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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claim 1 requires a drive that both drives the head upwards and downwards and decouples on the downward stroke, The first cited embodiment of Bride does not disclose the downward driving, the second embodiment of Bride discloses a pneumatic solution that does drive upwards and downward, but does not disengage on the down stroke. Examiner points out that, as acknowledged latter on in applicants’ arguments, Examiner does not solely rely on the two embodiments of Bride to disclose this feature, but is citing the secondary embodiment of Bride to show that it was considered in the Bride reference that concept of driving the tool head downward, instead of just releasing it to fall solely under gravity. Applicant additionally argues that a pneumatic solution could not be modified to operate electrically. As previously noted, Examiner is not relying on the secondary embodiment of Bride to teach a Pneumatic solution, but to instead disclose the Bride does disclose an alternative embodiment where the head is actually driven downward, and not just allowed to drop under the influence of gravity.
Applicant then argues that if the spring of Bosma would be considered a drive as defined by claim 1, there is still no separate drive part and driven part that can be decoupled from one another as the power plunger approaches its extended position. Examiner is relying on Bosma to disclose another contemplated method of driving a tool head downward, similar to that contemplated by the secondary embodiment of Bride. Examiner notes that the spring of Bosma is just one component of the drive system of Bosma, which works in conjunction with the discussed separate means for retracting the power plunger against the spring, which work in conjunction to form the drive of Bosma. Bride in view of Bosma would result in adding the spring of Bosma to the crank drive of Bride, the resultant drive of the combination would be a crank that raises the tool head, while compressing a plunger/spring, then when the crank reaches the mutilated part, the head is released, and the plunger provides a downward force, then further accelerating the head, then as the tool head approaches its extended position, the spring fully extends and the drive is disengaged from the tool head as the spring is no longer providing downforce, this would be a single drive mechanism.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 03/12/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1 based upon Bride in view of Bosma and Pedicini as set forth in the last Office action because:
It refers(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716.
Additionally, The declaration does not establish nexus, MPEP 716.01(b) states “Nexus is presumed when the applicant or patent owner shows that the asserted objective evidence of record is tied to a certain product and that product includes the claimed features, and is coextensive with them.” While the declaration does link evidence towards the claim limitations, the objectiveness of the evidence does not outweigh the objectiveness of the obviousness rejection.
MPEP 716.01(c) discusses the probative value of objective evidence. In section III “Opinion Evidence” the MPEP states “In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider the nature of the matter sought to be established, the strength of any opposing evidence, the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion.” And additionally, states “Although an affidavit or declaration which states only conclusions may have some probative value, such an affidavit or declaration may have little weight when considered in light of all the evidence of record in the application. In re Brandstadter, 484 F.2d 1395, 179 USPQ 286 (CCPA 1973).” The declaration does not provide any factual support for the expert’s conclusion, and only contains conclusory statements, primarily “The Speed of descent of the ‘tup’ in the Bride design could be augments by the addition of a spring, as in Bosma, 58913479. However, when applied at the scale of the Rockbreaker [instant application], such a spring would be ineffective”. This conclusory statement seems to support Examiner position, initially, however it is stated that such a modification proposed by Examiner would not work at the scale of the instant application, but no evidence or further discussion of why such a modification would not be applicable at the scale of the instant application, additionally, such a statement lacks Nexus as discussed above, as the claims of the invention do not discuss any given scale. As such Examiner does not find this declaration persuasive. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a drive adapted to drive in claim 1 and Shock absorbing means in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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(s) 1, 4-7, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Bride discloses a tool head (2) supported by a guide (1) to be linearly displaceable with respect to said guide between a retracted position and an extended position (See Col 1 Line 34-38 “enclosing a reciprocable weight adapted to be lifted by hand or power and released to operate by gravity, with or without mechanical assistance.”), and engages a surface to be broken when the tool head is in its extended position (tup 2 engages with the surface to be broken via impacting the head (3) of a wedge);
a drive (interpreted under 112(f) to comprise an electrically driven rack and pinion or equivalents thereof, See Page 1-2 of Instant application specification, disclosed by Bride with the hand driven (via crank 10) pinion (6 and 7) and rack (5) which is an equivalent thereof to an electric rack and pinion) engaged with and adapted to drive said tool head towards its retracted position in a first operation (See Page 2, Col 1 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to the wheel 6 through the operation of the gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity”) said drive including a drive part (Pinion 6 and 7) mounted on said guide (See Fig. 1 and 2 showing the gearing being mounted on the guide 1) and a driven part (Rack 5) mounted on and thereby coupled to, the tool head (head 2, rack 5 is coupled to the head 2) and engaged by said drive part to be linearly displaceable with respect to the guide upon operation of the drive part of the drive (See Page 2, Col 1 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to the wheel 6 through the operation of the gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity”); and
wherein the driven part of the drive is decoupled from the drive part of the drive during a second operation as the tool head approaches its extended position (See Page 2, Col 1 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to the wheel 6 through the operation of the gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity” Bride releases the driven part as part of a second operation).
But does not explicitly disclose
a distal end of said tool head extending from said guide in an extended position
the drive adapted to drive the tool head towards its extended position in a first part of a second operation,
a controller adapted to control operation of the drive;
wherein said drive is electrically powered;
where the driven part is decoupled during a second part of a second operation following the first part of the second operation,
Bride additionally discloses an alternate embodiment utilizing compressed air or another fluid (See Page 2 Col 1 Line 46-50 “referring now to Figs. 4 and 6 the construction illustrated is intended to be operated by compressed air or other fluid in addition to the action of gravity on the tup.”) that suggests but does not explicitly disclose the drive adapted to drive the tool head towards its extended position in a first part of a second operation, and wherein the driven part of the drive is decoupled from the drive part of the drive during a second part of said second operation following said first part of said second operation as the tool head approaches its extended position (See Page 2 Lines 95-100 “The four-way cock is then operated to admit pressure fluid to the inlet in the head of the cylinder and the action of this fluid in conjunction with that of gravity causes the tup to descend freely”).
Bosma discloses a similar impact device comprising a tool head (20), supported by a guide (72), wherein a distal end of said tool head extends from said guide in an extended position (See Figure 1 of Bosma showing the head extend from the guide 72),
Additionally, Bosma discloses a drive (spring 18) adapted to drive the tool head towards its extended position in a first part of a second operation (Col 3 Line 25-30 “This is a position in which a trigger mechanism 14 has just been actuated to release a latch member 16, allowing sudden expansion of a compression coil spring 18, resulting in firing of a solid steel power plunger 20 toward a surface 22 of concrete or other material to be reduced to rubble.”), additionally disclosing an alternate embodiment that utilizes gravity instead of a spring to drive the tool head towards it position in a second operation (Col 6 Line 10-14 “Also, this version can thus be used as a drop-hammer without even needing or cocking any kind of spring such as 18a. In such instance, the weight of the power plunger 20a and gravity provide the energy to break the concrete.” Releasing the driven part as part of a second operation).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tool head of Bride to extend from the guide in an extend position in order to directly engage the surface to be impacted, as doing so reduced the number of components that would experience wear from impacted the surface.
It would be further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the drive mechanism of Bride to drive the tool head towards its extended position in a first part of a second operation (via Spring 18 of Bosma) and decouple the driven part from the drive part during a second part of the second operation to drive the tool head towards its extended position in a second part of a second operation (via the release taught by Bride, or dropping as taught by Bosma, following the spring reaches its extended position.) As Bosma discloses that driving the tool head downwards and allowing it to drop via gravity are equivalent methods of breaking concrete or rock (See Col 6 Line 10-14 cited above) such a modification would be a matter of combining known equivalents in the art for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 I) and would allow for one to gain the benefits of having a driven tool head while improving the efficiency of the device by allowing gravity to do a share of the work.
Finally, Pedicini teaches an impact tool with an anvil (14),
a controller adapted to control operation of the drive (See Para [0010] “In an exemplary embodiment, an electric motor-driven orthopedic impacting tool comprises a local power source (such as a battery or fuel cell), a motor, a controller, a housing, a module for converting the rotary motion of the motor to a linear motion (hereafter referred to as a linear motion converter), at least one reducing gear, a striker, a detent and an energy storage mechanism, which energy storage mechanism can include either compressed air or a vacuum.”);
wherein said drive is electrically powered (See Para [0010] cited above);
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the hand crank of Bride to instead be driven by an electric motor controlled via a controller as doing so would be a matter of automating a manual activity, saving a user the effort of having to manually raise the tool head after every impact. See MPEP 2144.04 III.
Regarding Claim 4, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the guide is adapted to be arranged, in use, such that said tool head extends from a lower end of said guide when in its extended position (See Figures 1-4 of Bosma showing the tool head extending from the lower end of the guide), the tool head being displaceable between its extended and retracted positions along a vertical axis (See Figures 1-4 of Bosma, showing the tool head moving along a vertical axis, further see Figure 1 of Bride showing the rack 5 oriented along a vertical axis).
Regarding Claim 5, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the guide is adapted to be mounted on an arm of an excavator.
However, Bosma does disclose that the disclosed rock breaking device may be carried on and operated by construction equipment (Col 2 Line 5-11 “A device for breaking concrete and similar frangible materials to reduce it to rubble includes a power plunger and a trigger mechanism mounted within a casing. The casing may be carried on and operated by construction equipment such as a back hoe.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to mount bride as modified on the arm of an excavator device as doing so would allow for the operator to easily move the device in order to utilize it in different areas or to break up different surfaces as necessary.
Regarding Claim 6, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein said guide (1) of bride comprises a hollow tubular body within which said tool head is axially slideable (See Figure 1 showing 1 as a hollow body which tool head 2 is axially slideable in the vertical direction), said distal end of the tool head extending through a hole in an end of the guide when in its extended position (As modified by Bosma, See Figs. 1-4 of Bosma).
Regarding Claim 7, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the drive comprises a first rack (5 of Bride) mounted on the tool head (2 of Bride), said drive part of the drive comprises a first motor driven (as modified by Pedicini) pinion (6 and 7 of Bride) mounted on the guide (1 of Bride) to be driven by a drive motor (as modified by Pedicini) and adapted to drivingly engage the first rack (5) of the driven part to displace the tool head with respect to said guide upon rotation of the pinion (See Page 2, Col 1 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to the wheel 6 through the operation of the gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity”).
Regarding Claim 9, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and in addition discloses wherein the first rack (5 of Bride) is arranged on the tool head (2 of Bride) such that the first pinion (6 and 7 of Bride) disengages from an end of the first rack (5 of Bride, See Page 2, Col 1 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to the wheel 6 through the operation of the gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity”) as the tool head approaches its extended position (as modified by Bosma, see the rejection of claim 1), thereby decoupling the drive part of the drive from the driven part of the drive (Bride as modified by Bosma decouples the drive part of the drive from the driven part of the drive during a second part of said second operation).
Regarding claim 16, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses the drive is mechanically connected to said tool head (Drive 6 and 7, are mechanically connected to the tool head 2 via the rack 5).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Rajendran (US 20150267794 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Bride as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach wherein said drive further comprises a second rack mounted on the tool head and a second motor driven pinion mounted on the guide and adapted to be driven by said drive motor and drivingly engage the second rack to displace said tool head between its extended and retracted positions upon rotation of the second pinion in a first direction, the second pinion incorporating a clutch adapted to decouple the pinion from the drive motor upon rotation of the second pinion in a second direction, opposite said first direction.
However, as taught in claim 7, Bride as modified teaches a first rack and pinion set up driven by a motor to displace said tool head, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Bride as modified to duplicate the rack and pinion apparatus coaxially with the first as doing so would allow for more power to be transferred to the rock breaking device via the motors without over stressing the rack or pinion. See MPEP 2144.04 VI B.
However, Bride as modified above would still not teach the second pinion incorporating a clutch adapted to decouple the pinion from the drive motor upon rotation of the second pinion in a second direction, opposite said first direction.
Bride does teach utilizing a ratchet to only engage the rack in one direction (See Page 1 Line 78-87 “Along one vertical edge of tup 2 is formed a series of rack teeth 5 adapted to be engaged by a toothed wheel 6 mounted on a shaft 9 provided with a crank handle or handles 10 for manual operation, the shaft 9 carrying also a ratchet wheel and the pinion 8 a pawl 12 to prevent backward rotation of the pinion”).
And Rajendran teaches that a clutch or ratchet mechanism are equivalents for the purpose of selectively engaging a mechanical device, See Page 3 Col 2 lines c and d “The rack 64 is linked to a pinion (FIG. 11) converting this linear movement of the rack 64 to rocking oscillation of the pinion 47. d) This rocking oscillation movement is converted to a unidirectional rotation, using a ratchet mechanism/one-way bearing/computer-controlled clutch.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the ratchet as taught by bride with a clutch mechanism to selectively engage the pinion with the rack, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these as equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Rajendran (US 20150267794 A1) as modified in claim 10 and in further view of Kim (US 20160357126 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Bride as modified as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 10 and but does not explicitly teach wherein said first and second pinions are mounted coaxially on an output shaft of the drive motor, said first and second racks being mounted alongside and parallel to one another on a side of the tool head.
However, Kim teaches a rack and pinion apparatus wherein two pinions are aligned coaxially (201 and 202 see figure 9A).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the duplicated rack and pinion of Bride as modified in claim 10 to have the pinons coaxially aligned as doing so will allow for them to both be driven easily by a single motor and shaft, reducing the overall size footprint of the device.
Claim(s) 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Phan (US 20180169848 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein said distal end of the tool head terminates in a tip.
However, Phan discloses a similar impact tool where the distal end of a tool head terminates in a tip (46 of Phan) and further describes equivalent types of distal ends for an impact device (See Para [0023] “Second terminal end 46 may include a tool tip 48 and define a distal end work tool 24. Tool tip 48 may embody a type of tool tip, such as a chisel, moil point, percussion buster, blunt tool, ramming tool, tamping plate, cutter, or other type of tip).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the tip of the tool head to terminate in a tip, as Phan discloses that a pointed tip is an equivalent to a blunt tool such as the one seen in Bride for the purposes of striking a work surface and it has been held that substituting equivalents known in the art for the same purpose would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.06 II
Regarding Claim 13, Bride as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 12 suggests but does not explicitly teach wherein said tip is separable from the remainder of the tool head to allow replacement and/or exchange of the tip (See Para [0023] “Second terminal end 46 may include a tool tip 48 and define a distal end work tool 24. Tool tip 48 may embody a type of tool tip, such as a chisel, moil point, percussion buster, blunt tool, ramming tool, tamping plate, cutter, or other type of tip” and Para [0035] “In contrast, work tool 24 includes a rectangular portion 60 of collar 40 that enables a user to rotate work tool by 90 degrees in either direction (e.g., clockwise or counter clockwise) in addition to 180 degrees. In this way, the user can simply remove retention pins 34, rotate the work tool 24, and reinsert retention pins 34, and continue working without completely changing work tool 24. In this way, fewer work tools may be discarded before their full useful life has expired. This can lead to significant cost savings and reduce waste.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tool head of Bride as modified to be have a separable tip as Phan already describes the Tool head 24 as being replaceable and doing so would allow for a user to more easily utilize different tool tips as described in Para [0023]. Examiner further notes that it has been held that making a piece separable is obvious if there is any desirable reason to do so, See MPEP 2144.04 V C.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Jeon (US 20170274516 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Bride as modified discloses all the limitation in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein said guide includes shock absorbing means (interpreted under 112(f) to be a shock absorber or equivalent thereof) acted upon by the tool head when it reaches its extended position.
However, Jeon teaches a similar rock breaker apparatus wherein said guide includes shock absorbing means acted upon by the tool head when it reaches its extended position.
(See Para [0047] “The support member assembly 81 is disposed between the stopper 71 and the front surface of the breaker main body 10 to support the front surface of the upper end portion of the breaker main body 10 on the inside of the bracket 60. The support member assembly 81 includes a fixture 83, a movement prevention member 91, and a shock absorption pad 93.” Examiner considers the “shock absorbing means acted upon the tool head” to mean that the shock absorber absorbs the shock from the extension of the tool head and impact with the rock).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rock breaker of Phan to include a shock absorber, to absorb shock, reduce overall wear and tear of the parts of the apparatus and to help keep the device in the desired location to break or smash only what is desired by the operator.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bride (GB 355344 A) in view of Bosma (US 5813479 A) and Pedicini (US 20160199199 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Aoki (US 20120289377 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Bride as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 7 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first pinion incorporates a clutch under the control of said controller, whereby said clutch is adapted to decouple the first pinion from the electric motor before the tool head reaches its extended position.
However, Bride does disclose decoupling the pinion before the head reaches its extended position (See Page 2 Line 15-24 “in operation the handle 10 is rotated and its movement being communicated to gearing described the tup 2 is raised until the mutilated portion 13 of the wheel 6 comes opposite of the wheel 6 comes opposite the rack teeth 5 when the tup is disengaged and thereupon falls immediately by the influence of gravity”)
But Aoki discloses a similar impact tool that utilizes a controller-controlled clutch (See Para [0036] “When the measured value inputted from the load cell 155 reaches a predetermined load setting, the controller 157 outputs a de-energization command to the electromagnetic coil 165 of the electromagnetic clutch 134 to disengage the electromagnetic clutch 134. Further, the user can arbitrarily change (adjust) the load setting by externally manually operating a load setting adjusting means (for example, a dial), which is not shown. The load setting adjusted by the load setting adjusting means is limited to within a range lower than the maximum transmission torque value set by the spring 147a of the mechanical torque limiter 147. The controller 157 forms a clutch control device and is a feature that corresponds to the "control means" according to the present invention.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to utilize a computer-controlled clutch to disengage the first rack with the electric motor as doing so would be a part automating the rack device (as described in the rejection of claim 7) so as to allow the hammer to free fall under gravity while extending without being hindered by or damaging the motor.
Conclusion
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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.
/T.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights