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 of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 8 December 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 10 – 12 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) 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:
“an impact mechanism” – claims 1, 15, and 16.
“a tool fitting” – claims 1, 15, and 16.
“an anvil guide” – claims 1, 15, and 16.
“an idle-strike damper element” – claims 1, 15, and 16.
“an additional idle strike damper element” – claims 1, 15, and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanke (US 2002/0125023 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (Hanke (US 2002/0125023 A1)
Annotated fig. 2)]
Regarding claim 15, Hanke discloses a hammer drill or chipping hammer comprising:
a drive motor (2, fig. 1);
an impact mechanism (38, 42, 44, fig. 1; and 7, 40a, 58, 64, fig. 2) having an axis (shown in fig. 2 as the longitudinal axis of a rearward portion 40a of a spindle 40/ram 58/beatpiece 64);
a tool fitting (40b, fig. 2) for fitting a tool (68, fig. 2) ([0039], ll.1 – 5),
wherein the impact mechanism has an anvil (64, fig. 2) axially displaceable in an anvil guide (7, fig. 2) and acting on the tool ([0039], ll. 13 – 17),
wherein the impact mechanism has an idle-strike damper element (11, fig. 2) acting between the anvil and the tool fitting and the impact mechanism has a guide housing (1, fig. 2) engaging at least partially around the anvil or the tool fitting (Figure 2 shows a flange 1 partially around both a beatpiece 64 and a forward part 40b of a spindle 40); and
an additional idle-strike damper element (A, annotated fig. 2. The drawing symbols of element A show the element to be made of rubber – see MPEP 608.02 section IX. The examiner deems this rubber element A as the claimed, “an additional idle-strike damper element”, since rubber is very commonly and effectively used as a damper element due to its viscoelastic properties. That is, when rubber is compressed, the internal friction of the rubber converts mechanical energy from impacts into heat, dissipating the unwanted energy) acting between the tool fitting and the guide housing, the additional idle strike damper element being located radially further from the axis than the idle-strike damper element (As shown in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Hanke discloses a hammer drill or chipping hammer comprising:
a drive motor (2, fig. 1);
an impact mechanism (38, 42, 44, fig. 1; and 7, 40a, 58, 64, fig. 2) having an axis (Shown in fig. 2 as the longitudinal axis of a rearward portion 40a of a spindle 40/ram 58/beatpiece 64);
a tool fitting (40b, fig. 2) for fitting a tool (68, fig. 2) ([0039], ll.1 – 5),
wherein the impact mechanism has an anvil (64, fig. 2) axially displaceable in an anvil guide (7, fig. 2) and acting on the tool ([0039], ll. 13 – 17),
wherein the impact mechanism has an idle-strike damper element (11, fig. 2) acting between the anvil and the tool fitting and the impact mechanism has a guide housing (1, fig. 2) engaging at least partially around the anvil or the tool fitting (Figure 2 shows a flange 1 partially around both a beatpiece 64 and a forward part 40b of a spindle 40); and
an additional idle-strike damper element (A, annotated fig. 2. The drawing symbols of element A show the element to be made of rubber – see MPEP 608.02 section IX. The examiner deems this rubber element A as the claimed, “an additional idle-strike damper element” since rubber is very commonly and effectively used as a damper element due to its viscoelastic properties. That is, when rubber is compressed, the internal friction of the rubber converts mechanical energy from vibrations and impacts into heat, dissipating the unwanted energy) acting between the tool fitting and the guide housing, the additional idle strike damper element being located radially further from the axis than the idle-strike damper element (As shown in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claims 17 and 19, Hanke discloses the guide housing (1, fig. 2) engages at least partially around both the tool fitting (40b, fig. 2) and the anvil (64, fig. 2).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Hanke discloses the idle-strike damper element (11, fig. 2) acts between the anvil (64, fig. 2) and the tool fitting (40b, fig. 2) via a stop ring (A stop ring is defined a mechanical component that acts a shoulder to prevent axial movement wherein [0043] describes one function of the O-ring 11 is to prevent axial movement of the sleeve 7 so as to maintain a small gap between the sleeve 7 and the spindle part 40b during normal operation of the hammer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of the [enter preamble or description of independent claim] is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 2 – 9 and 13 – 14 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the additional idle strike damper element overlapping the idle-strike damper element radially at a same axial location”
PNG
media_image1.png
650
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (Hanke (US 2002/0125023 A1)
Annotated fig. 2)]
The closest prior art is Hanke (US 2002/0125023 A1). Hanke shows an O-ring/idle-strike damper element 11 and an O-ring/additional idle-strike element A separated diagonally by a frustoconical portion of a spindle part/tool holder 40 such that the O-ring/idle-strike damper element 11 and the O-ring /additional idle-strike element A do not overlap “radially at a same axial location”. It is the examiner’s opinion that rearranging the O-ring/idle-strike damper element 11 and the O-ring /additional idle-strike element A so that the O-ring/idle-strike damper element 11 and the O-ring /additional idle-strike element A overlap radially at a same axial location would prevent the O-rings to function as intended in Hanke. Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious this limitation.
Thus, 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 invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 8 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 14 under USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 – 9 and 13 – 14 under USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 15 – 16 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
Hanke does not disclose an idle-strike damper element acting between the anvil and the tool fitting, nor an additional idle-strike damper element.
Hanke discloses a rubber O-ring 11, a beatpiece 64, and a spindle part 40b. The Office action also identifies element A in an annotated version of figure 2 of Hanke as disclosing an additional idle-strike damper element. However, neither the O-ring 11 nor element A in Hanke are for dampening idle-strikes. Rebound and idle strikes as known in the art are made by an anvil as described in the present application. As stated at [0045] of Hanke: “[t]he reflected momentum from the spindle part (40 b) causes the sleeve (7) to move rearwardly, but not with sufficient speed to catch up with the beatpiece (64).” Thus, it is not understood how the Office Action is asserting that the O-ring 11 dampens any idle strike of the beatpiece. All of the disclosure of Hanke relates to the sleeve 7, which the Office Action asserts is the guide housing.
In fact, regarding the purpose of the O-ring 11, Hanke states at [0043]:
The O-ring acts to maintain a small gap (13) between a slanting forward facing annular surface (7c) of the sleeve (7) and a slanting rearwardly facing internal shoulder of the forward spindle part (40b) during normal operation of the hammer.
Therefore, Hanke does not disclose an idle-strike damper element as claimed, and certainly not an idle-strike damper element as would be understood to one of skill in the art.
Nor is an additional idle-strike damper element disclosed. The element A does not act as any kind of idle strike damper nor has this assertion been explained. Element A acts on sleeve 7 which does not act on the anvil during an idle-strike.
Hanke also fails to disclose an idle-strike damper element acting between the anvil and the tool fitting.
Hanke further recites at [0045]:
[t]he reflected momentum from the spindle part (40 b) causes the sleeve (7) to move rearwardly, but not with sufficient speed to catch up with the beatpiece (64) …on entry into idle mode substantially all of the forward impact from the sleeve (7) is transmitted to the spindle part (40b).
The O-ring 11 does not act on the anvil or the tool fitting and clearly would not be recognized as “acting between the anvil and the tool fitting” by one of skill in the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hanke does not disclose an idle-strike damper element acting between the anvil and the tool fitting and that the O-ring 11 does not dampen any idle strike of the beatpiece 64, Hanke recites in [0044] that on entry of the beatpiece 64 into idle mode, the beatpiece 64 impacts the forward sleeve 7 and further recites in [0045], in a portion of [0045] excluded in the ellipsis of applicant’s recitation of the paragraph, the O-ring 11 has “a marginal damping effect” on the forward movement of the forward sleeve in relation to a spindle part 40b upon which the O-ring 11 rests. One having ordinary skill in the art and an understanding in elastic collisions would recognize that when the beatpiece 64 impacts the forward sleeve 7, both the beatpiece 64 and the forward sleeve 7 would move forward compressing the O-ring 11, thus if the O-ring 11 has a damping effect on the forward movement of the forward sleeve 7, it would also have a damping effect on the beatpiece 64 as well. Therefore, the O-ring 11 does function, in part, as an idle strike dampening element and acts in a damping between the beatpiece 64 and the spindle part 40b upon which the O-ring 11 rests.
Please note, “a marginal damping effect” is a greater than zero amount and neither the claim nor the specification specifies a standard of damping to qualify as “an idle-strike damper element”.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hanke does not disclose an additional idle-strike damper element acting between the tool fitting and the guide housing and that the O-ring A does not dampen any idle strike of the beatpiece 64, Hanke shows in annotated figure 1 an O-ring A between the spindle part 40b and the housing 1 and recites in [0045] that the O-ring 11 has a marginal dampening effect on the forward movement of the forward sleeve implying at least some amount of the forward momentum is transferred to the spindle part 40b wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this O-ring A would at least dampen in at least some part that forward momentum. Again, the one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that when the beatpiece 64 impacts the forward sleeve 7, both the beatpiece 64 and the forward sleeve 7 would move forward compressing the O-ring 11. However, since the O-ring 11 only marginally/partially dampens the forward momentum of the beatpiece 64 and the forward sleeve 7, the O-ring A would also compress damping at least some part of the forward momentum of the beatpiece 64 and the forward sleeve 7. Therefore, the O-ring A does function, in part, as an additional idle strike dampening element and acts in a damping between the spindle part 40b and the housing 1 upon which the O-ring A rests.
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 DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
31 March 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731