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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the too” in claim 22 should be “the tool”. Additionally, “movementon” in claim 23 should be “movement on”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-24 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, “the functional unit being configured to superimpose a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool with the impact movement” is indefinite because it is unclear how the functional unit can “superimpose” one movement with another movement. For examination purposes, “the functional unit being configured to superimpose a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool with the impact movement” is being interpreted to mean “the functional unit being configured to convert a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool to the impact movement”.
Regarding claim 20, “moved apart by the second cam disk being moved away from the first cam disk” is indefinite because it is unclear how the second cam disk can move away from the first cam disk when claim 13 discloses that the second cam disk is connected to the housing in a stationary manner. For examination purposes, “moved apart by the second cam disk being moved away from the first cam disk” is being interpreted to mean “moved apart by the first cam disk being moved away from the second cam disk”.
Regarding claim 21, “A functional unit” in claim 21 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a functional unit” in claim 21 is the same as “a functional unit” in claim 13. For examination purposes, “a functional unit” in claim 21 is being interpreted as “the functional unit”.
Regarding claim 22, “A functional unit” in claim 22 is indefinite because it is unclear if “a functional unit” in claim 22 is the same as “a functional unit” in claim 13. For examination purposes, “a functional unit” in claim 22 is being interpreted as “the functional unit”.
Regarding claim 23, “the machine tool being configured to superimpose a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool with the impact movement” is indefinite because it is unclear how the machine tool can “superimpose” one movement with another movement. For examination purposes, “the machine tool being configured to superimpose a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool with the impact movement” is being interpreted to mean “the machine tool being configured to convert a rotary movement of a tool of a machine tool to the impact movement”.
Regarding claims 14-19 and 24, claims 14-19 and 24 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
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.
(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 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Short (US 3,119,274).
Regarding claim 13, Short discloses an interface (Fig. 2, item 31, 33) for connecting partial shafts (Fig. 2, item 24, 32) in a functional unit (Fig. 2), the functional unit being configured for generating an impact movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47), the functional unit including a first cam disk (Fig. 2, item 37) and a second cam disk (Fig. 2, item 40), the first cam disk being connected to a shaft device (Fig. 2, item 32, 24) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) and the second cam disk being connected in a stationary manner (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) to a housing (Fig. 2, item 13) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); the first cam disk and the second cam disk interacting to generate the impact movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); the functional unit being configured to superimpose a rotary movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) of a tool of a machine tool (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) with the impact movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); the shaft device including a first partial shaft (Fig. 2, item 24) and a second partial shaft (Fig. 2, item 32); the interface comprising: a connection (Fig. 2, item 31, 33) for connecting the first partial shaft and the second partial shaft (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47).
Regarding claim 14, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the first cam disk and the second cam disk each have at least one structural element (Fig. 2, item 37, 40), so that an alternating axial stroke (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) is generated in a relative movement between the first cam disk and the second cam disk (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, axial stroke occurs in the space between the first cam 37 and second cam 40).
Regarding claim 15, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the first partial shaft or the second partial shaft is configured to be stationary (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, second shaft 24 rotates but does not move axially) in the axial direction (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47), while the respective other partial shaft is configured to be movable in the axial direction (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, first shaft 32 can move axially).
Regarding claim 16, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the first cam disk (Fig. 2, item 37) is present so as to be disposed on the movably configured partial shaft (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47).
Regarding claim 17, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the impact movement has a higher frequency than the rotary movement of the machine tool or of the tool (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, impact in the hammer mode occurs more frequently than one rotation of the tool).
Regarding claim 18, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the impact movement with which the rotary movement of the tool of the machine tool is superimposable is able to be switched on and off (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) in that the first and second cam disks are moved apart in an axial direction (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) to so that there is no contact between the first and second cam disks (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) (Fig. 3, there is no contact between the first cam disk 37 and second cam disk 40).
Regarding claim 19, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the first and second cam are moved apart by the first cam disk being moved away from the second cam disk (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, first cam disk 37 moves away from second cam disk 40).
Regarding claim 20, Short discloses the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the first and second cam disks are moved apart by the second cam disk being moved away from the first cam disk (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, under the interpretation given based on the above 112(b) rejection, first cam disk 37 moves away from second cam disk 40).
Regarding claim 21, Short discloses a functional unit (Fig. 2) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) comprising the interface as recited in claim 13 wherein the functional unit is present so as to be integrated in the machine tool (Fig. 2) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47).
Regarding claim 22, Short discloses a functional unit (Fig. 2) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) comprising the interface as recited in claim 13 (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) wherein the functional unit is disposable as an external module (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47, functional unit is located in impact housing 14 between chuck 15 and gear case 13) between the too (Fig. 2, item 15) and the machine tool (Fig. 2, item 13).
Regarding claim 23, Short discloses a machine tool (Fig. 2, item 10) comprising: a tool (Fig. 2, item 16, 18) configured to carry out a rotary movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47), the machine tool specified to generate an impact movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); a shaft device (Fig. 2, item 32, 24); a housing (Fig 2, item 13) and a functional unit (Fig. 2, item 37, 40), the functional unit including a first cam disk (Fig. 2, item 37) and a second cam disk (Fig. 2, item 40), the first cam disk being connected to the shaft device (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) and the second cam disk being connected in a locationally fixed manner (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) to the housing (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); the first cam disk and the second cam disk interacting in order to generate the impact movement (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47); the machine tool being configured to superimpose the impact movement on the rotary movement of the tool (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47).
Regarding claim 24, Short discloses the machine tool as recited in claim 23 wherein the shaft device includes a first partial shaft (Fig. 2, item 24) and a second partial shaft (Fig. 2, item 32), the first partial shaft and the second partial shaft being able to be connected to one another (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47) by way of an interface (Fig. 2, item 31, 33) (Col. 2, line 17-Col. 3, line 47).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cousineau (US 4,450,919) and Fahim (US 4,489,792) both teach interfaces for connecting partial shafts in a functional unit and can be used to make a 35 USC 102 rejection of at least claims 13 and 23.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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 at (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 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights