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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/18/2024, including foreign references and non-patent literatures submitted with the IDS for the parent application 17/212876 on 09/02/2021, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because claim 12 recites the handheld hydraulic power tool further comprises a joint between the housing and the installation assembly. Figure 1 shows the joint J is an end of the installation assembly near a workpiece W. It is not clear which component is the joint.
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 impact driver recited in claim 13 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 10 and 17, line 2, the term “a gear” may be amended as “a nut gear” if the gear positioned around the nut is the nut gear disclosed in ¶ 0061 of the instant application.
In claim 17, the term may be amended as “an access”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “installation assembly” in claim 1.
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/ efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for at least the following reasons.
Claim 1 of the Subject Application
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,017,332
A handheld hydraulic power tool comprising:
A bolt tensioning tool comprising:
a housing;
a housing;
an electric motor positioned within the housing;
an electric motor positioned within the housing;
a hydraulic pump positioned within the housing, the pump being driven by the motor to pressurize hydraulic fluid stored within the housing or a remote reservoir; and
a hydraulic pump positioned within the housing, the pump being driven by the motor to pressurize hydraulic fluid stored within the housing or a remote reservoir; and
an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a concrete work surface in response to an applied force by the pressurized hydraulic fluid.
a tensioning assembly including a mounting member and a socket, the mounting member connectable to a bolt for applying tension thereto in response to an applied force by the pressurized hydraulic fluid,
Claim 2 of the Subject Application
Claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,017,332
The handheld hydraulic power tool
The bolt tensioning tool
wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor upon which the force is applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid.
wherein the tensioning assembly includes a piston connectable to the bolt upon which the force is applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid
Claim 5 of the Subject Application
The handheld hydraulic power tool further comprising an anvil abutted against the concrete work surface in which the anchor is seated and configured to apply a reaction force to the housing or another component of the handheld hydraulic power tool in response to displacement of the piston caused by the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid, while the anchor is seated, to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the concrete work surface.
the bolt tensioning tool further comprises an anvil abutted against a workpiece to which the bolt is attached and configured to apply a reaction force to the housing or another component of the bolt tensioning tool in response to displacement of the piston caused by the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid, while the bolt is tensioned, to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the workpiece.
Claim 3 of the Subject Application
Claim 3 of US Patent No. 12,017,332
The handheld hydraulic power tool
The bolt tensioning tool
wherein the installation assembly includes a mounting member connectable between the piston and the anchor for transferring force from the piston to the anchor in response to the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid.
wherein the mounting member is connectable between the piston and the bolt for transferring tension from the piston to the bolt in response to the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid,
As shown in the table above, Claims 1-3 and 5 of the subject application claims subject matter that is different, but not patentably distinct, from the subject matter of Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332. The bolt of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332 is equivalent to the anchor of the subject application such that the bolt of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332 can be seated into a concrete work surface. Thus, Claims 1-3 and 5 are anticipated by Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332 and a patent to Claims 1-3 and 5 would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332. See In re Goodman.
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.
Claims 1-4, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karoliussen (WO 2019/245384A1, cited on 06/18/2024 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Karoliussen discloses, in fig. 2A, a handheld hydraulic power tool (abstract, a tool comprising a hydraulic pump and a motor) comprising:
a housing (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below);
an electric motor positioned within the housing (p. 3:6-7, a motor can be powered by electricity; p. 3:26-27, a motor house 5 houses the motors);
a hydraulic pump positioned within the housing, the pump being driven by the motor to pressurize hydraulic fluid stored within the housing or a remote reservoir (p. 4:29-5:20, a motor 90’ actuate a valve 12’so that a hydraulic pump 34’ increases hydraulic pressure acting on a hydraulic piston 20; fig. 3B, the pump 34’ is positioned within the housing); and
an installation assembly (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The installation assembly includes a mounting member and a piston (¶ 0004-05)) configured to seat an anchor into a concrete work surface in response to an applied force by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below, an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member] and a piston 20. Seating an anchor into a concrete work surface is an intended use. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the piston and the mounting member in an anvil (house 2). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a concrete work).
PNG
media_image1.png
785
1231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Karoliussen Fig. 2A
Regarding claim 2, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor upon which the force is applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24. The shaft 24 is connectable to the shaft 26 and a pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]).
Regarding claim 3, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the installation assembly includes a mounting member connectable between the piston and the anchor for transferring force from the piston to the anchor in response to the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24. The locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member] connects the shaft 24 coupled to the piston 20 and the shaft 26 and the pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]).
Regarding claim 4, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the mounting member is configured to engage with a back flange of the anchor (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above).
Regarding claim 14, Karoliussen discloses, in fig. 2A, a handheld hydraulic power tool (abstract, a tool comprising a hydraulic pump and a motor) comprising:
a housing (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above);
an electric motor positioned within the housing (p. 3:6-7, a motor can be powered by electricity; p. 3:26-27, a motor house 5 houses the motors);
a hydraulic pump positioned within the housing, the pump being driven by the motor to pressurize hydraulic fluid stored within the housing or a remote reservoir (p. 4:29-5:20, a motor 90’ actuate a valve 12’so that a hydraulic pump 34’ increases hydraulic pressure acting on a hydraulic piston 20; fig. 3B, the pump 34’ is positioned within the housing); and
an installation assembly including a mounting member configured to seat an anchor into a concrete work surface in response to an applied force by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member] and a piston 20. Seating an anchor into a concrete work surface is an intended use. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the piston and the mounting member in an anvil (house 2). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a concrete work),
wherein the mounting member is configured to engage with a back flange of the anchor (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above).
Regarding claim 19, Karoliussen discloses, in fig. 2A, a handheld hydraulic power tool (abstract, a tool comprising a hydraulic pump and a motor) comprising:
a housing (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above);
an electric motor positioned within the housing (p. 3:6-7, a motor can be powered by electricity; p. 3:26-27, a motor house 5 houses the motors);
a hydraulic pump positioned within the housing, the pump being driven by the motor to pressurize hydraulic fluid stored within the housing or a remote reservoir (p. 4:29-5:20, a motor 90’ actuate a valve 12’so that a hydraulic pump 34’ increases hydraulic pressure acting on a hydraulic piston 20; fig. 3B, the pump 34’ is positioned within the housing);
an installation assembly including a piston abutted against a concrete work surface, configured to seat an anchor into the concrete work surface in response to an applied force by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member] and a piston 20. Seating an anchor into a concrete work surface is an intended use. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the piston and the mounting member in an anvil (house 2). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a concrete work); and
an anvil affixed relative to the housing and connectable to the anchor (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, the house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] is affixed next to the housing, and the shaft 26 and the pipe 27 [correspond to the recited anchor] can be connected to the house 2),
wherein, in response to displacement of the piston caused by the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid, a tensile force is developed through the anchor to apply tension to the anchor, also displacing the housing relative to the concrete work surface (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24. The pull or extension of the piston generates a tensile force to the shaft 26 and the pipe 27 [correspond to the recited anchor]. The housing is disposed next to the house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil]. Thus, the motion of the house 2 due to the action of the piston 20 would displace the housing).
Regarding claim 20, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 19, further comprising a mounting member attached to the anvil, the mounting member configured to engage with a back flange of the anchor (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A 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.
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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen, as applied to claims 2 and 14 above respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose the tool further comprises an anvil abutted against the concrete work surface in which the anchor is seated and configured to apply a reaction force to the housing or another component of the handheld hydraulic power tool in response to displacement of the piston caused by the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid, while the anchor is seated, to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the concrete work surface.
However, the recited claim limitations are intended use. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24 (p. 4:29-5:20). The house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] and the shaft 26 [corresponds to the recited anchor] can be abutted against the concrete work surface and the shaft 26 and the piston 20 can extend to apply force to the shaft 26 and the pipe 27. Because the house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] is located between the housing of the tool and the concrete work surface, the housing of the tool would maintain a fixed distance from the concrete work surface (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld hydraulic power tool of Karoliussen to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the concrete work surface so that the housing does not directly contact the work surface to prevent it from damaging.
Regarding claim 15, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 14, wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the mounting member upon which the force is applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, as discussed in the rejection of claim 14, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24. The shaft 24 is connectable to the shaft 26 and a pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]), but does not disclose the hydraulic power tool further comprises an anvil abutted against a workpiece to which the anchor is seated and configured to apply a reaction force to the housing or another component of the hydraulic power tool in response to displacement of the piston caused by the applied force from the pressurized hydraulic fluid, while the anchor is seated, to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the workpiece.
However, the recited claim limitations are intended use. As discussed in the rejection of claim 14, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which pulls or extends a tension shaft 24 (p. 4:29-5:20). The house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] and the shaft 26 [corresponds to the recited anchor] can be abutted against the workpiece and the shaft 26 and the piston 20 can extend to apply force to the shaft 26 and the pipe 27. Because the house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] is located between the housing of the tool and the concrete work surface, the housing of the tool would maintain a fixed distance from the concrete work surface (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld hydraulic power tool of Karoliussen to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the concrete work surface so that the housing does not directly contact the work surface to prevent it from damaging.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jaeger et al. (WO 2015/152728A1, hereinafter Jaeger).
Regarding claim 12, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a joint between the housing and the installation assembly to adjust an orientation of the installation assembly relative to the housing.
Jaeger teaches, in an analogous handheld hydraulic power tool field of endeavor, a joint between the housing and the installation assembly to adjust an orientation of the installation assembly relative to the housing (p. 5:31-6:2 and fig. 1, a tool 200 [corresponds to the recited housing] is provided with an interface connector 210 [corresponds to the recited joint] for coupling with an interface device 100 [corresponds to the recited installation assembly]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld hydraulic power tool of Karoliussen to provide the joint as taught by Jaeger in order to couple the tool and the interface device (Jaeger p. 5:34-6:2).
Claim of the instant application does not disclose how the joint works to adjust an orientation of the installation assembly. In addition, the orientation relative to the housing does not provide ascertainable direction. It can be any direction. On other hand, the interface connector 210 of Jaeger allows the interface device 100 to be aligned with the tool 200. The installation assembly of Karoliussen is oriented different from that of Jaeger with respect to the housing. However, the installation assembly of Karoliussen may be oriented the same as the orientation of Jaeger to be coupled with the interface connector [corresponds to the recited joint] between the housing and the installation assembly since it has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jonkers et al. (CN 106030128A, hereinafter Jonkers).
Regarding claim 13, Karoliussen discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose an impact driver configured to drive the anchor into the concrete work surface.
Jonkers teaches, in an analogous handheld hydraulic power tool field of endeavor, an impact driver configured to drive the anchor into the concrete work surface (Jonkers English translation, p. 19:3-19, an impact mechanism gun is combined with a fastener power tool comprising a motor. The tool can be configured to drive the anchor into the concrete work surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld hydraulic power tool of Karoliussen to provide the impact driver as taught by Jonkers. The impact driver provides strong and accurate torque multiplication capability to the handheld power tool (Jonkers English translation, p. 19:17-18).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Nies (US 2005/0134064).
Regarding claim 16, Karoliussen teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 15, wherein the anvil defines a hollow channel (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, the house 2 [corresponds to the recited anvil] comprises a hollow channel within a body of the house 2), but does not disclose a window providing access to the hollow channel.
Nies teaches, in an analogous handheld tool field of endeavor, a window providing access to the hollow channel (fig. 2 and ¶00027, a hollow shaft 12 [corresponds to the recited anvil] of the tool comprises one or more openings 52, 70, 78 [corresponds to the recited window] extending from a surface of the shaft to a hollow portion of the shaft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld hydraulic power tool of Karoliussen to provide the window as taught by Nies. The window is used for mounting, user access, and accommodating other components of the tool (Nies ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 17, Karoliussen as modified by Nies teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the window is configured to provide access to a gear positioned around a nut positioned on the anchor (Nies ¶ 0027, the one or more openings 52, 70, 78 [corresponds to the recited window] provides a user access. Therefore, the openings can be configured to provide an access to a gear and the anchor in the hollow channel of the Karoliussen’s house 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, Karoliussen is the closest art of record and discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool of claim 2, as described above, but Karoliussen does not teach, suggest, or make obvious that the tool further comprises a rotary output configured to provide torque to a nut disposed on the anchor, causing the nut to rotate relative to the anchor subsequent or during an installation operation, in combination with the additional elements of the claim. Claims 7-11 would be allowable as being dependent from an allowed claim.
Regarding claim 18, Karoliussen is the closest art of record and discloses the handheld hydraulic power tool of claim 17, as described above, Karoliussen does not teach, suggest, or make obvious that a rotary output is configured to rotate the nut via the gear relative to the anchor subsequent or during an installation operation, in combination with the additional elements of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723