Notice of 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 .
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.
Claim 27 is 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.
Claim 27 recites “moving away from the latter” in line 2, it is unclear what this limitation is referring to.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-13,20-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Profunser et al. US 2010/0263890 (hereinafter Profunser).
Regarding Claim 12, Profunser et al. discloses an impact wrench (1) comprising: a tool fitting (2) mounted on a drive shaft (output shaft 3; par 0030) and for accepting a tool, the drive shaft settable in a tangentially striking motion (par 0028) via a rotary impact drive (drive shaft 5 rotated in direction 21) drivable via a drive (primary drive 4), the rotary impact drive having an anvil (11;fig.2) associated with the drive shaft (par 0033; “Anvil 11 is connected rotationally fixed to output shaft 3, in such a way that an angular momentum transmitted to anvil 11 acts on output shaft 3. Anvil 11 has one or more projections 15. FIG. 3 shows a top view of anvil 11 viewed from drive shaft 5”), a hammer (18; par 0036), and a spring (14) acting on the hammer (fig.2), the drive being operatively connected to the hammer (18) via a guide slot (13; fig.2), and a controller (33) for controlling the drive (4) on the basis of a measured input value, the measured input value corresponding to a state of the spring (threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
PNG
media_image1.png
404
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claim 12 wherein the measured input value is determined as a relative value between an angular position of the hammer (18) and an angular position of the drive (4,5; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 20, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claim 12 wherein the controller (33) is designed to control the drive (4) in accordance with a local minimum of the measured input value (par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 21, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claim 12 wherein the controller (33) is designed to control the drive (4) in accordance with a local maximum of the measured input value (par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 22, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claim 12 wherein the tool is a screwing tool (par 0045-0047).
Regarding Claim 23, Profunser et al. discloses a method for controlling an impact wrench (1), wherein the impact wrench includes a tool fitting (2) mounted on a drive shaft and for accepting a tool (output shaft 3; par 0030), the drive shaft settable in a tangentially striking motion (par 0028) via a rotary impact drive (drive shaft 5 rotated in direction 21) drivable via a drive (primary drive 4), the rotary impact drive having an anvil 11;fig.2) associated with the drive shaft (par 0033; “Anvil 11 is connected rotationally fixed to output shaft 3, in such a way that an angular momentum transmitted to anvil 11 acts on output shaft 3. Anvil 11 has one or more projections 15. FIG. 3 shows a top view of anvil 11 viewed from drive shaft 5”), a hammer (28;par 0036), and a spring (14) acting on the hammer, the drive being operatively connected to the hammer (18) via a guide slot (13; fig.2), and a controller (33) for controlling the drive (4) on the basis of a measured input value (threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038), the method comprising: determining a state of the spring (14) as the measured input value; and controlling the drive in accordance with the state of the spring element (14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 24, Profunser et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 23 wherein a local minimum of the measured input value is determined, and the drive (4) is controlled in accordance with the local minimum (par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 25, Profunser et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 23 wherein a local maximum of the measured input value is determined, and the drive is controlled in accordance with the maximum (par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 26, Profunser et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 23 wherein the measured input value is evaluated while the hammer (18) is moving toward the anvil (11; par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
Regarding Claim 27, Profunser et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 23 wherein the measured input value is evaluated while the hammer is moving away from the latter (11; par 0030; threshold variables are predefined by the design of the impact mechanism 10 and the threshold value for the torque is a function of the elastic force of the spring 14; par 0038).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Profunser et al. US 2010/0263890 in view of Paoli et al. US 2020/0223256 (hereinafter Paoli).
Regarding claims 14-15, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claims 13 and 12 respectively, further comprising a first sensor (speed sensors 31 and 32; par 0042)
Profunser fails to explicitly teach that the first and second sensors are used for detecting the angular position of the hammer and the angular position of the drive.
However Paoli teaches an impact tool 1, that comprises an angular position sensor device arranged for measuring an angular shift of the output shaft 3 interpreted as the drive; par 0078. And further teaches using a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 interposed between a phonic wheel and magnet; par 0086-0090, this makes the angular position sensor device a magnetic encoder. When a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 is provided, the angular position sensor device makes an incremental magnetic encoder, allows for determination of the position of the hammer and the drive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing, to have modified the impact drill including at least two sensors with the angular position sensor device as taught by Paoli, to be able to measure the angular shift of the output shaft over time and consequently possibly detect whether this angular shift varies in an undesirable manner (Paoli par 0090).
Regarding claims 16-17, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claims 14 and 12 respectively, further comprising a second sensor (speed sensors 31 and 32; par 0042)
Profunser fails to explicitly teach that the first and second sensors are used for detecting the angular position of the hammer and the angular position of the drive.
However Paoli teaches an impact tool 1, that comprises an angular position sensor device arranged for measuring an angular shift of the output shaft 3 interpreted as the drive; par 0078. And further teaches using a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 interposed between a phonic wheel and magnet; par 0086-0090, this makes the angular position sensor device a magnetic encoder. When a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 is provided, the angular position sensor device makes an incremental magnetic encoder, allows for determination of the position of the hammer and the drive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing, to have modified the impact drill including at least two sensors with the angular position sensor device as taught by Paoli, to be able to measure the angular shift of the output shaft over time and consequently possibly detect whether this angular shift varies in an undesirable manner (Paoli par 0090).
Regarding claims 18-19, Profunser et al. discloses the impact wrench as recited in claims 17 and 16 respectively, further comprising a second sensor (speed sensors 31 and 32; par 0042)
Profunser fails to explicitly teach that the first and second sensors are used for detecting the angular position of the hammer and the angular position of the drive and wherein the second sensor includes a magnetic sensor.
However Paoli teaches an impact tool 1, that comprises an angular position sensor device arranged for measuring an angular shift of the output shaft 3 interpreted as the drive; par 0078. And further teaches using a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 interposed between a phonic wheel and magnet; par 0086-0090, this makes the angular position sensor device a magnetic encoder. When a pair of Hall effect sensors 33 is provided, the angular position sensor device makes an incremental magnetic encoder, allows for determination of the position of the hammer and the drive.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing, to have modified the impact drill including at least two sensors with the angular position sensor device as taught by Paoli, to be able to measure the angular shift of the output shaft over time and consequently possibly detect whether this angular shift varies in an undesirable manner (Paoli par 0090).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woetzl US 2019/0118353 teaches an impact drill including detecting angular position using a sensor.
McClung US 2023/0166389 teaches an anvil sensor used in an impact drill.
Erble US 2022/0410360 teaches a method for operating a hammer drill with measured and controlled output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0601. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9am -5pm.
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 5712701926. 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.
/MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights