DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gianelli (3,172,438).
Regarding claim 1, Gianelli discloses a hammer comprising: a handle (2) extending in a first direction; a head (1) coupled to the handle, the head having at least an outer surface and an inner surface defining a cavity (12), the outer surface defining a first striking region (7) configured to strike a target; and a slug (10) enclosed within the cavity, the slug having a volume smaller than the volume of the cavity (shown to have a smaller diameter, which is necessary to allow the slug to move within the cavity as intended) and configured to move in at least a second direction.
Regarding claim 2, Gianelli further discloses that the head further comprises a sealing cap (8), the sealing cap defining a portion of the inner surface (the cap 8 may be considered to define part of the inner surface, with plate 4 also positioned within the inner surface) and further defining a second striking region of the outer surface, the second striking surface disposed opposite from the first striking region
Regarding claim 3, Gianelli further discloses that a cross-section of the first striking region is a circle (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Gianelli further discloses that a cross-section of the cavity has a perimeter in the shape of a circle having a first diameter, and a cross-section of the slug has a perimeter in the shape of a circle having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Gianelli further discloses that the slug is a cylinder, and wherein the slug further comprises a fluid channel (13) defined between base surfaces of the cylinder
Regarding claim 6, Gianelli further discloses the inner surface comprises a fluid relief (the claim fails to provide any specific structure for the fluid relief, such that the hole that receives screw 6 may be considered to be a fluid relief by allowing fluid to be removed when the screw is removed and/or the space immediately surrounding the screw, inside the wall 3, may be considered to be a fluid relief by forming a space between the screw and the slug) that is aligned with the fluid channel in at least one dimension.
Regarding claim 7, Gianelli further discloses that the volume of the cavity is filled with a fluid (disclosed as hydraulic liquid) having a viscosity greater than the viscosity of air (wherein hydraulic fluids, typically oils, are known to universally have greater viscosity than air).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gianelli (3,172,438) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Whalen et al. (2003/0094080).
Gianelli fails to disclose any specific size for the striking region of the hammer, but the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well-known to form hammers in a wide range of different sizes, it is obvious to vary the size of a prior art invention (see MPEP 2144.04 section IV-A; “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) and Whalen also discloses a similar hammer, teaching that the head tube is designed with an appropriate diameter to produce the desired overall hammer weight (paragraph 26). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the diameter of the hammer of Gianelli to provide alternative sizes and weights for different applications, including sizes within the claimed range of 1.5-2.5 inches. The examiner further takes official notice that it is old and well known for the most common diameters of dead blow hammers, similar to Gianelli, to be 1.5, 2 and 2.5 inches, thus making the claimed diameter obvious in the prior art.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gianelli (3,172,438) as applied to claim 1 and in view of Whalen et al. (2003/0094080) and Doner (2020/0078916).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Gianelli fails to disclose any specific weight for the slug within the hammer, but the examiner takes official notice that it is old and well-known to form hammers in a wide range of different weights, Whalen discloses that the diameter may be varied to reach a desired weight of the hammer, as discussed above, and Doner also discloses a similar hammer, teaching that the density and weight of an internal weight for the hammer is a factor to be considered to meet the purpose of the tool (Paragraph 61), thus teaching that the weight of the slug is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to vary the weight of the slug in the hammer of Gianelli, through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, section II), to meet the desired purpose, such that the claimed range of 0.2-2 pounds and the specific weight of 1 pound would be obvious over the prior art. The examiner further takes official notice that it is old and well known for very common weight of dead blow hammers, similar to Gianelli, to be in the range of 1-2 pounds, thus making the claimed weights obvious in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baumann (DE 2830391) also discloses a hammer having similar structure to the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 8 January 2026