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 Request for Continued Examination filed on 7 July 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending. Claims 15 – 20 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7 July 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 22 May 2026. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 4, and 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grunecker (DE 2415048 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (F)]
PNG
media_image3.png
126
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (travel distance DT)]
PNG
media_image4.png
131
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (travel distance DT)]
Regarding claim 1, Grunecker discloses a power tool comprising:
a housing (housing A, annotated fig. 1);
an electric motor ([0006]; “a conventional drive, for example an electric motor shown by the dashed line [in figure 1]”) supported in the housing;
a spindle (10, 18, fig. 1) supported by the housing (Annotated fig. 1 shows the left side of spindle 10, 18 supported within housing A);
a retainer (retainer B, annotated fig. 1) at least partially received into the spindle (Annotated fig. 1 shows retainer B partially received in spindle 10, 18 – specifically in portion 18 of spindle 10, 18) and configured to receive at least a portion of a tool bit (20, fig. 1) of the power tool;
a reciprocation drive assembly (14, 16, fig. 1) coupled to the motor and configured to convert torque from the motor to reciprocating motion of a drive piston (28, fig. 1) that is at least partially received within the spindle for reciprocation therein along a reciprocation axis (longitudinal axis of spindle 10, 18);
a striker (26, 30, fig. 1) received within the spindle for reciprocation in response to reciprocation of the drive piston; and
an anvil (24, fig. 1) configured as a single-piece that is at least partially received within the spindle and positioned between the striker and the tool bit, the anvil configured to transmit axial impacts from the striker to the tool bit, the anvil including a front anvil impact surface (surface C, annotated fig. 1) and a rear anvil impact surface (surface D, annotated fig. 1) opposite the front anvil impact surface,
wherein the retainer defines a retainer impact surface (surface E, annotated fig. 1) that contacts the front anvil impact surface of the anvil in response to the anvil moving in a first direction (a forward direction of piston 24) along the reciprocation axis (as shown in figure 8),
wherein the spindle defines a spindle impact surface (surface F, annotated fig. 1) that contacts the rear anvil impact surface of the anvil in response to the anvil moving in a second direction (a rearward direction of piston 24) along the reciprocation axis, the second direction being opposite the first direction, and
wherein the retainer impact surface and the spindle impact surface limit a travel distance DT (as shown in annotated figs. 3 and 8) by which the anvil translates along the reciprocation axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
750
301
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (H)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (G)]
Regarding claim 4, Grunecker disclose the anvil (24, fig. 1) defining an opening (opening G, annotated fig. 1) and an inner bore (inner bore H, annotated fig. 1), the inner bore at least partially receiving a shank of the tool bit (20, fig. 1).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (B)]
Regarding claim 6, Grunecker discloses the retainer (retainer B, annotated fig. 1) is connected to the spindle (10, 18, fig. 1) via retention member (pin screw I, annotated fig. 1. Please note, figure 1 shows the fastener as a pin screw wherein unlike conventional screws that have threads running along their entire shaft to grip into wood or metal, pin screws have a smooth shaft portion (the “pin”) coupled with a threaded end).
Regarding claim 7, Grunecker discloses the retention member (pin screw I, annotated fig. 1) is cylindrical in shape.
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 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunecker (DE 2415048 A1).
PNG
media_image3.png
126
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (stop surface distance Ds)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (travel distance DT)]
Regarding claim 2, Grunecker discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Grunecker discloses the retainer impact surface (surface E, annotated fig. 1) is spaced from the spindle impact surface (surface F, annotated fig. 1) by a stop surface distance Ds (as shown in annotated fig. 3) wherein the travel distance DT is less the stop surface distance Ds (as shown in annotated fig. 3).
Grunecker does not explicitly disclose the travel distance DT is less than or equal to 50 percent of the stop surface distance Ds.
However, in impact energy transmission systems, a key principle is to provide maximum energy transfer to a workpiece. If the anvil moves upon impact, a portion of the impact energy is transferred into the anvil's kinetic energy and is dissipated as vibration, sound, and potentially heat. However, if the distance the anvil moves upon impact is reduced, less impact energy is transferred into the anvil’s kinetic energy and more impact energy is transferred to a workpiece (This analysis is based on the principles of conservation of energy and momentum and the calculation of impact energy transfer efficiency). Thus, the distance the anvil moves upon impact is a result-effective variable having a recognized and predicable result of affecting the amount of impact energy transferred to the workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the travel distance DT of Grunecker to be less than or equal to 50 percent of the stop surface distance Ds because, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (in the instant case, the retainer impact surface being spaced from the spindle impact surface by a stop surface distance Ds), it is not inventive to discover a workable and/or optimal range by routine experimentation (that is, to discover the workable and/or optimal range of impact energies transferred to the workpiece by the routine experimentation of adjusting the travel distance DT of Grunecker with the motivation to maximize the impact energy transferred to the workpiece). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 3, Grunecker discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
Grunecker discloses the retainer impact surface (surface E, annotated fig. 1) is spaced from the spindle impact surface (surface F, annotated fig. 1) by a stop surface distance Ds (as shown in annotated fig. 3) wherein the travel distance DT is less the stop surface distance Ds (as shown in annotated fig. 3).
Grunecker does not explicitly disclose the travel distance DT is less than or equal to 20 percent of the stop surface distance Ds.
However, in impact energy transmission systems, a key principle is to provide maximum energy transfer to a workpiece. If the anvil moves upon impact, a portion of the impact energy is transferred into the anvil's kinetic energy and is dissipated as vibration, sound, and potentially heat. However, if the distance the anvil moves upon impact is reduced, less impact energy is transferred into the anvil’s kinetic energy and more impact energy is transferred to a workpiece (This analysis is based on the principles of conservation of energy and momentum and the calculation of impact energy transfer efficiency). Thus, the distance the anvil moves upon impact is a result-effective variable having a recognized and predicable result of affecting the amount of impact energy transferred to the workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the travel distance DT of Grunecker to be less than or equal to 20 percent of the stop surface distance Ds because, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed (in the instant case, the retainer impact surface being spaced from the spindle impact surface by a stop surface distance Ds), it is not inventive to discover a workable and/or optimal range by routine experimentation (that is, to discover the workable and/or optimal range of impact energies transferred to the workpiece by the routine experimentation of adjusting the travel distance DT of Grunecker with the motivation to maximize the impact energy transferred to the workpiece). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grunecker (DE 2415048 A1) in view of Frauhammer (US 6,116,352 A).
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
189
491
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Frauhammer (US 6,116,352 A) – Annotated figure 2)]
Regarding claim 5, Grunecker discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Grunecker discloses the spindle (10, 18, fig. 1) includes a spindle wall (wall of guiding tube 13, fig. 2) that defines a bore (interior of piston-tube-like housing 10/beater housing 18, fig. 1), the spindle including a step (surface F, annotated fig. 1), the step defining the spindle impact surface (surface F, annotated fig. 1).
Grunecker does not disclose the spindle includes a spindle wall that defines a bore, the spindle including a rib that protrudes inward from the spindle wall and into the bore, the rib defining the spindle impact surface.
Frauhammer, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the spindle (13, fig. 2) including a rib (circumferential collar A, annotated fig. 2) that protrudes inward from the spindle wall (wall of guiding tube 13, fig. 2) and into the bore (interior of guiding tubing 13, fig. 2), the rib defining the spindle impact surface (a forward surface of circumferential collar A, annotated fig. 2).
Both the step of Grunecker and the rib of Frauhammer define an impact surface to prevent the rearward movement of an anvil within a spindle of a power tool thus can be consider functionally equivalent structures. 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 substituted the step of Grunecker for the rib of Frauhammer to achieve the predictable results of prevent the rearward movement of the anvil within the spindle of the power tool. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396; Simple Substitution of One Known Element for Another to Obtain Predictable Results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 14 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 8: the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 9 – 14 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 8.
Claim 8 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 8, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 8 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the gear case cap surrounds the aperture to retain the retention member therein”
The closest prior art is Grunecker (DE 2415048 A1) in view of Ogura (WO 2019/130982 A1) in further view of Frauhammer (US 6,116,352 A). The modified Grunecker does not disclose the claimed limitation. That is, Grunecker discloses the claimed invention except 1) a housing including a gear case and a gear case cap connected to the gear case, wherein the gear case includes a spindle case surrounding the spindle; 2) the retainer defining a recess; 3) the retention member being received into both the recess and the aperture; and 4) the gear case cap surrounding the aperture to retain the retention member therein. Frauhammer teaches 2) the retainer defining a recess and 3) the retention member being received into both the recess and the aperture of the spindle, and Ogura teaches 1) a housing including a gear case and a gear case cap connected to the gear case, wherein the gear case includes a spindle case surrounding the spindle. However, even though Ogura teaches a gear case cap and Frauhammer teaches the aperture and the retention member, one having ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably infer from these references that the gear case cap of Ogura surrounds the aperture of Frauhammer to retain the retention member of Frauhammer. Thus, it is examiner' s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7 July 2026, with respect to the claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 2026, with respect to the claim rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Grunecker (DE 2415048 A1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Studer (DE 2316722 A1) anticipates the claimed invention of claim 1 and 6 – 7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID 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 July 2026
Prosecution Insights