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 .
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 2, 13-14 and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear what the term “spiral/spiraled” in claims 2, 13 and 17 are used by the claim. The accepted meaning of a spiral is “winding in a continuous and gradually widening (or tightening) curve, either around a central point on a flat plane or about an axis so as to form a cone.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The elements referred to as spiraling are shown in the figures as arranged radially/surrounding a central/rotational axis. There doesn’t appear to be a widening or tightening of the “spiral” elements. As such, for examination purposes, “spiral” elements are being treated as radially arranged.
Claim 14 is dependent upon claim 13, and is similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanke (US PG Pub No. 20010030051).
In regards to claim 1, Hanke discloses
a bit holder for retaining a tool bit having a groove, the bit holder comprising:
a body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3; fig. 1-15) defining a bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1; [0011], [0042] and [0047]) for receiving the tool bit, the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) including a first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) corresponding to an outer profile of the tool bit;
[0011]:… For example, the spindle may be provided with flats on its periphery, or it may have a polygonal, e.g. hexagonal, cross-section, or it may have a number of axially extending splines, and, whatever form of spindle, the bore of the locking ring will have a complementary shape.
PNG
media_image1.png
390
944
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a collar (grip ring 12, fig. 1-2, 4-9; [0043]-[0046], [0048]-[0051]) movably coupled to the body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3); and
a lock ring (locking ring 4, fig. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) supported within the collar (grip ring 12), the lock ring (locking ring 4) including an opening having a second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1),
PNG
media_image2.png
260
775
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is rotatable between a locked position ([0012]) in which the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) is misaligned with the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) and an unlocked position ([0012]) in which the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) is aligned with the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape),
[0012] The locking ring and the grip ring may be so configured that at least part of the grip ring will abut the locking ring in the axial direction and maintain it in engagement with the aperture in the normal operating position, but when the grip ring has been rotated to a certain extent, the abutting parts move away from one another to allow axial movement of the locking ring, either freely or against a bias applied to the locking ring. …the grip ring may be rotated about the spindle from the normal operating position in which it holds the locking ring in engagement with the housing aperture and thereby locks the spindle in one position with respect to the hammer, to the second position (without so far any rotation of the locking ring) in which the locking ring is still in engagement with the aperture, but is not held in engagement with the aperture by the grip ring.
wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is capable of being rotated from the locked position toward the unlocked position in response to a rear end of the tool bit engaging the lock ring (locking ring 4).
Examiner’s Note:
“Aligned” is interpreted as “in correct or appropriate relative positions.” When the lock ring is in its locked position, the arrangement will be treated as “misaligned”, and when the lock ring is in the unlocked position, the arrangement will be treated as “aligned”, wherein in proper alignment allows adjustment, and “misalignment” prevents the spindle from moving and keeps the bit in place.
The limitation of being configured to rotate from “locked position toward the unlocked position in response to a rear end of the tool bit engaging the lock ring” is an intended use limitation. As Hanke discloses structure that anticipates the claim, its locking ring is capable of being rotated when a tool bit is brought into engagement with the lock ring.
In regards to claim 2, Hanke discloses
the bit holder of claim 1, wherein the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) defines a spiral spline.
Examiner’s Note:
In light of the 112(b) and applicant’s specification, “spiral” is understood as a radial arrangement.
In regards to claim 3, Hanke discloses
the bit holder of claim 1, further comprising a spring (coil spring 24, fig. 1 and 7; [0044]-[0046]. [0050]-[0051]) configured to bias the lock ring (locking ring 4) toward the locked position ([0012]).
[0012] The locking ring ..the abutting parts move away from one another to allow axial movement of the locking ring, either freely or against a bias applied to the locking ring.
In regards to claim 4, Hanke discloses
the bit holder of claim 1, wherein the collar (grip ring 12) is movable along the body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3) to move the lock ring (locking ring 4) toward the unlocked position ([0012]).
In regards to claim 5, Hanke discloses
the bit holder of claim 1, wherein the rear end of the tool bit is insertable into the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) when the lock ring (locking ring 4) is in the unlocked position ([0012]), and
wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is movable from the unlocked position ([0012]) toward the locked position ([0012]) when the groove of the tool bit aligns with the lock ring (locking ring 4) to retain the tool bit within the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1).
Examiner’s Note:
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, Hanke does not need to explicitly disclose “the rear end of the tool bit is insertable into the bore…when the groove of the tool bit aligns with the lock ring,” though its disclosure does present the structure and configuration capable of fulfilling the intended use limitation.
Please note, further claims with limitations pertaining to the “bit”, “bit surface” are treated similarly in that the tool is configured to engage, lock, and enable unlocking the bit within the spindle head.
In regards to claim 6, Hanke discloses
the bit holder of claim 5, wherein insertion of the tool bit into the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) and retention of the tool bit by the lock ring (locking ring 4) can be accomplished in a single motion with one hand.
Examiner’s Note: The limitation of “insertion of the tool bit…and retention of the tool bit…can be accomplished in a single motion with one hand” is considered an intended use limitation. It would partially be dependent upon the user’s dexterity and hand size. Hanke discloses a tool with lock ring that is adjustable with one hand, and the same hand could be used for insertion of the tool bit.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanke in view of Saur et al (US PG Pub No. 20130093149).
In regards to claim 7, Hanke discloses
a bit holder for selectively coupling a tool bit to the anvil, the bit holder including
a body (at least housing 1, spindle 2 and tool holder 3) defining a bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) for receiving the tool bit, the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) including a first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) corresponding to an outer profile of the tool bit,
a collar (grip ring 12) movably coupled to the body (at least housing 1, spindle 2 and tool holder 3), and a lock ring (locking ring 4) supported within the collar (grip ring 12), the lock ring (locking ring 4) including an opening having a second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1),
wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is rotatable between a locked position ([0012]) in which the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) is misaligned with the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape), and
an unlocked position ([0012]) in which the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) is aligned with the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape),
wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is rotatable ([0012]) from the locked position toward the unlocked position in response to a rear end of the tool bit engaging the lock ring (locking ring 4).
Hanke fails to disclose “a rotary impact tool comprising: a housing; an electric motor supported in the housing; and a drive assembly for converting a continuous torque input from the motor to consecutive rotational impacts upon a workpiece, the drive assembly including an anvil having” a bit holder.
Saur discloses a handheld machine tool (cordless driver 100) using either power cord ([0030]) or battery (190), a motor (180) that drives shaft (120), with tool holder (140).
Both Hanke and Saur are analogous to the claimed invention in being in the same field of endeavor, apparatus with connections for bit retention in tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the bit retention mechanism of Hanke with Saur, give finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
In regards to claim 8, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 7, wherein the body (at least housing 1, spindle 2 and tool holder 3) includes a plurality of L-shaped grooves (recesses of teeth 10; fig. 3 - ann. 1; [0042]-[0043], [0045]-[0047], [0051]-[0052]).
PNG
media_image3.png
306
774
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 9, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 8, wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) includes a plurality of posts (teeth 8; fig. 3 - ann. 1; [0042]-[0043], [0045]-[0047], [0051]-[0052]) radially extending from the lock ring (locking ring 4) and received within the L-shaped grooves (recesses of teeth 10).
In regards to claim 10, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 9, wherein the lock ring (locking ring 4) is biased toward the locked position ([0012]), in which the posts (teeth 8) are constrained from moving radially (as the ring is locked) with respect to the L- shaped grooves (recesses of teeth 10).
In regards to claim 11, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 10, wherein while in the unlocked position ([0012]), the posts (teeth 8) are configured to move radially (as the ring is unlocked) with respect to the L-shaped grooves (recesses of teeth 10).
In regards to claim 12, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 7, wherein one of the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) and the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) defines a hexagonal cross-section and extends in an axial direction (both bore and locking ring have depth, therein extend in an axial direction).
In regards to claim 13, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 12, wherein the other one of the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) and the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) defines a hexagonal cross-section and extends in a[[n]] spiral direction offset relative to the axial direction (both have a depth and radial thickness, therein extend in an spiral direction as understood under the interpretation established for the claimed term “spiral”).
In regards to claim 14, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 13, wherein the other one of the first plurality of edges ([0011] - edges from hexagonal shape) and the second plurality of edges (see fig. 6 - ann. 1) are the second plurality of edge positioned on the lock ring (locking ring 4), such that the lock ring (locking ring 4) is configured to rotate ([0012]) relative to the body (at least housing 1, spindle 2 and tool holder 3) and to the tool bit.
In regards to claim 15, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 7, wherein insertion of the tool bit into the bore (see fig. 1/4 - ann. 1) and retention of the tool bit by the lock ring (locking ring 4) can be accomplished in a single motion with one hand (see examiner’s note for claim 6).
In regards to claim 16, Hanke discloses
a bit holder supported by the impact mechanism and including a lock ring (locking ring 4) configured to selectively retain a tool bit to the impact mechanism,
the tool bit having a non-hexagonal groove portion formed in a hexagonal body portion, and the lock ring (locking ring 4) including a hexagonal spline (see fig. 6), the lock ring (locking ring 4) rotatable relative to the tool bit in response to axial movement of the tool bit, during which the hexagonal body portion engages the hexagonal spline (see fig. 6).
Hanke fails to disclose “a rotary impact tool comprising: a housing; an electric motor supported in the housing; an impact mechanism including an anvil and a hammer configured to repeatedly strike the anvil”
Saur discloses a handheld machine tool (cordless driver 100) with tool housing (105), using either power cord ([0030]) or battery (190), a motor (180) that drives shaft (120), with tool holder (140) at the end of the impact driver/drill ([0030]) which a skilled artisan would recognize possess and anvil to drive the workpiece.
Both Hanke and Saur are analogous to the claimed invention in being in the same field of endeavor, apparatus with connections for bit retention in tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have combined the bit retention mechanism of Hanke with Saur, give finding that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
Pursuant of MPEP 2115, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69. As such, Hanke as modified does not need to explicitly disclose the tool bit having “a non-hexagonal groove portion formed in a hexagonal body portion,” though its disclosure does present the structure and configuration capable of engaging a tool bit of this type and fulfilling the intended use limitation.
Please note, further claims with limitations pertaining to the “bit”, “bit surface” are treated similarly in that the tool is configured to engage, lock, and enable unlocking the bit within the spindle head.
In regards to claim 17, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 16, wherein the hexagonal spline (see fig. 6) is defined by a plurality of spiraled edges (edges arranged radially; see fig. 6 – ann. 1).
In regards to claim 18, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 16, wherein the bit holder is positionable in a locked position ([0012]), in which the hexagonal spline (see fig. 6) is misaligned with the hexagonal body portion and positioned in the non-hexagonal groove, and in which the lock ring (locking ring 4) is constrained against rotation relative to the tool bit, and positionable in an unlocked position ([0012]), in which the lock ring (locking ring 4) is allowed to rotate relative to the tool bit.
In regards to claim 19, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 16, wherein the bit holder further includes
a body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3) and
a collar (grip ring 12) moveably coupled to the body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3), the collar (grip ring 12) being movable along the body (at least spindle 2 and tool holder 3) to disengage the lock ring (locking ring 4), permitting the lock ring (locking ring 4) to rotate relative to the tool bit.
In regards to claim 20, Hanke as modified discloses
the rotary impact tool of claim 19, wherein insertion of the tool bit into the bit holder and retention of the tool bit by the lock ring (locking ring 4) can be accomplished in a single motion with one hand (see examiner’s note for claim 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723