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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “a structure” in claim 14 (interpreted to be any structure, see below 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 fails to comply with the written description requirement because the disclosure does not provide the relevant structure for “a structure”, as required under 35 USC 112(f). The specification and drawings do not disclose any structure associated with “a structure”. See below 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Regarding claims 15-20, claims 15-20 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 14.
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 1-20 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 1, “the torque” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 2, “the rated voltage” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the depth”, “the location”, and “the axial direction” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the depth”, “the end portion”, “the depth”, and “the center portion” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5, “the depth”, “the end portion”, “the depth”, and “the center portion” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the depth” and “the center” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the point”, “the rotational axis”, and “the contact point” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the closer” and “the smaller” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the torque” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, “the rated voltage” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the depth”, “the location”, and “the axial direction” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14, “the biasing force”, “the rotational torque”, “the elastic force”, “the torque”, and “the stroke” lack antecedent basis.
Additionally, claim limitation “a structure” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not describe the structure required under 35 USC 112(f) for the limitation “a structure”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 15, “the location”, “the minimum”, “the stroke”, and “the maximum” lack antecedent basis.
Additionally, “a first region” and “a second region” are indefinite because it is unclear if “a first region” and “a second region” in claim 15 is the same as “a first region” and “a second region” in claim 14. For examination purposes, “a first region” and “a second region” in claim 15 is being interpreted to “the first region” and “the second region”.
Regarding claim 16, “the maximum value” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “the maximum fastening torque” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18, “the depth” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 19-20, claims 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomayko et al (US 2025/0073866), hereinafter Tomayko.
Regarding claim 1, Tomayko discloses an impact tool (Fig. 3, item 100) comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3, item 200) supplied with a voltage of 18 V or more (Para. 0038);
a spindle (Fig. 4B, item 430) rotated by the motor;
a spindle groove (Fig. 4B, item 432) formed in the spindle (Para. 0099);
a ball (Fig. 4A, item 434) held in the spindle groove (Para. 0099);
a hammer (Fig. 3, item 410) supported on the spindle via the ball (Fig. 3) (Para. 0099);
at least one spring (Fig. 3, item 420), which biases the hammer forward (Para. 0099); and
an anvil (Fig. 3, item 450) configured to be impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (Para. 0098-0099).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose wherein an impact-start torque, which is the torque acting on the anvil when the hammer starts to impact the anvil, is 1,100 N·mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the impact-start torque to be 1,100 N·mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Tomayko discloses the impact tool according to claim 1, comprising: a battery-mounting part (Fig. 3, item 118), onto which a battery pack (Fig. 3, item 120) is mounted (Para. 0062); wherein the rated voltage of the battery pack is 18 V or more (Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 3, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 1, wherein the depth of the spindle groove differs in accordance with the location thereof in the axial direction of the spindle.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the spindle groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 4, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 3, wherein the depth of the end portion of the spindle groove is at least 5% deeper than the depth of the center portion of the spindle groove.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the spindle groove such that the depth of the end portion is at least 5% deeper than the depth of the center portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 3, wherein the depth of the end portion of the spindle groove is 5-15% deeper than the depth of the center portion of the spindle groove.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the spindle groove such that the depth of the end portion is at least 5% deeper than the depth of the center portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Tomayko disclose the impact tool according to claim 1, wherein the depth of the spindle groove is such that: at a center portion of the spindle groove (Fig. 4B, center portion of the groove can be anywhere along the groove), the center of the ball is located radially outward of the outer circumferential surface of the spindle shaft portion of the spindle (Fig. 3, ball 434 is located radially outward of the circumferential surface of the sprindle 430).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose at an end portion of the spindle groove, the center of the ball is located radially inward of an outer circumferential surface of a spindle shaft portion of the spindle.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the spindle groove such that the depth of the end portion is at least 5% deeper than the depth of the center portion, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Tomayko discloses an impact tool (Fig. 3, item 100) comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3, item 200) (Para. 0038);
a spindle (Fig. 4B, item 430) rotated by the motor;
a spindle groove (Fig. 4B, item 432) formed in the spindle (Para. 0099);
a ball (Fig. 4A, item 434) held in the spindle groove (Para. 0099);
a hammer (Fig. 3, item 410) having a hammer groove (Fig. 3, hammer 410 has a hammer groove which accommodates ball 434), in which at least a portion of the ball is disposed (Para. 0096-0099), the hammer being supported on the spindle via the ball (Para. 0096-0099);
at least one spring (Fig. 3, item 420), which biases the hammer forward (Para. 0099); and
an anvil (Fig. 3, item 450) configured to be impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (Para. 0098-0099);
wherein an angle is formed between a tangent vector (Fig. 3) (Para. 0096-0099) and a load vector (Fig. 3) (Para. 0096-0099) when a maximum-stroke time (Para. 0096-0099) is defined as the point in time at which the hammer has moved most rearward (Para. 0096-0099) relative to the spindle (Para. 0096-0099), the tangent vector being defined as having a direction parallel to a tangent of a circle about the rotational axis of the spindle and through a contact point between the ball and the hammer groove (Fig. 3, a tangent vector exists in the direction parallel to the rotational axis of the spindle 430 and through the contact point between ball 434 and hammer 410), and the load vector being defined as having a direction in which a load is transmitted from the ball to the contact point with the hammer (Fig. 3, a load vector exists and extends along the direction of a load from ball 434 to contact with hammer 410).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose the angle formed between the tangent vector and the load vector is 50° or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the spindle and hammer such that the angle between the tangent vector and load vector is 50° or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 7, wherein: an end portion of the spindle groove is disposed more rearward than a center portion of the spindle groove; when the hammer moves rearward relative to the spindle, the ball moves to the end portion of the spindle groove; and the closer the ball gets to the end portion of the spindle groove, the smaller the angle becomes.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the spindle groove and the hammer of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 9, Tomayko discloses an impact tool (Fig. 3, item 100) comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3, item 200) supplied with a voltage of 18 V or more (Para. 0038);
a spindle (Fig. 4B, item 430) rotated by the motor;
a spindle groove (Fig. 4B, item 432) formed in the spindle (Para. 0099);
a ball (Fig. 4A, item 434) held in the spindle groove (Para. 0099);
a hammer (Fig. 3, item 410) supported on the spindle via the ball (Fig. 3) (Para. 0099);
at least one spring (Fig. 3, item 420), which biases the hammer forward (Para. 0099); and
an anvil (Fig. 3, item 450) configured to be impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (Para. 0098-0099).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose a maximum fastening torque is higher than 220 N·m; and the impact-start torque, which is the torque acting on the anvil when the hammer starts to impact the anvil, is 1,300 N·mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the maximum fastening torque to more than 220 N·m and the impact-start torque to be 1,300 N·mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, Tomayko discloses the impact tool according to claim 9, comprising: a battery-mounting part (Fig. 3, item 118), onto which a battery pack (Fig. 3, item 120) is mounted (Para. 0062); wherein the rated voltage of the battery pack is 18 V or more (Para. 0038).
Regarding claim 11, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 9, wherein the depth of the spindle groove differs in accordance with the location thereof in the axial direction of the spindle.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the spindle groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 12, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 9, wherein the maximum fastening torque is 230 N·m or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the maximum fastening torque to 230 N·m or more, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 9, wherein a value calculated by dividing the maximum fastening torque (N·mm) by the impact-start torque (N·mm) is greater than 165.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the maximum fastening torque and impact-start torque such that the ratio between the two is greater than 165, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, Tomayko discloses an impact tool (Fig. 3, item 100) comprising:
a motor (Fig. 3, item 200) (Para. 0038);
a spindle (Fig. 4B, item 430) rotated by the motor;
a cam element (Fig. 4B, item 432) (Fig. 4A, item 434) that includes a spindle groove (Fig. 4B, item 432), which is formed in the spindle (Para. 0099), and a ball (Fig. 4A, item 434), which is held in the spindle groove (Para. 0099);
a hammer (Fig. 3, item 410) supported on the spindle via the ball (Fig. 3) (Para. 0099);
at least one spring element (Fig. 3, item 420), which biases the hammer forward (Para. 0099); and
an anvil (Fig. 3, item 450) configured to be impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (Para. 0098-0099);
wherein the impact tool is configured such that, at an impact time (Para. 0097-0100), the hammer resists the biasing force of the at least one spring element (Para. 0097-0100) owing to the rotational torque from the motor (Para. 0097-0100) imparted thereto via the spindle and the cam element (Para. 0097-0100) and, after having moved rearward while rotating (Para. 0097-0100), advances while rotating (Para. 0097-0100) owing to the elastic force of the at least one spring element (Para. 0097-0100), which was compressed, and the cam element (Para. 0097-0100); and the cam element (Fig. 4B, item 432) (Fig. 4A, item 434) and the at least one spring element (Fig. 3, item 420) each have a structure (Fig. 4B, item 432) (Fig. 4A, item 434) (Fig. 3, item 420).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose the structure is configured to nonlinearly increase a required torque, which is the torque needed to rotate the hammer, to suppress an increase in the required torque in a first region in which a rearward stroke of the hammer is shorter, and to boost the increase in the required torque in a second region in which the stroke of the hammer is longer.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the structure of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, such that the structure nonlinearly increases the required torque. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 15, Tomayko discloses the impact tool according to claim 14, wherein, when a first region (Fig. 3, first region is when hammer does not contact anvil) (Para. 0097-0100) is defined as extending from the location (Para. 0097-0100) at which a rearward stroke of the hammer becomes the minimum (Para. 0097-0100) up to the location at which the hammer and the anvil are no longer in contact (Para. 0097-0100) and a second region (Fig. 3, second region is when hammer does contact the anvil) (Para. 0097-0100) is defined as a prescribed region that includes a location (Para. 0097-0100) at which the stroke is longer (Para. 0097-0100) than the stroke in the first region (Para. 0097-0100) and the stroke becomes the maximum (Para. 0097-0100).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose a first degree of change in the required torque with respect to the stroke in the first region is smaller than a second degree of change in the required torque with respect to the stroke in the second region.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to form the hammer and spindle, such that the torque required in the first region is smaller than the torque required in the second region, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 15, wherein the maximum value of the required torque in the first region is 1,300 N·mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the impact-start torque to be 1,300 N·mm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 14, wherein the maximum fastening torque is 230 N·m or more and 350 N·m or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to set the maximum fastening torque to 230 N·m or more and 350 N·m or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 18, Tomayko does not expressly disclose the impact tool according to claim 14, wherein the depth of a rear portion of the spindle groove is deeper than the depth of a front portion of the spindle groove.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the spindle groove of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Regarding claim 19, Tomayko discloses the impact tool according to claim 14, wherein: having a hammer groove (Fig. 3, hammer 410 has a hammer groove which accommodates ball 434), in which at least a portion of the ball is disposed (Para. 0096-0099); and
when a tangent vector (Fig. 3, a tangent vector exists in the direction parallel to the rotational axis of the spindle 430 and through the contact point between ball 434 and hammer 410) is defined as having a direction parallel to a tangent of a circle (Para. 0096-0099) about a rotational axis of the spindle (Para. 0096-0099) and through a contact point (Para. 0096-0099) between the ball and the hammer groove (Para. 0096-0099), and a load vector (Fig. 3, a load vector exists and extends along the direction of a load from ball 434 to contact with hammer 410) is defined as having a direction in which a load is transmitted (Para. 0096-0099) from the ball to the contact point with the hammer (Para. 0096-0099).
Tomayko does not expressly disclose an angle formed between the tangent vector and the load vector at a rear portion of the spindle groove is smaller than an angle formed between the tangent vector and the load vector at a front portion of the spindle groove. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure the spindle and hammer such that the angle between the tangent vector and load vector is 50° or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomayko et al (US 2025/0073866), hereinafter Tomayko, in view of Kondo (US 2021/0162571).
Regarding claim 20, Tomayko is silent about the impact tool according to claim 14, wherein: the at least one spring element includes a first coil spring and a second coil spring; the first coil spring continuously applies a biasing force to the hammer that urges the hammer to move forward; and the second coil spring applies a biasing force to the hammer after the hammer has moved rearward from a forwardmost position.
However, Kondo teaches an impact tool (Kondo, Fig. 1, item 1) having at least one spring element (Kondo, Fig. 2, item 91, 92) including a first coil spring (Kondo, Fig. 2, item 91) and a second coil spring (Kondo, Fig. 2, item 92); the first coil spring continuously applies a biasing force (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131) to the hammer that urges the hammer to move forward (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131); and the second coil spring applies a biasing force (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131) to the hammer (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131) after the hammer has moved rearward (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131) from a forwardmost position (Kondo, Para. 0108-0111, 0128-0131).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Tomayko and Kondo to modify the impact tool of Tomayko to include the two coil springs of Kondo. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to support and bias the hammer as the hammer moves through the entire driving stroke.
Conclusion
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