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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 15, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on July 15, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claims 5-10 were previously withdrawn. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome however a new rejection is presented herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3, translation included) in view Guynn et al. (2014/0259695), Foreign Reference (JP3053267, previously cited) and alternatively as further modified by Cook (4039012).
In reference to claim 1, Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) discloses a hammer head (12, Figure 3) having a longitudinal axis (see figure below), the hammer head comprising:
a body (formed from 22 and from right end cap 24, after it has been welded to 22. See following portion of translation disclosing that caps, “24 are welded using a known friction welding method…”) adapted to be coupled to a handle (14), the body having opposing first (see figure below) and second (see figure below) ends and a first axial blind bore (see figure below) extending into the body from the second end in a direction (i.e. rightward direction) towards the first end, wherein the first axial blind bore has a first bore length (see figure below);
an end cap (i.e. left end cap 24) coupled to the second end and including a second axial blind bore (see figure below) extending into the end cap;
an internal cavity (see figure below) formed by the first and second axial blind bores and having a cavity length (see figure below) extending along the longitudinal axis and a cavity cross-sectional dimension (formed as a vertical cross-sectional dimension of the internal cavity) extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, wherein the cavity length is greater than the first bore length (see figure below); and
weights (17) disposed in the internal cavity and arranged linearly along the longitudinal axis, wherein each of the weights being longitudinally moveable (i.e. because they “effectively absorb the impact during the impact operation”) in the internal cavity along the longitudinal axis (Figure 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) lacks,
each of the weights having a weight cross-sectional dimension that substantially fills the cavity cross-sectional dimension.
However, Guynn et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (200, Figure 2c) with weighted material (i.e. pebbles or rocks, see paragraph 31), wherein the weighted material is formed from various sizes (see Figure 2c) thereby teaching that it is known to use various sized weights.
In addition, Foreign Reference ‘267 teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (1) with weighted material (5) having a weight cross-sectional dimension that substantially fills a cavity (i.e. at 4b) cross-sectional dimension (formed as a vertical cross-sectional dimension of 4b, which is perpendicular to a horizontal longitudinal axis extending along body 4, see Figure 2) and also see the following portions of the translation for disclosing; "…a hammer that can apply a plurality of impacts to an object with one tap…"Further, since the plurality of weights 5 are provided, the impact given to the formwork by the weights 5 abutting against the closing portion 6b can be increased."
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the size of the weights, of Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3), with the known technique of forming weights from various sizes such that a weight cross-sectional dimension substantially fills a cavity cross-sectional dimension, as taught by Guynn et al. and Foreign Reference ‘267, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides a hammer having increased weight and impact forces during use (see paragraph 8 of Guynn et al.) or that provides a hammer that can apply a plurality of impacts to an object with one tap and/or having an increased impact (see translation above of Foreign Reference ‘267).
In further reference to claim 1, in the alternative and assuming arguendo that Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) lacks,
the body being integral with the right end cap (24), such that a first axial blind bore extends into the body, than Cook is used for such a teaching.
Cook teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (Figure 2) with a body (22, similar to the body 22 in the embodiment in Figure 3 of Foreign Reference JP-S6343029-Y2) that is integral (see Column 2, Lines 34-38) with a right end cap (24, similar to the a right end cap 24 in the embodiment in Figure 3 of Foreign Reference JP-S6343029-Y2) such that a first axial blind bore (see figure below) extends into the body.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the body and the right end cap, of Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3), with the known technique of providing a body that is integral with an end cap, such that a first axial blind bore extends into the body, as taught by Cook, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device comprising a core having increased strength (i.e. because it is formed from hardened steel, see Column 2, Line 34) and/or providing a core that also includes rearwardly metallic impact surface (Column 2, Lines 28-29) thereby increasing the versatility of the tool.
In reference to claim 2, Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) also shows that each of the weights has a spherical shape (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 3, Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) also shows that a combined length of the weights is less than the cavity length (Figure 3).
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3, translation included) in view Guynn et al. (2014/0259695), Foreign Reference (JP3053267, previously cited), alternatively as modified by Cook (4039012, as previously discussed above) and as further modified by Chen (2014/0311299) or Krallman (2007/0051207).
In reference to claim 4, Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the end cap being releasably coupled to the second end.
However, Chen teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (Figures 1 and 2) with end cap (i.e. lower 20 in Figure 1) that is releasably coupled (Figures 1 and 2) to a second end (i.e. lower 12 in Figure 1).
In addition, Krallman also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (10, Figures 1 and 2) with end cap (18) that is releasably coupled (i.e. by using threads, see paragraph 35) to a second end (i.e. left end of 16) of a body (16/14) or that can be welded (similar to the welded end cap [left 24] of Foreign Reference JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3) to the second end (i.e. left end of 16) of the body (16/14) thereby teaching that these two attachment techniques are equivalent to one another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the left welded end cap, of Foreign Reference (JP-S6343029-Y2, i.e. the embodiment shown in Figure 3), with the known technique of providing the releasably coupled end cap, as taught by Chen or Krallman, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having end caps that are more tightly fitted (see paragraph 22 of Chen) or that provides a more advantageous and conventional attachment method (see paragraph 35 of Krallman).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed June 23, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1-4 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim 1, 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (5526719) also teaches of providing a hammer (Figure 1) with removable end caps (60) for replacement (see Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights