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 18 May 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 4 – 10 and 14 – 20 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected because of the following informality:
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the limitation, “the piston the anvil”, should read, “the piston and the anvil”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumaier (US 4,732,218 A) in view of Frenzel (US 5,975,217 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
716
477
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)]
PNG
media_image3.png
727
425
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Frenzel (US 5,975,217 A) – Annotated fig. 2)]
Regarding claim 1, Neumaier discloses a rotary hammer adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit, the rotary hammer comprising:
a housing (1, fig. 1);
a motor supported by the housing (21, 31, fig. 1);
a spindle (5, fig. 1) defining a spindle axis (axis A, annotated fig. 1) and coupled to the motor for receiving torque from the motor to cause causing the spindle to rotate;
a reciprocation mechanism including a piston (16, fig. 1) disposed within the spindle and operable to create a variable pressure air spring within the spindle (Col. 3, l. 68 – col. 4, l. 4);
an anvil (15, fig. 1) received within the spindle for reciprocation in response to the pressure of the air spring, the anvil imparting axial impacts to the tool bit (4, fig. 1) (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 8); and
a bit retention assembly (3, fig. 1) for securing the tool bit to the spindle; and
a port (17, fig. 1).
Neumaier does not disclose the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis, or the port being defined in the piston; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring.
However, Frenzel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a port (10, 11, fig. 2), being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle (9, fig. 2) and arranged in a row along the spindle axis (axis A, annotated fig. 2) (Annotated figure 2 shows two air passages/ports 10, 11 defined in a guide tube 9 and arranged in a row along a spindle axis A); and a closure member (13, fig. 2) that is movable relative to the port between a first position (As shown in figure 4), in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between a piston and the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring (Col. 4, ll. 34 – 42), and a second position (As shown in figure 2), in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring (Col. 4, ll. 10 – 18).
Frenzel is evidence that having the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the rotary hammer of Neumaier with the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring, as taught by Frenzel. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have made such a modification with the motivation to allow a user to manually vary the pressure of the air spring in order to vary the velocity of anvil according to the needs of the user and the specific operation being performed by the rotary hammer.
Regarding claim 11, Neumaier discloses a rotary hammer adapted to impart axial impacts to a tool bit, the rotary hammer comprising:
a housing (1, fig. 1);
a motor supported by the housing (21, 31, fig. 1);
a spindle (5, fig. 1) defining a spindle axis (axis A, annotated fig. 1) and coupled to the motor for receiving torque from the motor to cause causing the spindle to rotate;
a reciprocation mechanism (16, 20, 25, fig. 1) operable to create a variable pressure air spring within the spindle, the reciprocation mechanism including
a piston (16, fig. 1) disposed within the spindle,
a crank gear (25, fig. 1) receiving torque from the motor, and
a crank shaft (20, fig. 1) configured to reciprocate the piston within the spindle to create the variable pressure air spring in response to receiving torque from the crank gear (Col. 3, l. 68 – col. 4, l. 4 and col. 4, ll. 14 – 28);
an anvil (15, fig. 1) received within the spindle for reciprocation in response to the pressure of the air spring, the anvil imparting axial impacts to the tool bit (4, fig. 1) (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 8);
a bit retention assembly (3, fig. 1) for securing the tool bit to the spindle; and
a port (17, fig. 1).
Neumaier does not disclose the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis, or the port being defined in the piston; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring.
However, Frenzel, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a port (10, 11, fig. 2), being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle (9, fig. 2) and arranged in a row along the spindle axis (axis A, annotated fig. 2) (Annotated figure 2 shows two air passages/ports 10, 11 defined in a guide tube 9 and arranged in a row along a spindle axis A); and a closure member (13, fig. 2) that is movable relative to the port between a first position (As shown in figure 4), in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between a piston and the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring (Col. 4, ll. 34 – 42), and a second position (As shown in figure 2), in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring (Col. 4, ll. 10 – 18).
Frenzel is evidence that having the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the rotary hammer of Neumaier with the port being a plurality of ports defined in the spindle and arranged in a row along the spindle axis; and a closure member that is movable relative to the port between a first position, in which the closure member seals the port and an interior volume of the spindle between the piston the anvil is sealed to develop the variable pressure air spring, and a second position, in which the closure member is spaced apart from the port and the interior volume of the spindle between the piston and the anvil is unsealed and unable to develop the variable pressure air spring, as taught by Frenzel. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have made such a modification with the motivation to allow a user to manually vary the pressure of the air spring in order to vary the velocity of anvil according to the needs of the user and the specific operation being performed by the rotary hammer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 3 and 12 – 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 12: the subject matter of the rotary hammer is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 3 and 13 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 2 and 12, respectively.
Claims 2 and 12 include the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1 and 11, respectively, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claims 2 and 12 are neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
"closure member is a coupler having a leg that selectively covers the ports when the coupler is in the first position"
The closest art is Neumaier (US 4,732,218 A) in view of Frenzel (US 5,975,217 A). Kurz discloses the invention as recited in claims 1 and 11 and Frenzel teaches a plurality of ports arranged in a row along a length of the spindle recited in claims 1 and 11. However, Frenzel teaches the closure member as a cylinder and does not comprise the structure of a leg that selectively covers the ports when the coupler is in the first position as required by claims 2 and 12. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious this 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 18 May 2026, with respect to the claim interpretation of the claim elements, “a bit retention assembly” and “a closure member”, under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of the claim elements, “a bit retention assembly” and “a closure member”, under 35 USC 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 18 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Neumaier (US 4,732,218 A) in view of Frenzel (US 5,975,217 A).
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
22 July 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights