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 statements (IDS) submitted on June 10, 2026 and October 6, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on September 3, 2026. Claim 22, has been amended. No additional claims have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been considered as is persuasive therefore the previously rejection has been withdrawn however a new rejection is provided herewith and is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-4, 12-20 and 22-28 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 1-3, 12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Clarke et al. (2004/0129119).
In reference to claim 1, Carmien discloses a hammer (10, Figure 1) comprising:
a handle (34);
a head (14) coupled to the handle, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 14) and a striking end (formed as the right most end of 14 or as the left most end of 14 in Figure 3 below), wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a flowable material (18);
an over-mold (16) disposed on the head and the handle (see following portion from page 4, third paragraph, of Carmien, disclosing that, “an impact head 12…encased within an outer cladding or jacket 16 of molded plastic”) and including a recess (see figure below) formed therein; and
an impact reinforcement layer (26) disposed in the recess of the over-mold and forming an exterior striking surface (28).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carmien lacks explicitly disclosing that the impact reinforcement layer is formed as;
a fiber-reinforcement layer.
However, Clarke et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar hammer (see paragraph 27 and Figure 5) including an impact reinforcement member (14, similar to the impact reinforcement layer 26, of Carmien) that is formed as an impact fiber-reinforcement layer (i.e. because it is formed from fiberglass, see paragraph 7 and note "fiberglass" is the same type of material as claimed by applicant in dependent claim 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 material of the impact reinforcement layer, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing an impact reinforcement layer that is formed from the fiber-reinforcement material, as taught by Clarke et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a desired momentum (paragraph 27) as needed by a user during normal hammer type operation (“so as to provide the momentum when tool 10 is being used as a hand-held impact driver in the manner of a hammer”, paragraph 27).
In reference to claim 2, Clarke et al. disclose that the fiber-reinforcement layer includes a polymer fabric (i.e. "fiberglass" see paragraph 27 and note "fiberglass" is the same type of polymer fabric as claimed in dependent claims 2 and 3 and thus is considered as being a fiber reinforced layer).
In reference to claim 3, Clarke et al. disclose that the polymer fabric includes fiberglass (see paragraph 27).
In reference to claim 12, Clarke et al. disclose that the flowable material includes steel shot (see Abstract).
In reference to claim 15, Carmien discloses that the handle includes a gripping section (36, Figure 1).
In reference to claim 17, Carmien discloses that the head is a single-piece tube (14) including closed ends (Note; only the left end is annotated in the figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Closed end)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Radiused surface)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Flat surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
433
619
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 18, Carmien discloses that each of the closed ends includes a flat surface (see figure above).
In reference to claim 19, Carmien discloses that each of the closed ends includes a radiused surface (see figure above).
In reference to claim 20, Carmien discloses a hammer tool (10, Figure 1) comprising:
a handle (34) opposing first (i.e. lower end of 34 in Figures 1 and 2) and second ends (i.e. upper end of 34 in Figures 1 and 2) Figure 1);
a single-piece head (14) coupled to the first end, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 14) disposed between first and second striking ends (formed as the right most end of 14 and as the left most end of 14 in Figure 3 below), wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a flowable material (18);
an over-mold (16) disposed about the handle and the first and second striking ends (see Figure 3 and the following portion from page 4, third paragraph, of Carmien, disclosing that, “an impact head 12…encased within an outer cladding or jacket 16 of molded plastic”) and including a recess (see figure below) formed therein; and
an impact reinforcement layer (26) disposed in the recess of the over-mold and forming an exterior striking surface (28).
Carmien lacks explicitly disclosing that the impact reinforcement layer is formed as;
a ballistic reinforcement layer.
However, Clarke et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar hammer (see paragraph 27 and Figure 5) including an impact reinforcement member (14, similar to the impact reinforcement layer 26, of Carmien) that is formed as an impact ballistic reinforcement layer (i.e. because it is formed from fiberglass, see paragraph 7 and note "fiberglass" is the same type of material).
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 material of the impact reinforcement layer, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing an impact reinforcement layer that is formed from the ballistic reinforcement material, as taught by Clarke et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a desired momentum (paragraph 27) as needed by a user during normal hammer type operation (“so as to provide the momentum when tool 10 is being used as a hand-held impact driver in the manner of a hammer”, paragraph 27).
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Clarke et al. (2004/0129119) and Falone et al. (6872157).
In reference to claim 4, Carmien discloses the claimed invention, but lacks,
the polymer fabric including aramid fibers.
However, Falone et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a polymer fabric that can be formed from aramid fibers or from fiberglass (Column 12, Lines 13-23) thereby teaching that these two materials are equivalent to one another. Since, Clarke et al. previously taught of forming the polymer fabric from fiberglass or from other similar materials (see paragraph 7), the fiberglass material could be changed with the aramid fibers, as taught by Falone et al.
Thus, 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 polymer fabric, of modified Carmien, with the known technique of providing the polymer fabric that is formed from the aramid fibers, as taught by Falone et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile polymer fabric having increased force dissipating materials (Column 12, Lines 13-23).
Claim 13, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Clarke et al. (2004/0129119) and Gregory (GB 2319000, previously cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 13, Carmien discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
further comprising a bladder disposed in the cavity, the flowable material being disposed in the bladder.
However, Gregory teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (see Abstract) with a removable bladder (42) that is disposed in a cavity (22) of a head (12) and includes flowable material (44) being disposed in the bladder (Figure 1).
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 cavity, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing the removable bladder that is disposed in a cavity of a head for holding flowable material therein, as taught by Gregory, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a removable container (see following portion of translation; "the illustrated container 42 is removable...") thereby allowing a user to more easily replace the flowable material when worn, clean the container as needed or replace the container when needed.
Claim 14, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Clarke et al. (2004/0129119) and Maeda (4697481).
In reference to claim 14, Carmien discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the over-mold including polyurethane.
However, Maeda teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar hammer (48, see Figure 6) including an over-mold (46) formed from polyurethane (Column 6, Lines 57-60).
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 over-mold, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing the polyurethane over-mold, as taught by Maeda, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased striking force (Column 7, Lines 17-20).
Claim 16, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Clarke et al. (2004/0129119) and Amicangelo (6364031).
In reference to claim 16, Carmien discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further discloses that the head include a neck tube (16, Figure 1), but lacks,
the handle being welded to the neck tube.
However, Amicangelo teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (Figure 1) that includes a head (20) with a neck tube (50) and with a handle (32) that is welded to the neck tube (Column 7, Lines 17-21).
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 connection of the handle to the neck tube, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing a handle that is welded to the neck tube, as taught by Amicangelo, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased strength (Column 7, Line 11).
Claims 22, 23, 25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Park (KR 20110057089, previously cited).
In reference to claim 22, Carmien discloses a hammer (10) comprising:
a handle (34);
a head (14) coupled to the handle, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 14) and including a first end (i.e. left end of 14 in the annotated Figure 3 previously shown above), wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a flowable material (18);
a first striking cap (i.e. left 26 in Figure 3) coupled to the first end.
Carmien lacks,
a first fiber-reinforcement layer embedded in the first striking cap and forming a first exterior striking surface.
However, Park teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer head (1, Figure 1) with a striking cap (2, note this striking cap could be a first or a second striking cap) including a recess (5) formed therein and a first fiber-reinforcement layer (i.e. metal layer 3) disposed in the recess of the first striking cap and forming a first exterior striking surface (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 first striking cap, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing a first striking cap including the recess and the first fiber-reinforcement layer, as taught by Park, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile hammer having increased strength (i.e. because of metal layer 3) and/or that reduces noise during normal operation (see “to prevent noise caused by collisions between irons of a hammer by being attached to the hammer.”) and/or which minimizes the area between the iron and iron and reduces noise during normal operation (see following portion of translation disclosing that, "The present invention is to insert a machined circular metal plate (3) to the hard rubber plate (2) to minimize the area between the iron and iron, there is a hard rubber plate on the back of the metal plate to prevent the noise hitting the iron and iron Step, attaching the completed low noise hammer cap using an adhesive.").
In reference to claim 23, Carmien discloses further comprising:
a second striking cap (i.e. right cap 26 in Figure 3) coupled to a second end of the head opposite the first end.
Carmien lacks,
a second fiber-reinforcement layer coupled to the second striking cap and forming a second exterior striking surface.
However, as previously discussed above, Park teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer head (1, Figure 1) with a striking cap (2, note this striking cap could be a first or a second striking cap) including a recess (5) formed therein and a second fiber-reinforcement layer (i.e. metal layer 3) disposed in the recess of the second striking cap and forming a second exterior striking surface (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 second striking cap, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing a second striking cap including the recess and the fiber-reinforcement layer, as taught by Park, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile hammer having increased strength (i.e. because of metal layer 3) and/or that reduces noise during normal operation (see “to prevent noise caused by collisions between irons of a hammer by being attached to the hammer.”) and/or which minimizes the area between the iron and iron and reduces noise during normal operation (see following portion of translation disclosing that, "The present invention is to insert a machined circular metal plate (3) to the hard rubber plate (2) to minimize the area between the iron and iron, there is a hard rubber plate on the back of the metal plate to prevent the noise hitting the iron and iron Step, attaching the completed low noise hammer cap using an adhesive.").
In reference to claim 25, Carmien discloses that the first striking cap is coupled to the first end by mechanical joining (i.e. from snap-fit or press-fit, see following portion of translation disclosing that, “As shown, the impact caps 26 may each include a mounting sleeve 30 shaped for snap-fit or press-fit mounting onto matingly shaped ends of the canister 14, wherein the mounting sleeve 30 includes an external ribbed or other discontinuous contoured - 5 - surface for secure interlocking engagement with the outer jacket 16, as will be described in more detail.”).
In reference to claim 27, Carmien discloses that the head is a single-piece head (Figure 3).
In reference to claim 28, Carmien discloses further comprising an over-mold (16) disposed on the handle and the head (see following portion of translation disclosing that, “Alternately, it will be recognized and understood by persons skilled in the art that the jacket 16 may encase the entire tool head 12 including the impact caps 26, and/or the jacket 16 may be formed to encase the entire tool 10 including the head 12 and the entire handle 34.”).
Claim 24, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Park (KR 20110057089, previously cited) and Clarke et al. (2004/0129119).
In reference to claim 24, Carmien discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
each of the first and second fiber-reinforcement layers are ballistic reinforcement layers.
The examiner notes that the "ballistic layers" are defined by the applicant as being a fabric/polymer matrix (see paragraph 21). Thus, any type of polymer fabric including fiberglass is considered as being a ballistic layer. Furthermore, Park previously taught of metal reinforcement layers (i.e. metal layers 3).
In addition, Clarke et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar hammer (see paragraph 27 and Figure 5) including an impact reinforcement member (14, similar to the first or the second impact reinforcement layer 26, of Carmien) that is formed as an impact ballistic reinforcement layer (i.e. because it is formed from metal [similar to the metal material of Park] or from fiberglass, see paragraph 7, thereby teaching that these two material are equivalent to each other. Also, note "fiberglass" is the same type of fabric/polymer matrix as described in applicant’s specification, see paragraph 21).
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 metal material of the first and second impact reinforcement layers, of modified Carmien, with the known technique of providing impact reinforcement layers that are formed from the ballistic reinforcement material (i.e. fiberglass), as taught by Clarke et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a desired momentum (paragraph 27) as needed by a user during normal hammer type operation (“so as to provide the momentum when tool 10 is being used as a hand-held impact driver in the manner of a hammer”, paragraph 27).
Claim 26, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, previously cited) in view of Park (KR 20110057089, previously cited) and Flosi et al. (2015/0251302).
In reference to claim 26, Carmien discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the first striking cap is coupled to the first end by chemical joining.
However, Flosi et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to couple a striking cap (32) to a striking end (50, Figure 3) by mechanical joining and/or by chemical joining (paragraph 55) thereby teaching that these two coupling techniques are equivalent.
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 coupling of the striking caps, of Carmien, with the known technique of providing the chemical coupling of the striking caps, as taught by Flosi et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively secures the cap to the head (paragraph 55) thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-9, filed September 3, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 20 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection of claims 1, 20 and 22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection above does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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
