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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 27 May 2026.
Claims 13, 16, 18, 20 – 23, and 25 – 26 are pending. Claims 1 – 12, 14 – 15, 17, 19, 24, and 27 are cancelled by the applicant.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the limitation, “at a working point of the hand-held power tool (12) in a hammer drill mode of the hand-held power tool (12), wherein the working point corresponds to a full load operation of the hand-held power tool (12) in the hammer drill mode, the rotational speed (n) is limited by an upper boundary, and wherein the upper boundary is set by (0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies (f) in a range from 20 to 60 Hz”, the examiner interprets the formula, “(0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm”, as a range of rpms the sets or defines the upper boundary or threshold of rpms at a given impact frequency in the range from 20 Hz to 60 Hz. Therefore, if a prior art hand-held power tool at a working point as defined in the limitation is capable of impact frequencies in the range from 20 Hz to 60 Hz and the rotation speed or rpm is below this upper boundary or threshold of rpms set or defined by the formula, “(0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm” for a given impact frequency in that range from 20 Hz to 60 Hz, the prior art hand-held power tool satisfies the limitation.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 13, 16, 18, and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manschitz (EP 3 181 302 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Manschitz discloses a hand-held power tool, comprising:
a tool (4, fig. 2);
a tool fitting (2, fig. 2), wherein the tool is holdable in the tool fitting (As shown in figure 2);
an impact mechanism (5, fig. 2); and
a rotary drive (7, fig. 2);
wherein the hand-held power tool (22, fig. 2) is configured to rotate the tool held in the tool fitting with a rotational speed about a longitudinal axis (3, fig. 2) of the tool (Figure 2 shows a drill, chisel, or other percussive tool 4 held in a tool holder 2. [0007], l. 69 describes a rotary drive 7 rotating a tool holder 2 around a working axis 3 wherein rotation implies a rotational speed) and to drive the tool with an impact movement along the longitudinal axis at an impact frequency ([0007], Il. 67 – 68 describes a pneumatic impact mechanism 5 periodically applying blows in an impact direction 6 wherein periodically applying blows in the impact direction 6 implies an impact frequency) and wherein the impact mechanism is one of a direct electromechanical impact mechanism, an electropneumatic impact mechanism ([0007], Il. 70 – 71 describes a pneumatic impact mechanism 5 driven by an electric motor 8 wherein the examiner deems this arrangement of the pneumatic impact mechanism5 driven by the electric motor 8 as the claimed, “electropneumatic impact mechanism”) or an electromagnetic impact mechanism;
wherein at a working point of the hand-held power tool in a hammer drill mode of the hand-held power tool, wherein the working point corresponds to a full load operation of the hand-held power tool in the hammer drill mode, the rotational speed is limited by an upper boundary, and wherein the upper boundary is set by (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies in a range from 20 to 60 Hz (Paragraph [0012], l. 128 describes impact frequencies in a range of 25 Hz – 100 Hz, wherein a portion of this range, 25 Hz – 60 Hz, is within the claimed range of 20 Hz – 60 Hz. According to the claimed formula for all impact frequencies in this range of 25 Hz – 60 Hz, the rotational speed should be limited by an upper boundary set by the formula, (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm), wherein at 25 Hz, the upper boundary would be 81 rpm, and at 60 Hz, the upper boundary would be 1297 rpm. For all other impact frequencies between 25 Hz and 60 Hz, the resulting rpms, as set by the formula, (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm), would be between 81 rpm and 1297 rpm. Paragraphs [0014], l. 147 – 148 and [0015], ll. 155 – 156 describes a rotational speed of a spindle 13 and tool holder 2 being less than 20 rpm which is below the upper boundary set by the formula, (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm), for all impact frequencies in this range of 25 Hz – 60 Hz. Thus, for all impact frequencies in a range of 25 Hz – 60 Hz, the rotational speed is limited by an upper boundary set by the formula (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm) such that the rotational speed is slow in relation to the impact frequency at the working point (The examiner interprets the claimed formula, (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm, as a standard to determine a degree of slowness of the rotational speed in relation to the impact frequency. That is, given the impact frequency in the range of 20 Hz – 60 Hz, if the rotational speed at the working point is limited by an upper boundary calculated by the formula (0.2*(f/Hz- 22)2+80) rpm then the rotational speed is deemed slow in relation to the impact frequency. In the instant case, [0015], ll. 155 – 156 and [0012], l. 128 describes the rotational speed as less than 20 rpm for all impact frequencies which is less than the resulting rotational speed from the claimed formula given impact frequencies of 25 Hz – 100 Hz at the working point and thus deemed slow in relation to the impact frequency) such that the rotational speed at the working point sufficiently offsets the tool rotationally between two successive impacts of the tool ([0015], ll. 154 – 160 describes an embodiment where a spindle 13, which is connected to the tool holder 2 and tool 4, rotates continuously while the impact mechanism 5 strikes the tool periodically. Thus, the rotational speed of the spindle 13 rotates or offsets the tool 4 rotationally between two successive, periodic impacts of the tool 4 in a manner sufficient to provide an operational hand-held power tool as described by Manschitz).
Manschitz does not explicitly disclose friction losses of the tool when crushing a rock due to the rotational speed of the tool are reduced.
However, Manschitz discloses a hand-held tool structurally the same as the claimed apparatus (see above) and further discloses the same operational criteria for the rotational speed for all impact frequencies in a range of 25 Hz – 60 Hz as the claimed apparatus wherein the rotational speed is slow in relation to the impact frequency at the working point (see above).
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and find obvious that while Manschitz does not explicitly disclose that the friction losses of the tool when crushing a rock due to the rotational speed of the tool are reduced, Manschitz would inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus such as the friction losses of the tool when crushing a rock due to the rotational speed of the tool are reduced because Manschitz is structurally the same as the claimed apparatus and operates within the claimed operational criteria.
Regarding claim 16, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz discloses at most one drive unit (8, fig. 2) for driving the impact mechanism (5, fig. 2) and the rotary drive (7, fig. 2) ([0007], ll. 70 – 71).
Regarding claim 18, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz discloses the hand-held power tool (22, fig. 2) is configured such that a type of the tool is settable by a user of the hand-held power tool ([0007], ll. 65 – 66 describes different types of tools such as a drill, a chisel, or other percussive tool 4 can be inserted into the tool holder 2 by a user and locked coaxially to a working axis 3).
Regarding claim 21, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz discloses the hand-held power tool (22, fig. 2) is a portable device ([0007], l. 64 describes the hammer drill as a percussive hand-held machine tool wherein the examiner deems a hand-held tool as portable or easily carried or moved).
Regarding claim 22, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz discloses the hand-held power tool (22, fig. 2) is operatable cordlessly ([0007], ll. 70 – 71 describes the hammer drill driven by an electric motor 8 which is supplied with electrical power from a battery 9).
Claims 20 and 25 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manschitz (EP 3 181 302 A1), in view of Bohn (EP 3 311 951 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
420
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz does not explicitly disclose a pneumatic cuttings conveying device or an electropneumatic cuttings conveying device.
However, Bohn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electropneumatic cuttings conveying device (2, fig. 3).
Bohn is evidence that having the electropneumatic cuttings conveying device was within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed in invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modifying the hand-held power tool of Manschitz with the electropneumatic cuttings conveying device, taught by Bohn. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the hand-held power tool of Manschitz with the electropneumatic cuttings conveying device and a suction drill, taught by Bohn, in order to remove drilling dust that is generated when the hand tool is switched on.
Regarding claim 25, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Manschitz further discloses a tool (4, fig. 2), wherein the tool comprises:
a tool tip (A, annotated fig. 2);
a tool shaft (B, annotated fig. 2); and
a shank (C, annotated fig. 2), wherein the tool is holdable in the tool fitting (2, fig. 2) by the shank.
Manschitz does not explicitly disclose a material transport channel is formed at least along the tool shaft and wherein the material transport channel has a minimum cross-sectional area of 19 mm2 or at least 6% of a cross-sectional area of a borehole that is producible by the tool.
However, Bohn, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a tool (35, fig. 3) comprising a tool tip (A, annotated fig. 3); a tool shaft (B, annotated fig. 3); a shank (C, annotated fig. 3), wherein the tool is holdable in the tool fitting (3, fig. 3) of the hand held power tool (1, fig. 3) by the shank; and a material transport channel (one of the “suction channels” described in [0035]) is formed at least along the tool shaft.
Bohn is evidence that having the tool comprising the tool tip; the tool shaft; a shank, wherein the tool is holdable in the tool fitting of the hand-held power tool by the shank; and a material transport channel is formed at least along the tool shaft was within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed in invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the hand-held power tool of Manschitz with the tool, taught by Bohn. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the hand-held power tool of Manschitz with the tool and an electropneumatic cuttings conveying device, taught by Bohn, in order to remove drilling dust that is generated when the hand tool is switched on.
The modified Manschitz does not explicitly disclose the material transport channel has a minimum cross-sectional area of 19 mm2 or at least 6% of a cross-sectional area of a borehole that is producible by the tool.
Please note, the cross-sectional area of the material transport channel is a variable that directly affects the flow rate of a fluid through the material transport channel (
f
l
o
w
r
a
t
e
Q
=
c
r
o
s
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
A
×
(
f
l
u
i
d
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
v
)
). Thus, the cross-sectional area of the material transport channel is a result effective variable that achieves the predictable and recognized result of increasing/decreasing the fluid flow in the material transport channel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the material transport channel to have the minimum cross-sectional area of 19 mm2, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determination of the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable, in this case, the cross-sectional area of the material transport channel, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 26, Manschitz, as modified by Bohn, discloses the invention as recited in claim 25.
The modified Manschitz further discloses the tool (Bohn – 35, fig. 3) is a suction drill (Bohn – [0035], l. 385).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manschitz (EP 3 181 302 A1), in view of Ludy (US 8 636 081 B2).
Regarding claim 23, Manschitz discloses the invention as recited in claim 22.
Manschitz further discloses the hand-held power tool has a battery (9, fig. 2).
Manschitz does not explicitly disclose that the battery is a lithium-containing battery.
However, Ludy, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a hand-held power tool having a lithium-containing battery (42, fig. 1) (Col. 3, ll. 5 – 9 describes a battery may be configured having any number of different chemistries (e.g., lithium-ion, nickel-cadmium, etc.)).
Ludy is evidence that having a lithium-containing battery for a hand-held power tool was within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the battery of Manschitz with a lithium-containing battery, taught by Ludy. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery of Manschitz with a lithium-containing battery, taught by Ludy, in order to provide a battery with improved discharge and charge efficiency and a longer life span.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 30 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 13, 16, 18, 20 – 23, and 25 – 26 under 35 USC §102(a)(1) has been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Without conceding the merits of the rejection, it is believed that the current amendments, made for the sole purpose of advancing prosecution, render the rejections moot. It is also respectfully submitted that the cited references do not disclose or otherwise suggest:
wherein at a working point of the hand-held power tool (12) in a hammer drill mode ... the rotational speed (n) is limited by an upper boundary, and wherein the upper boundary is set by (0.2*(f/Hz-22)^2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies (f) in a range from 20 to 60 Hz ... Claim 13.
Manschitz discloses a hammer drill 1 having a tool holder 2 fixed to a spindle 13 of a rotary drive 7 and holding a tool 4 locked coaxially along a working axis 3. Manschitz at 11 [0007]- [0017]. The hammer drill 1 has a striking mechanism 5 that periodically impacts the tool 4 in a percussion direction via striker 15 at an optimum number of impacts in the range of 25-100 Hz. Id. The spindle 13 rotates by a fixed setting angle (umsetzwinkel) of 1 to 10 degrees within each period of the striker 15. Id. This sets a linear relationship between the rotational speed of the spindle 13 and the impact frequency as linear-i.e., n = k * f, where k is fixed angle constant. Id. See also, e.g., id. at Claim 1. Manschitz provides a specific example of the spindle 13 rotating at less than 20 rpms. Id.
Manschitz does not, however, disclose the rotational speed (n) is limited by an upper boundary, and wherein the upper boundary is set by (0.2 *(f/Hz-22)^2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies (f) in a range from 20 to 60 Hz. While the Office Action argues that this is disclosed by the 20 rpm rotational speed and the 25-100 Hz impact frequency range, this is not the case.
First, the 20 rpm rotational speed of the spindle 13 (and by extension the tool 4) is nowhere described as an upper boundary of the rotation speed. That the rotational speed may be rotated at less than 20 rpm says nothing about whether that 20 rpm is an upper boundary on rotation speed.
Second, Manschitz does not disclose that the 20 rpm is set by (0.2 *(f/Hz-22)^2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies (f) in a range from 20 to 60 Hz. To the contrary, the 20 rpm cannot be set by the claimed relationship, because Manschitz discloses a different relationship between spindle rotation speed and impact frequency: the linear relationship of n = k * f. Supra.
These relationships are different because they are based on fundamentally different principles. Manschitz describes a fixed-angle-per-impact synchronization in which the spindle 13 rotates by a fixed setting angle (umsetzwinkel) within each period of the striker 15. Id. This creates the linear relationship (i.e., n = k * f) between the rotational speed (n) of the spindle 13 and the impact frequency (f).
By contrast, the control principle of the claimed invention sets a quadratic relationship (i.e., n = 0.2 * (f - 22)^2 + 80) between the maximum allowable rotational speed (n) and the impact frequency (f). The claimed quadratic relationship dynamically optimizes the rotational speed as function of impact frequency. This ensures that, for frequencies within the operational range, the rotation is slow enough to reduce friction losses (especially when crushing rock with a suction drill) but fast enough to sufficiently offset the tool for effective material removal between impacts.
Manschitz thus fails to teach or otherwise suggest the above-noted feature. The remaining references do not remedy these shortcomings-nor are they alleged to.
In response to applicant’s argument that the “less than 20 rpm” of the spindle 13 (and by extension the tool 4) is not described as an upper boundary of the rotation speed, the examiner is not citing that the “less than 20 rpm” recitation in Manschitz is the upper boundary. The claim describes at a working point of the hand-held power tool in a hammer drill mode, the rotational speed is limited by an upper boundary wherein this upper boundary is set by (0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies (f) in a range from 20 to 60 Hz that the rotational speed (n) is slow in relation to the impact frequency (f) at the working point wherein the examiner interprets the formula, “(0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm”, as a range of rpms the sets or defines the upper boundary or threshold of rpms. Manschitz describes at working point of the hand-held power tool in a hammer drill mode, the hand-held power tool being capable of impact frequencies in the range from 25 Hz to 60 Hz and having a corresponding rotation speed or rpm that is below this upper boundary of rpms set or defined by the formula, “(0.2*(f/Hz-22)2+80) rpm” for a given impact frequency in the range from 25 Hz to 60 Hz such that the rotational speed is slow in relation to the impact frequency at the working point – and thus satisfies this portion of the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that Manschitz does not disclose that the 20 rpm is set by (0.2 *(f/Hz-22)^2+80) rpm for all impact frequencies in a range from 20 to 60 Hz, the examiner is not citing that the “less than 20 rpm” recitation in Manschitz is the upper boundary (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - 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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
24 July 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights