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 .
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 03/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 4-10 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, the term “or” followed “a second impact damper” is incongruent since “or” indicates the dampener can be either the first or second and/or the rebound dampener but the recitation “a second” implies that the first also might be required. Since the claim recites “or” examiner is interpreting as requiring either the first or second or the rebound dampener. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (US 20170036327 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami et al. discloses an impact wrench (1) comprising: a rotary impact drive having a drive shaft (4/30) running along a longitudinal axis, a striker (40) arranged so as to be movable along the longitudinal axis, and an anvil head (60 - struck part 62 with three blade parts 63a-63c [0049], figs. 1-3) contactable by the striker in a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis, the rotary impact drive (4/30) having: at least one damper (56) configured to damp an impact of the striker in a longitudinal impact direction parallel to the longitudinal axis,
wherein the at least one damper includes a first impact damper formed between the striker and the anvil head, or
the at least one damper includes a second impact damper (56) formed between the striker and the drive shaft (annular damper 56 between striker 40 and driveshaft 4/30, [0046- figs. 1-2), or
the at least one damper includes a rebound damper formed between a back side of the striker pointing against the longitudinal impact direction and a rebound face lying opposite the anvil head against the longitudinal impact direction and limiting a movement of the striker along the longitudinal axis ([0039-0058], figs. 1-9).
Regarding claims 5-6, Murakami et al. discloses the impact or rebound damper (56) includes a plastic or a latex-containing material wherein the latex-containing material is rubber (rubber [0046]).
Claim(s) 4-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murakami et al. (US 20060254789 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami et al. discloses an impact wrench (fig. 12) comprising: a rotary impact drive having a drive shaft (spindle 7) running along a longitudinal axis, a striker (8/3A) arranged so as to be movable along the longitudinal axis, and an anvil head (3B-flange part 3e at a root of the pawl 3f) contactable by the striker in a circumferential direction relative to the longitudinal axis, the rotary impact drive (7) having: at least one damper (3A/13 and/or 10) configured to damp an impact of the striker in a longitudinal impact direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (figs. 1, 3, and 12);
wherein the at least one damper (3A/13) includes a first impact damper formed between the striker and the anvil head, or
the at least one damper includes a second impact damper (10) formed between the striker and the drive shaft, or
the at least one damper includes a rebound damper formed between a back side of the striker pointing against the longitudinal impact direction and a rebound face lying opposite the anvil head against the longitudinal impact direction and limiting a movement of the striker along the longitudinal axis ([0039-0064], figs. 1-9 and 12).
Regarding claims 5-6, Murakami et al. discloses the impact or rebound damper (13) includes a plastic or a latex-containing material wherein the latex-containing material is rubber (rubber [0041-0064]).
Regarding claim 10, the at least one impact damper damps an impact on the anvil head (3B-flange part 3e at a root of the pawl 3f, [0039-0064], figs. 1-9 and 12).
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murakami et al. (US 20170036327 A1) in view of ABBOTT et al. (WO 2021222729 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Murakami et al. fails to discloses the impact damper includes a fluid or a gas, wherein the impact damper includes the fluid, the fluid being an oil- or water-containing liquid.
ABBOTT et al. teaches an impact tool 10 with a similar impact mechanism (32, figs. 1-5) and incorporating a rotary impact mechanism (2000) having an anvil (2026), hammer (2030) with an impact damper includes a fluid or a gas, wherein the impact damper includes the fluid, the fluid being an oil- or water-containing liquid (chamber 2042 filled with hydraulic fluid/oil [0075-0078], figs. 6-11). ABBOTT et al. also teaches having an air-filled collapsible bladder (1104) with the anvil and hammer/striker assembly ([0071-0072], fig. 3).
Given the teachings of Murakami et al. to have an impact damper formed between a striker and drive shaft, it 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 to modify the impact damper to include a fluid or a gas, wherein the impact damper includes the fluid, the fluid being an oil- or water-containing liquid to have precise adjustment of dampening (variable pressure), improved wear and tear (fluid dampener last longer than structural rubber/plastic dampener), increased dampening absorption/strength, and/or for using less mechanical parts as taught by ABBOTT et al. Moreover, ABBOTT et al. teaches substituting the mechanical impact/rebound damper with a fluid dampener.
Claim(s) 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murakami et al. (US 20170036327 A1) in view of MAYR et al. (US 20190308308 A1) and further in view of Meixner et al. (US 20100025061 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Murakami et al. fails to discloses the impact damper includes a fluid or a gas, the impact damper includes the gas, the gas being air.
MAYR et al. teaches an impact tool (1) with an impact damper (air spring) that includes a fluid or a gas (air), the impact damper includes the gas, the gas being air (“air spring is formed by a pneumatic chamber 20 closed by exciter piston 18 and beater 19” [0028-0029], figs. 1-2) and teaches having a rebound impact damper 23/ elastic damping ring 28 with elastic beads (35 [0030-0049], figs. 3-14).
Meixner et al. also teaches a similar handheld power tool (fig. 1) with an impact damper (air cushion) includes a fluid or a gas (air), the impact damper includes the gas, the gas being air (compression chamber 18 has air cushion is enclosed, ([0017-0025], figs. 1-3) and teaches that spring 20 can be “spring element 20 can be a mechanical, hydraulic, or pneumatic spring” [0019].
Given the teachings of Murakami et al. to have an impact damper formed between a striker and drive shaft, it 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 to modify the impact damper includes a fluid or a gas, the impact damper includes the gas, the gas being air to have precise adjustment of dampening (variable pressure), improved wear and tear (air dampener last longer than structural rubber/plastic dampener), increased dampening absorption/strength, and/or for using less mechanical parts as taught by MAYR et al. and Meixner et al. Moreover, MAYR et al. and Meixner et al. teach using both air/fluid dampeners with or without (substituting) mechanical impact/rebound dampers (rubber).
Regarding claim 10, Murakami et al. fails to discloses wherein the at least one impact damper damps an impact on the anvil head.
MAYR et al. teaches at least one impact damper (23 and/or 33) damps an impact on an anvil head (22, [0030-0049], figs. 1-14).
Meixner et al. also teaches at least one impact damper (at least one spring element 20 and/or axial stop 28) damps an impact on an anvil head (14/22, [0017-0025], figs. 1-3) and teaches that spring 20 can be “spring element 20 can be a mechanical, hydraulic, or pneumatic spring” [0019].
Given the teachings of Murakami et al. to have an impact damper formed between a striker and drive shaft, it 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 to modify the impact damper includes a fluid or a gas, the impact damper includes the gas, the gas being air to have precise adjustment of dampening (variable pressure), improved wear and tear (air dampener last longer than structural rubber/plastic dampener), increased dampening absorption/strength, and/or for using less mechanical parts as taught by MAYR et al. and Meixner et al. Moreover, MAYR et al. and Meixner et al. teach using both air/fluid dampeners with or without (substituting) mechanical impact/rebound dampers (rubber).
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: US 20100000749 A1 - rebound damper (20) formed between a back side of a striker (22), Barnes (US 6321855 B1) - an adaptor (10) with rebound dampening sleeve (18), col. 4, lines 16-65, figs. 1-2) and press fit snap ring 254 for bearing 220/damping sleeve 224, (col. 7, lines 12-67, figs. 3-4) and see form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731