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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 5, 2025 and December 8, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on February 6, 2026. No claims have been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claims 5-10 have been previously withdrawn. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained and discussed further below. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
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 1-4 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen et al. (2003/0094080) in view of Guynn et al. (2014/0259695) and Foreign Reference (JP 3053267, previously cited).
In reference to claim 1, Whalen et al. disclose a hammer head (20) having a longitudinal axis (see dotted horizontal line in the figure below), the hammer head comprising:
a body (20) adapted to be coupled (i.e. at 30, see Figures 1 and 2) to a handle (at 12 in Figure 1 or at 15 in Figure 2), the body having opposing first and second ends (see figure below), and a first axial bore (formed as the bore within 20 extending between inner tips of opposing left and right end caps, see figure below showing the start of the opening with the solid vertical double arrow extending rightward and ending with the dotted vertical double arrow thereby forming its length therebetween) extending into the body from the second end in a direction (i.e. a rightward direction in the figure below) towards the first end (Figure 2), wherein the first axial bore has a first bore length (see figure below),
an end cap (i.e. left 22) coupled to the second end and including a second axial bore (formed as the bore extending within left cap 22, see figure below) extending into the end cap;
an internal cavity (see figure below) formed by the first and second axial 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) vertical extending substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (because the longitudinal axis is a horizontal axis [see figure below] and the cavity cross-sectional dimension is a vertical cross-sectional dimension), wherein the cavity length is greater than the first bore length (see figure below); and
weights (37) disposed in the internal cavity and arranged linearly along the longitudinal axis and each weight being longitudinally moveable (i.e. “flowable”, see paragraph 23) in the internal cavity along the longitudinal axis (paragraph 23).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whalen et al. lack,
each of the weights has 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 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 Whalen et al., 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, 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).
In reference to claim 2, Foreign Reference also shows that each of the weights has a spherical shape (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 3, Foreign Reference also shows that a combined length of the weights is less than the cavity length (see Figure 2).
In reference to claim 4, Whalen et al. disclose that the end cap is releasably coupled (i.e. by removing/releasing the “press-fitted” connection, see figure 6 and paragraph 21) to the second end (paragraph 21).
Claim 4, is also Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whalen et al. (2003/0094080) in view of Guynn et al. (2014/0259695), Foreign Reference (JP 3053267, previously cited) and Chen (2014/0311299) or Hays (3948301).
In further reference to claim 4, assuming arguendo that Whalen et al. lack,
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 (see Figures 1 and 2) to a second end (i.e. lower 12 in Figure 1).
In addition, Hays also teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (Figures 1-4) with end cap (8’) that is releasably coupled (i.e. from threads, see Figures 2 and 3) to a second end (i.e. lower end of 2 in Figure 3).
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 end cap, of Whalen et al., with the known technique of providing the releasably coupled end cap, as taught by Chen or Hays, 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 versatile device having interchangeable end caps (see Column 1, Lines 29-34 of Hays).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that, “To reject the claims, the Examiner incorrectly interpreted the claims and Whalen and the Examiner arbitrarily created the Examiner's own alleged first bore length in FIG. 2 of Whalen. While the Examiner is entitled to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, that is not without limitation, as "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation." (MPEP § 2111) (emphasis added). Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with: (1) the ordinary and customary meaning of the term; (2) the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings; and (3) the interpretation that those skilled in the art would normally reach. (MPEP § 2111). Here, in rejecting the claims, the Examiner ignored the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and instead improperly applied a broadest possible interpretation. In particular, the Examiner inconsistently interpreted the figures of Whalen to create a purported first bore length. As shown in the Examiner's annotated FIG. 2 of Whalen (reproduced below), the Examiner interprets the claimed first bore length as a partial length of the head tube of Whalen.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner has not; ignored the broadest reasonable interpretation standard and instead improperly applied a broadest possible interpretation of a claim term that is inconsistent with: the ordinary and customary meaning of the term, or the use of the claim term in the specification and drawings, or as those skilled in the art would normally reach. As shown in the annotated figure above, all of the structural limitations of the claims as currently provided have been met. There are no structural limitations in the claims that prevent the interpretation of the elements in the annotated figure above from being made. Furthermore, the examiner clearly provides explanation (see definition on page 9 below) for the interpretation of the elements throughout the rejection (see below for further detail). If the applicant believes that a structural difference exists over the prior art, the examiner recommends further defining the claims with additional structural limitations. Since, all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
Applicant also contends that, “More specifically, the Examiner interprets the claimed first bore length to be a length extending from a right side end of the head tube 20 of Whalen to an arbitrarily selected point between the right and left side ends of the head tube 20 of Whalen. The Examiner includes the length on the right side of the head tube 20 of Whalen into which the cylindrical end cap 21 is inserted, but arbitrarily does not include the length on the left side of the head tube 20 of Whalen into which the cylindrical end cap 21 is inserted. This is inconsistent and incorrect. The Examiner does not explain why this interpretation is reasonable to anyone skilled in the art. Rather, the Examiner appears to be creating this incorrect and unreasonable interpretation solely to formulate a rejection.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. As discussed in the rejection above, the first bore length is formed as the bore within (20) extending between inner tips of opposing left and right end caps (22). There are no structural limitations in the claim that prevent such an interpretation from being made. Note, the definition of the term “bore” is defined according to www.merriam-webster.com as being; “a usually cylindrical hole” see definition 1a “noun” or as being; “the long usually cylindrical hollow part of something” see definition 2a “noun”. Since, the first bore is a hole or is the hollow part of something, it meets both of the definitions above and thus the limitation of the claim. For convenience, the examiner has provided an annotated figure below showing the claimed first bore length. And, since all of the structural limitations of the claims have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
595
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant also contends that, Under a reasonable interpretation as anyone skilled in the art would understand, any alleged first bore length of Whalen would be the length (from one end to the other) of the hollow head tube 20 of Whalen. The hollow head tube 20 of Whalen has a fixed length, and the cylindrical end caps 21 of Whalen are inserted into the respective ends of the head tube 20. In other words, the cylindrical end caps 21 of Whalen do not extend or shorten the length of the head tube 20. Thus, any combined length of the length of the head tube 20 and lengths of any alleged bores in the flanges of the cylindrical end caps 21 of Whalen is the same length as the length of the head tube 20 of Whalen.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The examiner believes that the applicant is arguing limitations not found within the claim. Note, the interpretation of the first bore is reasonable because all of the structural limitations of the first bore have been met. Again, the first bore is a first axial bore (i.e. the axially extending bore between inner tips of opposing left and right end caps, 22, see figure above) “extending into the body from the second end in a direction towards the first end, wherein the first axial bore has a first bore length” (see discussion on page 3 above and see annotated figure on page 4 above) thereby meeting all of the structural limitations of the first bore. Next, end cap (i.e. left 22) is coupled to the second end and includes the “second axial bore” (formed as the bore extending within left cap 22, see figure on page 4 above) extending into the end cap thereby meeting all of the structural limitations of the second bore. Finally, the internal cavity (see figure page 4 above) is also “formed by the first and second axial bores, has a cavity length (see figure page 4 above) extending along the longitudinal axis… and the cavity length is greater than the first bore length (see figure page 4 above) thereby meeting all of the structural limitations of the internal cavity. Since, all of the structural limitations of the first bore, the end cap including the second bore and the internal cavity have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper and thus is maintained.
The examiner recommends filing an RCE and further defining the claims with additional structural limitations pertaining to the connection of end cap (104) around body (102, see Figure 2) such that second bore (118) is located adjacent to the first axial bore and has a same width as the first bore.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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