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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the drawing objections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant cannot claim specific parts of specific type of system without a drawing showing those parts. Further, the claims systems require significantly more parts than the device shown in the drawings. For example, electric brake devices require certain features specific to the genre, such as some form of electric power, wires, control electronics, etc. Likewise with the hydraulic and freewheel systems. The location, fit, and assembly of these devices would be required in order to patent these devices.
Regarding the claim amendments, the Examiner has amended the claims rejection to better clarify the rejection. Further, according to the specification, the return stop purpose to limit reverse torque merely means to stop the shaft from rotating backwards - described in specification [0007] as “For example, the return stop can be produced by means of an appropriate control of the drive motor of the drive or impact wrench. As soon as the output shaft begins to rotate backward, the drive motor of the drive or impact wrench can be supplied with electrical power and consequently brought into operation in order to at least partially prevent a backward rotation of the output shaft, for example, in order to brake with a predefined braking torque. The return stop may further also be in the form of a separate electric motor, a brake, a hydraulic motor or also a mechanical return stop.”.
Regarding the argument to claim 5, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “what is meant by the features of claim 5…” etc) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). Furthrmore, the Examiner has added clarifying language to the claim in order to better understand the rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 depends from cancelled claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 –
Claims 6 and 14 - “the return stop is in the form of a brake, in particular a hydraulically actuated or mechanically actuated brake”;
Claims 6-7, 14-15 - “the return stop is constructed in a hydraulic manner, in particular in the form of a hydraulic motor”;
Claims 4 and 13 - “the return stop is in the form of a freewheel…a rolling freewheel, a freewheel having several clamping members or a spring winding freewheel”;
Claims 8 and 16 - “the return stop is constructed in an electrical manner, in particular in the form of an electric motor or an electronic control unit which cooperates with the drive motor of the drive or impact wrench”
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 are allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tranmax, DE 20200335.
Regarding claim 1, Transmax discloses: A drive or impact wrench (Title, “pneumatic tool”), comprising:
a drive motor (Fig. 4, unlabeled motor),
an output shaft (Figs. 1-7 shows shaft that coincides with shaft bore 32) and a drive or impact unit (Fig. 4 shows the unlabeled hammer mechanism) for accelerating the output shaft at short time intervals,
wherein a return stop (Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) which cooperates with the output shaft in order to at least partially prevent a backward rotation of the output shaft,
further wherein the return stop has means in order to limit a reverse torque, which acts on the return stop, of the output shaft to a predefined maximum value (Translation attached as PDF - “When it is in the active position or the engaged position, the pawl portion 40 is elastically loaded against the pawl portion 30, to restrict the pawl portion 30 to rotate in only one direction. When the rotary shaft of the pneumatic tool experiences a reaction force and tends to rotate backwards, the pawl portion 40 engages the pawl portion 30 to prevent the rotary shaft from rotating backwards”).
Regarding claim 4, Transmax further discloses: the return stop (Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) is in the form of a mechanical return stop, in particular a freewheel or a ratchet having locking detents (Figs. 1-7, ratchet wheel portion 30 and pawl portion 40), a rolling freewheel, a freewheel having several clamping members or a spring winding freewheel.
Regarding claim 5, Transmax further discloses: the return stop (Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) has a ratchet having at least one locking detent (Figs. 1-7, pawl portion 40) and a gear ring (Figs. 1-7, ratchet wheel portion 30), wherein the locking detents of the ratchet in the event of a backward rotation of the output shaft are inserted by mechanical actuation means into the gear ring of the return stop in a forcibly controlled manner (Translation attached as PDF - “The spring 45 provides a predetermined spring force, whereby the wedge-shaped block 423 can engage with the pawl teeth 44 of the pawl portion 30. When the rotary shaft rotates in the counterclockwise direction as shown in Fig. 6, the pawl pin 42 and the alignment portion 50 at their other end are aligned simply by being elastically urged by the spring 45, so that when the pawl portion 30 rotates, the pawl pin 42 and the alignment portion 50 are simultaneously pushed outward and undergo a synchronous sliding movement. Accordingly, the wedge-shaped block 423 is engaged with the pawl teeth 34 so that the pawl wheel 31 can rotate synchronously with the rotary shaft.”)..
Regarding claim 9, Transmax further discloses: A return stop (Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) for use with a drive or impact wrench (Title, “pneumatic tool”), wherein the return stop cooperates with an output shaft (Figs. 1-7 shows shaft that coincides with shaft bore 32) of the drive or impact wrench and wherein the return stop is constructed to at least partially prevent a backward rotation of the output shaft.
Regarding claim 13, Transmax discloses: A drive or impact wrench (Title, “pneumatic tool”), comprising:
a drive motor (Fig. 4, unlabeled motor),
an output shaft (Figs. 1-7 shows shaft that coincides with shaft bore 32) and a drive or impact unit (Fig. 4 shows the unlabeled hammer mechanism) for accelerating the output shaft at short time intervals,
wherein a return stop (Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) which cooperates with the output shaft in order to at least partially prevent a backward rotation of the output shaft,
further wherein the return stop is in the form of a mechanical return stop (Figs. 1-7, ratchet wheel portion 30 and pawl portion 40), in particular a freewheel or a ratchet (Figs. 1-7, ratchet wheel portion 30 and pawl portion 40) having locking detents (Figs. 1-7, pawl portion 40), a rolling freewheel, a freewheel having several clamping members or a spring winding freewheel,
further wherein the return stop Figs. 1-7, anti-reverse mechanism 10) has a ratchet having at least one locking detent (Figs. 1-7, pawl portion 40) and a gear ring (Figs. 1-7, ratchet wheel portion 30), wherein the locking detents of the ratchet in the event of a backward rotation of the output shaft are inserted by mechanical actuation means into the gear ring of the return stop in a forcibly controlled manner (Translation attached as PDF - “The spring 45 provides a predetermined spring force, whereby the wedge-shaped block 423 can engage with the pawl teeth 44 of the pawl portion 30. When the rotary shaft rotates in the counterclockwise direction as shown in Fig. 6, the pawl pin 42 and the alignment portion 50 at their other end are aligned simply by being elastically urged by the spring 45, so that when the pawl portion 30 rotates, the pawl pin 42 and the alignment portion 50 are simultaneously pushed outward and undergo a synchronous sliding movement. Accordingly, the wedge-shaped block 423 is engaged with the pawl teeth 34 so that the pawl wheel 31 can rotate synchronously with the rotary shaft.”).
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 3, 6-8, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Transmax.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16, Transmax discloses the device of claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing to utilize a different type of return stop, such as a brake, a hydraulic manner, and/or an electric manner, as these alteration represent simple substitutions of one mechanic stop design for another. The Examiner notes that according to the specification of the current application, these alternate choices are merely “further developments” of the current application [0020-0024], and neither appear in the drawings nor have highly defined structures in the specification.
Regarding claim 3, Transmax discloses the device of claims 1.
Transmax does not explicitly disclose: the means are constructed to limit the reverse torque to a value between 5 Nm and 30 Nm, in particular of 20 Nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing to utilize an appropriate return torque range, since it has been held that
discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. The Examiner notes that the selection and construction of the Transmax device is designed according to a specific purpose, and therefore design the device according to the appropriate specifications is desired and necessary. The reduction or elimination of reverse torque is discussed in the Transmax art translation- “The rotor, the hammer and the block are driven together in order to avoid an excessive short-term torque in the impact gear. However, the hammer impact can still lead to a slight reverse rotation of the hammer due to the reaction force of the block in the moment before the hammer and the block are connected. This can lead to the connection between the hammer and the block being hindered or blocked. It is therefore the applicant's concern to create a solution to the problem described 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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights