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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the election requirement, Applicant has elected Species F without traverse in the reply filed on 02/10/2026. Claims 3, 4, 6-20, and 25-29 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1, 2, 5, and 21-24 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2023, 04/28/2025, 07/22/2025, and 12/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 10/31/2023 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 21, 23, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the term “a tool” in line 3 is a different tool from “a tool” in the preamble. Examiner advises to amend the term(s) to differentiate them.
In claims 1 and 24, line 2, the phrase may be amended as “the proximal end [[is]]being adapted to …”
In claim 2, line 2, the term may be amended as “the bit”.
In claim 21, line 2, the term may be amended as “[[the]]an opening” because the preceding opening in claim 1 is the opening of the bit. The opening in claim 21 is the opening of the cradle.
In claim 23, the term may be amended as “a pin channel” in line 3 to be consistent with the term “the pin channel” in line 4.
In claim 23, line 4, the term may be amended as “the pin hole”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 5, the phrase “actuating the bit along an axis of the bit applies force to the driving structure” renders claim vague and indefinite because the axis of the bit is not defined. Numerous axes can be defined with respect to the bit. For examination purpose the examiner interpreted the bit defines a longitudinal axis along a length of the bit, and actuating the bit along the longitudinal axis of the bit applies force to the driving structure.
Claims 2, 5, and 21-23 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency. Claims 3, 4, and 6-20 also inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency, but they are not pending and under examination.
In claim 2, line 1, the phrase “a non-turning geometry disposed about the bit” renders claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear where the non-turning geometry is disposed. It can be disposed proximate to the bit, but not on the bit. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted the non-turning geometry is disposed on a body of the bit.
Similarly, in claim 24, line 4, the phrase “a non-turning geometry disposed about the shank” renders claim vague and indefinite because it is not clear where the non-turning geometry is disposed. It can be disposed proximate to the shank, but not on the shank. For examination purpose the examiner has interpreted the non-turning geometry is disposed on a body of the shank.
In claim 24, lines 7-8, the phrase “actuating the shank along an axis of the shank applies force to the driving structure” renders claim vague and indefinite because the axis of the shank is not defined. Numerous axes can be defined with respect to the shank. For examination purpose the examiner interpreted the shank defines a longitudinal axis along a length of the shank, and actuating the shank along the longitudinal axis of the shank applies force to the driving structure.
Claims 25-29 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency, but they are not pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grand (WO 2018/141052A1, cited on 04/28/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Grand discloses, in fig. 7, a tool comprising:
a bit (adapter 140) having distal and proximal ends (tool receiving end 144 and mounting end 143 respectively), the proximal end is adapted to removably couple to a tool (fig. 1B, the mounting end 143 of the adapter 140 is removably coupled to a drill 120), the distal end defining an opening (aperture 147); and
a driver coupled to the bit through the opening (fig. 7, a hex nut driver 190 [corresponds to the recited driver] is coupled to the adapter 140 through the aperture 147), the driver including a driving structure (see annotated Grand fig. 7 below);
wherein actuating the bit along an axis of the bit applies force to the driving structure (¶ 000107 and fig. 14, actuating the drill 120 imparts hammering force along a length of a socket 150 through the adapter 140. Examiner notes that the socket 150 can be the recited driver in another embodiment as shown in figs. 9 and 10).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
1344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Grand Fig. 7
Regarding claim 24, Grand discloses a bit for an air hammer or impact hammer tool (figs. 1E and 7 and ¶ 00090 and 000107, an SDS drill 120 can impart hammering forces. The drill can be equipped with an impact apparatus 180 to work as an impact hammer. An adapter 140 [corresponds to the recited bit] fits to the drill 120), the bit (adapter 140) comprising:
a shank (fig. 7, main body 142) having distal and proximal ends (tool receiving end 144 and mounting end 143 respectively), the proximal end is adapted to removably couple to the hammer tool (fig. 1B, the mounting end 143 of the adapter 140 is removably coupled to a drill 120), the distal end defining a female or male geometry (see annotated Grand fig. 7, the tool receiving end 144 [corresponds to the recited distal end] has a female geometry);
a non-turning geometry disposed about the shank (see annotated Grand fig. 7 above); and
a driver coupled to the female or male geometry of the distal end (annotated fig. 7 above, a hex nut driver 190 [corresponds to the recited driver] is coupled to the female geometry at the distal end of the adapter 140), the driver including a driving structure (annotated fig. 7 above),
wherein actuating the shank along an axis of the shank applies force to the driving structure (¶ 000107 and fig. 14, actuating the drill 120 imparts hammering force along a length of the main body 142 [corresponds to the recited shank] of the adapter 140).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kukucka et al. (US 10780556, hereinafter Kukucka).
Regarding claim 2, Grand discloses the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising a non-turning geometry disposed about the bit (see annotated Grand fig. 7 above for the non-turning geometry disposed on the bit), but does not disclose explicitly that the non-turning geometry is adapted to restrict rotation of bit when coupled to the tool. Grand does not provide explanation regarding the use of the non-turning geometry.
Kukucka teaches, in an analogous bit tool field of endeavor, the non-turning geometry is adapted to restrict rotation of bit when coupled to the tool (fig. 11 and col. 2:33-36 and 4:22-30, Kukucka discloses a bit that is compatible with a torque tool. A bit 1 includes engagement cavity 8 [corresponds to the recited non-turning geometry] which engages a socket fastener for torque transfer with the least possibility of slippage. Thus, the cavity 8 restricts rotation of the bit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bit of Grand to provide the non-turning geometry as taught by Kukucka. Although Grand discloses the bit includes the non-turning geometry, Kukucka explains the feature is used for minimizing the slippage so that the socket fastener can be used in either the clockwise or the counter-clockwise direction (Kukucka col. 4:30-32).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Roche (US 11241772, cited on 04/28/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Grand discloses the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the driving structure is a wrench.
Roche teaches, in an analogous air hammer tool field of endeavor, the driving structure is a wrench (figs. 1-2 and col. 2:38-55, an air hammer attaches to proximal end 9 of a drive shaft 10 [corresponds to the recited bit]. A distal end of the shaft 10 is coupled to a shank 7 [corresponds to the recited driver], and a working end 5 [corresponds to the recited driving structure] of the shank 7 is a wrench. The adapter 140/bit and the driver 190 of Grand can be replaced by the shaft 10/bit and the shank 7/driver of Roche to transmit power of the hammer tool to the driving structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver of Grand to provide the wrench as the driving structure as taught by Roche so that vibration of the hammer transmits the force to loosens a nut 6 by turning counter-clockwise in a tight work space (Roche col. 2:52-55).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lochner (US 1708766).
Regarding claim 21, Grand discloses the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does disclose the tool further comprising: a cradle defining a cavity and the opening; a bit tip defined at the distal end of the shank, the bit tip disposed in the cavity; and a nut coupling the shank to the cradle.
Lochner teaches, in an analogous power tool field of endeavor, the tool further comprising: a cradle defining a cavity and the opening; a bit tip defined at the distal end of the shank, the bit tip disposed in the cavity; and a nut coupling the shank to the cradle (see annotated Lochner fig. 1 below; pg. 2 left column 35-39, a proximal end of a shank 2/tool body 1 can be connected with a power driven device for rotating a tool body. Thus, the tool body 1 is equivalent to the recited bit. Examiner defines the tool body 1, members 6 and 7 form the recited bit. A distal end of the shank 2 is coupled with a sleeve 15 [corresponds to the recited cradle] wherein a nut 17 couples the shank 2 to the sleeve 15. Although the tool of Lochner does not disclose the recited driver, the sleeve 15 holds a screw 22, thus the sleeve 15 [corresponds to the recited cradle] can be configured to hold a driver. Lochner teaches the distal end of the Grand’s adaptor 40/bit can be modified by include the cradle and the nut).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bit of Grand to provide the cradle, and the nut as taught by Lochner so that the tool body 1 can securely hold a connecting component to the bit. The nut and the cradle protect a tip of the bit from repeated rotational operation of the power tool. Damaged nut and/or cradle can be easily replaced.
PNG
media_image2.png
864
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lochner Fig. 1
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand in view of Lochner, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Roche.
Regarding claim 22, Grand as modified by Lochner teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 21, but does not disclose the driver defines a notch adapted to receive the bit tip.
Roche teaches, in an analogous air hammer tool field of endeavor, the driver defines a notch adapted to receive the bit tip (figs. 1-2 and col. 2:38-55, as discussed in claim 5 above, the shank 7 corresponds to the recited driver and the drive shaft 10 corresponds to the recited bit. A bracket 11 is a connecting component with the shank 7 disposed at a distal end of the drive shaft 10/bit. The shank 7 has a fixture 13 in a form of a notch. The fixture 13 is configured to be coupled with the bracket 11/connecting component of the drive shaft 10/bit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the driver of Grand as modified by Lochner to provide the notch as taught by Roche in order to couple the driver and the bit together securely. The notch of the driver also renders the shank/driver to rotate so that the driving structure of the driver can exert force in a clockwise and a counter-clockwise directions for fastening or loosening a fastener.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand in view of Lochner, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Kim (KR 102147723B1).
Regarding claim 23, Grand as modified by Lochner teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 21, but does not disclose the tool further comprises a pin hole defined in the bit tip; a channel defined in the cradle; and a pin disposed in the pin channel and pin hole, the pin adapted to restrict rotation of the bit tip in the cradle.
Kim teaches, in an analogous power tool field of endeavor, the tool further comprises a pin hole defined in the bit tip; a channel defined in the cradle; and a pin disposed in the pin channel and pin hole, the pin adapted to restrict rotation of the bit tip in the cradle (figs. 2-3 and Kim English translation, p. 3:31-4:20, a bit holder 210 of an impact wrench 200 is coupled with a push pipe 110, and the push pipe 110 is coupled with a catch pipe 120. The push pipe 110 is equivalent to the recited bit and the catch pipe 120 is equivalent to the recited cradle. The push pipe 110/bit and the catch pipe 120/cradle are coupled in a way that the catch pipe 120 has a sliding slot 124 [corresponds to the recited channel] and the push pipe 110 has a pin hole wherein a guide pin 114 penetrates through the pin hole and the sliding slot 124 to hold the push pipe 100 and the catch pipe 120 together so that they would not rotate during an operation of the impact wrench. Kim teaches how the power tool components equivalent to the bit and the cradle can be coupled together via the pin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tool of Grand as modified by Lochner to provide the pin disposed in the channel and the pin hole as taught by Kim in order to hold the components of the impact wrench together securely. The pin arrangement also provides simple means for holding the tool components together.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark (US 2,782,822) discloses a screw driver wherein a shank [equivalent to the recited bit] and a sleeve 20 [equivalent to the recited cradle] is coupled by a pin (fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723