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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/9/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-17 are currently pending and being examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elger US 8,505,648.
Regarding claim 1:
Elger teaches a mechanical percussion mechanism for a striking drive of an insertion tool of a handheld power tool, comprising: a rotatably supported intermediate shaft (46) having a first guide groove (86); an impact body (50) having a second guide groove (shown in inner diameter of 50 in FIG. 3); and a rotatably supported output shaft (14), wherein the first guide groove and the second guide groove are configured to guide a guide body (82) during operation of the mechanical percussion mechanism, and wherein at least one of the first guide groove and the second guide groove includes a guide surface (e.g., guide surface 86), on which the guide body moves during the operation of the mechanical percussion mechanism (col. 5, lines 7-10), 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 during the operation of the mechanical percussion mechanism (there are no edges or kinks in guide surface 86, shown or otherwise envisaged in the disclosure, that the guide body 82 would “pass over”. The guide surface cross-section is smooth and U-shaped to properly hold guide body 82, and it runs along a smooth U-shaped path), and wherein a circumferential line which defines the first guide groove or the second guide groove is configured as a kink-free circumferential line (see line CL in annotated FIG. 2 below; "a circumferential line" is being interpreted as any line or segment that lies on the path defined by the circumference (or stated another way: "perimeter") of the groove. Elger's first guide groove includes infinitely many, arbitrarily chosen, kink-free circumferential lines on its perimeter, including CL shown below).
PNG
media_image1.png
726
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the at least one of the first guide groove and the second guide groove has a substantially parabolic path (shown in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 6:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein a curvature of the at least one of the first guide groove and the second guide groove is smaller than a curvature of the guide body (evident from FIG. 2, i.e., the radius of the ball is smaller than the radius of the groove, otherwise it wouldn’t fit in the groove).
Regarding claim 7:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the guide body is configured as a ball (82).
Regarding claim 8:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein axial movement of the impact body along the at least one of the first groove and the second guide groove is continuous and non-linear to a relative angle between the intermediate shaft and the impact body (envisaged in FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 9:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the substantially parabolic path of the at least one of the first guide groove and the second guide groove is mirrored at a reversing point (FIG. 2, most proximal point).
Regarding claims 10 and 16:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the lengths of the first guide groove and the second guide groove are different (compare the path of 86 in FIG. 1 which covers approximately half the inner circumference of 50, with the much shorter path of the groove within 50 shown in FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 17:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein: each of the first guide groove and the second guide groove has a substantially parabolic path (shown in FIGS. 1 and 3) and slopes of the substantially parabolic paths of the first guide groove and the second guide groove are different from one another (compare the parabolic path of 86 in FIG. 1, with the different parabolic path of the groove within 50 shown in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 12:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 11, as discussed above, wherein the slopes of the substantially parabolic paths are each changeable (e.g., they can be changeable (i.e., different) depending on where the slopes are chosen to be calculated).
Regarding claim 13:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the mechanical percussion mechanism is configured as a rotary impact mechanism (abstract).
Regarding claim 14:
Elger teaches a handheld power tool (10) having the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 15:
Elger teaches the handheld power tool according to claim 14, as discussed above, wherein the handheld power tool is configured as a rotary impact screwdriver (abstract).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elger, as applied above.
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Elger teaches the mechanical percussion mechanism according to claim 3, as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the circumferential line and/or the guide surface of the first guide groove or second guide groove is configured to be defined by a continuously (or at least twice) differentiable function.
However, given that the circumferential line (perimeter) of 86 is already smooth and kink-free, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Elger, by designing the circumferential line (perimeter) of 86 by using continuously (or at least twice) differentiable functions, in order to provide a smooth path for the guide body, in order to keep frictional losses in the tool minimized.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the “a circumferential line” limitation, Applicant argues “the surfaces of the camshaft 46 at the end portions of the cam groove surface 86 are not shown since the balls 82 block the views of the end portions. Accordingly, there is no express disclosure of this limitation in Elger.”. In contrast to Applicant’s interpretation, Examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not narrowly require the “a circumferential line” to be defined as a continuous closed loop circumscribing the entire perimeter around the groove. The phrase "a circumferential line" is being interpreted as any line or segment that lies on the path defined by the circumference (i.e., the "perimeter") defining the groove. Examiner takes the position that Elger's first guide groove includes infinitely many, arbitrarily chosen, kink-free circumferential lines on its perimeter, such as the annotated “CL” provided in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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