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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show references numbers 110A and 110B (para. [021]) and 112A and 112B (para. [022]) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The Applicant is required to review the Drawings and the Specification to correct any mistake that may miss by the Examiner.
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wickert (375,588).
Regarding claim 1, Wickert teaches a wood splitting apparatus substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising:
a head comprising:
a fore portion (B),
a mid portion ,
a transition portion between the fore portion and the mid portion, and
an aft portion (A), and
the transition portion forming a first pair of planar glancing surfaces (f) between the fore portion and the mid portion,
the transition portion further forming a second pair of planar glancing surfaces (two elongated surfaces on “e”-section) between the first pair of glancing surfaces and the mid portion,
a longitudinal journal formed in the mid portion adapted to receive a handle;
the fore portion comprising:
a splitting wedge,
the splitting wedge having a back end, the splitting wedge comprising:
a longitudinal arcuate striking face opposite the back end,
the longitudinal arcuate striking face at its apex comprising a piercing edge (upper corner of B-section) located substantially towards the top of the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the piercing edge tapering into a splitting edge in both directions along the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the fore portion further comprising:
a stem portion (“d”-section) extending from the back end to the transition portion,
the width of the stem portion being substantially less than the width of the back end,
the splitting wedge having a planar left face and a right face,
the plane of substantially the top of each of the left face and right face being obliquely incident to each of the second pair of planar glancing surfaces,
wherein material in an object impacted by the fore portion is split by the splitting wedge and directed away from the stem portion and into the second pair of glancing surfaces and around the mid portion; and
a handle (inherent but not shown) secured within the longitudinal journal.
See Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 2, the flat end of the aft (A) defines a maul.
Regarding claim 4, Wickert teaches a method of splitting wood comprising the steps of:
providing a wood splitting apparatus comprising:
a head comprising:
a fore portion (B),
a mid portion,
a transition portion between the fore portion and the mid portion, and
an aft portion (A), and
the transition portion forming a first pair of planar glancing surfaces (f) between the fore portion and the mid portion,
the transition portion further forming a second pair of planar glancing surfaces (two elongated surfaces on “e”-section) between the first pair of glancing surfaces and the mid portion,
a longitudinal journal (oval hole) formed in the mid portion adapted to receive a handle;
the fore portion comprising:
a splitting wedge,
the splitting wedge having a back end, the splitting wedge comprising:
a longitudinal arcuate striking face opposite the back end,
the longitudinal arcuate striking face at its apex comprising a piercing edge (upper corner of B-section) located substantially towards the top of the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the piercing edge tapering into a splitting edge in both directions along the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the fore portion further comprising:
a stem portion (“d”-section) extending from the back end to the transition portion,
the width of the stem portion being substantially less than the width of the back end,
the splitting wedge having a planar left face and a right face,
the plane of substantially the top of each of the left face and right face being obliquely incident to each of the second pair of planar glancing surfaces,
wherein material in an object impacted by the fore portion is split by the splitting wedge and directed away from the stem portion and into the second pair of glancing surfaces and around the mid portion; and
a handle (inherently but not shown) secured within the longitudinal journal.
providing an object to be split;
introducing the piercing edge to a top of the object;
causing the piercing edge to impact the top of the object; and
causing the piercing edge to thrust into the object to cause material in the object impacted by the fore portion to be split by the splitting wedge and directed away from the stem and into the second pair of glancing surfaces and around the mid portion.
See Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 5, the flat end of the aft defines a maul.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickert (375,588).
Regarding claim 3 and 6, Wickert teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the left face and the right face of the split edge forming an angle between 18-22 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the right face of the split edge forming an angle between 18-22 degrees for attaining a desire sharpness and sturdiness of the splitting edge , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickert (375,588) in view of Cross (4,211,264).
Regarding claim 7, Wickert teaches a method of splitting wood substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts comprising the steps of:
providing a wood splitting apparatus comprising:
a head comprising:
a fore portion (B),
a mid portion,
a transition portion between the fore portion and the mid portion, and
an aft portion comprising a maul (the flat end of the aft defines a maul), and
the transition portion forming a first pair of planar glancing surfaces (f) between the fore portion and the mid portion,
the transition portion further forming a second pair of planar glancing surfaces (two elongated surfaces on “e”-section) between the first pair of glancing surfaces and the mid portion,
a longitudinal journal (oval hole) formed in the mid portion adapted to receive a handle;
the fore portion comprising:
a splitting wedge,
the splitting wedge having a back end, the splitting wedge comprising:
a longitudinal arcuate striking face opposite the back end,
the longitudinal arcuate striking face at its apex comprising a piercing edge (upper corner of B-section) located substantially towards the top of the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the piercing edge tapering into a splitting edge in both directions along the longitudinal arcuate striking face,
the fore portion further comprising:
a stem portion (“d”-section) extending from the back end to the transition portion,
the width of the stem portion being substantially less than the width of the back end,
the splitting wedge having a planar left face and a right face,
the plane of substantially the top of each of the left face and right face being obliquely incident to each of the second pair of planar glancing surfaces,
wherein material in an object impacted by the fore portion is split by the splitting wedge and directed away from the stem portion and into the second pair of glancing surfaces and around the mid portion; and
a handle (inherently but not shown) secured within the longitudinal journal.
See Figs. 1-2.
providing an object to be split;
providing a wedge into a crevice formed on the object;
impacting the maul of the head of the wood splitting apparatus on the wedge to drive the wedge further inside the object and split the object.
See Figs. 1-2.
Wickert does not teach the step of using a wedge and the maul to split the wood.
Cross teaches a method of splitting wood using a wedge 6 and a maul 11 for splitting tough wood. See Fig. 1-2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a wedge in addition to the device of Smith for splitting tough wood.
Regarding claim 8, Wickert teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the left face and the right face of the split edge forming an angle between 18-22 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the right face of the split edge forming an angle between 18-22 degrees for attaining a desire sharpness and sturdiness of the splitting edge , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wood splitting devices 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