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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s filing on amendment 04/24/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 20, 23, 26, and 28 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5, the embodiment shown in Figures 29-30, in the reply filed on 12/16/2024 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rim as stated in claim 20 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Kawai (11,426,853) in view of references McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451).
Regarding claim 20, Kawai disclose a power tool (1) comprising:
a motor (10) including a rotor (24) and a stator (23),
wherein the rotor (24) being rotatable about a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction;
an output unit (14) located frontward from the motor (10) and rotatable in response to a rotational force from the rotor (24);
a motor compartment (5) accommodating the motor (10);
a rear rotor bearing (43) supporting a rear portion of the rotor (24); and
a first rear cover (7) covering an opening at a rear end of the motor compartment (5) and holding the rear rotor bearing (43),
wherein the first rear cover (7) includes a first cover plate (see figure 6D below) and a first cover protrusion (see figure 6D below) that protrudes frontward from a rim (see figure 6D below) of the first cover plate (see figure 6D below) to surround the rear end of the motor compartment (5),
wherein the first rear cover (7) includes a first cylindrical protrusion (see figure 6D below) located at a center of an inner surface of the first cover plate (see figure 6D below), and
wherein the first cylindrical protrusion (see figure 6D below) defining a receiving portion that receives the rear rotor bearing (43).
(Figure 1, 4, 5, 6D and Column 3 lines 31-41, 46-52, Column 4 lines 1-2, 44-46, 57-59, Column 4 lines 66-67 through Column 5 lines 1-4)
[AltContent: textbox (Kawai)][AltContent: textbox (First Cylindrical Protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Rim)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Rear Cover Protrusion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Rear Cover)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
322
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kawai does not disclose a second rear cover different from the first rear cover in shape, and different from the first rear cover in color and/or material composition.
McCallops et al. disclose a power tool (110) comprising: a housing (130); and an element (160) removably attach to the housing (130), wherein the element (160) can be interchanged with another element of a different shape. (Column 5 lines 8-14)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Kawai by incorporating a second rear cover that is interchangeable with the first rear cover and is different in shape as taught by McCallops et al., since column 5 lines 8-14 of McCallops et al. states such a modification would allow the operated to choose the desired part.
Yoshimizu et al. disclose a power tool (1) comprising a first cover element (31), wherein the first cover element (31) is replaceable with a second cover different from the first cover element (31) in color. (Figure 3, 4 and Column 5 lines 24-26, Column 6 lines 3-6, 44-48)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Kawai by incorporating a second rear cover different in shape of the first cover as taught by Yoshimizu et al., since column 2 lines 1-3 of Yoshimizu et al. states such a modification would help prevent tools form being mistakenly used by others.
Regarding claim 23, Kawai modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. the first rear cover (Kawai – 7) includes outlets (Kawai – 50) elongated in a vertical direction in each of the left and right side surfaces of the first rear cover (Kawai – 7). (Kawai – Figure 5 and Column 5 lines 17-24)
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Kawai (11,426,863) in view of references McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of reference Tsuruta et al. (7,093,951).
Regarding claim 26, Kawai modified by McCallops et al. and Yoshimizu et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the second cover includes a luminous material.
Tsuruta et al. disclose a power tool (1) comprising housing (6); and a cover portion (14), wherein the cover portion (14) is detachable and re-attachable, and wherein the cover portion (14) includes luminous material. (Column 3 lines 43-49)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the second cover of Kawai in view of McCallops et al. by incorporating the luminous material as taught by Tsuruta et al., since column 1 lines 40-44 of Tsuruta et al. states such a modification would ensure the power tool is visible after long-sustained used in the dark.
When incorporating the luminous material, the second rear cover is interpreted to have a material composition that is different from the first rear cover. Therefore, Kawai modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tsuruta et al. disclose the second rear cover is different from the first rear cover in all of the shape, the color, and the material composition.
Regarding claim 28, Tsuruta et al. disclose the entire surface of the component is coated with the luminous material. (Column 4 lines 26-28)
Therefore, Kawai modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tsuruta et al. is interpreted to disclose the luminous material is provided annularly on an outer surface of the second rear cover.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 04/24/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-19, 21-22, 24-25, and 27 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 20, 23, 26, and 28 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the objections towards the claims, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the claim objections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) modified by reference Tam (11,318,597), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) modified by references McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawai (11,426,853) modified by references McCallops et al. (6,547,014) and Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451).
Applicant states:
The alleged replacement part – the pistol grips of McCallops – does not have any of these structural components.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, McCallops et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a rear cover having a cover plate and a cover protrusion. McCallops et al. is relied upon for the teaching of an element removably attached to the power tool housing, wherein the element can be interchanged with another element of a different shape. Kawai is relied upon for the teaching of a rear cover including a cover plate and a cover protrusion that protrudes frontward from a rim of the cover plate to surround the rear end of the motor compartment.
When modifying Kawai in view of McCallops et al., the second rear cover is interpreted to include a second cover plate and a second cover protrusion that protrudes frontward from a rim of the second cover plate to surround the rear end of the motor compartment, wherein the second rear cover has a different shape from the first rear cover.
Applicant states:
Yoshimizu merely discloses a replaceable label sheet 3 that is bonded to the outer surface of the hammer case 14B. Yoshimizu at column 6, lines 5-6. The label sheet 31 does not include a cover plate or a cover protrusion that extends from the rim of the cover plate to surround the rear of the motor compartment.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Yoshimizu et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a rear cover having a cover plate and a cover protrusion. Yoshimizu et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a first cover element that is replaceable with a second cover element different from the first cover element in color. Kawai is relied upon for the teaching of a rear cover including a cover plate and a cover protrusion that protrudes frontward from a rim of the cover plate to surround the rear end of the motor compartment.
When modifying Kawai in view of Yoshimizu et al., the second rear cover is interpreted to include a second cover plate and a second cover protrusion that protrudes frontward from a rim of the second cover plate to surround the rear end of the motor compartment, wherein the second rear cover has a different color from the first rear cover.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Weber et al. (2019/0118352) modified by references McCallops et al. (6,547,014), Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451), and Tsuruta et al. (7,093,951), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kawai (11,426,853) modified by references McCallops et al. (6,547,014), Yoshimizu et al. (7,140,451), and Tsuruta et al. (7,093,951).
Applicant states:
None of the applied art discloses or suggests the additional features recited in claim 28.
In column 4 lines 26-28 of Tsuruta et al., the entire surface of the component is disclosed to be coated with the luminous material. The entire surface is interpreted to extend annularly around the outer surface of the component. When modifying Kawai in view of the McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tsuruta et al., the entire surface of the second rear cover is interpreted to be coated with the luminous material. Therefore, Kawai modified by McCallops et al., Yoshimizu et al., and Tsuruta et al. do disclose the luminous material is provided annularly on an outer surface of the second rear cover.
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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 at (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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 July 13, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights