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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 12 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 10, 14 – 16, 18 and 20 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 7, 10, 14 – 16, and 20, the limitation, “rear end of the handle”, should read, “rearmost part of the handle”.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation, “arranged in front-end part”, should read, “arranged in the front-end part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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 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.
Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 11, and 17 –20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerspeer (US D610,427 S) in view of Thorson (US 12 005 557 B2).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Hammer Axis)]
PNG
media_image3.png
750
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: textbox (Thorson (US 12 005 557 B2) – Annotated figure 2)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (E)]
Regarding claim 1, Meyerspeer discloses a power tool (hammer drill), comprising:
a housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2) that (i) has a front-end part (housing A, annotated fig. 2) including a front-end surface (surface B, annotated fig. 2) and to which a tool accessory is mounted, and a rear-end part (housing A, annotated fig. 2) including a rear surface (surface B, annotated fig. 2) on the opposite side to the front-end surface; and
a handle (handle E, annotated fig. 2) that is configured to be held by a user,
wherein a rearmost part (part F, annotated fig. 2) of the handle is arranged on the rear-end part of the housing.
Meyerspeer does not explicitly disclose a motor having a motor shaft that rotates around a motor axis; a hammer mechanism that includes a cylinder and a hammer element adjacent to an air chamber defined within the cylinder and converts rotary motion of the motor shaft to linear motion of the hammer element along a hammer axis by utilizing action of an air spring of the air chamber; the motor axis and the hammer axis are parallel to each other, and a rear-end part housing the motor and the hammer mechanism.
However, Thorson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a motor (18, fig. 2) having a motor shaft (shaft A, annotated fig. 2) that rotates around a motor axis (axis B, annotated fig. 2); a hammer mechanism (22, 26, fig. 2) that includes a cylinder (82, fig. 2) and a hammer element (78, fig. 2) adjacent to an air chamber (90, fig. 3) defined within the cylinder and converts rotary motion of the motor shaft to linear motion of the hammer element along a hammer axis (axis C, annotated fig. 2) by utilizing action of an air spring of the air chamber (Col. 3, ll. 44 – 56 describes a reciprocation drive assembly 22 configured as a slider crank mechanism that converts rotary motion of a motor shaft B to reciprocating linear motion of a piston 50. Col. 3, l. 62 – col. 4, l. 8 describes an impact mechanism 26 configured, in response to the reciprocating linear motion of a piston 50, to cause linear motion of a striker 78 along a hammer axis C via expansion and contraction of an air pocket between the piston 50 and the striker 78 that induces reciprocation of the striker 78); the motor axis and the hammer axis are parallel to each other (As shown in fig. 2). Thorson also teaches a housing (14, fig. 2. Annotated figure 2 shows housing 14 having a front end part D directly coupled to a barrel 82 and rear-end part E housing a motor 18, a reciprocating drive assembly 22, and an impact mechanism 26) wherein a rear-end part (part E, annotated fig. 2) housing the motor and the hammer mechanism.
Thorson is evidence that the motor having the motor shaft that rotates around the motor axis; the hammer mechanism that includes the cylinder and the hammer element adjacent to the air chamber defined within the cylinder and converts rotary motion of the motor shaft to linear motion of the hammer element along the hammer axis by utilizing action of the air spring of the air chamber; the motor axis and the hammer axis are parallel to each other, and the rear-end part housing the motor and the hammer mechanism was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool/hammer drill of Meyerspeer with the motor having the motor shaft that rotates around the motor axis; the hammer mechanism that includes the cylinder and the hammer element adjacent to the air chamber defined within the cylinder and converts rotary motion of the motor shaft to linear motion of the hammer element along the hammer axis by utilizing action of the air spring of the air chamber; the motor axis and the hammer axis are parallel to each other, and the rear-end part housing the motor and the hammer mechanism, as taught by Thorson. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the power tool/hammer drill of Meyerspeer as described above because Meyerspeer only discloses the exterior and housing features of the power tool/hammer drill and the one having ordinary skill in the art would look to Thorson for the interior components of the power tool/hammer drill.
Regarding claim 2, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses the rear-end part (Thorson – part E, annotated fig. 2) of the housing includes a motor housing (Thorson – the housing of the rear end part E, annotated fig. 2) that houses the motor (Thorson – 18, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses the hammer axis (Thorson – axis C, annotated fig. 2) passes through the motor (Thorson – 18, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses the hammer mechanism (Thorson – 22, 26, fig. 2) includes a motion converting part (Thorson – 46, fig. 2) that converts rotary motion of the motor shaft into linear motion of the hammer element, and the handle (Meyerspeer – handle E, annotated fig. 2) is connected to a side surface of the housing (Meyerspeer – housing A, C, annotated fig. 2), and arranged on the opposite side to the motion converting part across the hammer axis (Thorson – Annotated figure 2 shows the handle arranged on the opposite side to a majority of a crankshaft 46. Please note, figure 3 of applicant’s Specification shows a handle 70 arranged on the opposite side to a majority of a motion converting part 54 across an hammer axis TX – but not all of the motion converting part 54. That is, a minority portion of the motion converting part 54 that is connected to a piston element is shown to be on the same side of the hammer axis TX as the handle. Thus, in light of the Specification, the limitation is satisfied as long as the handle is arranged on the opposite side to the majority of the motion converting part across the hammer axis).
Regarding claim 6, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses at least a part of the handle overlaps at least a part of the hammer mechanism (Thorson – 22, 26, fig. 2), when the power tool is viewed from above in a direction orthogonal to the motor axis and passing through the handle and the hammer mechanism (Thorson – Figure 2 shows a portion of the handle G overlapping a portion of the reciprocation drive assembly 22 of the hammer mechanism 22, 26).
Regarding claim 7, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Meyerspeer discloses the handle (handle E, annotated fig. 2) includes (i) a rear connection part (part E1, annotated fig. 2) that connects the rear end of the handle to the rear-end part of the housing, (ii) a front connection part (part E2, annotated fig. 2) that connects a front end of the handle to a side surface of the housing, and (iii) a grip part (part E3, annotated fig. 2) that connects the rear connection part and the front connection part.
Regarding claim 8, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses the grip part (part E3, annotated fig. 2) is inclined relative to the hammer axis (Shown in annotated fig. 2 as coincident to a chuck of the power tool/hammer drill of Meyerspeer in the same way that the hammer axis C is coincident to a chuck of the power tool of Thorson) from the rear-end part toward the front-end surface in a direction away from the hammer axis (As shown in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
The drawings of Meyerspeer are ambiguous and do not conclusively show the length of the grip part (part E3, annotated fig, 2) along the hammer axis is a half or more of the length of the housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2) between the front-end surface (surface B, annotated fig. 2) and the rear surface (surface D, annotated fig. 2).
However, the length of the grip part, which defines the length of the grip part along the hammer axis, is crucial for optimizing leverage, reducing user fatigue, and ensuring safety through proper ergonomics. That is, a correctly sized handle provides better control, minimizes muscle strain by accommodating the full hand grip, and balances the tool's weight to prevent injury. Thus, the length of the tool grip part is a result effective variable that results in changes in leverage, user fatigue, and safety through proper ergonomics.
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 the length of the grip part which would result in the length of the grip part along the hammer axis to be half or more of the length of the housing between the front-end surface and the rear surface because it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify or optimize the length of the grip with the predictable result of improving leverage of the tool for better control, minimizing muscle fatigue, and better balancing the tool’s weight for user safety.
[AltContent: textbox (E4)][AltContent: textbox (E5)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Protruding direction)]
Regarding claim 10, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer discloses the handle (handle E, annotated fig. 2) includes a connection part (part E1, annotated fig. 2) that connects the rearmost part (part F, annotated fig. 2) of the handle to the rear-end part (housing C, annotated fig. 2) of the housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2), and a grip part (part E3, annotated fig. 2) that extends from the connection part in an extending direction crossing the hammer axis (As shown in annotated fig. 2), the extending direction has a first direction component (Y component of the line extending in the extending direction, annotated fig. 2) in a direction orthogonal to the hammer axis and a second direction component (X component of the line extending in the extending direction, annotated fig. 2) in a direction along the hammer axis, and the first direction component is greater than the second direction component (As shown in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 10.
Meyerspeer discloses a front end (part E4, annotated fig. 2) of the handle (end E4, annotated fig. 2) is spaced apart from the housing (part E4, annotated fig. 2), and the grip part (part E3, annotated fig. 2) has a protruding part (part E5, annotated fig. 2) protruding from the grip part in a protruding direction crossing the extending direction (As shown in annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 10.
Meyerspeer discloses an antislip part (Figures 1 and 2 show hashing along the body of housing A, C indicating a knurled or ridged surface) on a side surface of the housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2), wherein the antislip part is protruding outward from the side surface (The examiner deems the ridges of knurled surface protrude outward).
Regarding claim 18, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 10.
Meyerspeer discloses the antislip part (Figures 1 and 2 show hashing along the body of housing A, C indicating a knurled or ridged surface) is arranged in the front-end part (housing A, annotated fig. 2) of the housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2).
Regarding claim 19, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 10.
Meyerspeer discloses an angle between the extending direction and the hammer axis is 45 degrees or more and less than 90 degrees (Annotated figure 2 shows the angle between the extending direction and the hammer axis as being between 45 degrees and 90 degrees).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (E6)][AltContent: textbox (G)][AltContent: textbox (F)]
Regarding claim 20, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Meyerspeer discloses a top point (point E6, annotated fig. 2) of the handle (handle E, annotated fig. 2) is positioned forward of a frontmost part (part G, annotated fig. 2) of a rear connection part (part E1, annotated fig. 2) that connects the rearmost part (part F, annotated fig. 2) of the handle to the rear-end part (housing C, annotated fig. 2) of the housing (housing A, C, annotated fig. 2).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerspeer (US D610,427 S), in view of Thorson (US 12 005 557 B2), in further view of Yoshikane (US 2015/0328764 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
412
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (Schreiber (US 4 779 687 A) – Annotated figure 1)]
Regarding claim 3, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer does not disclose a battery mounting part configured such that a battery for supplying power to the motor is removably attached thereto, wherein: the hammer axis passes through the battery mounting part.
However, Schreiber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery mounting part (base plate 11 with rails 12, 13 on end 5, figs. 1, 2) configured such that a battery (7, fig. 1) for supplying power to the motor is removably attached thereto (Col. 2, ll. 60 – 64 describes the batteries 7, 8 supplying power to a motor. Col. 3, ll. 4 – 16 describes a battery pack connecting to and removed from a base plate 11 having rails 12, 13), wherein the tool axis (A, annotated fig. 1) passes through the battery mounting part (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Schreiber with the invention of Meyerspeer, the tool axis A of Schreiber would be analogous to the hammer axis in Meyerspeer thus with the addition of the battery mounting part 11, 12, 13 of Schreiber to the invention of Meyerspeer, the hammer axis of Meyerspeer would passes through this battery mounting part).
Schreiber is evidence that having the battery mounting part configured such that the battery for supplying power to the motor is removably attached thereto, wherein the tool axis passes through the battery mounting part was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the power tool of Meyerspeer with the battery receptacle of Schreiber. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the power tool of Meyerspeer with the battery receptacle of Schreiber with the motivation to provide portability to the power tool allowing operations in remote areas compared to corded power tools.
Regarding claim 12, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
The modified Meyerspeer does not explicitly disclose a battery mounting part that is provided on the rear-end part of the housing and configured such that a battery for supplying power to the motor is removably attachable thereto, wherein: an attaching/detaching direction of the battery to/from the battery mounting part crosses the hammer axis and passes through the handle.
Schreiber, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery mounting part (base plate 11 with rails 12, 13 on end 5, figs. 1, 2) that is provided on the rear end part (5, fig. 1) of the housing (2, fig. 1) and configured such that a battery for supplying power to the motor is removably attachable thereto (Col. 3, ll. 4 – 16 describes a battery pack connecting to and removed from a base plate 11 having rails 12, 13), wherein: an attaching/detaching direction (B, annotated fig. 1) of the battery to/from the battery mounting part crosses the hammer axis and passes through the handle (Annotated figure 1 and figure 2 show the battery pack 7 attaching/detaching via the base plate 11 having rails 12, 13 wherein an attaching/detaching direction B of the battery 7 to/from the battery mounting part 11, 12, 13 on end 5 would be perpendicular to end 5 and crossing the tool axis A as shown in annotated figure 1. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that with the incorporation of the teachings of Schreiber with the invention of Meyerspeer, the tool axis A of Schreiber is analogous to the hammer axis in Meyerspeer thus with the addition of the battery mounting part 11, 12, 13 on end 5 of Schreiber to the invention of Meyerspeer, the hammer axis of Meyerspeer would pass through the attaching/detaching direction B of the battery 7).
Schreiber is evidence that having the battery mounting part that is provided on the rear end part of the housing and configured such that the battery for supplying power to the motor is removably attachable thereto, wherein the attaching/detaching direction of the battery to/from the battery mounting part crosses the hammer axis and passes through the handle was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the power tool of Meyerspeer with the second battery receptacle of Schreiber. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the power tool of Meyerspeer with the second battery receptacle of Schreiber with the motivation to provide portability to the power tool allowing operations in remote areas compared to corded power tools.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyerspeer (US D610,427 S), in view of Thorson (US 12 005 557 B2), in further view of Berdin (US 2015 0298309 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Meyerspeer, as modified by Thorson, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Meyerspeer does not disclose a light emitting part that is configured to emits light toward a working area.
However, Berdin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a light emitting part (124, fig. 1) that is configured to emits light toward a working area ([0021] describes an illumination device 124 helping users to illuminate their work area).
Berdin is evidence that having the light emitting part configured to emits light toward the working area was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of modifying the power tool of Meyerspeer with the light emitting part of Berdin. Additionally, it would have been obvious to modify the power tool of Meyerspeer with the light emitting part of Berdin with the motivation to help users to illuminate their work area to enable precision and accuracy when targeting certain areas of a workpiece.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 – 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1 – 2, 7 – 10, 12 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1 – 2, 7 – 10, 12 and 18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 14, and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 3, 14, and 18 under 35 USC 112(b) has withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 2, 4 – 6, 10 – 11, 16 and 19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 102(a)(2) and the rejection of claims 7 – 9, 13 – 15 and 17 – 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, due to the amendments filed 12 November 2025, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meyerspeer (US D610,427 S) in view of Thorson (US 12 005 557 B2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
21 February 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731