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. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (CN 111436742 A) in view of Mu (CN 107933174 A) and Carey (US 5009133 A) with respect to claim 1 and in further view of Zheng2 (CN 107116944 A) and Sports card report card ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj50x229gcI Hereinafter: SCRC) regarding Claim 11. Applicants’ arguments pertinent to the new grounds of rejection will be addressed below , and Applicants arguments with respect to the filed declaration will be addressed afterwards. In response to applicant's argument that Li and Mu are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker , 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Li and Mu are both hand tools for craft purposes, with Li being a handle for tools such as a brush, brush pen, a pencil, or carving knife. While Mu is pointed towards a hand engraving tool. The instant invention is a hand tool for smoothing defects out of collectable cards. As such Li and Mu are both in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, as all three are hand tools for craft and repair purposes. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Regarding Applicants argument with respect to no articulated reasoning to combine Li and Mu, Applicant argues that modifying Li to utilize vinyl would eliminate Li’s fundamental objective of environmental protection through recycled paper, then further argues that the combination lacks KSR’s requirement for articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. First regarding, Mu rendering Li “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”. Applicant argues that Vinyl substitution eliminates Li’s fundamental objective of environmental protection, to which Examiner disagrees, Li’s objective is to provide a handle for a tool, that is cheap to construct and is environmentally friendly, it does not preclude any material that isn’t considered environmentally friendly. In Example 3 in Para [0055] Li discusses the handle being used as a pencil, including a lead core and a rubber eraser. Li is concerned with improving the environmental impact of a tool, not eliminating all environmental impact, as such Modifying the tube 2 to be made of Vinyl if vinyl is a necessary material for the tool to function would not eliminate the fundamental objective of Li. Then regarding Applicants argument with respect to the KSR requirement , the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Mu, states in Para [0020] “A tool is provided in the right chamber. The tool includes a handle 4. A prismatic connecting part 5 is provided in the middle of the handle. The prismatic connecting part is made of rubber. The rubber has high friction and the handle is not easy to detach from the right chamber.” Describing a similar handle structure (4) to the handle of Li, a similar connecting part (5) to the connecting part of Li (2) and teaches that it being a high friction material (such as rubber) provides the advantage of making it hard to detach the handle from the work surface of the tool, which would increase the sturdiness and reliability of the tool. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Regarding Applicants argument pointed towards Zhang, Applicant argues that Examiner has not established why one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zhang’s tool to modify Li’s handle. Zheng discloses a wooden as convenient to hold, Para [0020] “ A handle 1 is fixedly inserted at the right end of the blade body 3. The handle 1 is made of wood and is convenient to hold. ” Indicating that a wooden handle is a convenient material to construct a handle of, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that in light of the specification of Zheng. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Regarding Applicants argument pointed towards Zheng2, In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Zheng2 utilizes pressing and scrapping motions that are entirely different from the gentle rubbing motion required for correcting defects in delicate paper collectable cards without causing damage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues that Examiner does solely not rely on Zheng2 to disclose the claimed to teach the motion or method of using the tool, but to demonstrate that a hand tool like Li as modified can be used for smoothing or pressing operations, and relies on it in combination with SCRC (previously R&R sports) to teach the claimed method. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/23/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim s 1-11 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103; as set forth in the last Office action because: It includes (s) statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716. It includes (s) statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716. Additionally, The declaration does not establish nexus, MPEP 716.01(b) states “ Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner shows that the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” While the declaration does link evidence towards the claim limitations, the objectiveness of the evidence does not outweigh the objectiveness of the obviousness rejection. MPEP 716.01 discusses the Probative value of objective evidence. In section III “Opinion Evidence” the MPEP states “Although factual evidence is preferable to opinion testimony, such testimony is entitled to consideration and some weight so long as the opinion is not on the ultimate legal conclusion at issue. While an opinion as to a legal conclusion is not entitled to any weight, the underlying basis for the opinion may be persuasive. In re Chilowsky , 306 F.2d 908, 134 USPQ 515 (CCPA 1962) (expert opinion that an application meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 is not entitled to any weight; however, facts supporting a basis for deciding that the specification complies with 35 U.S.C. 112 are entitled to some weight); In re Lindell, 385 F.2d 453, 155 USPQ 521 (CCPA 1967) (Although an affiant’s or declarant’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue is not evidence in the case, "some weight ought to be given to a persuasively supported statement of one skilled in the art on what was not obvious to him." 385 F.2d at 456, 155 USPQ at 524 (emphasis in original)).” And additionally, the declaration only provides conclusionary statements, and does not present any numerical or objective evidence, MPEP further stating “Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter , 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).” Additionally, section III further discusses that a declaration or affidavit of an applicant to the advantages of their claimed invention is less persuasive than that of a disinterested person. “ An affidavit of an applicant as to the advantages of their claimed invention, while less persuasive than that of a disinterested person, cannot be disregarded for this reason alone. Ex parte Keyes, 214 USPQ 579 (Bd. App. 1982); In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 97 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1953). ” Regarding items 4-10 with respect to testing and unexpected results, the statements in these items are generally conclusory and do not provide objective evidence of the discussed results being unexpected. For example, in item 9, discussing the claimed diameter, the MPEP 716.02 II states “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). ”. The statements in the declaration regarding the diameter do not provide any numerical evidence regarding the tested diameters, nor the specific results of any test. Further, specifically regarding item 11 in the declaration, discussing the long-felt needs and the commercial success by copying competitors the MPEP in 716.04 discusses the facts requirements of evidence regarding long-felt needs. The declaration statements are generally conclusive and do not provide significant evidence of a long-felt need, for example: the declaration fails to establish the date the problem is identified nor provide evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references. See MPEP 716.04 II. Regarding statements pointed towards copying, the MPEP stats in 716.06 “However, more than the mere fact of copying is necessary to make that action significant because copying may be attributable to other factors such as a lack of concern for patent property or contempt for the patentee’s ability to enforce the patent. Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark , Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 226 USPQ 881 (Fed. Cir. 1985 ) ( overruled on other grounds by Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Alleged copying is not persuasive of nonobviousness when the copy is not identical to the claimed product, and the other manufacturer had not expended great effort to develop its own solution. Pentec, Inc. v. Graphic Controls Corp., 776 F.2d 309, 227 USPQ 766 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also Vandenberg v. Dairy Equipment Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1568, 224 USPQ 195, 199 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (evidence of copying not found persuasive of nonobviousness because the basic concepts of a plastic support device using a ball and socket joint were developed prior to learning of their competitor’s device).” In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2 5 - 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ( CN 111436742 A ) in view of Mu ( CN 107933174 A ) and Carey ( US 5009133 A ) . Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses A collectible card defect correction tool, comprising: a cylindrical handle (1) having a first diameter over a first length (See Para [0011] “ As a further solution of the present invention: the shape of the main handle is any one of cylindrical, conical and rhombus-shaped. ” Describing a cylindrical shape) and a first end (3) having a second diameter (See Fig. 2) over a second length (See Fig. 2); and a tubing (2) coupled to the first end (See Figure 1) of the cylindrical handle and extending therefrom, tubing having an inner diameter (2 is a hollow tubing, see Fig. 1 and 2) ; wherein the tubing has a length exceeding the second length, such that the tubing comprises a free end portion that projects beyond the first end of the cylindrical handle (See Fig. 1 and 2) . But does not explicitly disclose the tubing being ductile and resilient. However, Mu discloses a similar structure on a similar handle held tool, The tool including a handle (4) and a tubing (5) made of a ductile, resilient material (Rubber, See Para [0020] “A tool is provided in the right chamber. The tool includes a handle 4. A prismatic connecting part 5 is provided in the middle of the handle. The prismatic connecting part is made of rubber. The rubber has high friction and the handle is not easy to detach from the right chamber.” ). And Carey discloses a similar structure on another hand-held tool, the tool including a cylindrical sheath (34) made of vinyl (See Col 5 Line 8-11 “Surface protective fastener tool 10 comprises an elastomeric sheath 34, which is generally cylindrical in shape, and which is formed from vinyl plastic or other similar resilient flexible material, such as rubber.” ) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tubing to made of a ductile, resilient material as doing so would allow for it to not be easily detached from the handle during use as advantageously described by Mu in Para [0020] cited above. And it would be further obvious to choose vinyl as this material as Carey discloses that vinyl and rubber (as used in Mu) are known equivalent resilient and flexible materials, and that choosing vinyl would be a matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.06 II. Regarding Claim 2, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the inner diameter is 5/16" to 7/16". However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the inner diameter, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Regarding Claim 5, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the second diameter is smaller than the first diameter and the inner diameter of the ductile, resilient vinyl tubing is about equal to the second diameter (See Figures 1 and 2 showing the tubing 2 mating with the second diameter area of 3). Regarding Claim 6, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and suggests but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first length is greater than the second length (See Figure 1, showing a small 3 relative to the length of the handle 1) . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the length of handle with respect to second length, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Regarding claim 7, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein the first length is about 6 to 7 times the second length. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the first length with respect to second length, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Regarding Claim 8, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses, wherein the second length is 3/4 th inch. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the second length, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Regarding Claim 10, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly wherein the free end portion is 0.8 to 1.2 times the length of the first end of the cylindrical handle . However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the fourth length of the tubing relative to the third length of the tubing, as it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ( CN 111436742 A ) and Mu ( CN 107933174 A ) and Carey ( US 5009133 A ) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Zhang ( CN 108437674 A ) Regarding Claim 3, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cylindrical handle comprises wood. However, Zhang discloses a hand-held tool with a similar handle (1), comprising wood (abstract “ the handle is made of wood. ”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the handle to be made of wood, as doing so is advantageously described by Zhang, Para [0020] “ A handle 1 is fixedly inserted at the right end of the blade body 3. The handle 1 is made of wood and is convenient to hold. ” Claim(s) 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li ( CN 111436742 A ) and Mu ( CN 107933174 A ) and Carey ( US 5009133 A ) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Zheng2 ( CN 107116944 A ) and Sports card report card ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj50x229gcI Hereinafter: SCRC ) Regarding Claim 11, Li as modified discloses A method of correcting a defect in a collectible card comprising: providing the collectible card defect correction tool of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); but does not specifically disclose lowering the collectible card defect correction tool such that the free end portion of the ductile, resilient vinyl tubing contacts a defect on a surface of the collectible card , wherein the defect is selected from a group consisting of a dent, a bend, a crease, a ding and a bump ; and gently rubbing the free end portion of the ductile resilient vinyl tubing across the collectible card surface to smooth the defect . However, Zheng2 discloses a similar shaping tool for smoothing a surface on a workpiece by applying a fluid to the surface, contacting the surface to the work piece and sliding it, to create a smooth surface (See Zheng2 Para [0006] “ When it is necessary to draw a flat line on the painting, first put the oil clay that has been rolled into a line on the painted line, and use a small long Watt to evenly press the line; when it is necessary to draw a large flat surface on the painting, use a large flat-head Watt to pull the color block apart, and then smooth it, first heavy and then light; when it is necessary to draw a rough shape like trees and mountains and rivers on the painting, hold the long Watt slightly sideways, pull the color block apart and scrape it, etc. ” Zheng2 describes running the tool over the paint in order to create a smooth surface). And SCRC discloses a method of addressing dings or similar discrepancies in collectible cards by utilizing a tool to apply pressure and smooth out defects. (Timestamp 0:22-3:11, SCRC describes a corner ding or discrepancy in the card, and utilizes a store-bought roller, to gently apply pressure to the defect area over the card, then describes the results as a positive improvement in the quality of the card, See attached screenshot below). Screenshot from SCRC It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize the tool of Li as modified as a smoothing tool for applying a defect correcting solution to collectable cards, such that it is used to be lowered onto a collectible card surface, and sliding the tool across a card surface defect, as doing so would allow for a user to smooth the collectable card , as such a process with a tool is known to provide positive results for improving the condition of collectable cards. Regarding Claim 14, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses wherein the collectible card is selected from the group consisting of sports cards and gaming cards (The collectable card worked on in SCRC is a hockey card, See Screenshot above) . Regarding Claim 15, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses further comprising holding the collectible card defect correction tool like a pen or paintbrush during the rubbing step (See Screenshot above showing the user holding the tool like a pen or paintbrush during the rubbing ). Claim(s) 1 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 111436742 A) and Mu (CN 107933174 A) and Carey (US 5009133 A) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Desjarlais (US 20190248172 A1). Regarding Claim 12, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 5 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the cylindrical handle includes a tapered transition region extending from the first diameter to the second diameter. However, Desjarlais discloses a similar cylindrical hand tool, wherein the handle (106) includes a tapered transition region (206, See Fig. 2) extending from a first diameter (106b, Fig. 2) to a second diameter (206, See Fig. 2). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the handle to include a tapered transition region to transition from the first to second diameter as Desjarlais discusses that such a tapered structure would be a suitable structure to have a sleeve (106a, analogous to 2 of Li) fitted over it, See Para [0027] “The reduced-diameter member 206 may be received within the first half 106a and suitably secured thereto via a variety of means including, but not limited to, an interference fit, a shrink fit, a snap-fit engagement, a threaded engagement, one or more mechanical fasteners (e.g., bolts, screws, pins, etc.), a spring-loaded bayonet connection, a magnetic coupling, or any combination thereof.” It has been held that substituting an element for a known equivalent would be obvious to one of ordinary skill (See MPEP 2144.06). Regarding Claim 13, Li as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the ductile, resilient vinyl tubing conforms to the tapered transition region (See Figs. 1-3 of Desjarlais and Figs. 1-2 of Li showing the tubing conforming to the shape of the transition point of the handle). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7270 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723