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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the appeal brief filed on 05/04/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677
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.
Claims 16-18, 20, 22-23, 27 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Dry et al. ‘200 (US 7,235,200 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Dry et al. discloses a handle as claimed (e.g., 30), including a foam core (40). Intended use, for a hand-held power tool, is given no patentable weight. Dry et al. meets the invention as claimed.
As to claim 17, Dry et al. shows that the foam core can be molded or formed in any conventional manner or “two-shot” injection molding (col. 3, lines 3-28). Also, note that the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. Any molding method of the foam core would meet the final product as claimed (i.e., a foam core).
As to claim 18, Dry et al. further shows a supporting shell (42) at least partially enclosing the foam core.
As to claim 20, the foam core (40) is an insert and the supporting shell (42) overmolds the insert (col. 4, lines 4-32, “core member 125 is positioned…in the mold cavity”).
As to claims 22 and 23, the foam core (40) and the support shell (42) include the same material or consist of the same material (both made from “polypropylene”, see col. 3, lines 9-10 and 29-30).
As to claim 27, the foam core of Dry et al. is physically or chemically foamed (any foam is produced by physical or chemical processes).
As to claim 32, Dry et al. shows a method for producing an auxiliary handle comprising the steps of providing a foam core (40) and providing a supporting shell (42) that at least partially surrounds the foam core (col. 3, lines 12-28 and col. 4, lines 4-32). Intended use, for a hand-held power tool, is given no patentable weight. Dry et al. meets the method of producing a handle as claimed.
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 24 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry et al. ‘200.
Regarding claim 24, Dry et al. discloses the invention as claimed but for both the supporting shell and the foam core consisting of a glass-fiber-reinforced polyamide. The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known and common practice to fill thermoplastics with glass fiber fillers to increase the strength, stiffness/flexibility, and heat/chemical resistance of the plastic products (e.g., US 2006/0005358 A1; US 2004/0128797 A1; DE 10042027 A1; DE 102006049305 A1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the thermoplastic core and shell (i.e., polypropylene) of Dry et al. with glass fibers, to improve the strength, stiffness/flexibility, and heat/chemical resistance of the plastic products. Further, Dry et al. does not show both the supporting shell and the core consisting a polyamide. Instead, Dry et al. forms the shell and the core with polypropylene. However, polyamide (i.e., Nylon) and polypropylene are both thermoplastic and comparable in properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute one for the other to obtain a molded product that has a similar and predictable properties.
As to claim 28, Dry et al. does not show the specific foam core having a degree of foaming between 30% and 60%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a foam material that has a degree of foaming between 30% and 60%, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claims 29-30, Dry et al. does not show the foam core having at least 50% or at least 75% of the total volume of the auxiliary handle. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the foam core of the auxiliary handle with a 50% or 75% of the total volume of the entire handle, or of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geiger ‘447 (US 2018/0050447) in view of Dry et al. ‘200 (US 7,235,200 B2).
Geiger discloses a hand-held power tool (7) as claimed, including an auxiliary handle (18) for gripping. Geiger does not show the handle having a foam core. Instead, Geiger shows the handle, injection-molded out of polyamide, having a hollow space (27) enclosed by the supporting shell (26). Dry et al. teaches molding a grab handle (30) having a supporting shell (26) enclosing a foam core (40). Dry et al. specifies that the grab handle is made by a two-shot injection molding process (col. 3, lines 12-28) which forms the foam core and the supporting shell at the same time, without the use of gas-assisted injection molding process (i.e., a molding process which creates hollow sections such as hollow space 27 shown by Geiger) and thus eliminate the expensive gas assist equipment, operating and tooling cost (col. 4, lines 33-43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mold the handle of Geiger using the two-shot injection molding process taught by Dry et al., to eliminate the expensive gas assist equipment, operating and tooling cost.
Claims 19, 21, 25-26, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dry et al. ‘200 in view of Wiker et al. ‘524 (US 2008/0148524 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Dry et al. does not show a soft component layer at least partially enclosing the support shell (42). Wiker et al. teach a handle including a soft component layer enclosing the supporting shell (“…coated with a soft component, e.g., an elastic material, e.g., an elastomer”; [0016]). 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 handle of Dry et al. with a soft component layer enclosing the supporting shell as taught by Wiker et al. to enhance gripping comfort for the user.
As to claim 21, the combination of Dry et al. and Wiker et al. does not show that the supporting shell (42) and the soft component layer (40) are 2K injection molded. Instead, Wiker et al. states that the supporting shell may be coated with the soft component. The examiner takes Official Notice that molding a multi-layer handle using a 2K injection molding is known in the art for the advantage of combining two or more different materials into a single product in one manufacturing cycle (e.g., US 6,652,941 B1, US 6,368,536 B1, and US 2008/0148524 A1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a 2K injection molding process to mold the supporting shell and the soft component layer together, so that the handle can be made in one manufacturing cycle.
As to claims 25-26, Dry et al. does not specify whether the elastomer consists/includes a thermoplastic elastomer or different type of elastomer. Instead, Dry et al. only mentions the soft component layer being an elastic material, e.g., an elastomer. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing day of the claimed invention to select a thermoplastic elastomer or other type of elastomer (e.g., thermosets such as rubber, silicone rubber or polyurethane elastomers) for the soft component layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to claim 33, the combination of Dry et al. and Wiker et al. (see explanation of claim 19 above) shows the step of at least partially enclosing the supporting shell (42) with a soft component layer.
As to claim 34, the foam core (40) of Dry et al. is provided as an insert and the step of providing the supporting shell (42) takes place after the step of providing the foam core, wherein the supporting shell is obtained by overmolding the insert (see explanation of claim 20 above, and col. 4, lines 4-32 “over-molded by the structural skin or shell”).
As to claim 35, see explanation of claim 21 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Related prior art:
US 2010/0180400 A1 (PELL) shows a handle for a medical device, including a core member made from a polypropylene, or a polycarbonate, a cover made from a thermoplastic elastomer.
DE 102006049305 A1 (DE) shows a handle comprising a core member of glass fiber reinforced polyamide, a polyamide or polypropylene cover enclosing the core member, and the handle is made by injection molding process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK MAH whose telephone number is (571)272-7059. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00.
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, Jason San can be reached at 571-272-6531. 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.
/CHUCK Y MAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677 CM
July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights