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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 21-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“biasing member” (claim 10, line 2) should be changed to --the biasing member--;
“a a second inset cheek” (claim 21, lines 1-2) should be changed to --a second inset cheek--;
“the second window” (claim 22, line 2) should be changed to --a second window--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“overstrike protector” (claim 4).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “an exterior rear surface coupled to said window surface”. This amended limitation is new matter because the specification and the drawings do not describe this configuration. Instead, as shown in Fig. 1, the “exterior rear surface” (at reference 42 where cartridge 80 threads into) is not in contact with the “window surface”, as there is a portion of the inset cheek separating the window surface and the exterior rear surface. Claims 30-31 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 2.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “wherein said insert body has a cross section defined by a rectangle with a pair of corner cutouts, sectioned along said longitudinal axis”. This amended limitation is new matter because the specification and the drawings do not describe this configuration. Examiner notes that the specification does not include the words “pair”, “corner”, or “cutout(s)”, and the drawings also do not provide adequate support for this limitation. Claim 29 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 28.
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 10, 23-26, and 28-29 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 23 recites the limitation “an angled surface coupling the first side to the first plane” (line 11). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, claim 23 earlier recites “an inset cheek defined by a first plane”, which is interpreted as the inset cheek taking the form of or being located by a non-physical plane. Thus, it is unclear what “an angled surface coupling the first side to the first plane” means because it is unclear how the first side could be coupled to such a non-physical plane. Examiner notes that the specification does not use the terms “plane” or “angle” or “angled surface”, and at best, support for this claim comes solely from the drawings. Applicant is cautioned to not introduce unsupported subject matter into the claims, which may lead to a § 112(a) rejection. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 24-26 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 23.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said exterior rear surface” (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “said insert cavity” (line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, which renders the claim unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 29 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 28.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
West in view of Chen
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180079062 A1 (“West”) in view of US 20100038609 A1 (“Chen”).
West pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Chen pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 23, West discloses a striking tool (Figs. 1-7, tool 100) comprising:
a head, said head extending longitudinally between a striking surface and a rear claw and extending transversely between a first side and a second side (Figs. 1-7, head 110 with striking surface 118, rear claw 120, head 110 has a second side (e.g., the side shown in the view of Fig. 7) and a first side opposite the second side (e.g., the side on the opposite side and hidden in the view of Fig. 7),
said head comprising an inset cheek defined by a first plane, said plane laterally displaced from said first side (Figs. 1-7, head 110 with an inset cheek defined by a plane (e.g., by a plane defined by three points on the inset cheek surface (at reference 214 of Fig. 2) or a plane tangent to the inset cheek surface (at reference 214 of Fig. 2) at one point), where the plane is laterally displaced from the first side),
said head having an opening disposed longitudinally between the striking surface and the rear claw (Figs. 1-7, head 110 with opening (near reference 200 (Fig. 3)) leading to cavity 400),
said head having a top face... (Figs. 1-7, top face at reference 114);
a handle coupled to or extending from said head, wherein each of the first side and the second side of the head extend laterally beyond the handle (Figs. 1-7, handle 108 coupled to head 110, first and second sides of head extend laterally beyond the profile of the handle (e.g., portion of sides near reference 202 in Fig. 2)),
and wherein the first plane is mated to said handle (Figs. 1-7, a number of various planes (e.g., planes that define the inset cheek above can intersect, be adjacent to, or abut the handle);
an angled surface coupling the first side to the first plane (Figs. 1-7, angled surface (see surface at reference 300 in Fig. 3 that curves around from one side of head 110 to the other side of the head 110) couples the first side to the first plane that defines the inset cheek);
and an insert removably insertable into the opening of said head (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0021-0022, insert 413 (including contents 412) is removable through opening of head),
said insert comprising:
a cartridge having an interior space (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, cartridge 413 has interior space therein),
a damping member disposed in the interior space (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, shot 412 (e.g., one half of the shot shown)),
an insert body disposed in the interior space, said insert body being movable with respect to said cartridge in order to allow said damping member to dampen vibration in said head (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, shot 412 (e.g., the other half of the shot shown) is capable of the recited function, including allowing the damping member to reduce vibration in the head when head is struck against an object).
West does not explicitly disclose:
said head having a top face defining a tapered channel, said tapered channel extending from one of the first side and the second side transversely into said head in order to allow said head to detach nails from structures.
However, the West/Chen combination makes obvious this claim.
Chen discloses:
said head having a top face defining a tapered channel, said tapered channel extending from one of the first side and the second side transversely into said head in order to allow said head to detach nails from structures (Figs. 1-5, top face of head as tapered channels 11 extending transversely from a side into the head and are capable of detaching nails).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Chen with West to modify the top face of the West head to add the tapered channels (as taught by Chen) because this would add additional nail-pulling functionality to the West hammer: “However, a hammer may be used in environments in which it is difficult to maneuver the hammer. For pulling nails in a narrow space or corner area, the claw may be not smoothly attachable to the nails to be pulled. In that case, it is difficult to pull the nails with a conventional claw hammer.... It is one object of the present invention to provide a hammer with a specifically designed hammerhead, which is convenient for use to pull nails in different environments, free from space and angle limitations.” (Chen ¶¶ 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 24, the West/Chen combination makes obvious the striking tool of claim 23 as applied above.
Based on the West/Chen combination of claim 23, the limitation “wherein the tapered channel extends vertically into at least a portion of the inset cheek” is satisfied (see Chen Fig. 3, showing channels 11 extending vertically into the cheek).
West in view of Chen and Chambers
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180079062 A1 (“West”) in view of US 20100038609 A1 (“Chen”) and US 468191 A (“Chambers”).
West pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Chen pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Chambers pertains to a hammer (Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 25, the West/Chen combination makes obvious the striking tool of claim 24 as applied above. West and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein the inset cheek defines a first window extending into the opening of said head, and wherein said insert is visible through the window. However, the West/Chen/Chambers combination makes obvious this claim.
Chambers discloses wherein the inset cheek defines a first window extending into the opening of said head, and wherein said insert is visible through the window (Figs. 1-2, head 10 has a first side and a second side opposite the first side, a window 13 in the inset cheek of the first side that extends into opening 11 of head 10, insert 14 is visible through window 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Chambers with the West/Chen combination by adding a window in the cheek of the head as taught by Chambers. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the window would allow a user to see that an insert is present (or not) within the opening of the hammer head (note that the insert 413 of West is removable/replaceable by way of removing striking cap 112 (see US 20220347827 A1 (“Horgan”) Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0026, 0030, disclosing a “see-through window” that allows a user to see the amount of damping fill material inside the hammer).
West in view of Chen and West2
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180079062 A1 (“West”) in view of US 20100038609 A1 (“Chen”) and US 20160039078 A1 (“West2”).
West pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4). Chen pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Fig. 1). West2 pertains to a hammer (Abstr.; Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 26, the West/Chen combination makes obvious the striking tool of claim 24 as applied above. West and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein said head further has a slot extending from the striking surface into a main portion of said head, wherein the slot is disposed at a top of said head and is configured for accepting a fastener, and wherein said striking tool further comprises at least one magnet coupled to said head in order to allow the fastener to be maintained in the slot. However, the West/Chen/West2 combination makes obvious this claim.
West2 discloses wherein said head further has a slot extending from the striking surface into a main portion of said head, wherein the slot is disposed at a top of said head and is configured for accepting a fastener, and wherein said striking tool further comprises at least one magnet coupled to said head in order to allow the fastener to be maintained in the slot (Figs. 1-5; ¶ 0024, nail starter 36 has slot 38 extends from striking surface 32 at top of head 16 and is capable of accepting a fastener, and includes magnet 42 which is capable of maintaining a fastener in the slot 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of West2 with the West/Chen combination by modifying the nail starter 210 of West (West Figs. 1-4) in the manner claimed (i.e., extending slot 210 of West longer from the striking surface 118). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the West2 nail starter 36 design is an improvement that has a longer slot (reaching to the striking surface) and a magnet to better secure a fastener to the hammer. Examiner notes that the inventor of West and West2 is the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is US 20180079062 A1 (“West”), US 468191 A (“Chambers”), and US 2451217 A (“Heinrich”).
Regarding claim 1, West discloses a striking tool (Figs. 1-7, tool 100) comprising:
a head, said head defining a striking surface on a front side and said head having an opening... (Figs. 1-7, head 110 with striking surface 118 on a front side and opening (near reference 200 (Fig. 3)) leading to cavity 400);
said head extending laterally between a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Figs. 1-7, head 110 has a first side (e.g., the side shown in the view of Fig. 7) and a second side opposite the first side (e.g., the side on the opposite side and hidden in the view of Fig. 7)),
said head comprising an inset cheek disposed longitudinally between said front side and said rear side (Figs. 1-7, inset cheek at reference 214 of Fig. 2),
a handle coupled to or extending from said head (Figs. 1-7, handle 108 coupled to head 110);
and an insert removably insertable into the opening of said head (Figs. 1-7; ¶¶ 0021-0022, insert 413 (including contents 412) is removable through opening of head),
said insert comprising:
a cartridge having an interior space (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, cartridge 413 has an interior space therein),
a damping member disposed in the interior space (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, shot 412 (e.g., one half of the shot shown)),
and an insert body disposed in the interior space, said insert body being movable with respect to said cartridge in order to allow said damping member to dampen vibration in said head (Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0021-0022, shot 412 (e.g., the other half of the shot shown) is capable of the recited function, including allowing the damping member to reduce vibration in the head when head is struck against an object).
West does not explicitly disclose:
said head having an opening accessible from a rear side opposing the front side,
said inset cheek having a window surface laterally offset from and parallel to one of the first side and the second side, the window surface defining a first window extending into the opening of said head;
said insert visible through the first window when inserted into said head.
Chambers discloses:
said head extending laterally between a first side and a second side opposite the first side (Figs. 1-2, head 10 extends laterally between a first side (e.g., the view plane as shown in the view of Fig. 1) and a second side opposite the first side),
said head comprising an inset cheek disposed longitudinally between said front side and said rear side, said inset cheek having a window surface laterally offset from and parallel to one of the first side and the second side, the window surface defining a first window extending into the opening of said head (Figs. 1-2, head 10 has a inset cheek (located at reference 13 of Fig. 1), which has a window surface (aperture of element 13) that is laterally offset from and parallel to the first side and/or the second side, the window 13 is defined by the window surface and extends into the opening 11 of head 10; Examiner interprets “a window surface” as the portion of the inset cheek’s outer surface that has an opening (see Spec. Fig. 1, opening of element 86);
said insert visible through the first window when inserted into said head (Figs. 1-2, insert 14 is visible through window 13).
Heinrich discloses:
said head having an opening accessible from a rear side opposing the front side (Fig. 1, head as shown with striking face 12 on front side and an opening 20 accessible from the rear side (towards reference 21), with insert 25 comprising a cartridge 26 filled with lead for a damping effect; 1:35-2:18).
Despite the prior art of record teaching all of the limitations of claim 1, it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have modified West with the teachings of Chambers to implement the limitation “said inset cheek having a window surface laterally offset from and parallel to one of the first side and the second side”, because the inset cheek of West (at reference 214 of Fig. 2) has a curved surface, which would require a significant and nonobvious redesign in order to have a “window surface” that is “laterally offset from and parallel to one of the first side and the second side”.
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable in the combination as claimed. Claims 2, 4-10, 21-22, and 27-31 are allowable for depending from claim 1 (subject to addressing the claim objections and § 112 rejections where appropriate).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 3 and 11-20 have been canceled. New claims 27-31 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 21-31 are pending.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in part and sustained in part (see § 112(b) rejections above).
Claims 1, 4-9, and 27 are allowed. Claims 21-22 are objected to. Claims 2, 10, 23-26, and 28-31 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As a preliminary matter, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of West and the secondary references, especially with respect to the opening for the damping feature (Reply at 12-14). Applicant’s arguments appear to focus on claim 1; but these arguments are moot because claim 1 is indicated as allowable. To the extent any of these arguments pertain to independent claim 23, these arguments are unconvincing for the reasons stated in the § 103 rejection of claim 23 above. As previously explained, the proposed combination of West and the Chambers window does not require modifying Chambers or using other parts of Chambers. The teaching relied upon from Chambers is that of the window itself, which produces an opening through the cheek of the hammer (Chambers Figs. 1-2). The proposed combination modifies the inset cheek of West, adding a window (as taught by Chambers) to reveal the shock absorbing insert inside the West head. The proposed combination modifies West based on Chambers’s teaching of having a window that is capable of exposing the head’s interior space or contents. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
Regarding the alleged lack of motivation or explanation, Applicant should note that the question is not whether an invention was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact technique for obtaining a result (e.g., detecting an interdental gap) if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Applicant’s remaining arguments are conclusory and are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to hammers with windows and/or damping features to reduce vibrations.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights