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 .
Response to Amendment/Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-4) in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Note while Claims 5-20 are indicated by Applicant as withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, in light of the amendment filed 7/6/2026, the restriction requirement mailed 5/6/2026 has been withdrawn and Claims 1-20 are pending, drawn to the elected invention, and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/31/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Para. 0062: “currently being supplied” should instead be “current being supplied”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, line 3, “more forward than the motor” would be better recited as “more forward than the motor in a front-rear direction” (this also resolves an objection to “the front-rear direction” on line 5).
-Claim 1, line 9, “the maximum fastening torque” would be better recited as “a maximum fastening torque”.
-Claim 3, line 3, “more forward than the motor” would be better recited as “more forward than the motor in a front-rear direction” (this also resolves an objection to “the front-rear direction” on line 5).
-Claim 3, line 11, “the maximum fastening torque” would be better recited as “a maximum fastening torque”.
-Claim 4, line 2, “the periphery” should instead be “a periphery”.
-Claim 5, line 10, “the periphery” should instead be “a periphery”.
-Claim 5, line 16, “the distance” should instead be “a distance”.
-Claim 6 recites “the dimension” in three instances which would be better recited as “a dimension”.
-Claim 7, “the outer diameter” would be better recited as “an outer diameter”.
-Claim 8, line 6, “the speed-reduction ratio” should instead be “a speed-reduction ratio”.
-Claim 8 recites “the rotational force” multiple times and in each instance would be better recited as “a rotation force”.
-Claim 10, line 2-3 “the speed-reduction ratio of the second planetary-gear mechanism and the speed-reduction ratio of the third planetary-gear mechanism” would be better recited as “a speed-reduction ratio of the second planetary-gear mechanism and a speed-reduction ratio of the third planetary-gear mechanism”.
-Claim 11, with respect to defining the speeds, would be better recited in the form as follows:
“wherein: the speed-reducing mechanism movable to different configurations corresponding to speed “1”, speed “2” and speed “3”, wherein in the configuration of speed “1”, the second-stage portion…”.
-Claim 20, line 15, “the state” should be “a state”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, line 9 recites “the maximum fastening torque of the output part is 160 N·m or more”. However, this limitation renders the claim indefinite as 160N-m or more is an open ended range of values with no upper boundary and therefore since the range is indefinite, the claim limitation is rendered indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(C)(II) for reference.
Regarding Claim 3, line 11 recites “the maximum fastening torque of the output part is 160 N·m or more” which renders the claim indefinite for the same reasoning as outlined above pertaining to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, line 2 recites “a hammer mechanism, which causes the output part to hammer”, however this limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what “to hammer” is intending to encompass as “hammer” is commonly referred to as impacting a structure however, no further structure is outlined.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim appears to define different speed settings such as “at speed “1” means…are being used”, however, “are being used” is viewed as unclear as it is unclear what “being used” is referring to and therefore rendering the claim indefinite. When the tool is operated, each mechanism can be readily viewed as “being used”. Without further details, such a phrase is ambiguous.
Regarding Claims 14-16 and 19-20, each claim recites open ended ranges such as “16 N·m or more”, “900 rpm or more”, “1,000 W or more”, “20 N·m or more”, “600 rpm or more” which render the claim indefinite for the same reasoning as outlined in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from at least one of the claims outlined above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck (US Patent 6,796,921), in view of Roehm (US PGPUB 2021/0370483).
Regarding Claim 1, Buck discloses a driver-drill (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a motor (12), which comprises a stator (note motor 12 is in the form of an electric motor and therefore it can be at least implied that a stator is present in order to drive output shaft 14) and a rotor (associated with output shaft 14);
an output part comprising: a spindle (22), which is disposed more forward than the motor (12) and, in response to application of a rotational force transmitted from the rotor (of 14), is rotated around a rotational axis (of 22) extending in the front-rear direction (via 20; Col 3, lines 46-54), and a chuck (24), which is mounted on the spindle (22; Col 3, lines 49-51); and
a speed-reducing mechanism (transmission 20) configured to rotate the output part (22, 24) at a rotational speed that is lower than the rotational speed of the rotor (of 14) but at a higher torque (Col 3, lines 46-49);
However, Buck does not disclose the driver-drill having a maximum fastening torque of the output part is 160 N m or more.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Roehm which includes a driver drill (101; Figure 1) which is configured to output a maximum fastening torque of 100Nm, 200Nm, or 1000Nm which is set by the user (Para. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the driver drill of Buck to be capable of outputting 160Nm or more of torque as taught by Roehm. By modifying Buck in this manner, a preferred toque range can be readily encompassed by operating the tool as outlined by Roehm (see Para. 0050). Further with such torque capabilities, high torque operations can be readily carried out by the driver-drill of Buck.
Regarding Claim 2, Buck, as modified, discloses the speed-reducing mechanism (20) is a three-stage, variable-speed mechanism (Col 3, lines 58-63).
Regarding Claim 3, Buck discloses a driver-drill (10; Figure 1) comprising:
a motor (12), which comprises a stator (note motor 12 is in the form of an electric motor and therefore it can be at least implied that a stator is present in order to drive output shaft 14) and a rotor (associated with output shaft 14);
an output part comprising: a spindle (22), which is disposed more forward than the motor (12) and, in response to application of a rotational force transmitted from the rotor (of 14), is rotated around a rotational axis (of 22) extending in the front-rear direction (via 20; Col 3, lines 46-54), and a chuck (24), which is mounted on the spindle (22; Col 3, lines 49-51); and
a speed-reducing mechanism (transmission 20) configured to rotate the output part (22, 24) at a rotational speed that is lower than the rotational speed of the rotor (of 14) but at a higher torque (Col 3, lines 46-49);
wherein: the speed-reducing mechanism (20) is a three-stage, variable-speed mechanism (Col 3, lines 58-63); and
However, Buck does not disclose the driver-drill having a maximum fastening torque of the output part is 155 N m or more.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Roehm which includes a driver drill (101; Figure 1) which is configured to output a maximum fastening torque of 100Nm, 200Nm, or 1000Nm which is set by the user (Para. 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the driver drill of Buck to be capable of outputting 160Nm or more of torque as taught by Roehm. By modifying Buck in this manner, a preferred toque range can be readily encompassed by operating the tool as outlined by Roehm (see Para. 0050). Further with such torque capabilities, high torque operations can be readily carried out by the driver-drill of Buck.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck (US Patent 6,796,921), in view of Roehm (US PGPUB 2021/0370483), as applied to Claims 1 and 3, in further view of Li (US PGPUB 2023/0019359).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Buck, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including a housing (13) which covers and encloses the motor (12) and the speed-reducing mechanism (20), wherein a front-end portion of the chuck (24) is disposed more forward than the casing (13 as shown).
However, Buck, as modified, does not readily disclose the housing (13) includes both an enclosing member, which covers the periphery and a rear portion of the motor and a casing, which is connected to a front portion of the enclosing member and houses the speed-reducing mechanism and further Buck fails to disclose an overall length, which is the distance in the front-rear direction between a rear end of the enclosing member and a front end of the chuck, is 210 mm or less.
Attention can be brought to Li which includes another driver-drill (100b; Figure 12) which includes an enclosing member (housing 121b) and a chuck (as shown) wherein an overall length (L3) in the front-rear direction between a rear end of the enclosing member (121b) and a front end of the chuck is 210 mm or less (Para. 0082 outlines length “L3” being “greater than or equal to 110 mm and less than or equal to 140 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the driver-drill of Buck to include a length as taught by Li. By modifying Buck in this manner, the size of the tool allows for convenient operation and extended service lift while allowing for sufficient/reasonable power output as taught by Li (Paras. 0071-0072). Note, Li discloses a configuration of tool with less gear stages than that of Buck but a length well under the claimed 210 mm and therefore, even as modified in view of Li, Buck would comprise a length in the claimed range of 210 mm or less.
With respect to the enclosing member and the casing as claimed, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have configured the housing of Buck to comprise an enclosing member and casing as claimed, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding Claim 7, Buck, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the spindle thereof comprising an outer diameter of 9/16inch. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to embodied the spindle of Buck with a diameter of 9/16 inch because Applicant has not disclosed that such a diameter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the spindle of Buck because in either instance rotational power is readily transferred to the chuck and tool within the chuck.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Buck to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Note MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) which outlines a change in size is generally recognized as being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)."
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck (US Patent 6,796,921), in view of Roehm (US PGPUB 2021/0370483) and Li (US PGPUB 2023/0019359), as applied to Claim 5, and in further view of Araki (US PGPUB 2021/0039231).
Regarding Claim 6, Buck, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a hammer mechanism, which causes the output part to hammer and is silent on the casing houses a power-transmission mechanism, which comprises the speed-reducing mechanism and the hammer mechanism, the dimension of the motor in the front-rear direction is 50 mm, the dimension of the power-transmission mechanism in the front-rear direction is 90 mm, and the dimension of the chuck in the front-rear direction is 50 mm.
First, attention is brought to the teachings of Araki which includes another driver-drill (1; Figure 1) which includes a speed-reducing mechanism (50) and a hammer mechanism (92, 93; Figure 4) for providing a hammering motion to a spindle (26) thereof (Para. 0136, 0143, 0179) wherein the hammering mechanism (92, 93) and the speed-reducing mechanism (50) are housed within a casing (40, 41, 43; Para. 0096).
Use of hammering type mechanisms in drill type tools is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the driver-drill of Buck to include a hammer mechanism as taught by Araki in order to readily, holes can be readily formed in hard brittle workpieces as taught by Araki (Para. 0179).
Further although Buck, as modified by Araki, does not readily disclose the dimension of the motor in the front-rear direction is 50 mm, the dimension of the power-transmission mechanism in the front-rear direction is 90 mm, and the dimension of the chuck in the front-rear direction is 50 mm, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have configured the motor, transmission mechanism and chuck to comprise such lengths because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific lengths provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with Buck, as modified, because such a tool of Buck, as modified, yields a compact yet powerful tool.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Buck to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Note per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), the Federal Circuit 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. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buck (US Patent 6,796,921), in view of Roehm (US PGPUB 2021/0370483), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Silva (US PGPUB 2024/0125346), and alternatively, in view of Xu (US PGPUB 2023/0208241).
Regarding Claim 12, Buck, as modified, discloses wherein the speed-reducing mechanism (20) is a three-stage, variable-speed mechanism that includes a low-speed mode (“low gear speed ratio”), a medium-speed mode (“medium gear speed ratio”), and a high-speed mode (“high gear speed ratio”; Col 3, lines 58-63) but Buck, as modified, does not readily disclose a self-feed bit having a diameter of 65 mm is held by the chuck and in the high-speed mode, the driver-drill is capable of drilling, using the self-feed bit, a hole in Douglas fir having a thickness of 30 mm.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Silva which outlines a self-feed bit (500; Figure 5A-5B) comprising a diameter of 65mm (note 2
9
16
inch is equivalent to 65mm; Para. 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a self-feed bit as taught by Silva in the driver-drill of Buck. By utilizing such a bit, the driver-drill can be readily used to form holes in materials such as wood as taught by Silva (Para. 0003). Note such self-feed bits allow for larger/wider holes to be formed in the material for passing other structures such as pipe therethrough as mentioned by Silva (Para. 0003).
Note with such a self-feed bit being used by the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, in the high-speed mode, the driver-drill is clearly capable of drilling, using the self-feed bit, a hole in Douglas fir having a thickness of 30 mm. Note depending on the condition of the wood, the difficulty/force required to cut through the wood will vary but in light of Applicant’s specification which outlines 16Nm of torque to cut through the wood, the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, comprising such self-feed bit of Silva will readily be capable of such drilling based on the torque output taught by Roehm (see rejection of Claim 1 which outlines torque capabilities up to 1000Nm).
Assuming arguendo that the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, in the high speed mode with the bit of Silva would not be capable of such output torque, in which the Examiner does not concede to, even further attention can be brought to Xu which outlines a driver-drill (100; Figure 1) which comprises a motor (40) which is configured to provide a torque of up to 8Nm (Para. 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a motor with such output torque as taught by Xu in the driver-drill of Buck. By modifying Buck in the manner, the driver-drill can have a greater versatility as it can be applied to operations requiring higher power outputs.
Note with such a motor taught by Xu in combination with the speed reducing mechanism of Buck which outlines a speed ratio of 11.1:1 at the high speed mode (Col 5, lines 44-49) will readily lead to an output torque capable of drilling, using the self-feed bit of Silva, a hole in Douglas fir having a thickness of 30 mm as 8Nm output of the motor as modified when subject to the speed ratio, will readily lead to an increase in torque to 88.8 Nm to maintain the same power output.
Regarding Claim 13, Buck, as modified, discloses a battery-mounting part (at 16); wherein, in the state in which a battery pack having a rated voltage of 40 V and a battery capacity of 8 Ah is mounted on the battery-mounting part, a hole is drillable in Douglas fir using the self-feed bit (taught by Silva) in the high-speed mode (as mentioned above, the driver-drill as modified is clearly capable of such an operation and it is noted that dependent on the wood condition, the power requirements could readily fluctuate). Further note that Xu outlines such power outputs with a 12 V or more battery supply and therefore a 40V battery will readily provide such power output to perform the function as claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the torque of the output part (22, 24) when drilling a hole in Douglas fir using the self-feed bit (taught by Silva) is 16 N m or more (see rejection with respect to Claim 12 above as such driver-drill is clearly capable of performing such function).
Regarding Claim 15, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the rotational speed of the motor when the torque of the output part is 16 Nm is 900 rpm or more (note if the torque of the output part is 16Nm, the high speed gear ratio would yield a 1.44Nm of torque coming from the motor (given the 11.1:1 speed ratio) and dependent on the load being applied and therefore the power required, the speed of the motor will vary but is clearly capable of carrying out such speeds as 900rpm would require about 136 Watts of power which, as modified by Xu (see Para. 0103 thereof), the motor is clearly capable of carrying out; note that Power is equal to the product of torque (Nm) and speed (rpm) divided by 9.55).
Regarding Claim 16, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the rotational speed of the motor when the torque of the output part is 6 N m is 1,600 rpm or more (note if the torque of the output part is 6Nm, the high speed gear ratio would yield a .54Nm of torque coming from the motor (given the 11.1:1 speed ratio) and dependent on the load being applied and therefore the power required, the speed of the motor will vary but is clearly capable of carrying out such speeds as 1600rpm would require about 90 Watts of power which, especially as modified by Xu (see Para. 0103 thereof), the motor is clearly capable of carrying out).
Regarding Claim 17, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the amount by which the rotational speed of the motor is reduced is 600 rpm or less when the torque of the output part increases from 0 N m to 6 N m (again it is noted that the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, is clearly capable of such rotational speed variations based on the load being applied to the tool; i.e. smaller load will lead to less current draw/power required and therefore speed will be reduced less).
Regarding Claim 18, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the electric current input to the motor is 40 A or less when the torque of the output part is 6Nm (again it is noted that the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, is clearly capable of such current draw less than 40 amp when the torque of the output part is 6Nm when a 40V battery is connected thereto based on a load being applied thereto).
Regarding Claim 19, Buck, as modified, discloses in the high-speed mode, the output of the motor is 1,000 W or more when the torque of the output part is 6 N m (note as outlined by Xu, the motor thereof is capable of such power outputs up to 3000W per Para. 0103 and is therefore as incorporated into Buck is clearly capable of such output at the torque as claimed).
Regarding Claim 20, Buck, as modified, discloses a battery-mounting part (mount between 16 and 13)
wherein the speed-reducing mechanism (20) is a three-stage, variable-speed mechanism that includes a low-speed mode (“low gear speed ratio”), a medium-speed mode (“medium gear speed ratio”), and a high-speed mode (“high gear speed ratio”; Col 3, lines 58-63);
However, Buck as modified does not readily disclose a self-feed bit having a diameter of 65 mm is held by the chuck.
Attention is brought to Silva (see rejection of Claim 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a self-feed bit as taught by Silva in the driver-drill of Buck. By utilizing such a bit, the driver-drill can be readily used to form holes in materials such as wood as taught by Silva (Para. 0003). Note such self-feed bits allow for larger/wider holes to be formed in the material for passing other structures such as pipe therethrough as mentioned by Silva (Para. 0003).
Note with such a self-feed bit being used by the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, in the medium-speed mode, the driver-drill is clearly capable of drilling, using the self-feed bit, a hole in Douglas fir having a thickness of 30 mm with the claimed torque of 20 Nm given a battery as claimed. Note depending on the condition of the wood, the difficulty/force required to cut through the wood will vary but in light of Applicant’s specification which outlines 16/20Nm of torque to cut through the wood, the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, comprising such self-feed bit of Silva will readily be capable of such drilling based on the torque output taught by Roehm (see rejection of Claim 1 which outlines torque capabilities up to 1000Nm).
Assuming arguendo that the driver-drill of Buck, as modified, in the medium speed mode with the bit of Silva would not be capable of such output torque, in which the Examiner does not concede to, even further attention can be brought to Xu which outlines a driver-drill (100; Figure 1) which comprises a motor (40) which is configured to provide a torque of up to 8Nm (Para. 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a motor with such output torque as taught by Xu in the driver-drill of Buck. By modifying Buck in the manner, the driver-drill can have a greater versatility as it can be applied to operations requiring higher power outputs.
Note with such a motor taught by Xu in combination with the speed reducing mechanism of Buck which outlines a speed ratio of 33.3:1 at the medium speed mode (Col 5, lines 44-49) will readily lead to an output torque capable of drilling, using the self-feed bit of Silva, a hole in Douglas fir having a thickness of 30 mm as 8Nm output of the motor as taught by Xu when subject to the speed ratio, will readily lead to an increase in torque to 266 Nm to maintain the same power output.
Note Buck, as modified above, in the medium-speed mode, the rotational speed of the motor is 600 rpm or more when the torque of the output part is 20 N m (note if the torque of the output part is 20Nm, the medium speed gear ratio would yield a .6 Nm of torque coming from the motor (given the 33.3:1 speed ratio) and dependent on the load being applied and therefore the power required, the speed of the motor will vary but is clearly capable of carrying out such speeds as 600rpm would require about 38 Watts of power which, as modified by Xu (see Para. 0103 thereof), the motor is clearly capable of carrying out; note that Power is equal to the product of torque (Nm) and speed (rpm) divided by 9.55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 8, Buck, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the speed-reducing mechanism comprises:
a first planetary-gear mechanism (“gear stage I” and “gear stage II” including 38, 40, 44, 48, 52) comprising:
a first-stage portion (38, 40, 44) comprising a plurality of first planet gears (40) disposed around a sun gear (38) rotated by the rotor (14) and a first internal gear (44) disposed around the plurality of first planet gears (40); and
a second-stage portion (48, 52), which has a speed-reduction ratio that differs from the speed-reduction ratio of the first-stage portion and comprises a plurality of second planet gears (48) disposed around a different sun gear and a second internal gear (52) disposed around the plurality of second planet gears;
a second planetary-gear mechanism (“gear stage III” including 54, 56, 58), which is disposed more forward than the first planetary-gear mechanism and is driven by the rotational force of the first planetary-gear mechanism; and
a third planetary-gear mechanism (“gear stage IV” including 74, 76, 80), which is disposed more forward than the second planetary-gear mechanism (54, 56, 58) and is driven by the rotational force of the second planetary-gear mechanism; and
the output part (spindle 22) is rotated by the rotational force of the rotor (14) transmitted via the third planetary-gear mechanism (Col 8, lines 49-52).
However, Buck, as modified, does not disclose the plurality of first and second planetary gears of the first planetary-gear mechanism being disposed around the same sun gear as claimed and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified Buck by modifying the speed-reducing mechanism thereof to comprise such a sun gear engaged with both sets of planetary gears. Note this feature in combination with the features of Claims 1 and 5 render the claim as allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
-Thomas (US PGPUB 2002/0141838) discloses a self-feed bit.
-Kuroyanagi (US PGPUB 2008/0173459), Potter (US PGPUB 2003/0171185), Elger (US PGPUB 2014/0080659), Blum (US PGPUB 2013/0161043), Zhang (US PGPUB 2013/0175066), Nagasaka (US PGPUB 2022/0388074), Niwa (US PGPUB 2016/0380510) disclose a driver-drill with a speed-reducing mechanism.
-Gehret (US PGPUB 2021/0170564) discloses a compact multispeed transmission to reduce length of a transmission mechanism.
-Huggenberger (US PGPUB 2020/0353610) discloses a mode selector configured to move two gears.
-Xu (US PGPUB 2023/0234193) discloses an impact tool configured to output torque of 160Nm or more
-Naoi (US PGPUB 2018/0229350) discloses an attachment for increasing torque output of a driver-drill.
-Kumagai (US PGPUB 2014/0182869) includes another power tool (1; Figure 1) that is configured to output a torque preferably of 160 Nm or greater (Para. 0090) and wherein the tool can be configured as a driver drill by replacing a hammer case with a gear case (Para. 0102).
-Verbrugge (US PGPUB 2014/0131059) discloses a driver-drill comprising a high powered compact BLDC motor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
8/14/2026
Prosecution Insights