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 CRF 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 06/30/2026, claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claim 2 was previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 3, the term may be amended as “[[the]]an impact hardness”.
In claim 9, lines 4-5, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a bond”.
In claim 11, line 2, the term may be amended as “[[the]]an outer end”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke et al. (US 5428853), in view of Hayashi (JP S6185380U).
Regarding claim 1, Menke discloses, in fig. 7, a tool (tool assembly 10) comprising
a handle element (handle 16),
a rod (rodlike handle 58) which is received in the handle element (see annotated Menke fig. 7 below, the rod is received in the handle), and
a weight guided on the rod such that the rod extends into the weight, which has a third stop on its side facing the handle element (see annotated Menke fig. 7 below, the rod 58 extends into the recited weight, and the rod has the recited third stop),
characterized in that the handle element has a first stop at its end facing the weight, so that the weight can be struck with its third stop against the first stop (see annotated Menke fig. 7 below, the handle has the recited first stop, and the first stop can be struck with the recited third stop), but does not disclose the rod has a second stop at its end opposite the handle element, the weight is slidingly guided on the rod wherein the weight has a fourth stop in its interior, the first stop is concealed inside the handle element, and the weight can be struck with the fourth stop against the second stop alternatively.
Hayashi teaches, in an analogous hammer device field of endeavor, the rod has a second stop at its end opposite the handle element, the weight is slidingly guided on the rod wherein the weight has a fourth stop in its interior, the first stop is concealed inside the handle element, and the weight can be struck with the fourth stop against the second stop alternatively (see annotated Hayashi figs. 1 and 2 below, a hammer comprises a shaft 5 [corresponds to the recited rod], a hammer subject 1 [corresponds to the recited weight], and the recited handle element 3, 4, 6, 7. Examiner notes that an elastic color 3, an end side 4, a taper 6, and a grip 7 form the recited handle element. The hammer subject 1 slides on the shaft 5. The shaft includes the recited second stop at its end opposite the recited handle element. The hammer subject 1 includes the recited fourth stop in its interior. The recited handle element includes the recited first stop concealed inside the handle element. The recited fourth stop would strike the second stop as the hammer subject 1 slides away from the recited handle element. By combining with Menke, the recited weight, which does not include a wrench head 78 (see Menke fig. 7), and rod of Menke can be modified to have the recited fourth stop and second stop of Hayashi, which are engageable with each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Menke to provide the sliding weight and the recited stops as taught by Hayashi. The slide hammer allows a user to utilize striking function with two hands for easy hammering job with reliance (Hayashi English translation, p. 1:22-25).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
1379
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Menke Fig. 7
PNG
media_image2.png
509
1007
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hayashi Fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
399
840
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Hayashi Fig. 2
Regarding claim 6, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprises a receiving device arranged on the handle element, which is orientated towards a workpiece to be treated (annotated Menke fig. 7 above and fig. 2, the recited handle element includes a spike head 30 [corresponds to the recited receiving device]. It can be oriented toward a workpiece to be treated).
Regarding claim 7, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the receiving device accommodates processing inserts which can be attached to contact points of a structure to be dented in order to transmit force from the tool according to the invention, so that the tool acts as a pulling hammer (annotated Menke fig. 7 above and col. 6:66-7:14, a striking force is transmitted to the spike head 30 [corresponds to the recited receiving device] to work on an object. Examiner acknowledges the processing inserts are not positive recited and the tool acting as a pulling hammer is an intended use, which has no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 8, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the receiving device accommodates processing inserts which can be attached to a structure to be deformed in order to transmit force from the tool, so that the tool acts as a hammer (annotated Menke fig. 7 above and col. 6:66-7:14, as discussed similarly in the rejection of claim 7 above, the spike head 30 [corresponds to the recited receiving device] can be used for various functions including striking/hammering. Examiner acknowledges the processing inserts are not positive recited and the tool acting as a hammer is an intended use, which has no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 9, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the receiving device accommodates a processing insert designed as a flexible knife, which is designed to be inserted into a bond or cementing between two body parts by means of the impact function and pulled out again by means of the pulling function, so that the bond or cementing can be released (annotated Menke fig. 7 above and col. 6:66-7:14, the spike head 30 [corresponds to the recited receiving device] can be used for separating two objects. Examiner acknowledges the processing inserts are not positive recited and the tool acting as a flexible knife is an intended use, which has no patentable weight).
Regarding claim 11, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the tool has a closed flat end at the outer end of the weight (see annotated Menke fig. 7 above for the recited closed flat end of the weight).
Regarding claim 12, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 11, wherein the closed flat end of the weight widened in a shape of a funnel (see annotated Menke fig. 7 above, the recited closed flat end is widened in a shape of funnel).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Neumarkel (US 2008/0257113).
Regarding claim 3, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the weight is at least partially received in a recess of the handle element when it strikes the first stop (annotated Hayashi fig. 1 above, an end of the hammer subject 1 [corresponds to the recited weight] is received in a recess of the recited handle element when the recited third stop of the hammer subject 1 strikes the recited first stop), but does not disclose the weight is tapered on its side facing the handle element.
As discussed above, the end part of the hammer subject 1 is received by the recited handle element. Specification of the instant application is silent as to why the handle element side of the weight needs to be tapered. It appears the weight is tapered in order to make sure the weight is received in the recess of the grip/handle element.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the non-tapered side of the weight to be tapered since applicant has not disclosed that doing so produces any unexpected result or is critical in performance. It appears the hammer subject 1 of Hayashi has no tapered side, but it is well received by the recess of the recited handle element. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily make a non-tapered side of the weight to be tapered as long as it is received properly within the recess of the grip/handle element. In this situation, it would be a matter of design choice to change the shape of a non-tapered side to be a tapered side shape. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Assuming arguendo, that it is not obvious to change a shape of the side of the weight, Neumarkel teaches, in an analogous sliding hammer field of endeavor, the weight is tapered on its side facing the grip element (fig. 3 and ¶ 0031, a slide hammer 104 [corresponds to the recited weight] has an impact end 210 on a side facing a receiver 218 [corresponds to the recited grip/handle element]. The impact end 210 may adapted for specific purposes and it may be shaped in various fashions, for example a concave shape, a pointed shape, or any other shape. The concave shape and the pointed shape can be a tapered shape).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the weight of Menke as modified by Hayashi to provide the tapered shape as taught by Neumarkel. The tapered end may provide concentrated contact point for transmitting a greater impact force.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu et al. (CN 104022616A, hereinafter Wu) and Liang et al. (TW M629737U, hereinafter Liang).
Regarding claim 4, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the tool further comprises a spring which is accommodated inside the weight.
Wu teaches, in an analogous hammer tool field of endeavor, the tool further comprises a spring which is accommodated inside the weight (fig. 1, an electric hammer comprises a spring 2 at an end of cylinder 1 [corresponds to the recited weight]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Menke as modified by Hayashi to provide the spring inside the weight taught by Wu in order to provide buffering damping function of tool’s motion (Wu English translation, p. 3:33-34).
Menke as modified by Hayashi and Wu does not disclose a pretension of the spring being adjustable for the impact hardness of the weight by rotating the weight.
Liang teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a pretension of the spring being adjustable for the impact hardness of the weight by rotating the weight (Liang English translation, p. 16:3-9 and fig. 5, spring pretensioner for a roller bind comprises a spring system 30. The pretension force of the spring system 30 can be adjusted by rotating an exposed operating plate 432/43. While Menke as modified by Hayashi and Wu teaches the spring in the weight, the pretension of the spring can be adjusted as taught by Liang by rotating the plate 43, which is equivalent to rotating the weight. The adjustment of the impact hardness of an intended use. The pretension adjustment of spring of Menke as modified by Hayashi and Wu would adjust the impact hardness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Menke as modified by Hayashi and Wu to provide the adjustment of the pretension by rotating the weight as taught by Liang so that the spring preload requirement can be adjusted by a simple, easy, and labor-saving way (Liang English translation, p. 16:7-10).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fuga (US 5365648).
Regarding claim 5, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the handle element has a funnel-shaped widening at its end facing the weight.
Fuga teaches, in an analogous slide hammer field of endeavor, the handle element has a funnel-shaped widening at its end facing the weight (see annotated Fuga fig. 1 below, a pounding surface 34 is a funnel-shaped widening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle element of Menke as modified by Hayashi to provide the funnel-shape widening as taught by Fuga. The funnel shape helps imparting the impact force effectively (Fuga col. 2:54-57).
PNG
media_image4.png
452
1209
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fuga Fig. 1
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu.
Regarding claim 10, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the weight has linear ball bearings in order to slide on the rod with optimized friction.
Wu teaches, in the analogous hammer tool field of endeavor, the weight has linear ball bearings in order to slide on the rod with optimized friction (fig. 1 and Wu English translation, p. 5:21-28, the electric hammer comprises a linear ball bearing 4 in the cylinder 1 [corresponds to the recited weight] for helping sliding movement relative to a rod 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Menke as modified by Hayashi to provide the linear ball bearings as taught by Wu in order to help the impacting motion of the tool.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke in view of Hayashi, as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Shen (CN 203449219U).
Regarding claim 13, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 11, but does not disclose the closed flat end has a rubber coating.
Shen teaches, in an analogous hand tool field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the closed flat end has a rubber coating (Shen English translation ¶ 0008, a handle of a tool has a rubber coating surface. The closed flat end of the weight of the instant application is a part which can be held by a hand of a user. The handle of the Shen’s spanner can be held by a hand of a user. Thus, the rubber coating would perform the same function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Menke as modified by Hayashi to provide the rubber coating as taught by Shen in order to prevent a hand of user from slipping so that the tool can be used safely.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Gustavo does not disclose the amended claim limitations that the rod extends into the weight. A mallet of Gustavo comprises a guide 8 [corresponds to the recited handle element], a stem 3 [corresponds to the recited weight], and a tube 5 [corresponds to the recited rod] wherein the stem 3 extends into the tube 5. Therefore, the §102 rejection by Gustavo has been withdrawn.
However, Menke teaches the tool assembly 10 comprising the handle 16 [corresponds to the recited handle element], the recited weight, and the rodlike handle 58 [corresponds to the recited rod] wherein the recited rod extends into the recited weight (see annotated Menke fig. 7 above). Although Menke does not disclose the weight being slidingly guided on the rod and the first, second, and fourth stops as recited, a hammer of Hayashi teaches them. Therefore, Menke as modified by Hayashi teaches the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hodges (US 2004/0134312) discloses an impact installation tool comprising a handle, a rod, and a weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights