DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
In response to the amendment filed on 04/08/2026, claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19 have been amended, claim 2 is cancelled, and new claims 21 and 22 are added. Claims 1 and 3-22 are pending and under examination.
Drawings
In response to the drawing objection made in the previous non-final office action, Applicant explains the joint recited in claim 12 is the pivot 90 shown in figs. 3A and 3B. Therefore, the drawing objection regarding the joint has been withdrawn.
However, the drawings are still 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).
Claim 13 recites the impact driver in addition to the electric motor, the hydraulic pump, the installation assembly including the piston recited in claim 1. But figures do not show the impact driver. 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.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,556,379.
Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332 recite all limitations of claim 1, 3, and 5 of the subject application except that “an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface wherein extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface”.
However, U.S. Patent No. 3,556,379 discloses a handheld power tool (device for driving anchoring members) comprising an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work wherein the installation assembly includes a piston, and wherein extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface (fig. 1 and col. 2:66-3:27, 4:39-57, the device for driving anchoring members into a hard target material such as concrete comprises a hammer piston 9. The motion of the hammer piston drives an anchor into the concrete surface).
Therefore, 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 tool of U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332 to provide the installation assembly including the piston to drive the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface as taught by U.S. Patent No. 3,556,379 in order to place an anchor into the concrete surface with enhanced safety for an operator.
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
Claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,017,332
wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor, the piston configured to extend in response to a 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 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,
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
Claim 2 of US Patent No. 12,017,332
wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor, the piston configured to extend in response to a 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.
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 in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,556,379. 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 § 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 1, 3-5, 14, 15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen (WO 2019/245384A1, cited on 06/18/2024 IDS), in view of Bayer et al. (US 3,556,379).
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);
wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor, the piston configured to extend in response to a force applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below, 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 shaft 24 is connectable to the shaft 26 and a pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]), but does not disclose explicitly an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface.
However, Karoliussen discloses (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below) an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 and a piston 20. Seating an anchor into a concrete work surface is an intended use. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the mounting member and the piston in an anvil (house 2), wherein the piston is capable of moving in vertical directions (p. 4:16-17). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a hole in the concrete work surface by the vertical motion of the piston.
Nevertheless, Bayer teaches, in an analogous anchoring device field of endeavor, an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface (fig. 1 and col. 2:66-3:27, 4:39-57, a device for driving anchoring members into a hard target material such as concrete comprises a hammer piston 9. The motion of the hammer piston drives an anchor into the concrete surface. By combining with Karoliussen, the piston of Bayer can be driven by the hydraulic pump of Karoliussen to drive the anchor).
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 power tool of Karoliussen to provide the piston to drive the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface as taught by Bayer. Bayer provides non-movable barrel and plug within a housing of the device for enhanced safety for an operator (Bayer col. 1:12-48).
PNG
media_image1.png
785
1231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Karoliussen Fig. 2A
Regarding claim 3, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, 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 as modified by Bayer teaches 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 5, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising an anvil abutted against the concrete work surface (Bayer, col. 2:66-70, an anvil of the anchoring device abuts against the concrete work surface), but does not disclose 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 (Karoliussen 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 as modified by Bayer 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 21, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the piston is configured to apply a tensile force to the anchor when the piston retracts (Karoliussen, p. 5:9-20, actuation of the hydraulic pump drives the piston 20 to pull a tension bar 24, thus it applies a tensile force to the pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]).
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 includes a mounting member (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member]),
wherein the mounting member is configured to engage with a back flange of the anchor (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above),
wherein the installation assembly includes a piston connectable to the anchor via the mounting member, the piston configured to extend in response to a force applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below, 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 shaft 24 is connectable to the shaft 26 and a pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor] via a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member]), but does not disclose explicitly an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface.
As discussed in claim 1, however, Karoliussen discloses (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 mounting member and the piston in an anvil (house 2), wherein the piston is capable of moving in vertical directions (p. 4:16-17). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a hole in the concrete work surface by the vertical motion of the piston.
Nevertheless, Bayer teaches, in an analogous anchoring device field of endeavor, an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface (fig. 1 and col. 2:66-3:27, 4:39-57, a device for driving anchoring members into a hard target material such as concrete comprises a hammer piston 9. The motion of the hammer piston drives an anchor into the concrete surface. By combining with Karoliussen, the piston of Bayer can be driven by the hydraulic pump of Karoliussen to drive the anchor).
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 power tool of Karoliussen to provide the piston to drive the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface as taught by Bayer. Bayer provides non-movable barrel and plug within a housing of the device for enhanced safety for an operator (Bayer col. 1:12-48).
Regarding claim 15, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejections of claim 14, wherein the hydraulic power tool further comprises an anvil abutted against a workpiece (Bayer, col. 2:66-70, an anvil of the anchoring device abuts against the concrete work surface), but does not disclose 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 workpiece.
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 (Karoliussen 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 workpiecethe housing of the tool would maintain a fixed distance from the workpiece (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 as modified by Bayer to maintain the housing at a fixed distance relative to the workpiece so that the housing does not directly contact the work surface to prevent it from damaging.
Regarding claim 22, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 14, wherein the piston is configured to apply a tensile force to the anchor when the piston retracts (Karoliussen, p. 5:9-20, actuation of the hydraulic pump drives the piston 20 to pull a tension bar 24, thus it applies a tensile force to the pipe 27 [corresponds to the recited anchor]).
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 (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 [corresponds to the recited mounting member] and a piston 20. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the piston and the mounting member in an anvil (house 2). The house can abut against a concrete work surface); 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 the piston is configured to extend in response to a force applied by the pressurized hydraulic fluid (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A below, fig. 2B, and p. 4:29-5:20, the hydraulic pump 34’ activate the hydraulic piston 20 which extends a tension shaft 24),
wherein a tensile force is developed through the anchor to apply tension to the anchor when the piston is retracted, 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 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), but does not disclose explicitly an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface.
As discussed in claim 1, however, Karoliussen discloses (see annotated Karoliussen fig. 2A above) an installation assembly comprises a locking claw 25 and a piston 20. Seating an anchor into a concrete work surface is an intended use. The tool of Karoliussen comprises the mounting member and the piston in an anvil (house 2), wherein the piston is capable of moving in vertical directions (p. 4:16-17). A shaft 26 can be considered as an anchor to be seated into a hole in the concrete work surface by the vertical motion of the piston.
Nevertheless, Bayer teaches, in an analogous anchoring device field of endeavor, an installation assembly configured to seat an anchor into a hole in a concrete work surface and extending the piston drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface (fig. 1 and col. 2:66-3:27, 4:39-57, a device for driving anchoring members into a hard target material such as concrete comprises a hammer piston 9. The motion of the hammer piston drives an anchor into the concrete surface. By combining with Karoliussen, the piston of Bayer can be driven by the hydraulic pump of Karoliussen to drive the anchor).
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 power tool of Karoliussen to provide the piston to drive the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface as taught by Bayer. Bayer provides non-movable barrel and plug within a housing of the device for enhanced safety for an operator (Bayer col. 1:12-48).
Regarding claim 20, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen in view of Bayer, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Fuchs (EP 2104595B1)
Regarding claim 12, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a pivot joint between the housing and the installation assembly to adjust an orientation of the installation assembly relative to the housing.
Fuchs teaches, in an analogous handheld power tool field of endeavor, a pivot joint between the housing and the installation assembly to adjust an orientation of the installation assembly relative to the housing (fig. 1 and Fuchs English translation, p. 3:7-8, a power hammer comprises a joint 7 which can pivot about an axis 8. The joint 7 is disposed between a housing part 11 and a machine unit 3 [corresponds to the recited installation assembly]. The orientation of the machine unit 3 can be adjusted relative to the housing part 11).
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 as modified by Bayer to provide the pivot joint as taught by Fuchs. It allows stepless angle adjustment of the tool conveniently within a large angular range (Fuchs English translation, p. 3:14-16).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karoliussen in view of Bayer, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jonkers et al. (CN 106030128A, hereinafter Jonkers).
Regarding claim 13, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches 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 as modified by Bayer 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 in view of Bayer, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Nies (US 2005/0134064).
Regarding claim 16, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer 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 as modified by Bayer 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 Bayer and Nies teaches the handheld hydraulic power tool as in the rejection of claim 16, wherein the window is configured to provide an access to a nut 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 nut 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 14, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bayer.
Applicant argues Karoliussen does not disclose the amended claim limitations that an installation assembly has a piston connectable to an anchor, wherein extending the piston drives the anchor into the concrete work surface. Applicant asserts Karoliussen only teaches the piston stretches a bolt received in a shaft 26 while a nut received in a pipe 27 is being rotated. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the use of Karoliussen’s tool may be different, Karoliussen’s tool comprises a housing, a motor, a hydraulic pump, and an installation assembly including a piston wherein the piston is capable of moving in vertical directions (p. 4:16-17). Therefore, if the pipe 27 is used as the anchor, the piston can drive the pipe 27 out of the device.
The tool of the instant application comprising the hydraulic pump and the piston is used to hammer the anchor. The same tool of the instant application is used as a tensioning tool in the parent application (U.S. Patent No. 12,017,332). Therefore, a tool having the same configuration such as the power tool of Karoliussen comprising the hydraulic pump and the vertically movable piston can drive an anchor.
Karoliussen does not disclose the use of tool by extending the piston includes driving the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface. However, Bayer teaches a hammering tool comprising a piston drives an anchoring member into a concrete (col. 2:66-70). Therefore, Karoliussen as modified by Bayer teaches the piston of the installation assembly drives the anchor into the hole in the concrete work surface.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant clarified that the recited joint in not “J” in fig. 1. Instead, the joint is the pivot 90 in figs. 3A and 3B. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fuchs.
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 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
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights