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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ring (e.g., ring 5) and motor with gearbox, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 6-10 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a ring" in line 3, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by a “ring”. Different embodiments disclosed in the ordinally filed specification and drawings, describe for a magnetic force adjustment defined by a gasket or a ring or a combination of the two. However, there are no drawings that clearly define what a ring is. Based on the common definition, it appears an open C-ring or an O-ring is being described. But the embodiment of Fig. 3, which describes an integral form, only discloses a gasket. Drawings do not point to the ring 5, and the distinctions between these different forms of elements, e.g., gasket (e.g., 4), ring (e.g., 5) or ring 4a, (inner bevel), 4b (ring angle ring), 4c (ring with circular x-sec) or a connecting sheet (6) need to be clarified without adding new matter.
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.
Claims 1-11, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters et al. (2018/0071899 “Peters”).
PNG
media_image1.png
191
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Peters discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver 01:12, comprising:
a power output shaft front section 472 and a shaft end sleeve 474 in cooperation with the power output shaft front section Fig. 61A, wherein a magnet 482 and a bit connecting hole 478 are provided in the shaft end sleeve 472, and the power output shaft front section 472, the magnet 482, and the bit connecting hole 478 are sequentially arranged in an axial direction of the shaft end sleeve Fig. 61A; and the shaft end sleeve 474 is made of a non-magnetically conductive material i.e., retractable collar made of non-magnetic material [0123]..
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Peters) meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 1, wherein the power output shaft front section 472 is made of a magnetically conductive material [111], and an end surface of the power output shaft front section 472 and the magnet 482 are in contact with each other Fig. 61A.
PNG
media_image2.png
274
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 2, wherein a single-surface end surface area of the magnet 482 is not greater than an area of a shaft end of the power output shaft front section 472 in contact with the magnet 482, Fig. 61A, partially shown here.
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 2, wherein a radial cross-section of the power output shaft front section 472 is a regular polygon, a radial cross-section of the magnet 482 is a circle ring-shaped magnet, and an opposite-side size of the regular polygon is not less than a diameter of the magnet 482, Fig. 61A.
Regarding claim 5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to 3, wherein a radial cross-section of the power output shaft front section 472 is a regular polygon, a radial cross-section of the magnet 482 is a circle ring magnet, and an opposite-side size of the regular polygon is not less than a diameter of the magnet 482, Fig. 61A.
Regarding claim 6, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 1, wherein a magnetic force adjustment structure is further disposed at a bit connecting end of the magnet 482, and the magnetic force adjustment structure is one of a gasket, a ring 492, or a combined structure of the gasket and the ring.
Regarding claim 7, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 6, wherein when the magnetic force adjustment structure is a ring, the ring is a ring 492 with an inner bevel, a right-angle ring or a ring 472 with a cross-section being a circle, and the inner bevel is in contact with a chamfer at a tail portion of a connected bit, as best understood.
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 6, wherein when the magnetic force adjustment structure is a combined structure of the gasket cap 486 and the ring 492, the gasket 486 and the ring have an integrated structure with equal outer diameters Fig. 61A or a concentric stack structure of the gasket and the ring with equal outer diameters, and the gasket 486 is placed between the magnet 482 and the ring 492, Fig. 61A.
Regarding claim 9, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 7, wherein when the magnetic force adjustment structure is a ring 492, the ring is a C-shaped ring or a closed ring structure.
Regarding claim 10, PA meets the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 9, wherein when the magnetic force adjustment structure is a closed ring structure 492, the closed ring structure matches the chamfer at the tail portion of the bit Fig. 61B, and the chamfer of the bit is one of an inclined-plane chamfer or a right-angled chamfer.
Regarding claim 11, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 1, wherein a C-shaped ring 492, 02:25 is further disposed at a bit connecting end of the magnet 482, and an arc-shaped chamfer, a trapezoidal chamfer or a right-angled chamfer matching the C-shaped ring is disposed at a tail portion of a bit Fig. 61A.
PNG
media_image3.png
260
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (GROOVE)]Regarding claim 14, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 11, wherein the shaft end sleeve 472 is connected to the C-shaped ring 492, 02:25 by an inner annular groove partial annotated Fig. 61A.
Regarding claim 16, PA meets the limitations, i.e., an electric screwdriver, comprising the tool bit connection shaft structure for an electric screwdriver according to claim 1 power tool in form of an electric screwdriver, incorporated reference USP 5,988,957.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Vanko et al. (2020/0114499 “Vanko”).
Peters meets all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above and although the claim is directed to a bit connection structure, Peters meets the claim, except for disclosing the particulars of an electric motor for use with the inventio, having gearbox.
Vanko teaches lighted power tool comprising a power output shaft front section 70 is transmission-connected to a motor body 26 by a power output shaft rear section (21) and a speed change gearbox sequentially, and the power output shaft front section 102 and the power output shaft rear section have a split structure or an integrated structure. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use the invention of Peters with an electric screwdriver having a motor and a speed gearbox as taught by Vanko to enhance the operation by securely retaining a driving bit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters.
Peters meets all of the limitations of claim 13, including a connecting sheet cap 486 made of metal or plastic [0148] is further disposed between the shaft end of the power output shaft front section 472 and the magnet 482, Fig. 61A, except for the connecting sheet cap 486 to be a magnetically conductive material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to form the cap of materially conducting metal, e.g., aluminum for its strength, durability and lightness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Vanko et al. (2020/0114499 “Vanko”).
PNG
media_image5.png
175
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Peters meets all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above, including a power output shaft rear section 476 and the shaft end sleeve 474 have an integrated structure i.e., coupled together forming one integral device and a non-magnetically conductive structure e.g., rubber floating sleeve [0145], a cavity 478, 486 in contact with the magnet 482 is disposed in the integrated structure, except for the magnetic guiding block defined by the threaded cap and the hex cavity to be made of a magnetically conductive material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention to form the cap of materially conducting metal, e.g., aluminum for its strength, durability and lightness, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Please note that although claims’ limitations are interpreted in view of the specification and drawing, limitations from the disclosure are not read into the claims. It is also noted that the integral construction of the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 7, appear to disclose a longitudinally split arrangement of the shaft, similar to the cited reference Fairchild et al. (2022/0274235). However, the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 7, properly recited, appears to be allowable over Fairchild.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Hillinger, Fairchild, Huang and Neitzell et al. are cited to show related inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
September 10, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights