DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 3/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9-10 and 15-25 remain pending in the application. Claims 8 and 11-14 were cancelled.
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 1-7, 9-10 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meredith (US 5141353) in view of McCann (US 20150314143 A1) and Cook (US 4039012).
Regarding claim 1, Meredith teaches an axe (axe in Figure 4 with the cutting head shape of Figure 9, as discussed in col. 4 lines 51-59 with other head) comprising:
a handle with a first gripping end (right end, see Figure 4); and
an axe head (204) in a second end of the handle (left end in Figure 4), the axe head comprising an edge (as replace with head in Figures 9-10, see edge in 404, see Figure 10);
wherein the handle further comprises:
a straight tubular portion (as the element 5 in the middle of the handle to make the handle into a tube shape with hollow center without element 5, see Figure 4) comprising a filling (5) contiguous with the axe head (see Figure 6), the straight tubular portion having a substantially constant wall thickness (in the same way applicant’s device have “substantially” constant wall thickness, see Figure 4 and 6), and an end portion having a longitudinal center axis (see Figure 4); and wherein the end portion is hollow (as the element 5 in the middle of the handle to make the handle into a tube shape with hollow center without element 5, see Figure 4) and an inner area of the end portion of the handle perpendicular to the longitudinal center axis of the end portion increases towards the first gripping end of the handle (see Figure 4).
Meredith fails to teach a curved tubular portion having a curved longitudinal center axis.
McCann teaches an axe with an end grip portion to have a curved longitudinal center axis (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meredith to have a curved grip end, as taught by McCann, in order to provide optimal performance and comfort for the user (paragraph 00041 of McCann).
If there is any doubt that the filling 5 of Meredith extends all the way to the end of the handle, the examiner provides that Cook teaches a reinforcement bar 20 extends all the way in the handle (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meredith to have the reinforcement bar extend all the way in the handle, as taught by Cook, in order to better increase the life of the tool (col. 3 lines 24-34).
Regarding claim 2, modified Meredith further teaches the filling is formed with a filling part (part 5, see Figure 6 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 3, modified Meredith teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 2 stated above.
Modified Meredith fails to teach said filling part is positioned relative to the axe head with mating positioning elements, comprising compatible recess/protrusion elements delimiting relative movement of the filing part and the axe head.
Cook further teaches said filling part is positioned relative to the tool head with mating positioning elements (46 mates with 22), comprising compatible recess/protrusion elements (recess of 48) delimiting relative movement of the filing part and the tool head (see Figures 1-3 of Cook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meredith to add the mating elements, as taught by Cook, in order to substantially increase the working life of the tool (col. 3 lines 11-24 of Cook).
Regarding claim 4, modified Meredith further teaches the filling part is solid (5 is interpreted as solid, see Figure 6 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 5, modified Meredith further teaches the curved tubular portion comprises a section with a substantially constant wall thickness (as modified, with the curve, but does not increase the thickness of the wall, with the same side element 5 in the handle, thus the modified Meredith teach the same substantially constant wall thickness as the straight portion, see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 6, modified Meredith further teaches the edge of the axe head faces a striking direction of the axe and the curved tubular portion extends from the straight tubular portion as a curve towards the striking direction (as modified by McCann, see Figure 1 of McCann).
Regarding claim 7, modified Meredith further teaches a top line of the curved tubular portion at least partially follows a circular path (as modified by McCann, see Figure 1 of McCann and annotated Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 9, modified Meredith further teaches the second end partially surrounds the axe head in a longitudinal direction of the straight tubular portion, such that it delimits relative movement of the axe head and the handle in the longitudinal direction (see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 10, modified Meredith further teaches the curved tubular portion comprises a surface portion (outer surface of the handle, see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 15, modified Meredith further teaches the filling is contiguous with the curved tubular portion; and the filling is fixed within the straight tubular portion and not removable from the straight tubular portion (as modified in claim 1, the reinforcement bar all the way in the handle, as the element 5 is mold over, the element 5 is considered as not removable).
Regarding claim 16, modified Meredith further teaches a portion of the straight tubular portion is hollow, the portion being contiguous with the curved tubular portion (see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 17, modified Meredith teaches the filling extends through a center region of the straight tubular portion and to the second end (as modified by Cook, see Figure 3 of Cook).
Regarding claim 18, modified Meredith further teaches the filling is manufactured of a first material; and the handle is manufactured of a second material different from the first material (metal core of Meredith and plastic handle, see Figure 5 and col. 4 lines 37-59 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 19, modified Meredith further teaches the handle has a wall thickness that is substantially constant along a length of the straight tubular portion and a length of the curved tubular portion (same as claim 1 and claim 5, see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 20, modified Meredith teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 1 above.
Modified Meredith fails to teach the filling comprises a recess; and the axe head comprises a protrusion positioned in the recess.
Cook further teaches said filling part is positioned relative to the tool head with mating positioning elements (46 mates with 22), comprising compatible recess/protrusion elements (recess of 48) delimiting relative movement of the filing part and the tool head (see Figures 1-3 of Cook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meredith to add the mating elements, as taught by Cook, in order to substantially increase the working life of the tool (col. 3 lines 11-24 of Cook). The resulting device of modified Meredith teaches the filling extends through a center region of the straight tubular portion and to the second end (as modified by Cook, see Figure 3 of Cook and see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Furthermore, with regard to “the filling comprises a recess; and the axe head comprises a protrusion positioned in the recess”.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modified the device of modified Meredith to change the location of the recess/protrusion. Since the court have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 21, modified Meredith further teaches a portion of the straight tubular portion is hollow, the portion being contiguous with the curved tubular portion (see Figure 4 of Meredith); and the filling extends through a center region of the straight tubular portion and to the second end (as modified by Cook, see Figure 3 of Cook).
Regarding claim 22, modified Meredith further teaches the filling is manufactured of a first material; and the handle is manufactured of a second material different from the first material (metal core of Meredith and plastic handle, see Figure 5 and col. 4 lines 37-59 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 23, modified Meredith further teaches the handle has a wall thickness that is substantially constant along a length of the straight tubular portion and a length of the curved tubular portion (same as claim 1 and claim 5, see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Regarding claim 24, modified Meredith teaches all elements of the current invention as set forth in claim 20 above.
Modified Meredith fails to teach the filling comprises a recess; and the axe head comprises a protrusion positioned in the recess.
Cook further teaches said filling part is positioned relative to the tool head with mating positioning elements (46 mates with 22), comprising compatible recess/protrusion elements (recess of 48) delimiting relative movement of the filing part and the tool head (see Figures 1-3 of Cook).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Meredith to add the mating elements, as taught by Cook, in order to substantially increase the working life of the tool (col. 3 lines 11-24 of Cook). The resulting device of modified Meredith teaches the filling extends through a center region of the straight tubular portion and to the second end (as modified by Cook, see Figure 3 of Cook and see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Furthermore, with regard to “the filling comprises a recess; and the axe head comprises a protrusion positioned in the recess”.
Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modified the device of modified Meredith to change the location of the recess/protrusion. Since the court have held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 25, modified Meredith further teaches the handle has a wall thickness that is substantially constant along a length of the straight tubular portion and a length of the curved tubular portion (same as claim 1 and claim 5, see Figure 4 of Meredith).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-10 and 15-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIANG DONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Ashley Boyer can be reached on 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.
/LIANG DONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/16/2026