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 .
Drawings
Although the drawings are sufficiently clear for examination purposes, they are compromised in terms of clarity. That is, due to the submitted format of the drawings, Figs. 1-9 are dithered and in grayscale/halftones, where lines and text intended to be solid, clean, and black appear jagged and grayed.
The drawings are not objected to at this time for clarity. Nevertheless, Examiner suggests submitting clearer drawings for the purpose of proper notice to the general public. Applicant should note the following drawing standards:
Black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1);
Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l);
The clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the last sentence refers to purported merits of the invention. Correction is required. MPEP § 608.01(b). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Chen in view of Duncan
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 117921601 A (“Chen”) in view of US 11554468 B2 (“Duncan”).
In reference to claim 1, Chen et al. discloses an impact tool (Chen et al. Paragraph 6), comprising: a housing (10, Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an electric motor (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) accommodated in the housing and comprising a drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) rotating about an electric motor axis (Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an output shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 9) used for outputting power; a grip (14, Chen et al. Paragraph 38) connected to or formed on the housing; and an impact assembly (40, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (42) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (Chen et al. Paragraph 60) mating with the impact block (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and working in conjunction with the hammer anvil and is struck by it. Chen et al. also discloses the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 3).
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that the maximum radial dimension R1 of the impact block is greater than or equal to 44 mm and less than or equal to 50 mm, and that the tightening torque outputted from the impact tool to a workpiece is greater than or equal to 250 N·m. While Chen et al. does not expressly disclose the radial dimension, R1, (see Chen et al. annotated Figure 3) of the impact block, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radial dimension of Chen et al.’s tool to be greater than or equal to 44 mm and less than or equal to 50 mm since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A). Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (Specification Paragraph 63).
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that L1 is less than or equal to 110 mm.
Duncan et al. discloses an impact tool (10, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 49), comprising: a housing (30, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 52); an electric motor (18, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 50) accommodated in the housing, an output shaft (85, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 15) used for outputting power; and an impact assembly (Duncan et al. Column 13, line 10) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (34, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 59) mating with the impact block and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil. Duncan et al. continues to disclose the properties of the impact tool such as the tightening torque that is outputted (Duncan et al. Column 15, lines 61-63) from the impact tool to a workpiece is greater than or equal to 250 N·m (Duncan et al. Column 1, lines 30-32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the torque that is outputted from the impact tool to a workpiece be greater than or equal to 250 N·m as taught by Duncan et al. to create an impact tool that can loosen or tighten bolts with ease.
Duncan et al. discloses the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (Duncan et al. Column 11, lines 19-20 and see annotated Duncan et al. Figure 3). Duncan et al. continues to disclose that in some embodiments, that L1 is 203 mm (Duncan et al. Column 11, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. to be less than or equal to 110 mm to make the tool compact and easy to operate since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.(MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
898
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
828
1182
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1, further comprising a transmission assembly (50, Chen et al. Paragraph 42) used for transmitting power outputted from the drive shaft to the impact assembly and disposed between the electric motor and the impact assembly (Chen et al. Paragraph 3).
Duncan et al. discloses planet gears (88, Duncan et al. Column 12, lines 20-33) which are part of its impact mechanism to transmit power outputted from the motor output shaft to the impact mechanism.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a transmission assembly in an impact tool, since it was known in the art that utilizing a set of planetary gears can convert the motor’s high speed into high rotational torque.
In reference to claim 4, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1 but does not disclose of the impact block’s maximum impact frequency.
Duncan et al. discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their maximum impact frequency (see annotated Duncan et al., Table 1). Duncan et al. discloses Table 1 which teaches that the maximum impact frequency of an impact driver with a 5 Ah battery pack is 2,858 impacts per minute which is greater than 2500 bpm and less than 3900 bpm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have a maximum impact frequency between 2500 bpm and 3900 bpm since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating the maximum impact frequency “may” be within the claimed range (Specification Paragraph 70).
PNG
media_image3.png
404
1296
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 5, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 4 but does not disclose of the impact block’s mass. Duncan et al. discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s mass (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). As noted in the analysis of claim 1, the impact hammer of Chen et al. and Duncan et al. is examined as the impact block. Table 2 shows that the mass of the impact block is greater than 110g for the impact tools listed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have the mass of the impact block be greater than 110g since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
1202
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 6, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 4 but does not disclose of the impact block’s mass. Duncan et al. discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s mass (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). As noted in the analysis of claim 1, the impact hammer of Chen et al. and Duncan et al. is examined as the impact block. Table 2 shows that the mass of the impact block is greater than 150g for the impact tools listed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have the mass of the impact block be greater than 150g since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
In reference to claim 7, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 4 but does not disclose about the impact block’s moment of inertia. Duncan et al. discloses that the impact block’s moment of inertia affects the impact tool’s performance ratio (Duncan et al, Column 3, lines 20-26) and discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s moment of inertia (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have the ratio of a moment of inertia of the impact block to the tightening torque outputted from the impact tool is greater than or equal to 1.5×10-4 kg·mm/N and less than or equal to 1.9×10-4 kg·mm/N since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
In reference to claim 8, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1, wherein the electric motor (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) comprises a stator assembly (Chen et al. Paragraph 59) and a rotor assembly (Chen et al. Paragraph 59) rotates about the electric motor axis (101, Chen et al. Paragraph 59), and the drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) is formed in or connected to the rotor assembly.
Duncan et al. discloses wherein the electric motor (18, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 4) comprises a stator assembly (76, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 5) and a rotor assembly (80, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 6) rotates about the electric motor axis (84, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a stator and rotor assembly in an impact tool since it was known in the art that the stator generates a rotating magnetic field when current flows through its coils and this magnetic field interacts with the rotor, which rotates in response, producing the force and torque needed to drive the motor's shaft.
In reference to claim 9, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 8, along with the maximum radial dimension, R1, of the impact block (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 3) and the maximum radial dimension, R2, of the electric motor (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 3). Chen et al., however, does not disclose that the ratio of the maximum radial dimension R1 of the impact block to a maximum radial dimension R2 of the electric motor is greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2.
Duncan et al. discloses the maximum radial dimension, R1, of the impact block (see annotated Duncan et al. Figure 3) and the maximum radial dimension, R2, of the electric motor (see annotated Duncan et al. Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified with the teachings of Duncan et al., to have the ratio of the maximum radial dimension R1 of the impact block to a maximum radial dimension R2 of the electric motor is greater than or equal to 0.8 and less than or equal to 1.2 in order to make the tool compact and easy to operate since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 10, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 8, wherein the drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) is provided, along a direction of the electric motor axis (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) , with a front bearing (Chen et al. Paragraph 59), the stator assembly (Chen et al. Paragraph 59), and the impact assembly comprises a main shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 32) supporting the impact block (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) and driven to rotate by the drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8). The examiner notes that the first bearing (61) of Chen et al. is examined as the front bearing and that the hammer (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and working in conjunction with the hammer anvil and is struck by it.
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that the front bearing is disposed in front of the stator assembly but rather it is partially located in the through hole of the stator core.
Duncan et al. discloses a front bearing (96, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 31), the stator assembly (76, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 5) and the impact assembly (Duncan et al. Column 13, line 10) with the impact block (Duncan et al. Column 13, lines 10-12). The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified with the teachings of Duncan et al. to produce sufficient torque, and place the front bearing in front of the stator assembly to help provide support and maintain alignment since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part C).
In reference to claim 11, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 10 along with a front bearing (Chen et al. Paragraph 59), a main shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 32) and that the main shaft is provided with a main shaft bearing supporting rotation of the main shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 32).
Chen et al., however does not disclose that the main shaft bearing at least partially overlaps with the front bearing in the direction of the electric motor axis, and a length of an overlapping portion is greater than 0 mm and less than 4 mm. Chen et al. does disclose that because the internal gear ring is no longer fixed to the housing, the main shaft bearing can be directly set on the outer periphery of the internal gear ring. There is no need to set an assembly section at the rear end of the main shaft for assembling the main shaft bearing, thereby shortening the length of the main shaft structure and reducing the overall axial dimension of the impact tool, making it easier for users to operate (Chen et al. Paragraph 32).
Duncan et al. discloses a front bearing (96, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 31), and a variety of other bearings such as one that rotatably supports the anvil (Duncan et al. Column 20, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by the teachings of Duncan et al. to produce sufficient torque, and rearrange the placement of the main shaft bearing of to improve the compactness of the impact tool since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part C). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. and have length of an overlapping portion is greater than 0 mm and less than 4 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 12, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 11 along with a distance L2 (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 2) between a front-end surface of the main shaft bearing (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 2) and a front-end surface of the front bearing (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 2). Chen et al., however, does not disclose that L2 is less than or equal to 5 mm along a direction of an electric motor axis.
Duncan et al. discloses a front bearing (96, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by the teachings of Duncan et al. to produce sufficient torque, and rearrange the placement of the main shaft bearing of to improve the compactness of the impact tool since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section VI, Part C). It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. and have L2 be less than or equal to 5 mm along a direction of an electric motor axis to improve the compactness of the tool as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
PNG
media_image5.png
535
627
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 13, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 3, wherein the impact assembly (40, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) further comprises an elastic member (43, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) disposed between the impact block (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) and the transmission assembly (50, Chen et al. Paragraph 42) , the elastic member (43, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) is capable of becoming shorter or longer between the impact block and the transmission assembly so that the impact block is driven to be displaced along a deformation direction of the elastic member. Chen et al., however, does not disclose that the elastic coefficient K of the elastic member is greater than or equal to 10 N/mm and less than or equal to 20 N/mm.
Duncan et al., discloses wherein the impact assembly (32, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 16) further comprises an elastic member (240, Duncan et al. Column 21, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by the teachings of Duncan et al. to produce sufficient torque, and have the elastic coefficient K of the elastic member is greater than or equal to 10 N/mm and less than or equal to 20 N/mm to provide a force for the impact block and cause it to approach the anvil as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05, Section I)
In reference to claim 14, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1, as well as battery pack (Chen et al. paragraph 58) and electric motor (Chen et al. Paragraph 8). Chen et al., however does not disclose that the nominal voltage of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 4 V and less than or equal to 80 V.
Duncan et al. discloses a battery pack (Duncan et al. Column 24, lines 15-20) powering at least the electric motor (Duncan et al. Column 24, lines 15-20), wherein a nominal voltage of the battery pack is greater than or equal to 4 V and less than or equal to 80 V (Duncan et al. Column 24, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the battery voltage between 4 V and 80 V as taught by Duncan et al. to create an impact tool that has enough electric power to loosen or tighten bolts with ease.
In reference to claim 15, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1, further comprising a fan (Chen et al. Paragraph 68) supported by the drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 68). Chen et al. does not disclose that the dimension of the fan along the electric motor axis is greater than or equal to 2 mm and less than or equal to 3.5 mm.
Duncan et al. discloses the impact tool as described in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a fan in an impact tool, since it was known in the art that a fan can cool internal components and prevent overheating during heavy use.
It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by the teachings of Duncan et al. to produce sufficient torque, and have the dimension of the fan along the electric motor axis is greater than or equal to 2 mm and less than or equal to 3.5 mm to improve the tool’s compactness since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 16, Chen et al. discloses an impact tool (Chen et al. Paragraph 6), comprising: a housing (Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an electric motor (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) accommodated in the housing and comprising a drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) rotating about an electric motor axis (Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an output shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 9) used for outputting power; a grip (Chen et al. Paragraph 38) connected to or formed on the housing; and an impact assembly (40, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (42) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (Chen et al. Paragraph 60) mating with the impact block (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and working in conjunction with the hammer anvil and is struck by it.
Chen et al. continues to disclose the impact tool, further comprising a transmission assembly (50, Chen et al. Paragraph 42) used for transmitting power outputted from the drive shaft to the impact assembly and disposed between the electric motor and the impact assembly (Chen et al. Paragraph 3). Chen et al. also discloses the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 3).
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that L1 is less than or equal to 110 mm.
Duncan et al. discloses an impact tool (10, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 49), comprising: a housing (30, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 52); an electric motor (18, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 50) accommodated in the housing, an output shaft (85, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 15) used for outputting power; and an impact assembly (Duncan et al. Column 13, line 10) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (34, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 59) mating with the impact block and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil. Duncan et al. continues to disclose the properties of the impact tool such as the tightening torque that is outputted (Duncan et al. Column 15, lines 61-63) from the impact tool to a workpiece is greater than or equal to 250 N·m (Duncan et al. Column 1, lines 30-32) and that the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (Duncan et al. Column 11, lines 19-20 and see annotated Duncan et al. Figure 3). Duncan et al. continues to disclose that in some embodiments, that L1 is 203 mm (Duncan et al. Column 11, line 22)
In reference to the claimed outputted torque, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the torque that is outputted from the impact tool to a workpiece be greater than or equal to 250 N·m as taught by Duncan et al. to create an impact tool that can loosen or tighten bolts with ease.
In reference to the length of L1, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. to be less than or equal to 110 mm to make the tool compact and easy to operate since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.(MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 17, Chen et al. discloses an impact tool (Chen et al. Paragraph 6), comprising: a housing (Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an electric motor (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) accommodated in the housing and comprising a drive shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 8) rotating about an electric motor axis (Chen et al. Paragraph 8); an output shaft (Chen et al. Paragraph 9) used for outputting power; a grip (Chen et al. Paragraph 38) connected to or formed on the housing; and an impact assembly (40, Chen et al. Paragraph 41) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (42) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (Chen et al. Paragraph 60) mating with the impact block (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (42, Chen et al. Paragraph 60) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and working in conjunction with the hammer anvil and is struck by it. Chen et al. also discloses the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (see annotated Chen et al. Figure 3).
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that the tightening torque outputted from the impact tool to a workpiece is greater than or equal to 250 N·m, the impact block’s mass and of the impact block’s maximum impact frequency.
Chen et al., however, does not disclose that L1 is less than or equal to 110 mm.
Duncan et al. discloses an impact tool (10, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 49), comprising: a housing (30, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 52); an electric motor (18, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 50) accommodated in the housing, an output shaft (85, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 15) used for outputting power; and an impact assembly (Duncan et al. Column 13, line 10) used for providing an impact force for the output shaft and comprising an impact block (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) driven by the electric motor and a hammer anvil (34, Duncan et al. Column 10, line 59) mating with the impact block and impacted by the impact block. The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil. Duncan et al. continues to disclose the properties of the impact tool such as the tightening torque that is outputted (Duncan et al. Column 15, lines 61-63) from the impact tool to a workpiece is greater than or equal to 250 N·m (Duncan et al. Column 1, lines 30-32). Duncan et al., also discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s mass (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). As noted in the analysis of claim 1, the impact hammer of Chen et al. and Duncan et al. is examined as the impact block. Table 2 shows that the mass of the impact block is greater than 110g for the impact tools listed. Duncan et al. discloses another table to compare the different types of impact tools and their maximum impact frequency (see annotated Duncan et al., Table 1). Table 1 shows that the maximum impact frequency of an impact driver with a 5 Ah battery pack is 2,858 impacts per minute which is greater than 2500 bpm and less than 3900 bpm.
In reference to the claimed outputted torque, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the torque that is outputted from the impact tool to a workpiece be greater than or equal to 250 N·m as taught by Duncan et al. to create an impact tool that can loosen or tighten bolts with ease.
In reference to the claimed mass of the impact block, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have the mass of the impact block be greater than 110g since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
In reference to the claimed maximum impact frequency, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. with the teachings of Duncan et al. to have a maximum impact frequency between 2500 bpm and 3900 bpm since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating the maximum impact frequency “may” be within the claimed range (Specification Paragraph 70).
Duncan et al. discloses the length, L1, from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft (Duncan et al. Column 11, lines 19-20 and see annotated Duncan et al. Figure 3). Duncan et al. continues to disclose that in some embodiments, that L1 is 203 mm (Duncan et al. Column 11, line 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. to be less than or equal to 110 mm to make the tool compact and easy to operate since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.(MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 18, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 17 but does not disclose of the impact block’s mass.
Duncan et al. discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s mass (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). As noted in the analysis of claim 1, the impact hammer of Chen et al. and Duncan et al. is examined as the impact block. Table 2 shows that the mass of the impact block is greater than 150g for the impact tools listed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Duncan et al. to have the mass of the impact block be greater than 150g since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
In reference to claim 19, Chen et al., as modified, discloses the impact tool as described in claim 17 but does not disclose about the impact block’s moment of inertia. Duncan et al. discloses that the impact block’s moment of inertia affects the impact tool’s performance ratio (Duncan et al, Column 3, lines 20-26) and discloses a table to compare the different types of impact tools and their impact block’s moment of inertia (see annotated Duncan et al. Table 2). The examiner notes that the hammer (104, Duncan et al. Column 12, line 47) is interpreted as the impact block as it has the same function of the impact block, being part of the impact assembly and with the hammer anvil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Chen et al. as modified by Duncan et al. to have the ratio of a moment of inertia of the impact block to the tightening torque outputted from the impact tool is greater than or equal to 1.5×10-4 kg·mm/N and less than or equal to 1.9×10-4 kg·mm/N since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 Section I).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Claims – Claims 2 and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-19 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the § 103 rejection (Reply at 7-9). With respect to the recited “radial dimension” of the impact block and “length” of the rear end of the housing to the front end of the output shaft, the obviousness question is not whether an invention was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact value or range if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”). As set forth in the § 103 rejection of claim 1 above, Applicant’s disclosure does not teach a criticality of the values and ranges recited for the “radial dimension and “length” limitations. Accordingly, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
