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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because in Figure 2: reference character “20.1” has been used to designate both the first axial stop and the second axial stop, the reference characters “32.1” and “38.1” respectively representing the first aperture and the first gap point to the same part, and the reference characters “32.2” and “38.2” respectively representing the second aperture and the second gap point to the same part. It is not clear what the distinction between the aperture and the gap is in the figure. 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. 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 § 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the hammer defines an axial through bore and a first aperture at a first axial end.” If this is intended to be a second axial through bore separate from the axial through bore set forth in claim 2, it is unclear whether “the axial through bore” subsequently cited is calling upon the first axial through bore or a second axial through bore. It is also unclear as to whether the Applicant is referring to the first axial end set forth in claim 1, the first axial end of the tube, or a separate first axial end. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the limitation as redundantly setting forth the axial through bore and the limitation is construed to be “the hammer defines a first aperture at a first axial end of the hammer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the hammer defines a second aperture at a second axial end.” It is unclear whether the Applicant is referring to the second axial end set forth in claim 1, the second axial end of the tube, or a separate second axial end. For clarity, the Examiner suggests the following edit: “the hammer defines a second aperture at the second axial end.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being obvious by Walsh (US 20120103644 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walsh discloses a slide hammer comprising: a shank and a hammer, the hammer being slidably arranged on the shank, (see FIG. 4: a shank 21 and a hammer 22, the hammer 22 being slidably arranged on the shank 21)
the shank comprising a handle at a first axial end and a tool attachment interface at a second axial end opposite from the first axial end, (the shank 21 comprising a handle 27 at a first axial end and “a coupler for engagement with any of a variety of tool heads” 3-10 at a second axial end opposite from the first axial end, see ¶[0049] and annotated FIG. 5 below)
the shank further comprising at least a first axial stop for the hammer, wherein at least a first shock absorber is arranged between the hammer and the first axial stop to absorb a shock when the hammer impacts the first axial stop (the shank 21 further comprising stop 36 for the hammer 22, wherein the return spring 24 is arranged between the hammer 22 and the stop 36 to absorb a shock when the hammer 22 impacts the stop 36; see ¶[0071], “return spring simply tends to push the tool head and the handle apart” in ¶[0076], and FIG. 5);
PNG
media_image1.png
927
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Walsh—Annotated FIG. 5
Regarding claim 2, Walsh discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Walsh further discloses that the hammer defines an axial through bore, (see annotated FIG. 7 below: axial through bore is located in hammer 22) wherein a tube is slidably arranged on the shank and slidably arranged in the axial through bore, (receiver tube 32 is slidably arranged on the shank 21 and slidably arranged in the axial through bore)
and wherein the at least one first shock absorber is arranged on the tube (return spring 24 is arranged on receiver tube 32).
PNG
media_image2.png
964
1157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Walsh discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Walsh further discloses that the first shock absorber is arranged at the first axial end of the tube (return spring 24 is arranged at the first axial end of the receiver tube 32).
Regarding claim 8, Walsh discloses the claimed invention as applied in claim 2 above, wherein Walsh further discloses that a second shock absorber is arranged on a second axial end of the tube (spring 25 is arranged on the second axial end of receiver tube 32).
Regarding claim 15, Walsh discloses the claimed invention as applied in claim 2 above, wherein Walsh further discloses that the first axial stop is arranged between the hammer and the handle (the stop 36 is arranged between the hammer 22 and the handle 27).
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 4-7, 10-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Yeoman (US 2211682 A).
Regarding claim 4, Walsh discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 2 above, wherein Walsh further discloses that the tube has a first axial end on which a first [fastener] is arranged, (see FIG. 2: the receiver tube 32 has a first axial end on which a bolt 30 is arranged)
and wherein the first [fastener] axially secures the first shock absorber between the first axial end of the tube and the hammer (see FIG. 4: the bolt 30 axially secures the return spring 24 between the first axial end of the receiver tube 32 and the hammer 22; see ¶[0075]).
Walsh does not disclose that the first fastener can be a nut. However, Yeoman in the same or similar field of endeavor related to hammers with shock-absorbing elements, teaches a tool comprising
a tube with an axial end on which a nut is arranged (see FIG. 3: there is a first removable abutment 32 arranged on the first axial end on the upper half of the sleeve 15)
and wherein the nut axially secures the shock absorber between first axial end of the tube and the hammer (in FIG. 3, first removable abutment 32 axially secures the upper one of the springs 47 between the first axial end of the sleeve 15 and the tool 10).
Given that both Walsh and Yeoman teach threaded fasteners used to secure a first shock absorber between the first axial end of the tube and the hammer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fasteners that hold the collar of Walsh in position with the axially threaded nut, as taught by Yeoman. A threaded collar is known in the art as well as threaded fasteners, leading to the predictable result of being held in place by axial threaded engagement instead of radial threaded engagement.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Walsh, as modified by Yeoman, further discloses that the hammer defines a first aperture at a first axial end of the hammer, (see annotated FIG. 7 below)
the first aperture having a bigger diameter than the axial through bore, (the first aperture has a bigger diameter than the axial through bore shown in the annotated FIG. 7 below)
and wherein the at least first shock absorber is arranged in the first aperture (the return spring 24 is arranged in the first aperture).
PNG
media_image3.png
964
1157
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Walsh, as modified by Yeoman, further teaches that the first aperture has a first shoulder, and wherein the at least first shock absorber is axially arranged between the first shoulder and the first nut (see Walsh, FIG. 2: the first aperture has a shoulder provided by collar 37 and the return spring 24 is axially arranged between the collar 37 and the screws 35, to be substituted by an axially threaded nut, which Yeoman teaches as discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated. Walsh, as modified by Yeoman, further discloses that the at least first shock absorber and the first aperture define a gap (see annotated FIG. 7 in the discussion of claim 5 above: there is a gap between return spring 24 and the first aperture).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Walsh, as modified by Yeoman, further discloses that the tube has a second axial end on which a second [fastener] is arranged, (the receiver tube 32 has a second axial end on which steel washer 38 is arranged; see FIGS. 2 and 5)
and wherein the second [fastener] axially secures a second shock absorber between the second axial end of the tube and the hammer (the steel washer 38 axially secures spring 25 between the second axial end of the receiver tube 32 and the hammer 22).
Walsh does not disclose that the second fastener can be a nut. However, Yeoman teaches a tool comprising the tube with a second axial end on which a second nut is arranged (see FIG. 3: there is a second removable abutment 32 arranged on the second axial end on the lower half of the sleeve 15)
and wherein the second nut axially secures a second shock absorber between second axial end of the tube and the hammer (in FIG. 3, the second removable abutment 32 axially secures the lower one of the springs 47 between the first axial end of the sleeve 15 and the tool 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the washer of Walsh with a nut and modify the location of the second spring, as taught by Yeoman. One would have been motivated to modify the washer of Walsh with the nut of Yeoman to form a removable abutment so the tool can be disassembled to replace components without needing to replace the entire tool (Yeoman Specification Page. 2, Col. 2, Lines 16-25). One would have been motivated to modify the location of the second spring because Yeoman, in Page 1, Column 1, Lines 6-11 of the specification, discusses how the arrangement of a top spring and a bottom spring removes vibration from the handle, thus making the tool more comfortable for the user. This is the same benefit originally discussed in Paragraph [0073] of Walsh. Thus, the location of the springs and what holds the springs in place are viewed as obvious variants of each other because they accomplish the same goal.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Walsh, as modified by Yeoman, further discloses a second aperture at the second axial end, the second aperture having a bigger diameter than the axial through bore, (see annotated FIG. 7 below: the second aperture is located at the second axial end defined in Claim 1 and has a bigger diameter than the axial through bore)
and wherein a second shock absorber is arranged in the second aperture (spring 25 is arranged in the second aperture).
PNG
media_image4.png
964
1157
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Walsh further discloses that the second aperture has a second shoulder, and wherein the second shock absorber is axially arranged between the second shoulder and the second nut (see the annotated FIG. 7 below: the second aperture has a second shoulder and the spring 25 is axially arranged between the second shoulder and the steel washer 38, to be modified to be a nut as taught by Yeoman, discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above).
PNG
media_image5.png
964
1157
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Walsh further discloses that the second shock absorber and the second aperture define a gap (there is a gap between the spring 25 and the second aperture).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Walsh further teaches that a diameter of the first axial stop is smaller than an outer diameter of the tube (a diameter of stop 36 is smaller than an outer diameter of receiver tube 32). In FIG. 5, it appears that the stop 36 comprises fasteners that protrude radially from the axis of the receiver tube, which appear to have a smaller diameter than a diameter of the receiver tube. Although drawings cannot be relied on for dimensions, MPEP 2144.04 provides that change in size has been held up by the courts to not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the diameter of the first axial stop is smaller than an outer diameter of the tube as the stop would be sized for the amount of force the hammer is attuned to receive and the strength of the materials of which the hammer components are manufactured.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Kelemen (US 6145899 A).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Walsh does not disclose that the second shock absorber comprises rings selected from the group consisting of rubber rings and disk springs. However, Kelemen, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to hands tools having shock-absorbing elements, teaches a shovel in which the shock absorber comprises rings selected from the group consisting of rubber rings and disk springs (the spring element 26 comprises rubber rings; Col. 2, Lines 43-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shock absorber of Walsh to further comprise rubber rings, as taught by Kelemen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because rubber rings “will not bend or jam up like coils and rubber is inexpensive and durable” (Col. 2, Lines 43-57).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Walsh does not disclose that the first shock absorber comprises rings selected from the group consisting of rubber rings and disk springs. However, Kelemen, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to hands tools having shock-absorbing elements, teaches a shovel in which the shock absorber comprises rings selected from the group consisting of rubber rings and disk springs (the spring element 26 comprises rubber rings; Col. 2, Lines 43-57). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shock absorber of Walsh to further comprise rubber rings, as taught by Kelemen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because rubber rings “will not bend or jam up like coils and rubber is inexpensive and durable” (Col. 2, Lines 43-57).
Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Lowther (US 20020178870 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Walsh further discloses that a second axial stop is arranged on the shank between the hammer and the tool attachment interface (see FIG. 4: bearing 34 is arranged on the shank 21 between the hammer 22 and tool heads 3 to 10), but Walsh does not disclose that the tube is comprised of two shells that contact each other along two contact surfaces, and wherein the contact surfaces define a plane in which a longitudinal axis of the tube is arranged.
However, Lowther, in the same field of endeavor related to slide hammers, teaches a slide hammer comprising: a shank and a hammer, the hammer being arranged on the shank, (see FIGS. 1 and 3: slide hammer 10 comprising a rod 33 and slide portion 34, the slide portion being arranged on the rod)
the shank comprising a handle at a first axial end and a tool attachment interface at a second axial end opposite from the first axial end, (the rod 33 comprising a handle 32 at a first axial end and interchangeable tip 40 at a second axial end opposite from the first axial end)
wherein a tube is slidably arranged on the shank, (wherein a guide sleeve 12 is arranged to slide against rod 33)
wherein the tube is comprised of two shells that contact each other along two contact surfaces, (the guide sleeve 12 is comprised of head receiving section 22 and main guide sleeve section 13 that contact each other along two contact surfaces; see FIG. 3)
and wherein the contact surfaces define a plane in which a longitudinal axis of the tube is arranged (the plane in which the surfaces of sections 22 and 13 meet and a longitudinal axis of the sleeve 12 denoted by dotted line in the annotated FIG. 3 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
172
857
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of Walsh to comprise two shells that contact each other along two contact surfaces, with the contact surfaces defining a plane in which a longitudinal axis of the tube is arranged, as taught by Lowther. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that the interior of the tube can be cleaned or damage to the shells “can be remedied by replacing these components as opposed to replacing the entire device” (¶[0039]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Walsh teaches a diameter of the second axial stop is smaller than an outer diameter of the tube. FIG. 7 of Walsh shows an alternative embodiment of the invention disclosed by Walsh with the same main structural details and further shows that the receiver 54 (equivalent of the second axial stop, the receiver 23) is connected to the chuck 55 (equivalent of chuck 31 in FIGS. 1-5) via a threaded rod of the receiver (shown in annotated FIG. 7 below). As it is not disclosed in the specification or in FIGS. 1-5 how the receiver is connected to the chuck in the first embodiment, one can assume that they are connected via the same mechanism shown in FIG. 7. The diameter of the threaded rod of the axial stop 54 is shown to be smaller than the outer diameter of the receiver tube 56 (equivalent of receiver tube 32).
PNG
media_image7.png
312
935
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Although drawings cannot be relied on for dimensions, MPEP 2144.04 provides that change in size has been held up by the courts to not be sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the diameter of the second axial stop is smaller than an outer diameter of the tube as the stop would be sized for the amount of force the hammer is attuned to receive and the strength of the materials of which the hammer components are manufactured.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carnell (US 5692284 A) discloses a slide hammer with two springs on either ends.
Evans (US 6290004 B1) discloses a hydraulic jar comprising belleville springs.
Zwart (US 5267613 A) discloses an upstroke jar comprising two springs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723