations and since it has been held that changing shape, dependent on work-piece parameters, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 US PQ 284(CCPA1954).
PA as applied to claim 16 above, meets all of the limitations of claim 18, e.g., the first striking surface has a first length and the second striking surface has a second length, except for the first striking surface length to be different than the second striking surface length.
PNG
media_image13.png
376
515
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Braganza et al. teaches a pliers hammer head, wherein the jaws are angled including a jaw having a hammer that extend at a non-zero angle relative to the extension of the handles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to provide the angled nose of Seemangal with the hammer as taught by Braganza et al. in lieu of or in addition to jaw 16 in adapting the tool for a particular application requiring an angled access.
Regarding claim 19, PA (prior art, Seemangal modified by Steel and Braganza) meets the limitations, wherein the second length lower hammer portion on the angled nose portion of the jaw, Seemangal is greater than the first length.
Regarding claim 20, PA appears to meet the limitations, i.e., the pliers of claim 18, wherein the second length defined by angled nose portion is greater than a length of the gripping portion and wherein the second length is greater than a length of the cutting portion, however modifying the sections to have a striking surface that has a greater length than the gripping and cutting portions, in adapting the tool for a particular application, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, requiring routine experimentations with predictable results and since such modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31. 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image14.png
252
350
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
226
230
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
312
305
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that prior art utilized do not provide striking surfaces at the locations and orientations recited, i.e., a head comprising a planar striking surface that extends form an end of the head along the length of the pliers, and wherein the striking surface has a non-zero angled orientation relative to the length of the pliers. Examiner, respectfully disagrees. The combination as applied and describe above in the previous Office action clearly discloses pilers having upper and/lower striking surfaces, e.g., as partial drawings noted here and further discloses non-zero orientation of the striking surface, providing clear suggestions and motivation to configure one or both striking surfaces in a non-zero and/or zero angle orientations depending on the workpiece and/or operational parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
September 30, 2025 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights