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 .
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 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger (20120186400, previously presented) in view of Chern (US 2017/0266787, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Elger teaches a tool (Ref. 10, Fig.1, [0025]) having a driver portion (Ref. 24, Fig. 12, [0025]) coupled to a housing portion (Ref. 12, fig. 2, [0022]) and a motor (Ref. 18, Fig. 5, [0023]) with a motor output shaft (Ref. 20, Fig. 5, [0026]) disposed in the housing portion (Fig. 5 shows the drive shaft disposed in the housing overlapping with the driving portion), the tool comprising:
a gearing and crankshaft assembly (Ref. 22, Fig. 2) disposed in the driver portion (Fig. 1&5), the assembly including:
an integrated gear carrier (Ref. 40, Fig. 2, [0027], examiner interprets “integrated” based upon the oxford dictionary definition as “many different parts are closely connected and work successfully together”) and crankshaft (Ref. 46, Fig. 2, [0027]) including first and second opposing ends (See annotated Fig. 5), wherein the first end includes an offset pin (Ref. 48, Fig. 2);
gears (Ref. 42, fig. 2, [0027]) rotatably coupled to the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft by gear pins (Fig. 2&5, [0027]);
bearings (Ref. 52, Fig. 2, [0027])adapted to receive the integrated gear carrier and crank shaft to allow the integrated gear carrier and crank shaft to rotate relative to the driver portion (Fig. 2&5, [0027]); and
a gear cover (Ref. 44&19, Fig. 2) coupled to the driver portion (Fig. 2&5, [0024], note examiner interprets coupled as being connected together to form the tool as a whole) and including a first cover end (Ref. 19 and washer as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below) with an opening (Fig. 2) adapted to receive the gears (Fig. 2),
a second cover end (Fig. 2, the washer, Fig. 2&5 annotated below) opposite the first cover end (Fig. 2&5 below shows the ends are opposite each other in a lateral direction) and including a wall surface (Ref. 19, Fig. 5 annotated below) that extends radially inwardly (Fig. 2) and is adapted to restrict axial movement of the gears (Fig. 5 shows the wall surface acting as an axial restriction to the movement of the gears (42), and ring gear teeth (Fig. 6 annotated below) disposed along an internal circumferential surface of the gear cover (Fig. 2&6) between the first cover end and the wall surface and that are adapted to engage the gears (fig. 5),
wherein the wall surface includes an aperture (Fig. 2) adapted to receive the motor output shaft (Fig. 2).
Elger fails to explicitly teach a unibody gear cover. Chern teaches a ratcheting tool with a driving portion, gears, gear carrier, and gear cover and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of ratcheting tools. Chern teaches gears (Ref. 70, Fig. 1, [0027]), a unibody gear cover (Ref. 80, Fig. 1, [0028]) that has a ring gear (Ref. 82, Fig. 1, [0028]) and a wall surface (Fig. 1 annotated below) adapted to restrict axial movement (Fig. 6&7), and ring gear teeth (Fig. 1) disposed along an internal circumferential surface of the gear cover (Fig. 1) between the first cover end (Fig. 1 inner end) and the wall surface (Fig. 1 below) and that are adapted to engage the gears (70, Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gear cover, as taught by Elger, to be a unibody gear cover, as taught by Chern, by making the gear cover integral (MPEP 2144.04 VI) to simplify manufacturing, improved strength by unitary connection (as opposed to separate mechanical connection) and provide further benefit of protecting the gear connections.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
220
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
711
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the gearing and crankshaft assembly includes three gears (Fig. 2, Ref. 42) rotatably coupled to the integrated gear carrier (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the bearings are needle roller bearings (Ref. 52, Fig. 2&5, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 6, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the gearing and crankshaft assembly includes two bearings (Fig. 2, Ref. 52).
Claims 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger (20120186400, previously presented) in view of Chern (US 2017/0266787, previously presented)
Regarding Claim 10, Elger teaches a gearing and crankshaft assembly (Ref. 22, Fig. 2) for a tool (Ref. 10, Fig.1, [0025]) having a motor (Ref. 18, Fig. 5, [0023]) with a motor output shaft (Ref. 20, Fig. 5, [0026]), the gearing and crankshaft assembly comprising:
an integrated gear carrier (Ref. 40, Fig. 2, [0027], examiner interprets “integrated” based upon the oxford dictionary definition as “many different parts are closely connected and work successfully together”) and crankshaft (Ref. 46, Fig. 2, [0027]) including first and second opposing ends (See annotated Fig. 5), wherein the first end includes an offset pin (Ref. 48, Fig. 2);
gears (Ref. 42, fig. 2, [0027]) rotatably coupled to the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft by gear pins (Fig. 2&5, [0027]);
bearings (Ref. 52, Fig. 2, [0027]) adapted to receive the integrated gear carrier and crank shaft to allow the integrated gear carrier and crank shaft to rotate (Fig. 2&5, [0027]); and
a gear cover (Ref. 44&19, Fig. 2) including a first cover end (Ref. 19, Fig. 5 annotated below) with an opening (Fig. 2) adapted to receive the gears (Fig. 2), and a second cover end (Ref. 19, Fig. 5 annotated below) opposite the first cover end (Fig. 5) and including a wall surface (Ref. 19 and washer as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below) that extends radially inwardly (Fig. 2) and is adapted to restrict axial movement of the gears (Fig. 5 shows the wall surface acting as an axial restriction to the movement of the gears (42)), and ring gear teeth (Fig. 6 annotated below) disposed along an internal circumferential surface of the gear cover (Fig. 6) between the first cover end and the wall surface and that are adapted to engage the gears (Fig. 5), wherein the wall surface includes an aperture (Fig. 2 annotated below) adapted to receive the motor output shaft (Fig. 2).
Elger fails to explicitly teach a unibody gear cover. Chern teaches a ratcheting tool with a driving portion, gears, gear carrier, and gear cover and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of ratcheting tools. Chern teaches gears (Ref. 70, Fig. 1, [0027]), a unibody gear cover (Ref. 80, Fig. 1, [0028]) that has a ring gear (Ref. 82, Fig. 1, [0028]) and a wall surface (Fig. 1 annotated below) adapted to restrict axial movement (Fig. 6&7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the gear cover, as taught by Elger, to be a unibody gear cover, as taught by Chern, by making the gear cover integral (MPEP 2144.04 VI) to simplify manufacturing and provide further benefit of protecting the gear connections.
PNG
media_image1.png
437
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
711
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein the gearing and crankshaft assembly includes three gears (Fig. 2, Ref. 42) rotatably coupled to the integrated gear carrier (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein the bearings are needle roller bearings (Ref. 52, Fig. 2&5, [0027]).
Regarding Claim 14, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches wherein the gearing and crankshaft assembly includes two bearings (Fig. 2, Ref. 52).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMenemy (2014/0150610, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a ratchet mechanism (Ref. 24, Fig. 2, [0026]). Elger fails to explicitly teach first and second pawls and a ratchet gear. McMenemy teaches a ratchet wrench and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. McMenemy further teaches a ratchet mechanism (Ref. 10, Fig. 2) including a link member (Ref. 16, Fig. 1&2, [0032]) rotatably coupled to the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft (Fig. 2);
a ratchet gear (Ref. 22, Fig. 1&2, [0027]) having a toothed portion (Ref. 26, Fig. 2, [0027]) and adapted to be selectively driven in either of first and second drive directions ([0031] describes a cam lever to drive the bi-directional power ratchet drive tool in one direction or another);
first (Ref. 18, Fig. 2, [0027]) and second pawls (Ref. 20, Fig. 2, [0027]) pivotably coupled to the link member (Fig. 2) and adapted to selectively engage the toothed portion for selecting one of the first and second drive directions ([0031]), wherein the first drive direction is selected when the first pawl is engaged with the toothed portion and the second pawl is disengaged from the toothed portion, and the second drive direction is selected when the first pawl is disengaged from the toothed portion and the second pawl is engaged with the toothed portion ([0031] describes the cam lever selects the direction of the ratcheting rotation by contacting one pawl end with another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ratcheting mechanism, as taught by Elger as modified, with the ratcheting mechanism, as taught by McMenemy, since such a modification is merely an alternate equivalent structure to apply torque for loosening or tightening a fastener.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger as modified as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Chiang (2011/0126676, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 3, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches the gear pins to support the gears in a cantilevered manner (Fig. 2) and rotatably couple the gears to the second end (Fig. 2&5). Elger fails to explicitly teach the second end of the integrated carrier and crankshaft includes apertures adapted to receive the gear pins. Chiang teaches a ratchet wrench with gears and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chiang further teaches the concept of the second end of the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft includes apertures (Ref. 47, Fig. 2, [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second end of the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft, as taught by Elger as modified, with apertures to receive pins, as taught by Chiang, to best suit the intended function of delivering torque to the head, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is making the pins separable from the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft (MPEP 2144.04 V C). Further, it provides a benefit of easier and cheaper replacement of parts if one of the pins were to one break.
Regarding Claim 11, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and further teaches the gear pins to support the gears in a cantilevered manner (Fig. 2) and rotatably couple the gears to the second end (Fig. 2&5). Elger fails to explicitly teach the second end of the integrated carrier and crankshaft includes apertures adapted to receive the gear pins. Chiang teaches a ratchet wrench with gears and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chiang further teaches the concept of the second end of the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft includes apertures (Ref. 47, Fig. 2, [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second end of the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft, as taught by Elger as modified, with apertures to receive pins, as taught by Chiang, to best suit the intended function of delivering torque to the head, since the only difference between the prior art and the claims is making the pins separable from the integrated gear carrier and crankshaft (MPEP 2144.04 V C). Further, it provides a benefit of easier and cheaper replacement of parts if one of the pins were to one break.
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger as modified applied to claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Hsu (6,915,721, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 8, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the unibody gear cover includes radial protrusions. Hsu teaches a ratchet tool and can be considered analogous are because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hsu teaches wherein the gear cover includes radial protrusions (Ref. 168, Fig. 1 shows the gear cover to have radial protrusions) adapted to engage internal geometry of the driver portion ([Col. 2, Line 61-64] describes the gear cover to engage and securely be held in the body). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the unibody gear cover, as taught by Elger as modified, with protrusions, as taught by Hsu, because it would provide a more secure connection between the driver portion housing and gear cover while preventing rotation of the gear cover.
Regarding Claim 9, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and Hsu further teaches multiple protrusions but fails to explicitly teach four protrusions. Having more protrusions provide a benefit of a more secure connection that resists rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the protrusions with four protrusions by duplication of parts and to provide a more secure connection to better resist rotation.
Regarding Claim 16, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the unibody gear cover includes radial protrusions. Hsu teaches a ratchet tool and can be considered analogous are because it is within the same field of endeavor. Hsu teaches wherein the gear cover includes radial protrusions (Ref. 168, Fig. 1 shows the gear cover to have radial protrusions) adapted to engage internal geometry of the driver portion ([Col. 2, Line 61-64] describes the gear cover to engage and securely be held in the body). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the unibody gear cover, as taught by Elger as modified, with protrusions, as taught by Hsu, because it would provide a more secure connection between the driver portion housing and gear cover while preventing rotation of the gear cover.
Regarding Claim 17, Elger as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and Hsu further teaches multiple protrusions but fails to explicitly teach four protrusions. Having more protrusions provide a benefit of a more secure connection that resists rotation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to configure the protrusions with four protrusions by duplication of parts and to provide a more secure connection to better resist rotation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Applicant’s arguments in regards to the prior art failing to teach a second cover end opposite the first cover end and including a wall surface has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied the Elger reference to the 35 USC 103 rejection. Examiner notes the wall surface is intended to be both the washer (the annotated figure points to the washer) and the steel motor plate that is part of 19. Further, Figure 2 clearly shows the separate parts of the washer and steel motor plate to be removable from the motor (18). Elger teaching the wall surface (Ref. 19 and washer, Fig. 2&5) still meet the current claim limitations as the first and second cover ends are opposite each other in a lateral direction (See annotated fig. 5 above).
Further, Applicant’s arguments in regards the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “integrated” leads to the prior art failing to teach an integrated gear carrier and crankshaft and that the dictionary definition is improperly interpreting integrated due to not meeting the use of the claim term in the specifications and drawings and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would normally reach is not persuasive have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes the term “integrated” used by the examiner meets the use of the claim term in the specifications and drawings as the specifications and drawings still encompass the dictionary definition of integrated applied and further applicant has not clearly redefined the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition. Further one of ordinary skill in the art would reach this broadest interpretation given the definition is provided by the Oxford dictionary. Upon further review and consideration, examiner notes the Elger reference teaches the limitations of the claim, as seen in the 35 USC 103 above. The claim limitations fails to further structural limit how the crankshaft is integral to the gear carrier. Given the current claim limitations, Elger teaches an integrated gear carrier (Ref. 40, Fig. 2) and crankshaft (Ref. 46, Fig. 2). If applicant intended for the crankshaft and gear carrier to be directly coupled and the circumference of the gear carrier opening to be directly coupled to the opposing end of the crankshaft, such a limitation is not required by the claims. Additionally/alternatively, the triangular end of the crankshaft may be considered to read on the gear carrier, which is unitary and integral with the crankshaft, and capable of carrying the gears via engagement with the gear wheel 40.
Further, applicant’s arguments in regards to the Elger reference failing to teach the wall surface extends radially inwardly and is adapted to restrict axial movement of the gears have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied the Elger reference to the 35 USC 103 rejection. Elger teaching the wall surface (Ref. 19 and washer, Fig. 2&5) extends radially inwardly (Fig. 2&5) and still meet the current claim limitations as acting as an axial restriction along the longitudinal axis to the movement of the gears (42) as seen in figure 5. If applicant intended for the limitation to of the wall surface extending radially inwardly and is adapted to restrict radial axial movement of the gears, such a limitation is not required.
In response to applicant's argument that Chern would not have been able to be incorporated into Elger due to the manual vs motorized operations, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further applicant’s arguments in regards to previous the response to arguments, that modifying Elger with the teachings of Chern would render Elger unsatisfactory for the intended purpose have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments seem to be misunderstood on the intended 103 rejection above. Applicant’s interpretation of the rejection as substituting the ring gears of Elger with the member of Chern; however, examiner does not intend to use a substitution of one ring gear for another but rather is relying on Chern to teach a ring gear and wall surface to make a unibody gear cover. In this case, Chern's structural and functional relationships with the unibody gear cover to the other aspects such as the crankshaft are moot. Chern is merely being used to teach the unibody gear cover (Ref. 80, Fig. 1, [0028]) that has a ring gear (Ref. 82, Fig. 1, [0028]) and a wall surface (Fig. 1) adapted to restrict axial movement of gears (Fig. 6&7). Based upon the teachings of the unibody gear cover of Chern, examiner is modifying the washer and ring gear, as taught by Elger, to be integral and one piece to simplify manufacturing, improved strength by unitary connection (as opposed to separate mechanical connection) and provide further benefit of protecting the gear connections. Further, making the washer and ring gear, as taught by Elger, to be unibody, would not affect the function of the device because Chern is merely being used as evidence that the gear cover can have a ring gear and wall surface to make the gear cover to be one body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chiang (8,117,947) and Kusama (2003/0150298) teaches a ratchet wrench with a ratcheting mechanism and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights