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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objections, 112A and 112B rejections, the Examiner notes that despite pages of arguments, not once is the Applicant able to accurately and definitively define any of the cited items. For each of the items, the Applicant cites multiple paragraphs, as well as numerous different correlations in different embodiments, suggesting that the definition of these items shifts depending upon when and where it is used, and in what embodiments it currently resides. This is the very definition of the term indefinite.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) which are not assigned reference numbers in the description:
Movable member;
Drive(ing) element;
Striking element;
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the;
Claim 3 - “said movable member is movable in rotation between its engagement and disengagement positions along an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of said motor”.
Claim 4 - “said movable member is movable in translation between its engagement and disengagement positions along“;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Drive(ing) element of claim 1 – the sole mention of this claim limitation is on page 3 of the specification, with no further detail or attachment to reference numbers in the drawings “ at least one drive element linked to said rotor and inapt to come into contact with said at least one first striking surface of said output shaft”, and “According to the invention, said at least one driving element and said at least one striking element are linked together by means of at least one damping element.”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7, and all subsequent dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “Drive(ing) element” of claim 1 does not provide sufficient detail so as to meet the written description requirement. In depth analysis of the specification shows that the sole mention of this claim limitation is on page 3 of the specification, with no further detail or attachment to reference numbers in the drawings “ at least one drive element linked to said rotor and inapt to come into contact with said at least one first striking surface of said output shaft”, and “According to the invention, said at least one driving element and said at least one striking element are linked together by means of at least one damping element.”. See 112B rejection for further interpretation.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “a striking portion comprising said at least one second striking surface linked together by said damping element” lacks sufficient elucidation in the specification so as to meet the written description requirement. The sole mention of this claim limitation is on page 4 of the specification, with the explicit notation that it is “a possible variant”. No further discussion, detail or drawing is provided regarding this possibility.
Regarding claim 3, the subject matter of the claim is not affirmatively disclosed in the specification. According to paragraph [0032], “According to a possible variant, said movable member is movable in rotation between its engagement and disengagement positions along an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of said motor”. This language indicates to the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is not the invention, but rather a possibility that has not actually come to fruition. The Examiner’s reasoning is further supported by the lack of drawings specific to the claim language of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the subject matter of the claim is not affirmatively disclosed in the specification. According to paragraph [0033], “According to a possible variant, said movable member is movable in translation between its engagement and disengagement positions along an axis parallel to the axis of rotation of said motor.”. This language indicates to the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is not the invention, but rather a possibility that has not actually come to fruition. The Examiner’s reasoning is further supported by the lack of drawings specific to the claim language of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the subject matter of the claim is not affirmatively disclosed in the specification. According to paragraph [0034], “According to a possible variant, said at least one movable member comprises two lateral plates and a central plate secured to said lateral plates by said damping elements, said at least one movable member being rotatably linked to said cage by means of needles parallel to the axis of rotation of said motor, said central plate comprising rooms enabling passage of said needles without contact from one lateral plate to another.”. This language indicates to the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is not the invention, but rather a possibility that has not actually come to fruition. The Examiner’s reasoning is further supported by the lack of drawings specific to the claim language of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the subject matter of the claim is not affirmatively disclosed in the specification. According to paragraph [0035], “According to a possible variant, said damping element comprises two sheets of damping material arranged between said central plate and each of said lateral plates.”. This language indicates to the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is not the invention, but rather a possibility that has not actually come to fruition. The Examiner’s reasoning is further supported by the lack of drawings specific to the claim language of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the subject matter of the claim is not affirmatively disclosed in the specification. According to paragraph [0036], “According to a possible variant, said at least one movable element comprises an axis comprising said portion for connection to said cage and a striking portion comprising said at least one second striking surface linked together by said damping element, said striking portion being not in contact with said cage in any of the positions of said movable member.”. This language indicates to the Examiner that the claimed subject matter is not the invention, but rather a possibility that has not actually come to fruition. The Examiner’s reasoning is further supported by the lack of drawings specific to the claim language of claim 7.
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, and 7 and all subsequent dependent claims 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, the claim limitation “Drive(ing) element” of claim 1 does not provide sufficient detail so as to allow the Examiner detail with which to establish the metes and bounds of this claim element, thereby rendering the claim indefinite. In depth analysis of the specification shows that the sole mention of this claim limitation is on page 3 of the specification, with no further detail or attachment to reference numbers in the drawings “ at least one drive element linked to said rotor and inapt to come into contact with said at least one first striking surface of said output shaft”, and “According to the invention, said at least one driving element and said at least one striking element are linked together by means of at least one damping element.”. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this limitation to include any portion of the device capable of imparting a drive force from the motor to the output shaft.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation “a striking portion comprising said at least one second striking surface linked together by said damping element” lacks sufficient elucidation in the specification and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear as to what is being linked by the damping element, as only one other item is claimed, the second striking surface. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this limitation to mean that the second striking surface in some way is acted upon or acts upon the damping element.
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 1-4, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, US 20060225906 in view of Chen, US 20190375078 (hereinafter referred to as Chen2)..
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses: A discontinuous screwing screwdriving device ([0004], “a power screwdriver, a power drill”) comprising:
a motor ([0004], “motor”) provided with a rotor (a rotor is a fundamental part of an electric motor);
an inertial element (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) able to be driven in rotation by said rotor to store kinetic energy during successive acceleration phases;
an output shaft (Fig. 1, output shaft 3) able to drive an element to be screwed in rotation, said output shaft comprising at least one first striking surface (Fig. 1, second portion 32);
said inertial element (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) comprising:
at least one drive element (Fig. 1, input device 4 (mistakenly labeled 41 in Fig. 1) ) linked to said rotor and inapt to come into contact with said at least one first striking surface of said output shaft;
at least one striking element (Fig. 1, sleeve 11) comprising at least one second striking surface (Fig. 1, substantially triangle opening 11a, multiple columns 11b) adapted to come into contact with said at least one first striking surface of said output shaft during successive impact phases,
wherein said at least one driving element and said at least one striking element are linked together by means of at least one damping element (Figs. 3-4, resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6).
Chen does not explicitly disclose: an impact mechanism;
Chen2 teaches: an impact mechanism (Abstract: “An impact block, a carrier member mating the impact block and an impact tool using the impact block and the mating carrier member are disclosed.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. This alteration represents a simple substitution of one drive shaft mechanism attachment for another that utilizes similar vibration damping technology.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses: said inertial element (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) comprises:
a cage linked (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) in rotation to said rotor;
at least one movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1), comprising said striking element (Fig. 1, sleeve 11) provided with said at least one second striking surface (Fig. 1, substantially triangle opening 11a, multiple columns 11b), said movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1) comprising a portion for connection to said cage (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) secured to said striking element (Fig. 1, sleeve 11) by said damping element (Figs. 3-4, resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6), said movable member being movable relative to said cage between at least:
an engagement position in which said at least one second striking surface (Fig. 1, substantially triangle opening 11a, multiple columns 11b) could come into contact with said at least one first striking surface (Fig. 1, second portion 32) to transmit a torque to said output shaft;
a disengagement position in which said at least one second striking surface cannot come into contact with said at least one first striking surface to enable said inertial element to accelerate freely ([0017] “The output shaft 3 is divided into a first portion 31 received in the first compartment 21a of the mounting seat 2 and a second portion 32 to be extended into the triangle opening 11a. It is to be noted that the second portion 32 of the output shaft 3 is configured to have a shape corresponding to that of the triangle opening 11a of the locking device 1. That is, the shape of the triangle opening 11a is a trajectory scanned by the second portion 32 of the output shaft 3. Therefore, after the second portion 32 of the output shaft 3 is extended into the triangle opening 11a of the locking device 1, the columns 11b are able to selectively lock and release the second portion 32 of the output shaft 3, which is described in Taiwan Patent No. 588680 and detailed description thereof is omitted hereinr.”).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses: said movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1) is movable in rotation between its engagement and disengagement positions ([0017] “lock and release”) along an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of said motor ([0018] With reference to FIGS. 3-6, inside the second chamber 21b, multiple axial cutouts 21c are defined in an inner periphery of the second chamber 21b to correspond to and mate with the cutouts 12 of the locking device 1 such that a first receiving space is defined between the locking device 1 and the mounting seat 2 to receive therein resilient elements 5 and multiple longitudinal cutouts 21d are defined in the inner periphery of the second chamber 21b to correspond to the legs 13 of the locking device 1 such that a second receiving space is defined between the locking device 1 and the mounting seat 2 to receive therein damping elements 6. With the provision of the resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6, when the locking device 1 is rotated relative to the second portion 21b of the mounting seat 2, the impact therebetween is thus cushioned and damped. Preferably, the resilient elements 5 may be springs and the damping elements 6 may be made of rubber.”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses: said movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1) is movable in translation between its engagement and disengagement positions along an axis parallel to an axis of rotation of said motor.
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses: at least one movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1) comprises a shaft which comprises:
said portion for connection to said cage (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) and a striking portion comprising said at least one second striking surface (Fig. 1, substantially triangle opening 11a, multiple columns 11b) said portion for connection and said striking portion being linked together by said damping element (Figs. 3-4, resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6), said striking portion being not in contact with said cage (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) in any of the positions of said movable member.
Regarding claim 8, Chen further discloses: wherein said at least one movable member (Fig. 1, locking device 1) comprises a shaft, said cage comprising:
a portion for securing to said rotor and
a portion for driving said shaft of the at least one moveable member ([0016] “The mounting seat 2 is a hollow column and has a centrally defined hole 21, a first compartment 21a to correspond to and receive therein the output shaft 3 and a second compartment 21b in communication with the first compartment 21a to receive therein the locking device 1.”), said portion for securing and said portion for driving being secured together by said damping element (Figs. 3-4, resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6, see [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses: said inertial element (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) comprises:
a bell rotatably linked to said rotor ([0016] “The mounting seat 2 is a hollow column and has a centrally defined hole 21, a first compartment 21a to correspond to and receive therein the output shaft 3 and a second compartment 21b in communication with the first compartment 21a to receive therein the locking device 1”);
a ring comprising said striking element (Fig. 1, sleeve 11) provided with said at least one second striking surface (Fig. 1, substantially triangle opening 11a, multiple columns 11b),
said ring and said bell being linked together by means of said damping element (Figs. 3-4, resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6, see [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses: said inertial element (Fig. 1, mounting seat 2) is able to rotate in the direction of unscrewing upon completion of each of said impact phases ([0018], “With the provision of the resilient elements 5 and the damping elements 6, when the locking device 1 is rotated relative to the second portion 21b of the mounting seat 2, the impact therebetween is thus cushioned and damped.”).
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses: said damping element is made of an elastomeric material ([0018], “Preferably, the resilient elements 5 may be springs and the damping elements 6 may be made of rubber.”).
Regarding claim 12, Chen further discloses: said elastomeric material belongs to the group comprising consisting of: natural rubbers; synthetic rubbers; neoprene; nitrile ([0018], “Preferably, the resilient elements 5 may be springs and the damping elements 6 may be made of rubber.”).
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights