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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 11/13/24.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 7-8 and 17-20 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.
In claims 7 and 20, the limitation of “a ratio of a rotational speed of the drive shaft to a rotational speed of the main shaft is substantially a constant value” render the claims indefinite in that it is unclear what re the values and its boundaries. For the purposes of examination, the ratio of rotational speed would be interpreted as a value that does not change, such as a constant low or high speed.
In claims 8 and 17, the limitation of “a gear ratio from the drive shaft to the main shaft is higher than or equal to 9” renders the claims indefinite in that it is unclear to which gear and/or gears does the limitation refers to?
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumagai et al. (2021/0276164).
Regarding claim 1, Kumagai discloses an impact tool, comprising: a motor (10; Fig. 2) comprising a drive shaft (19; Fig. 3) that rotates about a first axis; an output shaft (18) that rotates about an output axis; an impact mechanism (hammer 16, anvil 18a; Figs. 3-4) applying an impact force to the output shaft (par. 33), wherein the impact mechanism comprises an impact block (16) driven by the motor and a hammer anvil (18a) mating with the impact block and impacted by the impact block; a transmission mechanism (12) configured to transmit torque outputted from the drive shaft (19) to the output shaft (18), wherein the transmission mechanism comprises a multi-stage transmission assembly (par. 102); and a direct current power supply (battery 28; par. 40) powering at least the motor, wherein a nominal voltage of the direct current power supply is less than 18 V (i.e. 14.4V; par. 40), and a fastening torque of the output shaft on a workpiece is greater than or equal to 170 N-m (par. 90).
Regarding claim 2, Kumagai discloses wherein the multi-stage transmission assembly comprises at least two stages of planet gear reduction assemblies (par. 102).
Regarding claim 11, Kumagai discloses wherein the nominal voltage of the direct current power supply is greater than or equal to 3 V and less than or equal to 9 V (note that the battery volt could be less than 14.4 which could be within the ratio of 3-9).
Regarding claims 12-13, Kumagai discloses a housing (2) configured to have an accommodation space, wherein the motor (10) is disposed in the accommodation space (Fig. 3), and a distance L1 from a rear end of the housing to a front end of the output shaft is less than or equal to 145 mm (Abstract; pars. 7, 8, 75); wherein the distance L1 from the rear end of the housing to the front end of the output shaft is less than or equal to 135 mm (Abstract; pars. 7, 8, 75).
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.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai et al. (2021/0276164).
Regarding claim 15, Kumagai discloses an impact tool comprising an impact block (hammer 16), wherein the weight of the impact tool is 2.0 kilograms or less (par. 89), but fails to disclose wherein a diameter of the impact block is greater than or equal to 40 mm, and a mass of the impact block is greater than or equal to 120 g. It is construed that the dimensions as claimed are commercially known and it is old and well known practically sized in the industry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to have modified Kumagai’s impact block with the claimed diameter and weight to conform with the commonly selected size on the market. Furthermore, since it is well known and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known design configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Kumagai discloses an impact tool, comprising: a motor (10; Fig. 2) comprising a drive shaft (19; Fig. 3) that rotates about a first axis; an output shaft (18) that rotates about an output axis; an impact mechanism (hammer 16, anvil 18a; Figs. 3-4) applying an impact force to the output shaft (par. 33), wherein the impact mechanism comprises an impact block (16) driven by the motor and a hammer anvil (18a) mating with the impact block and impacted by the impact block; a transmission mechanism (12) configured to transmit torque outputted from the drive shaft (19) to the output shaft (18), wherein the transmission mechanism comprises a multi-stage transmission assembly (par. 102); and a direct current power supply (battery 28; par. 40) powering at least the motor, wherein a nominal voltage of the direct current power supply is less than 18 V (i.e. 14.4V; par. 40), and a fastening torque of the output shaft on a workpiece is greater than or equal to 170 N-m (par. 90), but fails to disclose wherein a nominal voltage of the direct current power supply is greater than or equal to 3 V and less than or equal to 9 V. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power supply as claimed because Applicant has not disclosed that said angle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either voltage of 14.4 or the claimed voltage of greater than or equal to 3 V and less than or equal to 9 V because both configurations perform the same function of providing power supply to the electric motor of an impact power tool.
Regarding claim 17, Kumagai does not specifically disclose a gear ratio higher or equal to 9. It is construed that the dimensions as claimed are commercially known and it is old and well known practically sized in the industry. Providing gears with specific sizes and/or dimensions would provide specific and/or desired gear ratios and rotational speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified invention of Kumagai so that the gear ration is higher or equal to 9 to conform with the commonly selected size on the market. Furthermore, since it is well known and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known design configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 18, Kumagai discloses 18. The impact tool according to claim 17, wherein the transmission mechanism comprises a multistage transmission assembly, and the multi-stage transmission assembly comprises at least two stages of planet gear reduction assemblies (par. 102).
Claim(s) 3-8, 14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai et al. (2021/0276164) in view of Hirabayashi (2013/0033217).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Kumagqi discloses a multi-stage transmission assembly comprises at least two stages of planet gear reduction assemblies (par. 102), but fails to disclose wherein the multi-stage transmission assembly comprises: a first planet carrier disposed in front of the motor; first planet gears supported by the first planet carrier; a second planet carrier disposed in front of the first planet carrier; second planet gears supported by the second planet carrier; and an inner ring gear causing at least the second planet gears to perform a planetary motion. Hirabayashi discloses a power tool comprising a multi-stage transmission assembly with at least two stages of planet gear reduction assemblies (pars. 34-35), wherein the multi-stage transmission assembly comprises: a first planet carrier (20) disposed in front of a motor (4; Fig. 1); first planet gears (21) supported by the first planet carrier (20); a second planet carrier (23) disposed in front of the first planet carrier; second planet gears (24) supported by the second planet carrier (23); and an inner ring gear (19) causing at least the second planet gears to perform a planetary motion for the purposes of adjusting the speed of the tool as desired during use. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Kumagai’s two-stage transmission as taught by Hirabayashi in order to adjust a desired speed of the tool during its use.
Regarding claim 4, the modified invention of Kumagai fails to disclose wherein an outer diameter of the inner ring gear is less than or equal to 50 mm. The figures of Kumagai and Hirabayashi are presumed not to be drawn to scale since the figures do not mention otherwise. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have made the modified invention of Kumagai with an inner ring having an outer diameter less than or equal to 50 mm since the applicant has not disclosed that the size and/or dimension of the inner ring solves any stated problem, but rather the configuration of the inner ring with the planetary gears and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with either inner ring design choice.
Regarding claims 5-6, Hirabayashi also discloses wherein the impact mechanism further comprises a main shaft (spindle 7; Fig. 1) connecting an impact block (40) to a drive shaft (5) and a first bearing (25; Fig. 1) supporting rotation of the main shaft, and the first bearing restrains axial displacement of the inner ring gear (19; par. 34); wherein the first bearing (25) overlaps with the second planet carrier (23) along a direction of the first axis (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Hirabashi also discloses wherein a ratio of a rotational speed of the drive shaft (5) to a rotational speed of the main shaft (7) is substantially a constant value (i.e. low-speed mode or high-speed mode; par. 7, 38, 58).
Regarding claim 8, the modified invention of Kumagai does not specifically disclose a gear ratio higher or equal to 9. It is construed that the dimensions as claimed are commercially known and it is old and well known practically sized in the industry. Providing gears with specific sizes and/or dimensions would provide specific and/or desired gear ratios and rotational speed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the modified invention of Kumagai so that the gear ration is higher or equal to 9 to conform with the commonly selected size on the market. Furthermore, since it is well known and within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known design configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Hirabayashi also discloses wherein the transmission mechanism further comprises a housing assembly (17; Fig. 3), the housing assembly comprises first recesses provided on an outer side of the housing assembly and extending inward and second recesses provided on an inner side of the housing assembly and extending outward, and the first recesses and the second recesses are circumferentially spaced apart (as shown in annotated Fig. 3 attached below).
[AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
198
308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai et al. (2021/0276164) in view of Hirabayashi et al. (2023/0182270).
Regarding claim 10, Kumagai discloses the inventions substantially as claimed comprising an output shaft (18), but fails to disclose wherein a maximum rotational speed of the output shaft is less than or equal to 3000 rpm. Hirabayashi discloses an impact tool comprising an output shaft with maximum rotational speed less than or equal to 3000 rpm for the purposes of providing improved ergonomics and/or work efficiency (pars. 126, 133-134). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Kumagai’s output shaft with maximum rotational speed less than or equal to 3000 rpm, as taught by Hirabayashi, in order to provide improved ergonomics and/or work efficiency (pars. 126, 133-134).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731