DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to applicant’s response to election/restriction filed 2/17/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending; claims 10-16 are withdrawn; claims 1-9 and 17-20 are being examined.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election to examine Group I in the reply filed 2/17/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant traverses the restriction, arguing “all of the claim groups are anchored to and require examination of camshaft groove geometry. No independent or divergent search is required.” In view of the remarks, Examiner rejoins Group III (claims 17-20) which requires substantially the same search. The restriction of Group II is maintained because it is drawn only to a camshaft for an impact mechanism, which would require an extensive and burdensome search of all camshafts for any mechanisms that have an element of impact, which is distinct from the motor-powered hammer/anvil power tools of Groups I and III. Thus, the restriction requirement for Group II is deemed proper and maintained.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/13/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 2-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2:
In claim 2, “the portion of the groove is defined by a cosine equation” is ambiguous because it is unclear if the claim requires the portion to be defined by the cosine function, or an equation that at least contains the cosine function. For examination purposes, the latter interpretation is being examined.
Claim 3 is rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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)(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 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeyama et al. US 2010/0078186.
Regarding claim 1:
Takeyama teaches a power tool comprising:
a housing (18);
a motor ([0002]-[0003]) supported within the housing and including an output shaft (1), the motor configured to rotationally drive the output shaft ([0002]);
a transmission assembly (2) configured to be rotationally driven by the output shaft; and
an impact mechanism including a camshaft (3) configured to be rotationally driven by the transmission assembly, the camshaft having a groove (3a),
at least a portion of the groove defined by a trigonometric equation ([0021]-[0023], cycloid curves are based on, and rely on, the trigonometric functions sine and cosine; see attached Wolfram website excerpt provided in PTO-892 for reference),
a hammer (5) coupled to the camshaft by a cam ball (4) received in the groove, and
an anvil (8) configured to receive intermittent rotational impacts from the hammer.
Regarding claim 2:
Takeyama teaches the power tool of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the portion of the groove is defined by a cosine equation (i.e., cycloid curves are defined by both sine and cosine functions).
Regarding claim 3:
Takeyama teaches the power tool of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the hammer is configured to rotationally impact the anvil when the cam ball is in the portion of the groove defined by the cosine equation (envisaged in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 8:
Takeyama teaches the power tool of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the entire groove is defined by the equation selected from a group consisting of: trigonometric equations ([0021]).
Regarding claim 9:
Takeyama teaches the power tool of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the camshaft extends along an axis, and wherein the groove is mirrored across the axis (shown in FIG. 3).
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teh US 2018/0029206.
Regarding claim 16:
Teh teaches a power tool comprising: a housing (110); a motor (114) supported within the housing and including an output shaft (116), the motor configured to rotationally drive the output shaft ([0039]); a transmission assembly (118) configured to be rotationally driven by the output shaft; and
an impact mechanism including
a camshaft (120) configured to be rotationally driven by the transmission assembly, the camshaft having
a groove (162) with a first groove portion (174) and a second groove portion (180) that meet at a transition point, the first groove portion and the second groove portion being continuous and tangential at the transition point (shown in FIG. 3),
a hammer (300) coupled to the camshaft by a cam ball (166) received in the groove, and
an anvil (400) configured to receive intermittent rotational impacts from the hammer.
Regarding claim 17:
Teh teaches the power tool of claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the first groove portion is defined by a first equation ([0045], semi-circular) and the second groove portion is defined by a second equation (e.g., it is linear; see claim 16 and [0046]), and wherein the first equation and the second equation are different.
Regarding claim 19:
Teh teaches the power tool of claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the transition point is a first transition point, wherein the groove further includes a third groove portion (184) such that the second groove portion and the third groove portion meet at a second transition point (at γ1 in FIG. 3), and wherein the second groove portion and the third groove portion are continuous and tangential at the second transition point (shown in FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 20:
Teh teaches the power tool of claim 19, as discussed above, wherein each of the first groove portion, the second groove portion, and the third groove portion is defined by a different equation from the others of the first groove portion, the second groove portion, and the third groove portion (clear from FIG. 3 and [0046]).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeyama, as applied above, and further in view of Teh US 2018/0029206.
Regarding claim 4:
Takeyama teaches the power tool of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the portion of the groove is a first groove portion, and wherein the groove includes a second groove portion defined by a linear equation.
Teh discloses an impact power tool wherein on the camshaft a portion of the groove is a first groove portion that is curved ([0045], “arched, preferably at least approximately semicircular, connecting section 174”), and wherein the groove includes a second groove portion (184 or 186) defined by a linear equation (e.g., [0046]; geometry of both portions shown in FIG. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Takeyama by providing a second groove portion defined by a linear equation, as taught by Teh, since Teh teaches “due to an improved profile geometry of the V-shaped guide grooves, the present invention allows improved synchronization between the drive cam and the output cam of the mechanical striking mechanism, so that in particular the risk of wear-increasing collisions between same on the end-face or edge side is significantly reduced” ([0007]).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Takeyama and Teh teaches the power tool of claim 4, as discussed above, wherein the first groove portion and the second groove portion meet at a transition point, and wherein the first groove portion and the second groove portion are continuous and tangential at the transition point (see continuity at intersection of 612/602/604 in FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Takeyama and Teh teaches the power tool of claim 4, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the groove includes a third groove portion defined by an equation for a circle.
However, given that Teh teaches a semicircular curvature in a small region at the axis of symmetry (i.e., the vertical axis in FIG. 6) of the groove, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of the combination of Takeyama and Teh, by providing this region with a third groove portion defined by an equation for a circle, as taught by Teh, since Teh teaches “due to an improved profile geometry of the V-shaped guide grooves, the present invention allows improved synchronization between the drive cam and the output cam of the mechanical striking mechanism, so that in particular the risk of wear-increasing collisions between same on the end-face or edge side is significantly reduced” ([0007]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh, as applied above.
Regarding claim 18:
Teh teaches the power tool of claim 17, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein one of the first equation and the second equation is an equation selected from a group of equations consisting of: trigonometric equations, and wherein the other of the first equation and the second equation is a linear equation.
However, in the interest of design quality, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the tool of Teh by having the first portion designed utilizing a trigonometric equation to describe what Teh calls a “semicircular” path, since trigonometric functions are old and well-known for modeling circular curves, and a linear equation to design the second linear portion, since this would ensure the ball moves in a mathematically smooth path.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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 prior art alone or in combination fails to disclose the groove includes two third groove portions and each of the third groove portions extends from a corresponding one of the [two] second groove portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731