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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12 January, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 January, 2026.
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 10 and 19 are 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.
Claims 10 and 19 each recite the limitation “the plurality of forged side nail pullers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103The 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 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez (US 6923432) as evidenced by Hose (US 1548603).
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 11, Martinez teaches a forged hammer head formed in a forging process (unitary hammer formed by forging or casting Martinez 3:14-23), comprising:
a hammer face (104) at one end of the head;
a hammer claw (106) at an end of the head opposite the face; and
a side nail puller (112) disposed between the face and the claw, the side nail puller configured to engage and pull a nail from a workpiece, the side nail puller comprising a side wall and a notch formed in the side wall (notch 116 formed in wall, Martinez fig. 2).
Martinez does not explicitly teach any details regarding a tool parting line or vestige, and consequently does not teach that
1) a tool parting line of the forging process does not intersect the notch;
5) a vestige of the tool parting line is formed on the hammer head,
6) the vestige is formed between the notch and a top end of the hammer head,
8) the notch is perpendicular to the tool parting line; and
11) the tool parting line of the forging process is above the notch.
However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Martinez does explicitly teach that the hammer may be produced via forging. Because parting lines and associated flash (or vestiges from removed flash) are a well-known consequence of forging, one of ordinary skill would infer the presence of a parting line (and associated vestige) somewhere in on the hammer of Martinez. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that heat from the grinding required to remove flash from a forged hammer head will reduce the strength of the underlying steel (Hose 1:31-40). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill would infer that a notch for pulling nails needed to be able to withstand significant stresses experienced during normal use.
It would have been a matter of obvious design choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the production of the hammer of Martinez such that the forging process resulted in the hammer having a tool parting line of the forging process that does not intersect the notch; a vestige of the tool parting line formed on the hammer head between the notch and a top end of the hammer head, the notch being perpendicular to the tool parting line; and the tool parting line of the forging process being above the notch, as there are a finite number of arrangements for forging dies that would allow the production of the disclosed hammer, and one of ordinary skill would understand that having a parting line intersect the notch would result in unacceptable weakening of the areas of the notch. The remaining limitations about the particular angles and relative positions of the parting line and vestige are not disclosed as critical to the operation of the hammer, and modifying the positions thereof do not appear to modify the operation of the device, which has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
2. Martinez as modified teaches the forged hammer head of claim 1, wherein the hammer head is formed as part of a two-piece hammer (Martinez discloses additional embodiments having a separate handle, Martinez 2:66-3:4).
3. Martinez as modified teaches the forged hammer head of claim 2, wherein the hammer head comprises an eye-hole extending therethrough for receiving a hammer handle (Martinez discloses that embodiments having a separate handle would include a hollow area equivalent to hollow area 124 to receive the handle, see Martinez 2:66-3:4 and fig. 3).
4. Martinez as modified teaches the forged hammer head of claim 3, wherein the hammer head is devoid of any structure between the notch and the eye-hole (hollowed out area 124 is hollow, see Martinez fig. 3).
7. Martinez as modified teaches the forged hammer head of claim 1, wherein the hammer head is formed as part of a one-piece hammer, and wherein the hammer head is integrally formed as part of the same forging process as a hammer handle shaft (hammer head and handle are unitary and may be forged, Martinez 3:14-23).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Martinez as modified teaches the forged hammer head of claim 1, wherein the forged side nail puller is on one side of the hammer head (Martinez fig. 2). Martinez does not teach the presence of an additional nail puller disposed on an opposing side of the hammer head. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the hammer head of Martinez as modified such that it included a second forged side nail puller disposed on an opposing side of the hammer head, as one of ordinary skill would understand that doing so would make the hammer usable by right-handed or left-handed people without any loss of ergonomics or functionality, and furthermore, it has been held that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless it results in some new and unexpected result. see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 14-20, claim 14 is patentably indistinguishable from claim 4, and is therefore rejected as obvious over Martinez as modified for the same reasons. Claims 15-17 and 20 depend from claim 14 and add the subject matter discussed in the rejections of claims 5-6, 8, and 11, and are rejected as obvious for the same reasons as those claims. Claims 18 and 19 depend from claim 14 and recite the additional subject matter discussed in the rejections of claims 9 and 10, and are rejected as obvious for the same reasons as those claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bibollet (FR 0406094 A) teaches a hammer head including a plurality of side-mounted nail pullers
Forging Design Involving Parting Line and Grain Flow, Metalworking: Bulk Forming, Vol 14A, ASM Handbook, Edited By S.L. Semiatin, ASM International, 2005, p 703–726, https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v14a.a0004037 helps establish the general level of knowledge a person of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to possess regarding parting lines in a forging process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723