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 amendment filing on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined below.
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 1-8, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cooper (2014/0166323) in view of reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483).
Regarding claim 1, Cooper disclose a method of operating a rotary hand-held power tool (Figure 1), wherein the hand-held power tool (Figure 1) comprises a tool holder (see figure 1 below) configured to receive a tool (see figure 1 below), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
rotating the tool holder (see figure 1 below) in a first direction; and
rotating the tool holder (see figure 1 below) in a second direction opposite the first direction of the rotation at a predefined speed and for a predefined time period.
(Figure 1 and Page 6 paragraph 40, 42, Page 7 paragraph 45, Page 10 paragraph 65)
On page 6 paragraph 42 of Cooper, a measure of the user’s strength and reaction time is conducted to determine the amount of torque and/or acceleration to be expected during work operations. In other words, the amount of force that is require to slow or stop the power tool is determined prior to the work operations. On page 6 paragraph 40, the motor is disclosed to move in a second direction to counteract an undesirable acceleration and that movement is done brief period of time. In other words, the motor is moved a set speed for a set period of time. Therefore, Cooper is interpreted to disclose rotating the tool holder in a second direction opposite the first direction of the rotation at a predefined speed and for a predefined time period.
[AltContent: textbox (Tool )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Tool Holder)][AltContent: textbox (Cooper)]
PNG
media_image1.png
310
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On page 1 paragraph 2 of Cooper, the hand-held power tool is disclosed to be any applicable tool. However, Cooper does not explicitly disclose the tool holder receiving a tool configured to rotatably drive a fastening element.
Roehm et al. disclose a hand-held power tool (101) comprising a tool holder (105) configured to receive a tool (pg 4 para 42), wherein the tool (pg 4 para 42) is configured to rotatably drive a fastening element via a corresponding drive interface of the fastening element. (Figure 1 and Page 1 paragraphs 4-6, Page 4 paragraph 42)
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 substituted the drill power tool with the impact fastening power tool as taught by Roehm et al., since page 1 paragraph 2 of Cooper states the invention disclosed would work equally as well at protecting the user of a impact fastening tool, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose monitoring to determine that jamming occurs during or after the screwing process, wherein jamming occurs when the tool (Roehm et al. – pg 4 para 42) is jammed in the tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) and/or when the drive of the fastening element and the tool (Roehm et al. – pg 4 para 42) are jammed together. (Cooper – Page 3 paragraph 19, Page 5 paragraph 40) (Roehm et al. – Page 3 paragraph 27)
Regarding claim 3, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the monitoring is performed during the screwing of the fastening element in the first direction of rotation by a user of the hand-held power tool (Cooper – Figure 1), or is performed at least partially automatically. (Cooper – Page 6 paragraph 40)
Regarding claim 4, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose rotating of the tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) in the second direction of rotation is initiated by the user actuating a control button (Cooper – 5) separate from an on/off switch (Cooper – 6) of the hand-held power tool (Cooper – Figure 1). (Cooper – Page 5 paragraph 37)
Regarding claim 5, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the rotating of the tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) in the second direction of rotation is performed in response to determining that jamming has occurred. (Cooper – Page 3 paragraph 19, Page 5 paragraph 40)
Regarding claim 6, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the screwing of the fastening element in the first direction of rotation takes place at least partially using a rotary impact operation. (Roehm et al. – Page 1 paragraph 15, Page 4 paragraph 47)
Regarding claim 7, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose automatically detecting the rotary impact operation. (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 54)
Regarding claim 8, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose rotating the tool in the second direction after a predefined number of impacts.
Roehm et al. disclose the rotating the tool in the second direction after screwing process. (Page 5 paragraph 65). The screwing process is disclosed comprises a predetermined number of impacts (Page 2 paragraph 20)
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 method of Cooper by incorporating the rotation in the second direction after a predetermined number of impacts as taught by Roehm et al., since page 5 paragraph 65 of Roehm et al. states such a modification would help prevent jamming.
Regarding claim 10, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the screwing the fastening element in the first direction of rotation is triggered by actuating an operation button (Cooper – 6) of the hand-held power tool (Cooper – Figure 1), wherein a release of the operation button (Cooper – 6) cancels and/or ends the method. (Cooper – Page 5 paragraph 37)
Regarding claim 13, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the method is started or initialized by actuating a control button (Cooper – 6) located on the hand-held power tool (Cooper – Figure 1). (Cooper – Page 5 paragraph 37)
Regarding claim 14, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose the predetermined speed and the predetermined time period in the rotating the tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) in the second direction of rotation are predefined such that jamming of the tool holder and/or the drive of the fastening element comprising the tool is released, but without the screw connection being loosened. (Cooper – Page 7 paragraph 45) (Roehm et al. – Page 1 paragraph 12, Page 5 paragraph 60)
Regarding claim 15, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose a computer program (Cooper – pg 7 para 50) for performing the method according to claim 1, wherein the computer program is executed by a controller (Cooper – 8) of a hand-held power tool (Cooper – Figure 1). (Cooper – Page 7 paragraph 50)
Regarding claim 16, Cooper in view of Roehm et al. disclose a hand-held rotary impact wrench comprising:
an electric motor (Roehm et al. – 13);
a rotary-driven tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) configured to receive a tool (pg 4 para 42); and
a controller (Roehm et al. – 37) configured to control the electric motor (13),
wherein the controller (Roehm et al. – 37) is configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
(Cooper – Page 7 paragraph 50) (Roehm et al. – Page 4 paragraph 42, 49, 52)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cooper (2014/0166323) in view of reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of reference Sekino et al. (9,687,972).
