DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed 12/18/2024.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled;
Claims 21-40 are new;
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the Application on 12/17/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations in this application that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Output adjusting mechanism: valve (94); par 117
Means for elastically compressing: elastic ring 83; par 96
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.
Claim 30 is 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. The specification at par 116, 125-126 does not disclose a hollow first blade.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 27 recites the limitation "the front unit case" in line 1 of the Claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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)(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 21-23, 25, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai et al. (US 20120073846; Hirai).
Regarding Claim 21 Hirai discloses an oil unit (20) for an impact power tool (1), comprising:
an impulse case (21) having an inner cylindrical wall and at least a first protrusion (21c/21d) defined on the inner cylindrical wall, the first protrusion (21c/21d) bulging radially inward from the inner cylindrical wall; (Fig. 2)
at least a first blade (25a/25b) disposed within the impulse case (21) and being configured to contact the inner cylindrical wall and to contact the first protrusion in a rotational direction of the impulse case;
an anvil (23) partially disposed within the impulse case (21), the first blade (25a/25b) being rotatable with a portion of the anvil (23) disposed within the impulse case (21); and
an elastic member (30) disposed within the impulse case (21) spaced apart from the anvil (23), the elastic member (30) being configured to contract in response to an increase in pressure of oil disposed within the impulse case (21). (par 50)
Regarding Claim 22 Hirai discloses the invention as described above. Hirai further discloses the elastic member (30) is curved and at least partially radially surrounds the anvil (23). (par 50; Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 23 Hirai discloses the invention as described above. Hirai further discloses a plate (22) disposed within the impulse case (21) between the elastic member (30) and the first blade (25a/25b). (par 46)
Regarding Claim 25 Hirai discloses the invention as described above. Hirai further discloses the impulse case (21) comprises a front unit case (4) affixed to a rear unit case (11). (par 43)
Regarding Claim 39 Hirai discloses the invention as described above. Hirai further discloses an impact driver, comprising: a brushless motor (3), a planetary gear mechanism (par 40) driven by the brushless motor (3), the oil unit of claim 21 configured to be rotatably driven by the planetary gear mechanism (par 40), and a chuck (15) provided at or in a terminal end of the anvil (23), the chuck (23) being configured to hold a tool bit. (par 42)
Regarding Claim 40 Hirai discloses an oil unit for an impact power tool, comprising:
an impulse case (21) having an inner cylindrical wall and at least a first protrusion (21c/21d) defined on the inner cylindrical wall, the first protrusion (21c/21d) bulging radially inward from the inner cylindrical wall; (Fig. 2)
at least a first blade (25a/25b) disposed within the impulse case (21) and being configured to contact the inner cylindrical wall and to contact the first protrusion (21c/21d) in a rotational direction of the impulse case (21);
an anvil (23) partially disposed within the impulse case, the first blade (25a/25b) being rotatable with a portion of the anvil (23) disposed within the impulse case (21); and
means for elastically compressing (30) in response to an increase in pressure of oil disposed within the impulse case (21), said means (30) being disposed within the impulse case (21) spaced apart from the anvil (23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 26-38 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 24 Hirai teaches a plate (22) in addition to the limitations included in Claims 21 and 23.
The Prior Art does not teach a plate with notches defined in an outer circumference, the notches defining gaps between the outer circumference of the plate and the inner cylindrical wall of the impulse case for the oil to flow through more effectively controlling the flow of oil and therefore the pressure in the impulse case.
Regarding Claim 26 Hirai teaches an elastic member (30) in addition to the limitations included in Claim 21.
The Prior Art does not teach the elastic member contains gas trapped therein for more effectively dampening the tool components during fluctuating operating pressures.
Regarding Claim 27 Hirai teaches a front unit case (4) and an elastic member (30).
The Prior Art does not teach a cylindrical tubular rib is defined within the front unit case; and the elastic member is disposed between a radially outer periphery of the cylindrical tubular rib and the inner cylindrical wall of the front unit case effectively controlling the flow of oil and therefore the pressure in the impulse case.
Regarding Claim 28 Hirai teaches an output adjusting mechanism (32) at one circumferential location on the impulse case (21) above the anvil (23) defining a sealed space (par 50)
The Prior Art does not teach an output adjusting mechanism disposed in an axially extending hole defined in the anvil effectively streamlining the flow of oil and pressure acting on the anvil.
Regarding Claim 30 Hirai teaches a first blade (25a/25b)
The Prior Art does not teach the first blade has a hollow interior.
Regarding Claim 31 Hirai teaches a spring (26a/26b) that move the first blade (25a/25b) in a radially outward direction of the impulse case (21).
The Prior Art does not teach a ball configured to move the first blade in a radially outward direction of the impulse case effectively improving the connection and movement of the blades under pressure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 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, 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
