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 17, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 12-15, 19 and 20 have been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn however the examiner has provided a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection herewith, which is discussed in greater detail below. Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim 1 discloses that, “wherein a durometer range ratio between the anti-vibration layer and the outer layer is a function of relative thicknesses of the anti-vibration layer and the outer layer such that a hardness ratio between the first elastomeric polymeric material and the second elastomeric polymeric material is a minimum of 0.65 and a maximum of 0.96”. However, it is unclear how the relative thicknesses provide the minimum and maximum hardness ratios. In other words what is the structural relationship of relative thicknesses that provide the minimum and maximum hardness ratios? Does the second elastomeric polymeric have to be thicker than the first elastomeric polymeric? Does it have to be thinner than the first elastomeric polymeric? Next, since the first elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness between 42-48 and because the second elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness between 50-65, one could provide the claimed hardness ratios by merely selecting different Shore A hardness values for the first and second polymeric materials. For example, if the first elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 42 and the second elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 65, the resulting hardness ratio would be 42/65=0.65 thereby meeting the lower hardness ratio of 0.65. Additionally, if the first elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 48 and the second elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 50, the resulting hardness ratio would be 48/50=0.96 thereby meeting the higher hardness ratio of 0.96. Thus, it is unclear how the relative thicknesses provide the hardness ratios, since selecting different Shore A hardness values are the parameters used to provide the minimum and maximum hardness ratios. In order to expedite prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation above as actually disclosing, “wherein ”. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-10, 12, 13, 15-18 and 20 are Finally rejected As Best Understood under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi (2014/0165787) in view of Holland-Letz (EP 2045046, previously cited).
In reference to claim 1, As Best Understood, Lombardi discloses a hand tool (10) comprising:
a head (14, Figure 8) having a bell and a face (40) for delivering an impact; and
a handle (12) operably coupled to the head and extending linearly away from the head along an axis (A, Figure 8),
wherein the handle comprises a grip portion (24) proximate to a distal end (i.e. lower end thereof) of the handle,
wherein the grip portion comprises a core material (20), an anti-vibration layer (26) disposed around a periphery of the core material in a radial direction substantially perpendicular to the axis, and an outer layer (28) disposed around a periphery of the anti-vibration layer,
wherein the anti-vibration layer is made of a first elastomeric polymeric material having a Shore A hardness between about 42 and about 48 (see paragraph 62 for disclosing “a Shore A durometer of about 30 to about 60”, which meets the entire range of about 42 and about 48);
wherein the outer layer is made of a second elastomeric polymeric material having a Shore A hardness between about 50 and about 65 (see paragraph 64 for disclosing “a Shore A durometer of about 60 to about 80”, which meets the claimed Shore A durometer range of between 60 and about 65); and
wherein a thickness of the anti-vibration layer is thicker than a thickness of the outer layer (see Figures 8 and 10 for showing anti-vibration layer 26 being thicker than outer layer 28 at least thicker than portion 220 of outer layer, see Figure 8).
Lombardi lacks;
providing the entire range of outer layer (i.e. having a Shore A hardness between about 50 and about 60); and
providing a hardness ratio between the first elastomeric polymeric material and the second elastomeric polymeric material is a minimum of 0.65 and a maximum of 0.96.
However, Holland-Letz teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an outer layer (6) having a Shore A hardness between about 30 and 60 (see Claim 1). Thus, Lombardi as modified by Holland-Letz provide the entire range of the Shore A hardness being between about 50 and about 65.
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 range of the Shore A hardness of the outer layer, of Lombardi, with the known technique of providing an outer surface having Shore A hardness between about 50 and about 60, as taught by Holland-Letz, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively transmits a torsional moment or a compressive force, in which the migration of the plasticizer is avoided or is limited to a tolerable extent (see paragraph under the title “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION”).
In addition, Lombardi disclose of providing a Shore A durometer of about 60 to about 80 needs to be optimized to, “…chemically and permanently bond to the soft rubber material of the first elastomeric material layer 26. This hard rubber material of the second elastomeric material layer 28 not only helps reduce vibration but also provides wear resistance greater than the softer rubber material of the first elastomeric material layer 26 underneath it.” (paragraph 64) and as such the Shore A durometer of the outer layer being between about 50 and about 60 is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the Shore A durometer of the outer layer changes the bond, the vibration and/or wear resistance. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lombardi device to have a Shore A durometer of the outer layer being between about 50 and about 60, as it involves only adjusting the Shore A durometer of the outer layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Shore A durometer of the outer layer, of Lombardi, with a Shore A durometer of the outer layer being between about 50 and about 60, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the Shore A hardness “may” be within the claimed ranges (paragraph 5) and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 65 paragraph 35) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Finally, because the entire range of the first elastomeric polymeric material having a Shore A hardness between about 42 and about 48, and because the entire range of the second elastomeric polymeric material having a Shore A hardness between about 50 and about 65 has been met (see above), the examiner notes that depending on the particular Shore A hardness values selected, one could provide the claimed hardness ratios. For example, if the first elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 42 and the second elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 65, the resulting hardness ratio would be 42/65=0.65 thereby meeting the claimed lower hardness ratio of 0.65. Additionally, if the first elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 48 and the second elastomeric polymeric material has a Shore A hardness value of 50, the resulting hardness ratio would be 48/50=0.96 thereby meeting the claimed higher hardness ratio of 0.96.
In reference to claim 2, Lombardi discloses an intermediate layer (22 in Figure 8) is disposed between the core and the anti-vibration layer (Figure 8).
In reference to claims 3 and 12, Lombardi discloses that the intermediate layer comprises one or more retention members (see the rounded inner “protrusion” in the annotated figure below that engages within cavity 230 of core 20, which is similar to the “geometrically shaped protrusions” as described for forming the retention members, see paragraph 38) that extend in the radial direction (i.e. horizontal direction) to provide inter-layer bonding with one or both of the core (20) and the anti-vibration layer.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claims 4 and 13, Lombardi discloses that the intermediate layer (22) is molded onto the core (paragraph 31), the anti-vibration layer (26) is molded onto the intermediate layer (paragraph 31), and the outer layer (28) is over-molded onto the anti-vibration layer (paragraphs 5 and 31 and Figure 10).
In reference to claim 5, Lombardi discloses that the core is metallic material (see paragraph 75) having one or more cavities (230) formed therein to enable material from the intermediate layer to penetrate the one or more cavities to mechanically fasten the core to the intermediate layer (paragraph 53 and Figure 11).
In reference to claim 6, Lombardi discloses that the core is polymeric material containing fiber reinforcement (i.e. when it is formed from fiberglass the fibers therein meet the fiber reinforcement limitation, paragraph 45) having one or more cavities (230) formed therein to enable material from the intermediate layer to penetrate the one or more cavities to mechanically fasten the core to the intermediate layer (paragraph 53 and Figure 11).
In reference to claim 7, Lombardi discloses that the outer layer is over-molded onto the anti-vibration layer to encapsulate the anti-vibration layer (paragraph 31 and Figure 10).
In reference to claim 8, Lombardi discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further shows that thickness of the anti-vibration layer (26) is thicker than at least a thickness of the outer layer (28, see Figures 8 and 10 for showing anti-vibration layer 26 being thicker than outer layer 28, at least thicker than portion 220 of outer layer), but lacks,
the thickness of the anti-vibration layer is up to about 1 mm thicker than the thickness of the outer layer.
Lombardi discloses that anti-vibration layer (26) needs to be optimized to reduce vibration, “…layer 26 is constructed and arranged to reduce the vibration” (paragraph 62) and as such the thickness of the anti-vibration layer is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the thickness of the anti-vibration layer changes the vibration that is reduces during normal operation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lombardi device to have a thickness of the anti-vibration layer being up to about 1 mm thicker than the thickness of the outer layer, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thickness of the anti-vibration layer, of Lombardi, to be up to about 1 mm thicker than the thickness of the outer layer, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The examiner also notes that this concept is further evidenced by Holland-Letz which teaches of providing different thicknesses (see following portion of translation “Of course, different layer thicknesses are possible.”) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Lombardi device. Finally, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness of the anti-vibration layer “may” be within the claimed ranges (paragraph 52) and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 3mm, paragraph 52) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
In reference to claims 9 and 18, Lombardi discloses that the anti-vibration layer and the outer layer are mechanically fastened to each other (at 240, see Figure 10), or bonded to each other via adhesives to provide inter-layer bonding between the outer layer and the anti-vibration layer (Figure 10).
In reference to claim 10, Lombardi discloses a hand tool (10) comprising:
a head (14, Figure 8) having a bell and a face (40) for delivering an impact; and
a handle (12) operably coupled to the head and extending linearly away from the head along an axis (A, Figure 8),
wherein the handle comprises a grip portion (i.e. formed along the entire length of 12) proximate (i.e. at a lower portion of 12) to a distal end (i.e. lower end thereof) of the handle,
wherein the grip portion comprises a core material (20), an anti-vibration layer (26) disposed around a periphery of the core material in a radial direction substantially perpendicular to the axis, and an outer layer (28) disposed around a periphery of the anti-vibration layer,
wherein the anti-vibration layer is made of a first elastomeric polymeric material having a Shore A hardness between about 10 and about 45 (see paragraph 62 for disclosing “a Shore A durometer of about 20 to about 50”, which meets the claimed Shore A durometer range of between 20 and about 45);
wherein the outer layer is made of a second elastomeric polymeric material (paragraph 64); and
wherein a thickness of the anti-vibration layer is thinner (at least in part) than a thickness (i.e. from a thickness at an upper portion of the outer layer) of the outer layer (see second figure below);
wherein an intermediate layer (22) is disposed between the core and the anti-vibration layer (Figure 8), and
wherein the core comprises one or more cavities (230) formed therein to enable material from the intermediate layer to penetrate (see inner rounded portion of the protrusion in the first figure below “passing into” cavity 230 thereby meeting definition 1a of the term “penetrate” according to www.meriam-webster.com) the one or more cavities to mechanically fasten the core to the intermediate layer at the grip portion of the handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
564
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lombardi lacks,
forming the anti-vibration layer with a Shore A hardness between about 10 and about 20; and
forming the outer layer with a Shore A hardness between about 48 and about 53.
However, Holland-Letz teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an anti-vibration layer (5, Figure 3) with a Shore A hardness between about 10 and about 50 (see claim 1, which meets the range of about 10 to about 20), providing an outer layer (6) with a Shore A hardness between about 30 and about 60 (see claim 1, which meets the range of between about 48 and about 53). Thus, Lombardi as modified by Holland-Letz provide the entire range of the Shore A hardness for both the anti-vibration layer and the outer 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 range of the Shore A hardness of the anti-vibration layer and the outer layer, of Lombardi, with the known technique of providing an anti-vibration layer with a Shore A hardness between about 10 and about 20 and with an outer layer with a Shore A hardness between about 48 and about 53, as taught by Holland-Letz, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively transmits a torsional moment or a compressive force, in which the migration of the plasticizer is avoided or is limited to a tolerable extent (see paragraph under the title “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION”).
In reference to claim 15, Lombardi discloses that the core is a fiber reinforced polymeric material (i.e. fiberglass contains fibers, paragraph 45 and Figure 11).
In reference to claim 16, Lombardi discloses that the outer layer is over-molded onto the anti-vibration layer to encapsulate the anti-vibration layer (Figure 10).
In reference to claim 17, Lombardi discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above and further shows that thickness of the anti-vibration layer is thinner than at least a thickness of the outer layer (see figure on page 13 above), but lacks,
the thickness of the anti-vibration layer is up to about 3 mm thinner than the thickness of the outer layer.
Lombardi discloses that anti-vibration layer (26) needs to be optimized to reduce vibration, “…layer 26 is constructed and arranged to reduce the vibration” (paragraph 62) and as such the thickness of the anti-vibration layer is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the thickness of the anti-vibration layer changes the vibration that is reduces during normal operation. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lombardi device to have a thickness of the anti-vibration layer being up to about 3 mm thicker than the thickness of the outer layer, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thickness of the anti-vibration layer, of Lombardi, to be up to about 3 mm thicker than the thickness of the outer layer, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The examiner also notes that this concept is further evidenced by Holland-Letz which teaches of providing different thicknesses (see following portion of translation “Of course, different layer thicknesses are possible.”) and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Lombardi device. Finally, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the thickness of the anti-vibration layer “may” be within the claimed ranges (paragraph 52) and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., 1 mm, see claim 8) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
In reference to claim 20, Lombardi discloses a method of manufacturing a hand tool (see claim 34 and Figures 8 and 18a), the method comprising:
operably coupling an intermediate layer (22, note layer 22 can be “variable”, see paragraph 57) to a metallic or fiber reinforced polymeric material core (20, Figures 8 and 18a);
wherein the core comprises one or more cavities (see figure below) formed therein to enable material from the intermediate layer to penetrate (i.e. “pass into” thereby meeting definition 1a of the term “penetrate” according to www.meriam-webster.com) the one or more cavities to mechanically fasten the core to the intermediate layer (Figure 18a), and
wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more retention members (i.e. the “protrusion” in the figure below, which is similar to the “geometrically shaped protrusion[s]” as described for forming the retention members, see paragraph 38) that extend in the radial direction (i.e. horizontal direction) to provide inter-layer bonding with one or both of the outer layer and the anti-vibration layer at the grip portion of a handle of the hand tool (Figure 18a);
providing an anti-vibration layer (26) and an outer layer (28) that is harder than the anti-vibration layer (see claim 4),
operably coupling the anti-vibration layer having a thickness and hardness (paragraph 62); and
operably coupling the outer layer having a thickness and hardness (paragraph 64).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lombardi lacks,
selecting a thickness relationship for an anti-vibration layer and an outer layer, where the selected thickness relationship determines a respective range of hardness values for the anti-vibration layer and the outer layer.
However, Holland-Letz teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide “different layer thicknesses” for an outer layer (6), an inner layer (5, which meets the anti-vibration layer) and a core member (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 method, of Lombardi, with the known technique of providing the method that includes selecting various thicknesses, as taught by Holland-Letz, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively transmits a torsional moment or a compressive force, in which the migration of the plasticizer is avoided or is limited to a tolerable extent (see paragraph under the title “OBJECT OF THE INVENTION”).
Claim 14, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi (2014/0165787) in view of Holland-Letz (EP 2045046, previously cited) and Flosi et al. (2015/0251302).
In reference to claim 14, Lombardi further discloses that the core is metallic material (see paragraph 75), but lacks specifically disclosing;
that the metallic material is formed from steel.
However, Flosi et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to form a core from steel (paragraph 68).
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 core, of Lombardi, with the known technique of providing the steel core, 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 provides greater strength to the underlying core to permit a lighter core without sacrificing strength (paragraph 68).
Claim 19, is Finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lombardi (2014/0165787) in view of Riehle (5704259).
In reference to claim 19, Lombardi discloses a hand tool (10) comprising:
a head (14, Figures 8 and 18a) having a bell and a face (40) for delivering an impact; and
a handle (12) operably coupled to the head and extending linearly away from the head along an axis (A, Figures 8 and 18a),
wherein the handle comprises a grip portion (i.e. formed along the entire length of 12) proximate (i.e. at a lower portion of 12) to a distal end (i.e. lower end thereof) of the handle,
wherein the grip portion comprises a core material (20), an anti-vibration layer (26) disposed around a periphery of the core material in a radial direction substantially perpendicular to the axis, and an outer layer (28) disposed around a periphery of the anti-vibration layer,
wherein the anti-vibration layer is made of a first elastomeric polymeric material (paragraph 62);
wherein the outer layer is made of a second elastomeric polymeric material (paragraph 64);
wherein the first elastomeric polymeric material is softer (i.e. soft rubber) than the second elastomeric polymeric material (i.e. hard rubber, see claim 4);
wherein an intermediate layer (22) is disposed between the core and the anti-vibration layer;
wherein the core comprises one or more cavities (see figure below) formed therein to enable material from the intermediate layer to penetrate (i.e. “pass into” thereby meeting definition 1a of the term “penetrate” according to www.meriam-webster.com) the one or more cavities to mechanically fasten the core to the intermediate layer (Figure 18a)l and
wherein the intermediate layer comprises one or more retention members (i.e. the “protrusion” in the figure below, which is similar to the “geometrically shaped protrusion[s]” as described for forming the retention members, see paragraph 38) that extend in the radial direction (i.e. horizontal direction) to provide inter-layer bonding with one or both of the outer layer and the anti-vibration layer at the grip portion of a handle of the hand tool (Figure 18a).
PNG
media_image3.png
658
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lombardi lacks,
a maximum acceleration ratio between the head and the handle is 0.075.
However, Riehle teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to vary an acceleration (see Figures 3a and 3b) between a head (112) and a handle (114, Figures 3a-4a) of a hammer (Column 5, Lines 28-65).
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 device, of Lombardi, with the known technique of varying an acceleration between a head and a handle of a hammer, as taught by Riehle, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having increased dampening thereby allowing vibration to die out faster during normal operation (Column 5, Lines 28-65).
Since, Riehle teach that the acceleration ratio between a head and a handle of a hammer can be varied or optimized (see Column 5, Lines 28-65), the acceleration ratio is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the acceleration ratio of the distal end changes the vibration pattern. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Lombardi device to have an acceleration ratio within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the parameter of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Lombardi by making the maximum acceleration ratio between the head and the handle to be 0.075, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Modifying the maximum acceleration ratio, of Lombardi, such that it is 0.075, is well within the level of skill in the art, as further evidenced by Riehle teaching of varying an acceleration (see Figures 3a and 3b) between a head (112) and a handle (114, Figures 3a-4a) of a hammer (Column 5, Lines 28-65), and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Lombardi device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends with respect to claim 10 that, “Applicants submit that Lombardi fails to teach cavities in the grip portion of the core that promote bonding between the "intermediate layer" and the core. The Examiner correlates the recessed portion 230 of the core member 20 of Lombardi to the cavities 213 in the claimed invention. Applicants submit that the recessed portion of the core member in Lombardi is disposed at "an upper central portion 255 of the core member 20 (Lombardi, [0053]). In this regard, the recessed portion of Lombardi, to whatever extent it may be considered a cavity, is not located in the grip portion of the handle, as is required by claim 10. The cross section C-C of FIG. 11 disclosed by Lombardi is shown, in FIG. 5 to be taken, as Lombardi indicates in [0053], in the upper central portion of the core member, not in the grip portion of the handle. Absent any teaching from Lombardi, there would be no motivation to change the location of the cavities disposed on the core member.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The grip portion is formed along the entire length of handle (12) because one can grip the handle at any point along its entire length. Figure 11, shows that cavity of the core at (230) which is taken along line C-C in Figure 5. Line C-C in Figure 5 is within the length of the handle of thus also the grip thereby meeting the limitation of the claim. Since, all of the structural limitations have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
The examiner has reviewed the other arguments but note that the rejection above has been amended to more clearly show how the prior art meet each limitation of the other claims and therefore will not be repeated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifally, applicant further defined independent claim 1 to include a hardness ratio and further defined independent claims 10, 19 and 20 with to include an intermediate layer and one or more core cavities.
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