DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in:
a) Parent Application No. JP2021-201914, filed on December 13th 2021.
b) Parent Application No. JP2021-201915, filed on December 13th 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on April 10th 2025, May 21st 2025, September 24th 2025 and November 7th 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 28 and 29 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.
Claim 28 recites the phrase “…at least a portion of the hammer case…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the hammer case cover is being disposed rearward of the optical member is positively recited or not.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the optical member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 depends on claim 27, and furthermore claim 23, which recite “three or more optical members”. Therefore, claim 28 must claim three or more.
Claim 29 recites the phrase “...at least a portion of the hammer case…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the hammer case cover is being disposed rearward of the optical member is positively recited or not.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “the optical member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 28 depends on claim 27, and furthermore claim 23, which recite “three or more optical members”. Therefore, claim 28 must claim three or more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 19-21, 23-25 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (DE 20 2015 007 649 U1; see attached translation) in view of Leong (US 2010/0149790).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer discloses an impact tool (1) comprising:
a brushless motor (8; pg. 3 para. 2), which includes a stator (19) and a rotor (20) configured go to rotate relative to the stator (19; Fig. 4; pg. 3 para. 5);
a spindle (18), which is rotated by the brushless motor (8; pg. 3 para. 4);
a hammer (51), which is held on the spindle (18; Fig. 10);
an anvil (4), which is impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (51; pg. 2 para. 1), the anvil (4) having a quadrangular-column part (Fig. 7) and having a maximum tightening torque of 1000 N-m or more and 2500 N-m or less (pg. 5 para. 3);
a bearing (66), which supports the anvil (4) in a rotatable manner (Fig. 4),
a polymer housing (7; pg. 3 para. 2), which houses the brushless motor (8; Fig. 10);
a hammer case (9), which is connected to the polymer housing (7; Fig. 10), the hammer case (9) including a hammer-housing part (59) that houses the hammer (51) and a bearing-retaining part (61) that holds the bearing (66; Fig. 10).
Kramer fails to disclose a hammer case cover, which covers at least a portion of the hammer case; a light circuit board; three or more light-emitting devices affixed on the light circuit board; and an optical member, which is disposed forward of the three or more light-emitting devices, wherein: the optical member faces the three or more light-emitting devices and is configured to transmit illumination light emitted from the three or more light-emitting devices, the optical member, the three or more light-emitting devices and the light circuit board are all disposed around the bearing-retaining part and forward of a rear end of the anvil, and at least a portion of the hammer case cover is disposed rearward of the optical member.
However, Leong teaches a hammer case cover (96), which covers at least a portion of a hammer case (38; Fig. 2); a light circuit board (60); three or more light-emitting devices (62) affixed on the light circuit board (60; Fig. 3); and an optical member (72), which is disposed forward of the three or more light-emitting devices (72; Figs. 1-4), wherein: the optical member (72) is disposed forward the three or more light-emitting devices (62; Fig. 4) and is configured to transmit illumination light emitted from the three or more light-emitting devices (62; para. [0032]), the optical members (72), the three or more light-emitting devices (62) and the light circuit board (60) are all disposed around a bearing-retaining part (46) and forward of a rear end of an anvil (22; Fig. 2), and at least a portion of the hammer case cover (96) is disposed rearward of the optical member (72; Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the hammer case of Kramer by having provided the hammer case cover, the light circuit board, the three or more light-emitting devices, and the optical members, as taught by Leong, in order to illuminate the workspace (para. [0032]).
Kramer in view of Leong fail to disclose wherein the optical member faces the three or more light-emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the optical member and the three or more light-emitting devices face each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 20, Kramer discloses wherein the impact tool (1) has a weight of 2 kg or more and 9 kg or less (pg. 5 para. 3; the tool weighs 3.6 kg).
Regarding claim 21, Kramer discloses a front end portion of the anvil (4) and a rear end of the polymer housing (7; Fig. 4; pg. 3 para. 2)
Kramer in view of Leong fails to disclose and the distance from a front-end portion of the anvil to a rear end of the polymer housing is 200 mm or more and 400 mm or less.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the aforementioned distance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23, Kramer discloses an impact tool (1) comprising:
a brushless motor (8; pg. 3 para. 2), which includes a stator (19) and a rotor (20) configured go to rotate relative to the stator (19; Fig. 4; pg. 3 para. 5);
a spindle (18), which is rotated by the brushless motor (8; pg. 3 para. 4);
a hammer (51), which is held on the spindle (18; Fig. 10);
an anvil (4), which is impacted in a rotational direction by the hammer (51; pg. 2 para. 1), the anvil (4) having a quadrangular-column part (Fig. 7) and having a maximum tightening torque of 1000 N-m or more and 2500 N-m or less (pg. 5 para. 3);
a polymer housing (7; pg. 3 para. 2), which houses the brushless motor (8; Fig. 10);
a hammer case (9), which is connected to the polymer housing (7; Fig. 10).
Kramer fails to disclose a hammer case cover, which covers at least a portion of the hammer case; a light circuit board; three or more light-emitting devices affixed on the light circuit board; three or more optical members, which are disposed forward of the three or more light-emitting devices; wherein the three or more optical members respectively face the three or more light-emitting devices and are configured to transmit illumination light emitted from the three or more light-emitting devices.
However, Leong teaches a hammer case cover (96), which covers at least a portion of a hammer case (38; Fig. 2); a light circuit board (60); three or more light-emitting devices (62) affixed on the light circuit board (60; Fig. 3); three or more optical members (72; Fig. 1), which are disposed forward of the three or more light-emitting devices (72; Figs. 1-4), wherein the three or more optical members (72) is disposed forward the three or more light-emitting devices (62; Fig. 4) and are configured to transmit illumination light emitted from the three or more light-emitting devices (62; para. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the hammer case of Kramer by having provided the hammer case cover, the light circuit board, the three or more light-emitting devices, and the optical members, as taught by Leong, in order to illuminate the workspace (para. [0032]).
Kramer in view of Leong fail to disclose wherein the three or more optical members respectively face the three or more light-emitting devices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the three or more optical members and the three or more light-emitting devices respectively face each other, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 24, Kramer discloses wherein the impact tool (1) has a weight of 2 kg or more and 9 kg or less (pg. 5 para. 3; the tool weighs 3.6 kg).
Regarding claim 25, Kramer discloses a front end portion of the anvil (4) and a rear end of the polymer housing (7; Fig. 4; pg. 3 para. 2)
Kramer in view of Leong fails to disclose and the distance from a front-end portion of the anvil to a rear end of the polymer housing is 200 mm or more and 400 mm or less.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the aforementioned distance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, Kramer discloses the impact tool (1).
Kramer fails to disclose wherein the three or more optical members do not directly contact each other.
However, Leong teaches the three or more optical members (72) do not directly contact each other (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the impact tool of Kramer by having provided the three of more optical members not in direct contact with each other, as taught by Leong, in order to correspond with the light-emitting devices and refract and guide light emitted by said light-emitting devices (para. [0034]).
Regarding claim 28, Kramer discloses the anvil (4).
Kramer fails to disclose wherein the three or more optical members, the three or more light-emitting devices and the light circuit board are all disposed forward of a rear end of the anvil, and at least a portion of the hammer case cover is disposed rearward of the optical member.
However, Leong teaches wherein the three or more light-emitting devices (62) and the light circuit board (60) are all disposed forward of a rear end of the anvil (22), and at least a portion of the hammer case cover (96) is disposed rearward of the optical member (72; Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the anvil of Kramer by having provided the configuration of the three of more light-emitting devices, as taught by Leong, in order to direct the light towards the working surfaces.
Regarding claim 29, Kramer discloses the anvil (4).
Kramer fails to disclose wherein the three or more optical members, the three or more light-emitting devices and the light circuit board are all disposed forward of a rear end of the anvil, and at least a portion of the hammer case cover is disposed rearward of the optical member.
However, Leong teaches wherein the three or more light-emitting devices (62) and the light circuit board (60) are all disposed forward of a rear end of the anvil (22), and at least a portion of the hammer case cover (96) is disposed rearward of the optical member (72; Fig. 4)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the anvil of Kramer by having provided the configuration of the three of more light-emitting devices, as taught by Leong, in order to direct the light towards the working surfaces.
8. Claim(s) 22 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer (DE 20 2015 007 649 U1) in view of Leong (US 2010/0149790) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dey IV et al. (US 2017/0173768; “Dey”).
Regarding claim 22, Kramer in view of Leong disclose the anvil (4).
Kramer in view of Leong fail to disclose wherein the anvil has a maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less.
However, Dey teaches an anvil having a maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less (para. [0067]; the motor imparts the rotational speed to the anvil).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the anvil of Kramer in view of Leong by having provided the maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less, as taught by Dey, in order to actuate the tool anvil at a speed capable of performing its necessary function.
Regarding claim 26, Kramer in view of Leong disclose the anvil (4).
Kramer in view of Leong fail to disclose wherein the anvil has a maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less.
However, Dey teaches an anvil having a maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less (para. [0067]; the motor imparts the rotational speed to the anvil).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant’s invention was filed, to have modified the anvil of Kramer in view of Leong by having provided the maximum rotational speed of 1,300 rpm or more and 2,300 rpm or less, as taught by Dey, in order to actuate the tool anvil at a speed capable of performing its necessary function.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHLLEY 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.
10. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731