Regarding claim 9, Cooper modified by Roehm et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose detection of the rotary impact operation is performed at least partially on the basis of a signal waveform.
Sekino et al. disclose rotary impact tool comprising: a controller (200); and a torque measurement unit (65) including a torque sensor (26), wherein the controller (200) is configured to detect the rotary impact operation based on the waveform of the voltage signal generated by the torque sensor (26). (Column 7 lines 25-31, Column 8 lines 2-6, 15-18)
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 Roehm et al. by incorporating the processing of signal waveform as taught by Sekino et al., since column 9 lines 53-58 of Sekino et al. states such a modification would increase the accuracy of the measured torque value.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Cooper (2014/0166323) in view of reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Mueckl et al. (2021/0394344).
Regarding claim 11, Cooper modified by Roehm et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the method is started or initialized via a software application (app).
Mueckl et al. disclose a device (108) separate from a hand-held power tool (102a), wherein the process of operating the hand-held power tool (102a) is initialized by the device (108) transmitting parameters to the hand-held power tool (102a). (Figure 1, 18 and Page 2 paragraph 30, Page 11 paragraph 89)
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 method of Cooper by incorporating the transmitting of parameters as taught by Mueckl et al., since page 7 paragraph 64 of Mueckl et al. states such a modification would allow the user to adjust parameters of the power tool prior to use of the power tool.
Regarding claim 12, Cooper modified by Roehm et al. and Mueckl et al. disclose parameters of a screw connection are adjustable via the app; wherein the parameters comprise at least one of the following parameters:
a diameter and/or type of fastening element;
a material, strength, and/or hardness of the substrate; and
a predefined speed and/or predefined time period for the rotating the tool holder (Roehm et al. – 105) in the second direction of rotation.
(Roehm et al. – Page 6 paragraph 75)
(Mueckl et al. – Page 7 paragraph 64, Page 9 paragraph 75)
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 12/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the objections towards the Drawings, in view of the amendments to the Drawings, Examiner withdraws the Drawing objections.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Cooper (2014/0166323) modified by reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
In other words, the reverse rotational speed and time period are not predefined in the Cooper, as required in claim 1.
On page 6 paragraph 42 of Cooper, a measure of the user’s strength and reaction time is conducted to determine the amount of torque and/or acceleration to be expected during work operations. In other words, the amount of force that is require to slow or stop the power tool is determined prior to the work operations. On page 6 paragraph 40, the motor is disclosed to move in a second direction to counteract an undesirable acceleration and that movement is done brief period of time. In other words, the motor is moved a set speed for a set period of time. Therefore, Cooper is interpreted to disclose rotating the tool holder in a second direction opposite the first direction of the rotation at a predefined speed and for a predefined time period.
Applicant states:
This excerpt of Roehm does not refer to a predefined number of impacts before the motor direction is reversed, as require by claim 8. At best, the excerpt refers to the preferred number of torque impulse to complete the screwing operation in a reliable manner.
On page 1 paragraph 17 of Roehm et al., the power tool is disclosed to conduct torque impulses periodically, and disclose each torque impulse forms torque impacts in the circumferential direction. In other words, the torque impulses causes rotary impacts. On page 2 paragraph 20 of Roehm et al., the screwing process is disclosed to comprise a predetermined number torque impulses. On page 5 paragraph 65 of Roehm et al., the power tool is disclosed to rotate in the second direction after screwing process. Therefore, Roehm et al. is interpreted to disclose rotating the tool holder in the second direction after a predefined number of impacts of the rotary impaction operation.
Applicant states:
The rejection relies on Para. [0045] of Cooper, but this excerpt does not refer to preventing the screw connection from being loosened.
Cooper is not relied upon for the teaching of a tool holder configured to receive a tool configured to rotatably drive a fastening element. Roehm et al. is relied upon for that teaching of a tool holder configured to receive a tool configured to rotatably drive a fastening element. On page 1 paragraph 12 of Roehm et al., the power tool is disclosed to be operated in order to release a jam while avoiding a reduction in a tightening torque. On page 5 paragraph 60 of Roehm et al., the process of releasing a jamming is taken place while avoiding a reduction on the first target torque. Therefore, Cooper modified by Roehm et al. is interpreted to disclose rotation of the tool holder in the second direction is predetermined such that the jamming of the tool in the tool holder and/or the drive of the fastening element comprising the tool is released, but without the screw connection being loosened.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Cooper (2014/0166323) modified by references Roehm et al. (2021/0370483) and Sekino et al. (9,687,972), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Thus, even if Sekino is incorporated into the Roehm/Cooper, the result does not disclose all of the elements of dependent claim 9, namely automatically detecting whether a rotary impact operation is occurring based on the waveform of a variable.
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, Sekino et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of stopping the power tool after reaching a predetermined torque value. Sekino et al. is relied upon for the teaching of determining impacting operation based on waveform.
In column 8 lines 1-22 of Sekino et al., the control circuit is disclosed to update the torque measurement when an impact pulse is sensed, wherein the impact pulse in the waveform of the voltage signal is generated when an impact is conducted. Therefore, Cooper modified by Sekino et al. is interpreted to disclose automatic detection of rotary impact operation is performed at least in partially on the basis of a signal waveform of an operating variable of the electric motor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 May 5, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights