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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 9 July 2024.
Claims 1, 3-8, and 18-30 are currently pending and being examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji (JP 2009248210 A), reference made to the Espacenet translation provided with the non-final office action, in view of Motschi (US 2016/0107243), further in view of Didier (US 2015/0197002).
Shoji teaches:
Claim 1: A power tool (1-fig.1) comprising:
a housing (4-fig.1), which houses a motor (10-fig.1);
an output shaft (14-fig.1) extending in an axial direction and protruding from the housing (¶[0010]), the output shaft being operably driven by the motor (¶[0010]); and
a tool holding apparatus provided on the output shaft (¶[0021]); the tool holding apparatus including:
an insertion hole (13d-fig.3) axially extending in the output shaft and configured to receive a bit (¶[0035]);
a through hole (25-fig.3) extending radially through the output shaft from the insertion hole (¶[0031]);
a ball (18-fig.5) disposed inside the through hole (¶[0031]) and being movable between a first position, where the ball partially protrudes from the through hole into the insertion hole (at least fig.5(3)), and a second position, where the ball does not protrude from the through hole into the insertion hole (at least fig.5(4)); and
a manually-movable sleeve (15-fig.6) mounted around the output shaft such that the manually-movable sleeve is slidable relative to the output shaft in the axial direction (at least ¶[0031]);
wherein:
at a first axial position relative to the output shaft, the manually-movable sleeve presses the ball to partially protrude into the insertion hole (fig.5(1));
at a second axial position relative to the output shaft, the manually-movable sleeve releases the pressing of the ball (figs.5(3)-(4));
a spring (19-fig.5) is mounted around the output shaft, contacts a side of the ball and is configured to bias the ball radially inwardly (¶[0025]-[0026]).
Shoji does not expressly teach a flat spring.
However, Motschi teaches a flat spring (30-fig.1B) contacts a side of a ball (20-fig.1B) and is configured to bias the ball radially inward (¶[0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Shoji, by having the spring be a flat spring, as taught by Motschi, as an alternative type of spring used to bias a ball radially inward in tool holders.
Shoji as modified by Motschi does not expressly teach the mutually-movable sleeve has a length such that at least a portion of the spring is not covered by the manually movable sleeve at the second axial position.
However, Didier teaches a mutually-movable sleeve has a length such that at least a portion of the spring is not covered by the manually movable sleeve at the second axial position (see fig.5 showing the sleeve 70 in the second position and a portion of the spring 74 not covered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Shoji and Motschi, by making the length of the sleeve smaller, as taught by Didier, so as to make the overall tool smaller, thus more lightweight and easier to handle.
Shoji as modified by Motschi and Didier:
Claim 3: The power tool according to claim 1, wherein the flat spring (Motschi: 30-figs.7A-B) has a ring shape (Motschi: ¶[0034]) with a break (Motschi: G-fig.7B) that defines two circumferentially-facing ends (Motschi: 35A and 35B-fig.7A) of the flat spring (Motschi: ¶[0034]-[0035]).
Claim 4: The power tool according to claim 3, wherein the break extends in a direction tilted from the axial direction (Motschi: see fig.1B showing G extends along a tilt at 33S).
Claim 5: The power tool according to claim 1, wherein the flat spring covers one-half or less of a diameter of the ball in the axial direction (Motschi: see fig.1B showing 30 covers less than one-half of the diameter of 20).
Claim 6: The power tool according to claim 1, wherein at the first axial position relative to the output shaft, the manually-movable sleeve radially surrounds the ball (Shoji: see fig.5(1) showing 18 radially surrounded by 15).
Claim 7: The power tool according to claim 6, wherein an inner circumferential surface of the manually-movable sleeve has a tapered portion (Didier: see fig.5 showing the sleeve 70 is tapered), which expands radially outward along the axial direction going away from a tip portion of the output shaft (Didier: see fig.5 showing 70 expanding radially outward along the axial direction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 8: The subject matter of the power tool would be allowable if rewritten in independent form because the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations includes the following limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Claims 1 and 8 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of the clam, are what would make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “at the second axial position relative to the output shaft, the manually-movable sleeve does not radially surround the ball”.
Claim 18: The subject matter of the power tool would be allowable if rewritten in independent form because the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations includes the following limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Claims 1 and 18 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of the clam, are what would make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the ring-shaped flat spring radially surrounds at least a portion of the ball and biases the ball radially inwardly, the flat spring is configured such that at least a portion of the flat spring is exposed radially outwardly at the second axial position of the manually-movable sleeve”.
Claims 19-30 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 19 and 25: The subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations includes the following limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Claims 19 and 25 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of the clam, are what would make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the ring-shaped flat spring radially surrounds at least a portion of the ball, the ring-shaped flat spring is configured such that at least a portion of the flat spring is exposed at the advanced position of the manually-movable sleeve”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights