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 filing on 23 December 2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 January 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10 – 13, 15 – 16, and 19 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation, “includes, a first clutch member”, should read, “includes a first clutch member”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation, “torque”, should read, “a torque”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation, “the plurality of protrusions is”, should read, “the plurality of protrusions are”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation, “the plurality of first clutch recesses is”, should read, “the plurality of first clutch recesses are”.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation, “the plurality of output shaft protrusions is”, should read, “the plurality of output shaft protrusions are”.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation, “the plurality of second clutch recesses is”, should read, “the plurality of first second recesses are”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation, “including, a first clutch member”, should read, “including a first clutch member”.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the limitation, “rotational axis A”, should read, “rotational axis”.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation, “the ramped surfaces of the plurality of first clutch lugs is configured”, should read, “the ramped surfaces of the plurality of first clutch lugs are configured”.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation, “the axis”, should read, “the rotational axis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation, “the step surfaces”, are indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Claim 16, upon which claim 17 depends, recites the claim element, “a step surface”, which claims a single step surface wherein the limitation claims a plurality of step surfaces – thus, the claim element, “a step surface”, a single step surface, is not antecedent basis for the limitation because there is no reference to a plurality of step surface. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the claim element, “a step surface”, in claim 16 to mean, “step surfaces”.
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 – 3 and 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limberg (US 9,289,886 B2), in view of Kubale (US 2021/0260734 A1), in further view of Thorp (US 5,054,588 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
210
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
174
140
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Limberg (US 9,289,886 B2)
Portion of figure 2)][AltContent: textbox (Thorp (US 5,054,588 A)
Annotated figure 6)]
Regarding claim 1, Limberg discloses an impact tool comprising:
a housing (34, fig. 2);
a drive assembly (138, fig. 2) supported within the housing, the drive assembly including a hammer (146, fig. 2) and an anvil (150, fig. 2) configured to receive periodic rotational impacts from the hammer;
an output shaft (22, fig. 2) extending from the housing (As shown in figure 1), the output shaft rotatable about an axis (46, fig. 2) in a first direction; and
a clutch assembly (186, fig. 2) coupled between the drive assembly and the output shaft, wherein the clutch assembly is configured to couple the output shaft for co-rotation with the anvil in the first direction (Col. 6, ll. 56 – 64 describes when the clutch mechanism 186 is enabled, upon the first impact between the respective lugs 162, 174 of the hammer 146 and anvil 150, the anvil 150 and the output shaft 22 are co-rotated at least an incremental amount provided the reaction torque on the output shaft 22 is less than the torque setting of the clutch mechanism 186).
Limberg does not explicitly disclose the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Kubale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the output shaft (200, fig. 2) rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite a first direction ([0059] describes a forward/reverse actuator 260 moveable between a first position, in which an anvil 200 rotates about a motor axis 32 in a first (e.g. tightening) direction, and a second position, in which the anvil 200 rotate about the motor axis 32 in a second (e.g. loosening) direction).
Kubale is evidence that having the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction 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 would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale, in order to provide the capability to loosen a fastener from a workpiece thus providing additional functionality to the impact tool.
The modified Limberg does not disclose the clutch assembly configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction.
However, Thorp, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches the clutch assembly (90, 92, 96a-d, fig. 6) configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction (Col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 describes when a motor rotates in a second or reverse direction, the shape or angle of surface 96d is configured to selectively limit torque transfer to an output shaft/bit holder 28 – that is, the torque transfer is limited upon reaching a torque threshold where balls 90 move upwards and over the surface 96d.
Please note, col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 further describes that by appropriately controlling the shapes of the surfaces 96b and 96d it is possible to control with great certainty the characteristics of the clutch operation of the tool in both the forward and reverse directions wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that surfaces 96b and 96d of Thorp are analogous to the surfaces of axially extending protrusions 202 of Limberg).
Thorp is evidence that having the clutch assembly configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction 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 would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the impact tool, specifically the axially extending protrusions 202, of modified Limberg with the clutch assembly configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction, as taught by Thorp. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the impact tool of modified Limberg with the clutch assembly configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction, as taught by Thorp, in order to provide a clutch when loosening the fastener from the workpiece so that the impact tool disengages the drive/motor when excessive resistance is met and prevents the drive/motor from stalling or burning out. This also protects the internal components of the impact tool from excessive stress and heat, extending a lifespan of the impact tool.
Regarding claim 2, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Limberg discloses the clutch assembly includes a first clutch member (plate 194 with axially extending protrusions 202, fig. 2) coupled for co-rotation with the anvil (150, fig. 2), a second clutch member (plate 190 with balls 198 positioned in apertures 214, fig. 2) opposite the first clutch member, the second clutch member coupled for co-rotation with the output shaft (22, fig. 2), and a spring (242, fig. 2) configured to bias the second clutch member into engagement with the first clutch member.
Regarding claim 3, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Limberg discloses a torque setting (250, fig. 2) is adjustable by varying a preload on the spring.
Regarding claim 5, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
The modified Limberg discloses the impact tool is operable to rotate a fastener in a tightening direction and a loosening direction, wherein the first direction corresponds to the loosening direction, and wherein the second direction corresponds to the tightening direction (Kubale – [0059] describes a forward/reverse actuator 260 moveable between a first position, in which an anvil 200 rotates about a motor axis 32 in a first (e.g. tightening) direction, and a second position, in which the anvil 200 rotate about the motor axis 32 in a second (e.g. loosening) direction).
Regarding claim 6, Limberg discloses an impact tool comprising:
a housing (34, fig. 2);
a drive assembly (138, fig. 2) supported within the housing, the drive assembly including a hammer (146, fig. 2) and an anvil (150, fig. 2) configured to receive periodic rotational impacts from the hammer;
an output shaft (22, fig. 2) extending from the housing (As shown in figure 1), the output shaft rotatable about an axis (46, fig. 2) in a first direction; and
a clutch assembly (186, fig. 2) coupled between the drive assembly and the output shaft, the clutch assembly operable to limit a torque transfer from the drive assembly to the output shaft to a first torque limit in the first direction (Col. 4, ll. 20 – 27),
wherein the clutch assembly includes a first clutch member (plate 194 with axially extending protrusions 202, fig. 2) rotationally locked with the anvil, and a second clutch member (plate 190 with balls 198 positioned in apertures 214, fig. 2) rotationally locked with the output shaft.
Limberg does not explicitly disclose the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Kubale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the output shaft (200, fig. 2) rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite a first direction ([0059] describes a forward/reverse actuator 260 moveable between a first position, in which an anvil 200 rotates about a motor axis 32 in a first (e.g. tightening) direction, and a second position, in which the anvil 200 rotate about the motor axis 32 in a second (e.g. loosening) direction).
Kubale is evidence that having the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction 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 would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale, in order to provide the capability to loosen a fastener from a workpiece thus providing additional functionality to the impact tool.
The modified Limberg does not disclose the clutch assembly operable to limit the torque transfer from the drive assembly to the output shaft to a second set torque limit in the second direction, wherein the second set torque limit is different than the first set torque limit.
However, Thorp, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches the clutch assembly (90, 92, 96a-d, fig. 6) configured to selectively limit torque transfer from the anvil to the output shaft in the second direction (Col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 describes when a motor rotates in a second or reverse direction, the shape or angle of surface 96d is configured to selectively limit torque transfer to an output shaft/bit holder 28 – that is, the torque transfer is limited upon reaching a torque threshold where balls 90 move upwards and over the surface 96d. Col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 further describes the additional axial component of force to overcome and move the balls 90 upward on the surface 96d when the power tool is in the second/reverse direction is such that it is greater than the torque associated with the surface 96b when the tool is operated in the first/forward direction.
Please note, col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 further describes that by appropriately controlling the shapes of the surfaces 96b and 96d it is possible to control with great certainty the characteristics of the clutch operation of the tool in both the forward and reverse directions).
Thorp is evidence that having the clutch assembly operable to limit the torque transfer from the drive assembly to the output shaft to a second set torque limit in the second direction, wherein the second set torque limit is different than the first set torque limit 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 would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the impact tool of modified Limberg with the clutch assembly operable to limit the torque transfer from the drive assembly to the output shaft to a second set torque limit in the second direction, wherein the second set torque limit is different than the first set torque limit, as taught by Thorp. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the impact tool, specifically the axially extending protrusions 202, of modified Limberg with the clutch assembly operable to limit the torque transfer from the drive assembly to the output shaft to a second set torque limit in the second direction, as taught by Thorp, in order to provide a clutch when loosening the fastener from the workpiece so that the impact tool disengages the drive/motor when excessive resistance is met and prevents the drive/motor from stalling or burning out. This also protects the internal components of the impact tool from excessive stress and heat, extending a lifespan of the impact tool. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the impact tool, specifically the axially extending protrusions 202, of modified Limberg with the second set torque limit is different than the first set torque limit, as taught by Thorp, in order to have a higher torque threshold in the second/reverse direction to better loosen fasteners.
Regarding claim 7, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Limberg discloses the first direction is a tightening direction (Col. 6, ll. 51 – 55 describes the first direction as a direction to drive a fastener into a workpiece until the fastener is sufficiently tight).
Regarding claim 8, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
The modified Limberg discloses the second direction is a loosening direction (Kubale – [0059] describes a forward/reverse actuator 260 moveable between a first position, in which an anvil 200 rotates about a motor axis 32 in a first (e.g. tightening) direction, and a second position, in which the anvil 200 rotate about the motor axis 32 in a second (e.g. loosening) direction).
Regarding claim 9, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
The modified Limberg discloses the second set torque limit is greater than the first set torque limit (Thorp – Col. 7, l. 64 – col. 8, l. 16 further describes the additional axial component of force to overcome and move the balls 90 upward on the surface 96d when the power tool is in the second/reverse direction is such that it is greater than the torque associated with the surface 96b when the tool is operated in the first/forward direction).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limberg (US 9,289,886 B2), in view of Kubale (US 2021/0260734 A1), in further view of Thorp (US 5,054,588 A), in further view of Kelleher (US 9,494,200 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Thorp, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Limberg discloses the spring is a compression spring.
The modified Limberg does not disclose the spring is a wave spring.
However, Kelleher, in the same field of endeavor, teaches two embodiments of a clutch assembly (first embodiment of clutch mechanism 18: figs 3 – 16 and second embodiment of clutch mechanism 18: figs 17 – 20) wherein in the first embodiment, the spring is a compression spring (308, fig. 3) to vary a preload of the clutch assembly and in the second embodiment, the spring is a wave spring (508, fig. 3) to vary a preload of the clutch assembly.
Kelleher is evidence that having the spring as the wave spring was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, Kelleher is evidence that the compression spring and the wave spring were functional equivalents to vary the preload of the clutch apparatus. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success substituting the compression spring of Limberg for the wave spring of Kelleher to achieve the predicable result of varying the preload of the clutch apparatus. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated substituting the compression spring of Limberg for the wave spring of Kelleher to have a more compact impact tool. That is, wave springs are more compact (using up to 50% less axial height for the same force) and offer axial space savings to the impact tool.
PNG
media_image5.png
654
480
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limberg (US 9,289,886 B2), in view of Kubale (US 2021/0260734 A1), in further view of Nino (US 10,219,854 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Limberg discloses n impact tool comprising:
a housing (34, fig. 2);
a drive assembly (138, fig. 2) supported within the housing, the drive assembly including a hammer (146, fig. 2) and an anvil (150, fig. 2) configured to receive periodic rotational impacts from the hammer;
an output shaft (22, fig. 2) extending from the housing (As shown in figure 1), the output shaft rotatable about an axis (46, fig. 2) in a first direction;
a clutch assembly (186, fig. 2) coupled between the drive assembly and the output shaft.
Limberg does not explicitly disclose the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction.
However, Kubale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the output shaft (200, fig. 2) rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite a first direction ([0059] describes a forward/reverse actuator 260 moveable between a first position, in which an anvil 200 rotates about a motor axis 32 in a first (e.g. tightening) direction, and a second position, in which the anvil 200 rotate about the motor axis 32 in a second (e.g. loosening) direction).
Kubale is evidence that having the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction 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 would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the impact tool of Limberg with the output shaft rotatable about an axis in a second direction opposite the first direction, as taught by Kubale, in order to provide the capability to loosen a fastener from a workpiece thus providing additional functionality to the impact tool.
The modified Limberg does not explicitly disclose the clutch assembly includes a first clutch member coupled for co-rotation with the anvil, the first clutch member including a plurality of first clutch lugs, and a second clutch member coupled for co-rotation with the output shaft, the second clutch member including a plurality of second clutch lugs, wherein the plurality of first clutch lugs and the plurality of second clutch lugs oppose and engage one another when the output shaft rotates in the first direction.
However, Nino, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a clutch assembly (200, 300, 350, 400, fig. 3) includes a first clutch member (350, fig. 3) coupled for co-rotation with an upper shank (400, fig. 3), the first clutch member including a plurality of first clutch lugs (360, fig. 3), and a second clutch member (300, fig. 3) coupled for co-rotation with a lower shank (200, fig. 3), the second clutch member including a plurality of second clutch lugs (310, fig. 3), wherein the plurality of first clutch lugs and the plurality of second clutch lugs oppose and engage one another when the output shaft rotates in the first direction (Col. 10, ll. 53 – 56) (Limberg discloses a first clutch member/plate 194, the driving clutch member via a hammer 146, coupled for co-rotation with the anvil which includes a plurality of first clutch lugs/protrusions 202 and a second clutch member/plate 190, the driven clutch member via the anvil, coupled for co-rotation with the output shaft which includes balls 198. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the first clutch member 350 of Nino, the driving clutch member, is analogous the first clutch member/plate 194 of Limberg and further recognize that the second clutch member 300 of Nino, the driven clutch member, is analogous to the second clutch member/plate 190 of Limberg. Thus, with the incorporation of the teachings of Nino with the invention of Limberg, the first clutch member/plate 194 of Limberg would have the plurality of first clutch lugs 360 of Nino and the second clutch member/plate 190 of Limberg would have the plurality of second clutch lugs 310 of Nino).
Nino is evidence that having the clutch assembly with a first clutch member coupled for co-rotation with the anvil, the first clutch member including a plurality of first clutch lugs, and a second clutch member coupled for co-rotation with the output shaft, the second clutch member including a plurality of second clutch lugs, wherein the plurality of first clutch lugs and the plurality of second clutch lugs oppose and engage one another when the output shaft rotates in the first direction was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Additionally, Nino is evidence that the first and second clutch members/plates of Limberg and the first and second clutch members of Nino are functional equivalents to provide toque limiting. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success substituting the first and second clutch members/plates of Limberg for the first and second clutch members of Nino to achieve the predicable result of varying the preload of the clutch apparatus.
Regarding claim 14, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Nino, discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified Limberg discloses the plurality of first clutch lugs (Nino – 360, fig. 3) are spaced apart in 90-degree increments, and wherein the plurality of second clutch lugs (Nino – 310, fig. 3) are spaced apart in 90-degree increments.
Regarding claim 15, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Nino, discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified Limberg discloses each of the plurality of first clutch lugs (Nino – 360, fig. 3) and the plurality of second clutch lugs (Nino – 310, fig. 3) each include a ramped surface oriented at an oblique angle relative to a rotational axis of the output shaft (Nino – Figure 3 shows both teeth 360, 310 having a ramped surface oriented at an oblique angle relative to a rotational axis of the output shaft).
Regarding claim 16, Limberg, as modified by Kubale, as further modified by Nino, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
The modified Limberg discloses the plurality of first clutch lugs (Nino – 360, fig. 3) and the plurality of second clutch lugs (Nino – 310, fig. 3) each include step surfaces extending parallel to the rotational axis (Nino – Figure 3 shows both teeth 360, 310 having a step or flat surface, opposite a ramped surface, extending parallel to the rotational axis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 12 and 18 – 20 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.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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, THANH TRUONG can be reached on 571-272-4472. 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
24 September 2025