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 of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 24 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 7, 9, 11 – 12, and 18 – 24 are pending. Claims 8, 10, and 13 – 17 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 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 9, 11, 18, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur (US 9,149,872 B2), in view of Conroy (US 2010/0260563 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
380
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: textbox (D)]
Regarding claim 9, Saur discloses an adapter for use with a power tool, the adapter comprising:
a housing (252, fig. 2);
an input shaft (262, fig. 2) extending from the housing, the input shaft defining a first end (end D, annotated fig. 2), a second end (end E, annotated fig. 2) opposite the first end, and an input axis (A, annotated fig. 2) extending between the first end and the second end, the first end spaced apart from the housing (Annotated fig. 2 shows end D spaced apart from the housing 252 radially) and configured to be inserted (into receptacle 147, fig. 1) into the power tool (100, fig. 1) such that the input shaft is coupled to a power tool via a chuck (170, fig. 1) of the power tool to receive impacts from the power tool (Col. 3, ll. 55 – 63 describes a power tool for an adapter 200 as an impact drilling machine thus when the adapter 200 is attached to the impact drilling machine and the impact mechanism is activated, the adapter 200 would necessarily receive impacts from the impact drilling machine via an input shaft 262); and
a drill bit (150, fig. 1 – within a hexagonal inner receptacle 270, fig. 2) having a first end (shown in fig. 1 as the end of the tool 150 inside the power tool 100) and a second end (shown in fig. 1 as the end of the of the tool 150 having the Phillips head drive tip) opposite the first end, the first end contacting the housing (Figure 2 shows the end of the tool 150 indirectly contacts the housing 252 via an output shaft 268), the drill bit defining an output axis (B, annotated fig. 2) and configured to receive the impacts from the input shaft (An input shaft 262 and an output shaft 268 are axially fixed to the housing section 252. Thus, impacts received from the impact drilling machine via an input shaft 262 would necessarily be transmitted to the output shaft 268 – and the drill bit attached to the output shaft 28 – through the housing section 252 since the housing section 252 holds both the input shaft 262 and the output shaft 268),
wherein the input axis is spaced apart from and parallel with the output axis (as shown in annotated fig. 2), and
wherein the housing transmits the impacts received by the input shaft to the first end of the drill bit (Again, figure 2 shows the input shaft 262 connected to the housing section 252 of the adapter 200 and col. 6, ll. 45 – 49 describes the output shaft 268 as axially fixed to the housing section 252. Thus, impacts – that is, the impact’s energy and momentum – received from the impact drilling machine via an input shaft 262 would necessarily be transmitted to the output shaft 268 – and the drill bit attached to the output shaft 28 – through the housing section 252 since the housing section 252 holds the input shaft 262 and the output shaft 268 axially fixed).
Saur does not explicitly disclose that the second end of the drill bit extends from the housing.
However, Conroy teaches a similar adapter wherein a second end of a drill bit (23, fig. 2) extends from a housing (1, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adapter, as disclosed by Saur, with the second end of the drill bit extending from the housing, as taught by Conroy, with the motivation to minimize the bending moment on the drill bit by reducing the distance of the drill bit extending from the housing.
Regarding claim 11, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 9.
Saur further discloses a gear mechanism (260, fig. 2) positioned within the housing (252, fig. 2), wherein the input shaft is coupled to the drill bit (150, fig. 1 – within a hexagonal inner receptacle 270, fig. 2) via the gear mechanism (via a drive wheel 264 and an output wheel 266).
Regarding claim 18, Saur discloses an adapter for use with a power tool, the adapter comprising:
a housing (252, fig. 2) having an output opening (opening C having the output shaft 268, annotated fig. 2);
an input shaft (262, fig. 2) extending from the housing, the input shaft defining a first end (end D, annotated fig. 2), a second end (end E, annotated fig. 2) opposite the first end, and an input axis (A, annotated fig. 2) extending between the first end and the second end, the first end spaced apart from the housing (Annotated fig. 2 shows end D spaced apart from the housing 252 radially) and configured to be inserted (into receptacle 147, fig. 1) into the power tool (100, fig. 1) such that the input shaft is coupled to a power tool via a chuck (170, fig. 1) of the power tool to receive axial impacts and rotary motion from the power tool (Col. 3, ll. 55 – 63 describes a power tool for an adapter 200 as an impact drilling machine thus when the adapter 200 is attached to the impact drilling machine and the impact mechanism is activated, the adapter 200 would necessarily receive impacts from the impact drilling machine via an input shaft 262); and
a gear mechanism (260, fig. 2) positioned within the housing, the gear mechanism including an input gear (264, fig. 2) coupled to the input shaft and an output gear (266, 268, fig. 2) positioned proximate the output opening (Annotated fig. 2 shows the opening C proximate or close to output wheel 266/output shaft 268), the output gear having a bore (270, fig. 2) configured to receive a drill bit (150, fig. 1 – within a hexagonal inner receptacle 270), the output gear defining an output axis (B, annotated fig. 2) that is spaced apart from and parallel with the input axis (Shown in annotated fig. 2),
wherein the housing is configured to transmit the axial impacts from the power tool to the drill bit (An input shaft 262 and an output shaft 268 are axially fixed to the housing section 252. Thus, impacts received from the impact drilling machine via an input shaft 262 would necessarily be transmitted to the output shaft 268 – and the drill bit attached to the output shaft 28 – through the housing section 252 since the housing section 252 holds both the input shaft 262 and the output shaft 268), and wherein the gear mechanism is configured to transmit rotary motion from the power tool to the drill bit (via a drive wheel 264 and an output wheel 266).
