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
In response to the amendment filed on 05/27/2026, claims 1, 6, 21, 23, and 24 have been amended, and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 3, 4, 6-20, and 25-29 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1, 5, and 21-24 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/01/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand (WO 2018/141052A1, cited on 04/28/2025 IDS), in view of Fanourgiakis et al. (US 2012/0074659, cited on 04/28/2025 IDS, hereinafter Fanourgiakis).
Regarding claim 1, Grand discloses, in fig. 7, a tool comprising:
a bit (adapter 140) adapted to removably couple to the tool, the bit including a proximal end (mounting end 143) adapted to be received by the tool when the bit is coupled to the tool (fig. 1B, the mounting end 143 of the adapter 140 is removably coupled to a drill 120), a distal end (tool receiving end 144) with 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) and, including a driving structure (see annotated Grand fig. 7 below);
wherein actuating the bit along an axis of the bit is adapted to apply 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), but does not disclose explicitly the bit includes a non-turning geometry surface adapted to engage the tool and restrict rotation of the bit relative to the tool when the bit is coupled to the tool.
Grand discloses an input shaft 145 having a plurality of grooves. The input shaft 145 is shaped to be received and driven by the drill (¶ 00097), and the grooves are supposed to be the recited non-turning geometry surface, but Grand does not explain the use of grooves explicitly.
Fanourgiakis teaches, in an analogous bit tool field of endeavor, the bit includes a non-turning geometry surface adapted to engage the tool and restrict rotation of the bit relative to the tool when the bit is coupled to the tool (figs. 1-3 and ¶ 0032, a tool assembly 10 includes an adapter 12 [corresponds to the recited bit]. A first end portion 16 [corresponds to the recited proximal end] of the adapter 12 has first recesses 24 and second recesses 26 [correspond to the recited non-turning geometry surface]. The recesses 24, 26 are shaped to interface with a chuck of a hammer 32 so as to prevent relative rotational movement between the adapter and the chuck of the hammer).
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 Fanourgiakis. Although Grand discloses the bit includes the non-turning geometry, Fanourgiakis explains the feature is used for restricting rotation of the bit relative to the tool. The recesses 24, 26 of Fanourgiakis have different configuration and the end portion 16 of the adapter can be a polygonal shape to provide a suitable interface with the chuck of the power tool (Fanourgiakis ¶ 0032). It would help the adapter/bit to be securely coupled to the tool so that it transmits stable force to a socket coupled at the other end of the adapter/bit.
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), wherein 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), and the distal end defines a female or male geometry (see annotated Grand fig. 7above, the tool receiving end 144 [corresponds to the recited distal end] has a female geometry); 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), and the driver including a driving structure (annotated fig. 7 above),
wherein actuating the shank along an axis of the shank is adapted to apply 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), but does not disclose explicitly the bit comprises a non-turning geometry surface disposed on or formed in the shank and adapted to restrict rotation of the bit with respect to the hammer tool when the bit is coupled to the hammer tool.
Grand discloses an input shaft 145 having a plurality of grooves. The input shaft 145 is shaped to be received and driven by the drill (¶ 00097), and the grooves are supposed to be the recited non-turning geometry surface, but Grand does not explain the use of grooves explicitly.
Fanourgiakis teaches, in an analogous bit tool field of endeavor, the bit comprises a non-turning geometry surface disposed on or formed in the shank and adapted to restrict rotation of the bit with respect to the hammer tool when the bit is coupled to the hammer tool (figs. 1-3 and ¶ 0031-32, a tool assembly 10 includes an adapter 12 [corresponds to the recited bit]. A first end portion 16 [corresponds to the recited proximal end] of the adapter 12 has first recesses 24 and second recesses 26 [correspond to the recited non-turning geometry surface]. The recesses 24, 26 are shaped to interface with a chuck of a hammer 32 so as to prevent relative rotational movement between the adapter and the chuck of the hammer).
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 surface as taught by Fanourgiakis. Although Grand discloses the bit includes the non-turning geometry, Fanourgiakis explains the feature is used for restricting rotation of the bit relative to the tool. The recesses 24, 26 of Fanourgiakis have different configuration and the end portion 16 of the adapter can be a polygonal shape to provide a suitable interface with the chuck of the power tool (Fanourgiakis ¶ 0032). It would help the adapter/bit to be securely coupled to the tool so that it transmits stable force to a socket coupled at the other end of the adapter/bit.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grand in view of Fanourgiakis, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Roche (US 11241772, cited on 04/28/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 5, Grand as modified by Fanourgiakis teaches 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 as modified by Fanourgiakis 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 in view of Fanourgiakis, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lochner (US 1708766).
Regarding claim 21, Grand as modified by Fanourgiakis teaches the tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does disclose the distal end of the bit further includes: a cradle defining a cavity and the opening; and a bit tip disposed in the cavity.
Lochner teaches, in an analogous power tool field of endeavor, the distal end of the bit further includes: a cradle defining a cavity and the opening; and a bit tip disposed in the cavity (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]. 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 to 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 as modified by Fanourgiakis to provide the cradle 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 Fanourgiakis and Lochner, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Roche.
Regarding claim 22, Grand as modified by Fanourgiakis and 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 Fanourgiakis and 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 Fanourgiakis and Lochner, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Kim (KR 102147723B1).
Regarding claim 23, Grand as modified by Fanourgiakis and 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 pin channel defined in the cradle; and a pin disposed in the pin channel and the pin hole, and the pin is 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 pin channel defined in the cradle; and a pin disposed in the pin channel and the pin hole, and the pin is 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 pin 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 Fanourgiakis and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fanourgiakis.
Applicant argues Kukucka does not teach the amended claim limitations that a non-turning geometry surface is used for restricting rotation of a bit relative to a tool when the bit is coupled to the tool.
Kukucka, cited in the previous non-final office action dated on 02/27/2026, teaches that the cavities 8 of the bit are engaged with a socket fastener for torque transfer, and the cavities provide the least possibility of slippage for the bit (Kukucka col. 4:22-30). Thus, Kukucka teaches the claim limitations prior to the amendment that the non-turning geometry restricts rotation of the bit, but Kukucka does not state regarding the restriction of rotation of the bit relative to the tool.
Fanourgiakis teaches the recesses on the proximal end of the adapter/bit are used for restricting rotation of the bit relative to the tool when the adapter/bit is coupled to a chuck of a hammer. Therefore, Fanourgiakis teaches the amended claim limitations.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections regarding the phrase “actuating the bit/shank along an axis of the bit/shank applies force to the driving structure” in claims 1 and 24, Examiner indicated the axis of bit is not defined in the previous non-final office action dated on 02/27/2026. In response, Applicant explains specification of the instant application states the bit/shank may apply a linear force or an axial force to the driving structure (¶ 0004, 0031, 0034) which implies the axis of the bit is a longitudinal axis along a length of the bit. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections regarding the axis of the bit have been withdrawn.
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 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights