DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 5/27/2026.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9-18, and 21-22 are currently pending; claims 10-15 are withdrawn.
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 and 21 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:
Claim 2 recites “the first portion of the groove” which is indefinite as it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Is this “the first groove portion”?
Regarding claim 21:
Claim 21 recites “the first portion” which is indefinite as it lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Is this “the first groove portion”?
Claim 21 recites “the second groove portion extends from an end of the first groove portion opposite from the amplitude” which is indefinite because the amplitude is a scalar coefficient, and not a point in space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 16-18, and 22 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance of claims 1 and 16: the prior art has been found to disclose related power tools having segmented camshaft grooves (e.g., see previous office action and prior art of record), however, as Applicant persuasively points out, the prior art does not teach three distinct portions, each portion defined by a different equation selected from a group of equations consisting of: a linear equation, a trigonometric equation, and an equation for a circle. Of important note, Examiner has taken the position that while an equation for a circle may be parameterized in terms of trigonometric functions, an equation for a circle is distinct from a trigonometric equation, as laid out in the disclosure (see [0036] of the published application). Examiner agrees with Applicant’s assessment of the shortcomings of Takeyama and Teh to disclose the features of the claimed groove of claims 1 and 16 in the remarks. Further, Examiner notes that Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) teaches a power tool comprising: an impact mechanism including a camshaft configured to be rotationally driven (application publication, [0003]), the camshaft having a groove with a second groove portion, and a third groove portion, the second groove portion defined by a linear equation, and the third groove portion defined by an equation for a circle ([0043], “a conventional cam groove defined partly by a circular (radius) function and a linear equation.”; “During operation of the camshaft having the conventional cam groove, when the cam ball reaches the transition point, travel of the cam ball may impact or be interrupted by a sudden change in acceleration, represented as a step in the acceleration curve 154, between the second groove portion and the third groove portion.” The latter excerpt implies the second groove portion is the linear equation and the third groove portion is the circular function described in the former excerpt.). However, AAPA does not teach a first groove portion defined by an equation selected from a group consisting of: trigonometric equations and higher order differential equations, wherein the hammer is configured to rotationally impact the anvil when the cam ball is in the first groove portion. It is noted that while AAPA describes second and third groove portions, they cannot be interpreted to imply the existence of a third, distinct, “first groove portion”, especially given [0034] states “designation of first, second, and third is arbitrary” and the discussion of admitted prior art does not explicitly reference a separate first groove portion. Upon examination, the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the invention as claimed. 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 claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights