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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on December 22, 2025. Claims 1 and 20 have been amended. Claims 22-28 have been added. Claims 5-11 and 21 have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous U.S.C. 103 rejections have been overcome however a new rejection is provided herewith and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-4, 12-20 and 22-28 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2025 and November 5, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have 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, 17, 18 and 20 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813).
In reference to claims 1-3 and 20, Maeda discloses a hammer (Figure 7) comprising:
a handle (see figure below) having opposing first (i.e. left end thereof in the Figure below) and second ends (i.e. right end thereof in the Figure below);
a single-piece head (52) coupled to the first end and the handle, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 52, Figure 7) disposed between first (i.e. lower end of 56, Figure 7) and second (i.e. upper end of 56, Figure 7) striking ends, wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a flowable material (50);
an over-mold (56) disposed on the head and about the handle and the first and second striking ends (Figure 7); and
a layer (i.e. lower metallic impact layer 58) coupled to the over-mold (at a lower end of 56, Figure 7) and forming an exterior striking surface (i.e. a lower exterior striking surface, Figure 7 and Column 7, Lines 45-50).
[AltContent: textbox (Handle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
215
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maeda lacks,
forming the metallic lower layer as a fiber or ballistic reinforced polymer fabric layer (i.e. fiberglass).
The examiner notes that the “ballistic layer” is defined by the applicant as being a fabric/polymer matrix (see paragraph 21). Thus, any type of polymer fabric is considered as being a ballistic layer.
However, Schroder teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (at 31 in Figure 3 or at 200 in Figure 17) with an impact layer (i.e. entire outer layer of 34, in Figure 3 or at the entire outer layer 201 or 203 in Figure 17, similar to the entire impact layer 58 of Maeda) that can be formed from various types of materials (paragraph 24) thereby teaching that all of these materials are equivalent to one another, wherein one of the materials for the impact layer includes a metal material (which is similar to the metallic impact material 58 of Maeda) and another one of the equivalent materials for the impact layer includes a fiber-reinforcement fiberglass layer (see paragraph 24 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 or ballistic reinforced layer).
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 metallic impact layer, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing the fiber or ballistic reinforced impact layer (i.e. polymer fabric fiberglass layer), as taught by Schroder, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device hammer including an impact layer having improved mass distribution (see paragraph 3) and/or providing a hammer that more effectively delivers a desired impulse during normal operation (see paragraph 5).
In reference to claim 17, Maeda discloses that the head is a single-piece tube (52) including closed ends (Figure 7).
In reference to claim 18, Maeda discloses that each of the closed ends includes a flat surface (Figure 7).
Claim 4, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and Falone et al. (6872157).
In reference to claim 4, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
forming the polymer fabric from 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, as previously taught by Schroder) thereby teaching that these two materials are equivalent to one another. Since, Schroder previously taught of forming the polymer fabric from fiberglass or “other similar materials” (see paragraph 24), 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 Maeda, 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).
Claims 12, 15 and 19 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and Carmien (5375486).
In reference to claim 12, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further discloses the flowable material is formed from lead (Column 6, Line 46), but lacks,
forming the flowable material from steel.
However, Carmien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form flowable material (30) from steel (see Abstract).
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 flowable lead material, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing the flowable steel material, as taught by Carmien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that provides a substantially rigid structural backstop which enables a core of lightweight construction to withstand typical injection molding parameters (see Abstract).
In reference to claim 15, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the handle including a gripping section.
However, Carmien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer comprising a handle including a gripping section (36, 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 handle, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing a handle including the gripping section, as taught by Carmien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows a user to more effectively grip or hold onto the handle during normal operation (see Abstract).
In reference to claim 19, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
each of the closed ends includes a radiuses surface.
However, Carmien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer comprising a head (i.e. formed from 24 and left 26 and right 26 in Figure 3 or formed from head 22 in Figure 11) is a single-piece tube (at least when fully assembled) including closed ends (left end of left 26 and right end of right 26 in Figures 3 and 11) having a radiused surface (at 50 in Figures 3, 7 or at outer surface of 26 in Figure 11).
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 flat closed ends, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing the radiused closed ends, as taught by Carmien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having impact heads that provide a wide range of working characteristics (Column 7, Lines 22-26).
Claim 13, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and Gregory (GB 2319000, previously cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 13, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
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 Maeda, 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 Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and Burnett (5657674).
In reference to claim 14, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
he over-mold includes polyurethane.
However, Burnett teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an over-mold (32) that includes polyurethane (Column 5, Lines 2-6).
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 over-mold, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing an over-mold that includes the polyurethane material, as taught by Burnett, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively absorbs shock during normal operation (Column 5, Lines 2- 6) or that provides the desired hardness as required by the user (see claim 19).
Claim 16, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and Amicangelo (6364031).
In reference to claim 16, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the head including a neck tube and the handle is 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 head and the handle, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing a head that includes the neck tube and with the handle being 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, 27 and 28 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813) and optionally further in view of Pfoertner (6106755).
In reference to claim 22, Maeda discloses a hammer (60, Figure 7) comprising:
a handle (see figure below);
a head (i.e. under a first interpretation at 52 or under a second interpretation is formed from 52 and 56) coupled to the handle, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 52, Figure 7) and including a first end (i.e. under the first interpretation is formed at the lower end of 52 or under the second interpretation is formed a the lower end of 56 Figure 7), wherein the cavity is at least partially filled with a flowable material (50);
a first striking cap (58) is coupled (under the first interpretation cap 58 is coupled to the first end though by element 56 or under the second interpretation cap 58 is directly coupled to the lower end of 56) to the first end (Figure 7); and
a first layer (i.e. the lower outer layer/surface of cap 58, see figure below) coupled to the first striking cap and forming a first exterior striking surface (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (First layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Handle)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
215
287
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maeda lacks,
forming first layer as a fiber-reinforcement layer.
However, Schroder teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (at 31 in Figure 3 or at 200 in Figure 17) with an impact layer (i.e. entire outer layer of 34, in Figure 3 or at the entire outer layer 201 or 203 in Figure 17, similar to the entire impact layer 58 of Maeda) that can be formed from various types of materials (paragraph 24) thereby teaching that all of these materials are equivalent to one another, wherein one of the materials for the impact layer includes a metal material (which is similar to the metallic impact material 58 of Maeda) and another one of the equivalent materials for the impact layer includes a fiber-reinforcement fiberglass layer (see paragraph 24 and note “fiberglass” is the same type of polymer fabric as claimed in dependent claims 2 and 3 and thus must be a fiber or ballistic reinforced layer).
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 entire metallic striking cap, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing the entire fiber reinforced striking cap, as taught by Schroder, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device hammer including an impact layer having improved mass distribution (see paragraph 3) and/or providing a hammer that more effectively delivers a desired impulse during normal operation (see paragraph 5).
Optionally, Pfoertner further teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (10, Figure 1) comprising a head (12) having a striking face (26, Figure 1), wherein the striking face can include “pieces…of various metals or other types of plastic” (see Column 6, Lines 5-10 for disclosing that “…it will be understood that in some embodiments the striking faces on the head or other exterior parts of the tool may include pieces formed of various metals or other types of plastic.”). Thus, Pfoertner teaches of providing pieces or portions of exterior parts of striking faces such that they can include various metals or other types of plastic.
Therefore, 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 pieces or portions of the metallic striking cap, of modified Maeda, with the known technique of providing pieces or portions of striking caps/faces from various metals or other types of plastic, as taught by Pfoertner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an exposed portion on an exterior part of the tool being formed from a desired material, as needed by the user (see Column 6, Lines 5-10).
In reference to claim 27, Maeda discloses that the head (first interpretation at 52) is a single-piece head (Figure 7).
In reference to claim 28, Maeda discloses an over-mold (56) is disposed on the handle and the head (at least portion first interpretation at head 52, Figure 7).
Claims 23-25 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813), optionally further in view of Pfoertner (6106755) and further in view of Carmien (5375486).
In reference to claim 23, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a second striking cap coupled to a second end of the head opposite the first end; and
a second fiber-reinforcement layer coupled to the second striking cap and forming a second exterior striking surface.
However, Carmien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (20, Figure 3) comprising a head (28) including first striking cap (i.e. left 26) and a second striking cap coupled to a second end (i.e. right end 28) of the head opposite the first end (Figure 3) and a second fiber-reinforcement layer coupled to the second striking cap and forming a second exterior striking surface.
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 head, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing a head including the first and the second striking caps, as taught by Carmien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having a head including impact caps located at opposing ends of the head (see Abstract).
Additionally, Schroder teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (at 31 in Figure 3 or at 200 in Figure 17) with an impact layer (i.e. entire outer layer of 34, in Figure 3 or at the entire outer layer 201 or 203 in Figure 17, similar to the entire impact layer 58 of Maeda) that can be formed from various types of materials (paragraph 24) thereby teaching that all of these materials are equivalent to one another, wherein one of the materials for the impact layer includes a metal material (which is similar to the metallic impact material 58 of Maeda) and another one of the equivalent materials for the impact layer includes a fiber-reinforcement fiberglass layer (see paragraph 24 and note “fiberglass” is the same type of polymer fabric as claimed in dependent claims 2 and 3 and thus must be a fiber or ballistic reinforced layer).
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 entire second metallic striking cap, of modified Maeda, with the known technique of providing the entire second fiber reinforced striking cap, as taught by Schroder, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device hammer including an impact layer having improved mass distribution (see paragraph 3) and/or providing a hammer that more effectively delivers a desired impulse during normal operation (see paragraph 5).
Optionally, Pfoertner further teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (10, Figure 1) comprising a head (12) having a striking face (26, Figure 1), wherein the striking face can include “pieces…of various metals or other types of plastic” (see Column 6, Lines 5-10 for disclosing that “…it will be understood that in some embodiments the striking faces on the head or other exterior parts of the tool may include pieces formed of various metals or other types of plastic.”). Thus, Pfoertner teaches of providing pieces or portions of exterior parts of striking faces such that they can include various metals or other types of plastic.
Therefore, 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 pieces or portions of the second metallic striking cap, of modified Maeda, with the known technique of providing pieces or portions of striking caps/faces from various metals or other types of plastic, as taught by Pfoertner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having an exposed portion on an exterior part of the tool being formed from a desired material, as needed by the user (see Column 6, Lines 5-10).
In reference to claim 24, 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 is considered as being a ballistic layer. Since, Schroder previously taught of using “fiberglass” which is the same type of polymer fabric as claimed in dependent claims 2 and 3, fiberglass is considered as being a ballistic reinforced layer).
In reference to claim 25, Maeda discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the first striking cap is coupled to the first end by mechanical joining.
However, Carmien teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (20, Figure 1) comprising a head (28) having a first end (i.e. lower end in Figure 7) including a first striking cap (26) that is coupled to the first end by mechanical joining (54, Figure 7).
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 striking cap, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing a first striking cap that is coupled to the first end by mechanical joining, as taught by Carmien, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively facilitates securing of the impact heads thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation (see Column 6, Lines 8-12).
Claim 26, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (4697481) in view of Schroder (2001/0029813), optionally further in view of Pfoertner (6106755) and further in view of Flosi et al. (2015/0251302).
In reference to claim 26, Maeda 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 cap, of Maeda, with the known technique of providing the chemical coupling of the striking cap, 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 with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the location of the fiber/ballistic layer as being located on an exterior striking surface.
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 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