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 01/14/2024.
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/14/2024 and 07/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5 line 4, the phrase “is performed after one ore” appears to be a typographical error and should be written as “is performed after one or”.
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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1 line 1, the phrase “a hand-held rotary impact wrench, the hand-held power tool” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 1 discloses a hand-held rotary impact wrench. Claim 1 does not disclose a hand-held power tool. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “a hand-held rotary impact wrench, the impact wrench”.
Regarding claim 1 line 2, the phrase “a tool such as a tool bit or a nut” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1 line 3, the phrase “drive the fastener via a corresponding drive of a fastener” renders claim 1 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Prior to the quoted phrase, there is not mention of a fastener. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “drive a fastener via a corresponding drive of the fastener”.
Regarding claim 6 line 6, the phrase “of the rotary impact driver” renders claim 6 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 6 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 discloses a hand-held rotary impact wrench. Claim 1 does not disclose a rotary impact driver. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “the impact wrench”.
Regarding claim 8 line 2, the phrase “of the hand-held power tool” renders claim 8 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 8 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 pertains to a method of operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “of the impact wrench”.
Regarding claim 9 line 1, the phrase “detects the release of the fastener” renders claim 9 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is referring to as the “release”. The “release” could be interpreted as the beginning of the releasing processes, when the releasing process is partially completed, or when the releasing process is completed. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “detects the partially releasing of the fastener”.
Regarding claim 10 line 3, the phrase “of the hand-held power tool” renders claim 10 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 10 is dependent of claim 3 which is dependent of claim 1. Claim 1 pertains to a method of operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “of the impact wrench”.
Regarding claim 11 line 3, the phrase “of the hand-held power tool” renders claim 11 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 11 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 pertains to a method of operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “of the impact wrench”.
Regarding claim 11 line 4, the phrase “separate from the actuating switch” renders claim 11 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 11 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 does not disclose an actuating switch. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “separate from an actuating switch”.
Regarding claim 12 line 3, the phrase “the app is executed” renders claim 12 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 12 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 does not disclose an app. Numbers or characters that are enclosed within parentheses are considered reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the drawings. See MPEP § 608.01(m). For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “the software application is executed”. The same phrase in claim 13 is interpreted in the same way.
Regarding claim 14 line 1, the phrase “the method provides screw connection” renders claim 14 vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the method provides a screw connection. Claim 14 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 pertains to releasing a fastener from a bolted state. It is unclear how claim 14 pertains to connected the fastener when claim 1 is releasing the fastener. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “the method jamming releasing”.
Regarding claim 15 line 2, the phrase “of a hand-held power tool” renders claim 15 vague and indefinite because it is unclear how the program is on a hand-held power tool. The method of claim 1 pertains to a method for operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench. It is unclear how the program of the method is situated on a hand-held power tool when said method is for operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench. For examining purpose, the phrase is interpreted as “of the impact wrench”.
Claims 2-5, 7, 11, 13, and 16 are dependent of claim 1 and include all the same limitations.
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 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Kato (2021/0094163) in view of reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a method of operating a hand-held rotary impact wrench (1), wherein the impact wrench (1) comprises a tool holder (6) configured to receive a tool, wherein the tool is configured to rotatably drive a fastener via a corresponding drive of a fastener, and wherein the method comprises the steps of:
releasing the fastener from a bolted state by rotating the tool holder (6) in a first direction of rotation.
(Figure 2 and Page 3 paragraph 50, 52, Page 7 paragraph 140)
However, Kato does not disclose the step of rotating the tool holder in a second direction and renewing rotation of the tool holder in the first direction.
Roehm et al. disclose a method of operating a power tool (101), the method comprising the steps of:
rotating a tool holder (103) in a first direction of rotation;
rotating the tool holder (103) in second direction of rotation when a first torque threshold is met; and
renewing rotation of the tool holder (103) in the first direction of rotation when a second torque threshold is met,
wherein the first torque threshold and second torque threshold values are received from an external device (119).
(Page 5 paragraph 56, 59, 60, 62, 74)
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 Kato by incorporating the second direction of rotation and renewing the first direction for rotation as taught by Roehm et al., since page 1 paragraph 7 of Roehm et al. states such a modification would prevent jamming of the fastener.
Regarding claim 2, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the partial releasing is accomplished at least partially by performing a rotary impact operation. (Kato – Page 7 paragraph 140)
Regarding claim 3, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the rotary impaction operation in the partial release is replaced by screwing operation without impact when the fastener falls below a predefined resistance so as to prevent further loosening, and the rotating the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the second direction is performed as soon as the screwing operation without impact is detected. (Kato – Page 7 paragraph 142, Page 8 paragraph 143) (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 59)
Regarding claim 4, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose, while rotating the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the second direction, a rotary impact operation is performed in response to exceeding a certain torque is exceeded, and the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction is performed once the rotary impaction operation is detected. (Kato – Page 4 paragraph 78) (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 62)
Regarding claim 5, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose a rotary impact operation is performed in rotation the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the second direction in response to exceeding a certain torque, wherein the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction is performed after a predefined tome period after an automatic detection of the rotary impact operation. (Kato – Page 4 paragraph 78, Page 7 paragraph 140) (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 70)
Regarding claim 6, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction is ended when a user releases an actuating switch (Kato – 7) of the rotary impact drive (Kato – 1). (Kato – Page 3 paragraph 55) (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 64)
Regarding claim 8, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose an actuating switch (Kato – 7) of the impact wrench (Kato – 1) is actuated by a user, wherein a controller (Kato – 56) of the impact wrench (Kato – 1) detects a fastener is being release in released in response to the actuating and perform the partially releasing of the fastener, the rotating of the toolholder in the second direction, and the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction. (Kato – Page 3 paragraph 55, Page 5 paragraph 95) (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 56, 59, 60, 62)
Regarding claim 9, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the controller detects the partially releasing of the fastener at least partially based on an immediate onset of a rotary impact operation after actuation of the actuating switch (Kato – 7). (Kato – Page 7 paragraph 140)
Regarding claim 10, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the detecting of the rotary impact operation and/or screwing operation without impact is performed at least partially on the basis of a signal waveform of an operating variable of an electric motor (Kato – 21) of the impact wrench. (Kato – Page 1 paragraph 11, Page 4 paragraph 80, 85)
Regarding claim 11, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the method is initiated by a user of the impact wrench (Kato – 1) actuating a control button (Kato – 10) separate from an actuating switch (Kato – 7) of the impact wrench (Kato – 1), wherein the release of the actuating switch (Kato – 7) cancels and/or ends the method. (Kato – Page 3 paragraph 55, 58, Page 7 paragraph 140)
Regarding claim 12, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the method is started or initialized via a software application, wherein the software application is executed on a device (Roehm et al. – 119) spearete from the impact wrench. (Kato – 1). (Roehm et al. – Page 5 paragraph 69, 74, Page 6 paragraph 75)
Regarding claim 13, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the parameters of the screwing operation are adjustable via the software application, wherein the parameters comprise a predefined duration and/or number of impacts of a rotary impact operation in the partially releasing of the fastener, the rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in a second direction, or the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction. (Roehm et al. – Page 4 paragraph 36, Page 5 paragraph 70)
Regarding claim 14, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the method provides jamming releasing, wherein the rotation of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the second direction of rotation opposite the first direction rotation is performed such that jamming of the tool is released, but without fastener being tightened such that a renewed loosening of the fastener in the renewed rotating of the tool holder (Kato – 6) in the first direction would result in renewed jamming. (Roehm et al. – Page 1 paragraph 7, 9)
Regarding claim 15, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose a computer program for performing the method according to claim 1 when the computer program is executed by a computer (Kato – 56) of the impact wrench. (Kato – Page 5 paragraph 95) (Roehm et al. – Page 4 paragraph 52)
Regarding claim 16, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose a hand-held rotary impact wrench comprising:
an electric motor (Kato – 21);
a rotary-driven tool holder (Kato – 6) configured to receive a tool; and
a controller (Kato – 56) configured to control the electric motor (Kato -21),
wherein the controller (Kato- 56) is configured to perform the method according to claim 1.
(Kato – Page 3 paragraph 52, 60, Page 5 paragraph 95)
(Roehm et al. – Page 4 paragraph 52)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Kato (2021/0094163) in view of reference Roehm et al. (2021/0370483) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Lewis et al. (10,523,087).
Regarding claim 7, Kato modified by Roehm et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a run-up ramp.
Lewis et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising: a motor (28); and a controller (11), wherein the controller (11) is configured to increase the speed of the motor from zero to the target speed at a ramp-up rate. (Column 2 lines 11-20, Column 3 lines 60-63, Column 4 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 method of Kato by incorporating the ramp-up of the motor as taught by Lewis et al., since column 14 lines 23-24 of Lewis et al. states such a modification would help prevent heavy increases in current draw from the battery pack.
Conclusion
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 February 19, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731