DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 7/6/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 4-18 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “initiation of pull-up” and “at the end of pull-up” which are indefinite because the metes and bounds of “pull-up” are not defined. It is unclear what structurally determines when pull-up has initiated or ended.
In claim 4, “the circumferential line” lacks antecedent basis in view of the new amendments to claim 1.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are allowed.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter: the prior art has been found to disclose related mechanical percussion mechanisms for insertion tools of handheld power tools (e.g., see previous office actions and prior art of record). For example, Takeyama et al. (US 2010/0078186) teaches a mechanical percussion mechanism for a striking drive of an insertion tool of a handheld power tool, comprising: a rotatably supported intermediate shaft (3) having a first guide groove (3a); an impact body (5) having a second guide groove (5a); and a rotatably supported output shaft (8), wherein the first guide groove and the second guide groove are configured to guide a guide body (4) during operation of the mechanical percussion mechanism, wherein at least one of the first guide groove and the second guide groove includes a guide surface (contact surface of 3a/5a), on which the guide body moves during the operation of the mechanical percussion mechanism, wherein a relative angle between the intermediate shaft and the impact body moves from a minimum angle of zero at initiation of pull-up to a maximum angle at the end of pull-up and from the maximum angle to the minimum angle during impact (i.e., between points A and B in FIG. 1), wherein the guide body is on the guide surface at every relative angle between the intermediate shaft and the impact body from the minimum angle to the maximum angle (balls 4 are always on the guide surfaces). Due to the transition vertex at “B”, Takeyama does not explicitly teach the entire guide surface is configured as a kink-free and/or edge-free surface such that the guide body does not pass over a kink or edge as the guide body is guided on the guide surface between the minimum angle and the maximum angle. While Teh (US 2018/0029206) discloses a related percussion mechanism for a power tool where the transition vertex is provided with a rounded connecting section (174; see FIG, 3), that same portion also appears to contain a kink at P1, such that the entire guide surface is not configured as a kink-free and/or edge-free surface such that the guide body does not pass over a kink or edge as the guide body is guided on the guide surface, as required by the independent claims. Upon examination, the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the invention as claimed. It is Examiner's opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at Applicant's claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks regarding Elger and the rejections of the independent claims have been carefully considered and are persuasive. The claims require further amendments to overcome new 112(b) grounds of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights