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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 15 are pending.
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 6 and 7 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a rubber-like material" in line 2. The term "rubber-like" renders the claim indefinite because the claim include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the covering surface" in lines 8 – 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear if applicant is introducing a new limitation or is applicant is refereeing to “the covering portion”. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined as “the covering portion”.
Claims 8 – 15 are further rejected as dependents of rejected base claim, 7.
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 – 3, 7, 10 and 12 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Erickson (U.S. Patent No. 6,282,988 B1).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Erickson teaches a hammer cover (50; Fig. 1), comprising: a body (magnetic unit, 80) that includes a generally planar covering portion (100; Fig. 3C) and a side wall (80B; Fig. 3A) that extends perpendicularly away from the covering portion (100) along a perimeter of the covering portion (100; Fig. 3C), the body (80) being attachable with a hammer head (head, 20) with the covering portion (100) covering a striking surface of the hammer (Fig. 3C); and a magnet (magnet unit, 90) for magnetically holding fasteners (Figs. 3A and 3B).
PNG
media_image1.png
487
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1) wherein the magnet (90) is a separate piece from the body (Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 3, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1) wherein the magnet (90A and B) is centrally located on the generally planar covering portion (100; Fig. 3C).
Regarding independent Claim 7, Erickson teaches a hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), comprising: a head (hammer head, 20) with a striking face (striking surface, 40); a handle (handle, 30) that extends generally perpendicularly away from the head (Fig. 2) ; a cover (50) that can be detachably connected with the head (20) of the hammer (10) to cover the striking face (40; Fig. 1), the cover (50) including: a body (80) that has a generally planar covering portion (100) and a side wall (80B; Fig. 3A) that extends orthogonally away from the covering portion (100) along a perimeter of the covering portion (100; Fig. 3C), the body (80) being attachable with a hammer head (20) with the covering surface (100) covering a striking surface (40) of the hammer (10); and a magnet (90) for magnetically holding fasteners (Figs. 3A – 3C).
Regarding Claim 10, Erickson teaches the hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), wherein the striking face (40) of the head (20) and the covering portion (100) of the cover both have similar shapes (Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 12, Erickson teaches the hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), wherein the magnet (90 A and B) has a cross- sectional area that is less than a cross-sectional area of the striking face (40; Fig. 3A).
Regarding Claim 13, Erickson teaches the hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), wherein the magnet (90) is centrally located on the covering portion (100) of the body of the cover (50; Fig. 3C).
Regarding Claim 14, Erickson teaches the hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), wherein the cover (50) has a recess (recess formed in 110; Fig. 3A) and wherein the magnet is received within the recess (Figs. 3A and 3B).
Regarding Claim 15, Erickson teaches the hammer (hammer, 10; Fig. 1), wherein the magnet (90) is made as a separate piece from the body (80) of the cover (50; Fig. 3A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 – 6, 8 – 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson (U.S. Patent No. 6,282,988 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1)of claim 2 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach the covering portion has a hexagonal shape.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the covering portion of Erickson to further include the covering portion has a hexagonal shape, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the
shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 5, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach wherein the body is made of a polymeric material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Erickson to further include the body is made of a polymeric material, as claimed, 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 of the cover (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 6, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1) of claim 1 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach wherein the body is made of rubber or a rubber-like material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Erickson to further include the body is made of rubber or a rubber-like material, as claimed, 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 of the cover (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 8, Erickson teaches the hammer cover (50; Fig. 1) of claim 7 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach wherein the body of the cover is made of a material that has a lower hardness than a material of the head.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Erickson to further include the body of the cover is made of a material that has a lower hardness than a material of the head, as claimed, 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 of the cover (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 9, Erickson teaches the hammer (10; Fig. 1) of claim 8 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach wherein the body of the cover is made of a polymeric material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Erickson to further include the body of the cover is made of a polymeric material, as claimed, 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 of the cover (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 11, Erickson teaches the hammer (10; Fig. 1) of claim 7 as discussed above.
Erickson does not teach wherein the striking face of the head and the covering portion of the cover both have hexagonal shapes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hammer of Erickson to further include the striking face of the head and the covering portion of the cover both have hexagonal shapes, as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
Art made of record, however, not relied upon for the current rejection is as follows: U. S. Patent No. 9,802,304 B2 to West et al. teaches striking tools are disclosed that include an aluminum head. Striking surfaces may be securely attached to the head by a magnetic means.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATINA N HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday; 5:30am to 3:30pm.
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.
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723