DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 21, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on May 21, 2026. Claims 1, 20 and 22 have 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. The examiner notes that there are no limitations currently being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been overcome 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the “first striking cap…including a recess formed therein and a first fiber-reinforcement layer disposed in the recess of the first striking cap and forming a first exterior striking surface (as in claim 22), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy (0052696) in view of Maeda (4697481), Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith) and Schroder (2001/0029813).
In reference to claims 1 and 20, Eddy discloses a hammer comprising:
a handle (see figure below);
a head coupled to the handle (see figure below), the head defining a striking end (formed as opposing left and right ends of the head);
a rubber over-mold (see figure below) disposed on the head and the handle (Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Eddy lacks,
the head defining a cavity that is at least partially filled with a flowable material;
the over-mold…including a recess formed therein; and
a fiber-reinforcement layer/ballistic reinforced layer disposed in the recess of the over-mold and forming an exterior striking surface.
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 a head (42) that defines a cavity (not labeled but formed within 42, Figure 6) that is at least partially filled with a flowable material (40, Figure 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 head, of Eddy, with the known technique of providing a head defining a cavity that is at least partially filled with the flowable material, as taught by Maeda, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that maintains high shock-absorbing effects for a comparatively longer period (Column 2, Lines 13-17).
In addition, 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, similar to the head of Eddy) with a rubber covering (2, Figure 3, similar to the rubber over-mold of Eddy because it also covers the hammer head) that further includes a recess (5, Figure 3) formed therein and wherein a metal layer (3) is disposed in the recess of the rubber covering and forms an 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 rubber over-mold, of Eddy, with the known technique of providing a rubber covering that further includes the recess for receiving the metal 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 (because of the metal layer), 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.”).
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.
Finally, Schroder teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (i.e. at 31 in Figure 3 or at 200 in Figure 17) having an impact layer (i.e. 34, in Figure 3 or at 201 or 203 in Figure 17) 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 metal material 3, as previously taught by Park) and another one of the equivalent materials for the impact layer includes a fiber-reinforcement layer/ballistic reinforced 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 modified Eddy, 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 2, Schroder discloses that the fiber-reinforcement layer includes a polymer fabric (i.e. "fiberglass" 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).
In reference to claim 3, Schroder discloses that the polymer fabric includes fiberglass (see paragraph 24).
In reference to claim 14, Eddy discloses the claimed invention, 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 rubber over-mold, of Eddy, 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).
In reference to claim 17, Eddy discloses that the head is a single-piece tube including closed ends (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 18, Eddy discloses that each of the closed ends includes a flat surface (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Flat surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
139
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 19, Eddy discloses that each of the closed ends includes a radiused surface (see figure below).
[AltContent: textbox (Radiused surface)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
139
176
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 4, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy (0052696) in view of Maeda (4697481), Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith), Schroder (2001/0029813) and Falone et al. (6872157).
In reference to claim 4, Eddy 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) 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 Eddy, 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy (0052696) in view of Maeda (4697481), Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith), Schroder (2001/0029813) and Carmien (5375486).
In reference to claim 12, Eddy discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the flowable material including steel shot.
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 modified Eddy, 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, Eddy 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 Eddy, 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 further reference to claim 19 and assuming arguendo that Eddy lacks,
each of the closed ends includes a radiused 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 closed ends, of Eddy, 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy (0052696) in view of Maeda (4697481), Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith), Schroder (2001/0029813) and Gregory (GB 2319000, previously cited by applicant).
In reference to claim 13, Eddy 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 modified Eddy, 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 16, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddy (0052696) in view of Maeda (4697481), Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith), Schroder (2001/0029813) and Amicangelo (6364031).
In reference to claim 16, Eddy discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
the head include 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 Eddy, 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 22-25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, translation included herewith) in view of Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith) and Schroder (2001/0029813).
In reference to claim 22, Carmien discloses a hammer (10) comprising:
a handle (34);
a head (12/14) coupled to the handle, the head defining a cavity (i.e. within 14) and including a first end (i.e. left end in Figure 3), 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,
the first striking cap including a recess formed therein; and
a first fiber-reinforcement layer disposed in the recess of 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 (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 (because of the metal layer), 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.”).
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.
Finally, Schroder teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a hammer (i.e. at 31 in Figure 3 or at 200 in Figure 17) having an impact layer (i.e. 34, in Figure 3 or at 201 or 203 in Figure 17) 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 metal material 3, as previously taught by Park) and another one of the equivalent materials for the impact layer includes a fiber-reinforcement layer/ballistic reinforced 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 modified Carmien, 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 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 (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 (because of the metal layer), 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 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, 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 26, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmien (WO 9946090 A1, translation included herewith) in view of Park (KR 20110057089, translation included herewith), Schroder (2001/0029813) 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 5-8, filed May 21, 2026, with respect to amended 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
He (CN 107877455 A, translation included herewith) discloses a hammer including a striking cap (221), the striking cap including a recess (hole receiving 224 therein) formed therein (Figure 2); and a first fiber-reinforcement layer (222) disposed in the recess of the first striking cap and forming a first exterior striking surface (Figures 1 and 2).
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