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 final office action is responsive to claims filed on January 31, 2025.
Claims 1-12 are being examined in this office action.
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 1-12 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claims 1, 5-8, and 11-12 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The specification uses the term “about” throughout, however it doesn’t clearly give an understanding of “about.” To have “about” on both ends of the range is a 112b because there is no way to determine the actual range, i.e. about 20 could be 5 or 10 or 15 and about 40 could be 20, 35 or 45 making the actual range unclear.
Claims 2-4 and 9-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusumoto et al. (US 2021/0060741 A1, herein Kusumoto).
Regarding claim 8, Kusumoto discloses an anvil (4, Fig. 2) for an impact mechanism (14, Fig. 1) of an impact tool (1, Fig. 1; impact wrench), comprising:
a base portion (as shown in Fig. A, below);
a wing (24, Fig. 2) extending radially outwardly from the base portion and tapering at a taper angle of about 5 degrees to about 30 degrees as the wing extends outwardly from the base portion (as shown in Fig. 2); and
a shaft (30, Fig. 2) extending axially from the base portion and having a shaft outer diameter;
a drive (31, Fig. 2) proximal to an end (30c, Fig. 2) of the shaft (30);
a groove portion (30b, Fig. 2) extending circumferentially around the shaft (30) and disposed between the drive and the wing, wherein the groove portion (30b) has a groove outer diameter that is about 25% to about 75% of the shaft outer diameter (Figs. 2, 3B).
Please note, the limitations, “radially," and “outwardly” are broad limitations not necessarily implying the left and right (side) parallel, planar surfaces of the wing. Rather, “radially," and “outwardly” can be construed as in a radial and outward direction from the base (as shown in an annotated Fig. 2, below,) wherein the top planar surface of the wing tapers toward the bottom planar surface, at an angle of about 5 degrees to about 30 degrees (as disclosed by Kusumoto.)
PNG
media_image1.png
482
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2, Kusumoto, annotated
Therefore, Kusumoto discloses the claimed limitation, a wing (24, Fig. 2) extending radially outwardly from the base portion and tapering at a taper angle of about 5 degrees to about 30 degrees as the wing extends outwardly from the base portion (as shown in Fig. 2, above).
Furthermore, the groove as disclosed by Kusumoto [0053-0054] has a groove outer diameter (d1, Figure 4A) of 15 +/- 0.3mm. The shaft has a shaft outer diameter d5 of 18 +/- 0.3mm. This results in a ratio between respective diameters of about 80% to about 86%. As 80% falls within the upper limit of the range, “...about 75%...” of claim 7, this value is taken to be 75% +/- 10% i.e. from 67.5% to 82.5%. As such, Kusumoto discloses the claimed limitations as recited in claim 8.
PNG
media_image2.png
517
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
482
468
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. A, (annotated Fig. 2, Kusumoto)
Regarding claim 9, Kusumoto discloses (Fig. 2) wherein the drive (31) has a square cross-sectional shape (i.e. rectangular prism.)
Regarding claim 10, Kusumoto discloses wherein the taper angle is about 15 degrees.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-7 and 11-12 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art has been applied to claims 1-7.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of the “impact mechanism” 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 2-7 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1.
The closest prior art is considered to be Elger (US 2011/0048751 A1) (cited in IDS.)
Elger discloses [0027-0028] drive ssembly (42) (Fig. 4) having a reduced timing angle A1, and prior art drive assembly (200) (Fig. 5) having a timing angle (A2). Elger discloses the importance of this timing angle such that it enhances the smoothness of operation of the tool. However, Elger does not expressly disclose wherein an angle between a centerline of the hammer lug and centerline of the wing is about 20 degrees to about 40 degrees.
Furthermore, Kusumoto depicts the hammer lug (in a straight on view) in Figs. 1-5E. There is no depiction, or discussion, with regards to the centerline of the hammer lug and the centerline of the wing, as show in Applicant’s Fig. 2, and discussed in Applicant’s disclosure [0035].
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regards to claims 11-12, the closest prior art of record (Kusumoto) does not expressly disclose wherein the groove outer diameter is about 25% to about 50% of the shaft outer diameter; or wherein the wing includes a contact area of about 6.45 to about 130 mm² (about 0.01 to about 0.2 square inches) that is adapted to contact a hammer lug.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Elger (US 2011/0048751 A1, herein Elger) discloses tapering (78) anvil lugs (70).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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 at (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.
/Praachi M Pathak/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
March 2, 2026