Saur does not explicitly disclose the bore configured to receive a drill bit such that the drill bit extends outwardly from the housing through the output opening.
However, Conroy teaches a similar adapter wherein output wheel/output shaft (64, 3, fig. 2) has a bore configured to receive a drill bit (23, fig. 1) such that the drill bit extends outwardly from a housing (1, fig. 2) through an output opening (an opening in a housing 1 having the output shaft 3, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the output shaft and the bore, as disclosed by Saur, with the bore configured to receive a drill bit such that the drill bit extends outwardly from the housing through the output opening, as taught by Conroy, with the motivation to minimize the bending moment on the drill bit by reducing the distance of the drill bit extending from the housing.
Regarding claim 21, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 9.
Saur discloses the input shaft (262, fig. 2) includes a first portion (the portion of input shaft 262 extending outside the housing 252, fig. 2) extending from the first end (end D, annotated fig. 2) toward the second end (end E, annotated fig. 2) and a second portion (the portion of input shaft 262 extending inside the housing 252, fig. 2) extending from the first portion to second end, the first portion positioned outside the housing and the second portion positioned within the housing, the first portion is longer than the second portion (As shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 18.
Saur discloses the input shaft (262, fig. 2) includes a first portion (the portion of input shaft 262 extending outside the housing 252, fig. 2) extending from the first end (end D, annotated fig. 2) toward the second end (end E, annotated fig. 2) and a second portion (the portion of input shaft 262 extending inside the housing 252, fig. 2) extending from the first portion to second end, the first portion positioned outside the housing and the second portion positioned within the housing, the first portion is longer than the second portion (As shown in fig. 2).
Claims 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saur (US 9,149,872 B2), in view of Conroy (US 2010/0260563 A1), in further view of Tutino (US 8,065,936 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 11.
Saur discloses an input gear (264, fig. 2) coupled to the input shaft (262, fig. 2) and an output gear (266, fig. 2) coupled to the drill bit (150, fig. 1 – within a hexagonal inner receptacle 270, fig. 2).
The modified Saur does not explicitly disclose the gear mechanism includes an intermediate gear meshed with the input gear and an output gear.
However, Tutino teaches a similar adapter having an intermediate gear (295, fig. 2C) meshed with the input gear (285, fig. 2C) and the output gear (290, fig. 2C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gear mechanism, as disclosed by Saur, with the gear mechanism includes an intermediate gear meshed with the input gear and an output gear, as taught by Tutino, with the motivation to have the drill bit rotate in the same direction as a direction of rotation of the power tool (Col. 5, ll. 7 – 11) so that the rotation direction set on the power tool matches the direction of rotation of the tool bit. This lessens confusion and possible mishaps by a user that could occur when the rotation direction set on the power tool is opposite to the direction of rotation of the tool bit – as disclosed in Saur.
Regarding claim 19, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 18.
Saur does not explicitly disclose the gear mechanism includes an intermediate gear meshed with the input gear and an output gear.
However, Tutino teaches a similar adapter having an intermediate gear (295, fig. 2C) meshed with the input gear (285, fig. 2C) and the output gear (290, fig. 2C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gear mechanism, as disclosed by Saur, with the gear mechanism includes an intermediate gear meshed with the input gear and an output gear, as taught by Tutino, with the motivation to have the drill bit rotate in the same direction as the rotation motion of the power tool (Col. 5, ll. 7 – 11) so that the rotation direction set on the power tool matches the direction of rotation of the tool bit. This lessens confusion and possible mishaps by a user that could occur when the rotation direction set on the power tool is opposite to the direction of rotation of the tool bit – as disclosed in Saur.
Regarding claim 20, Saur, as modified by Conroy, discloses the invention as recited in claim 18.
Saur further discloses an output shaft (268, fig. 2) having the drill bit (150, fig. 1 – within a hexagonal inner receptacle 270).
Saur does not explicitly disclose the input shaft rotates in a direction that is the same as a direction of rotation of the drill bit.
However, Tutino teaches a similar adapter wherein the input shaft (230, 287, fig. 2C) rotates in a direction that is the same as a direction of rotation of an output shaft (250, fig. 2C) (Col. 5, ll. 7 – 11) (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Tutino with the invention of Saur, the input shaft 262 would rotate in a direction that is the same direction as a direction of rotation of the output shaft 268 having the drill bit of Saur).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the gear mechanism, as disclosed by Saur, with the input shaft rotates in a direction that is the same as a direction of rotation of the drill bit, as taught by Tutino, with the motivation to have the drill bit rotate in the same direction as the rotation motion of the power tool (Col. 5, ll. 7 – 11) so that the rotation direction set on the power tool matches the direction of rotation of the tool bit. This lessens confusion and possible mishaps by a user that could occur when the rotation direction set on the power tool is opposite to the direction of rotation of the tool bit – as disclosed in Saur.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1 – 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of the rotary hammer is allowable over the prior art because of the combination of method step limitations set forth in the claim and their relationship to one another. Dependent claims 2 – 7 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“an input shaft being axially movable relative to the adapter housing.”
The closest prior art is Saur (US 9,149,872 B2). Saur discloses that the claimed invention except an input shaft being axially fixed to the adapter housing – contrary to the claimed limitation requiring the input shaft being axially movable relative to the adapter housing. The prior art of record does not make obvious the claimed limitation. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 24 November, with respect to the rejection of claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Saur does not disclose the claimed adapter. Specifically, Saur does not disclose that the input shaft 262 is spaced apart from the housing section 252 and is configured to be inserted into the power tool such that the input shaft 262 is coupled to the power tool via a chuck of the power tool to receive impacts from the power tool (Emphasis added by the examiner). Rather, as shown below, the input shaft 262 of Saur is positioned within a locking section 210 of the tool attachment, and the locking section 210 is coupled to the fastening sleeve 170 of the tool 100. See Col. 5, lines 29-34. Therefore, due to the position of the locking section 210, the housing section 252 is positioned too close to the tool 100 when the tool attachment 200 is coupled to the tool 100 to avoid obstructions. See FIG. 4. Moreover, the design of the tool attachment of Saur is specifically intended to be shorter compared to conventional tools having longer overall lengths. Col. 1, lines 39-48. Accordingly, regardless of what Conroy or Tutino or any other reference teaches it would not have been obvious to modify Saur to have the claimed configuration because to do so would increase the overall length of the tool attachment in contravention of the stated intended purpose of Saur. In view of the foregoing, amended independent claim 9 is allowable over the cited art. Dependent claims 11-12 and 2 1-22 are allowable for at least the same reasons as independent claim 9.
The cited art does not teach or suggest the claimed adapter. Saur does not teach the claimed input shaft configuration, as discussed above with respect to independent claim 9 (Emphasis added by the examiner). And, regardless of what Conroy or Tutino or any other reference teaches, it would not have been obvious to modify Saur to have the claimed configuration because to do so would increase the overall length of the tool attachment in contravention of the stated intended purpose of Saur. Id. The arguments presented above with respect to independent claim 9 apply with equal weight to independent claim 18 but are not repeated for the sake of brevity.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
270
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Saur (US 9,149,872 B2
Figure 1)]
In response to applicant’s argument that Saur does not disclose the limitation, “the first end [of the input shaft is] spaced apart from the housing”, even though the first end D of the input shaft 262 is within the locking section 220, the input shaft 262 is still spaced apart from the housing 252 in the radial direction as shown above in annotated figure 2 – and thus satisfies the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that Saur does not disclose the limitation, “an input shaft…configured to be inserted into the power tool such that the input shaft is coupled to a power tool via a chuck of the power tool to receive axial impacts and rotary motion from the power tool”, applicant is incorrect. The input shaft 252 of Saur is configured to be inserted into a receptacle 147 of a power tool 100 such that the input shaft 252 is coupled to a fastening unit/chuck 170 (See figure 1 above). Please note, col. 3, ll. 60 – 63 describes the power tool as an impact drill thus when the adapter 200 is attached to the power tool 100, the input shaft 252 would receive axial impacts and rotary motion from the power tool.
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 DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
16 March 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731