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 office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 4 March 2026.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
This office action provides new grounds of rejection for claims previously indicated as allowable subject matter, thus the office action is non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11 March 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 – 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haberhauer (DE 2 938 206 C2).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (F)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
740
487
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (Haberhauer (DE 2 938 206 C2)
Annotated figure 1)]
[AltContent: textbox (G)]
[AltContent: textbox (B)]
Regarding claim 1, Haberhauer discloses a power tool comprising:
a motor (5, fig. 1);
a spindle (20, 21, fig. 1) defining a first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) with a slot (slot on the bottom, rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1); and
a crankshaft (16 and portion A, annotated fig. 1) including a counterweight (portion A, annotated fig. 1) and a crank pin (16, fig. 1) that are rotated by the motor about a crank axis (axis B of pin 13, annotated fig. 1) so that the counterweight and the crank pin is rotated through the slot (Annotated figure 1 shows a crankshaft having a crank pin 16 on one side of the crankshaft and a portion A/counterweight on the opposite side of the crankshaft wherein both the crank pin 16 and the portion A/counterweight are shown rotating through a slot on the bottom, rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Haberhauer discloses the counterweight (portion A, annotated fig. 1) includes a first distance (a distance C from the center of the shaft 13 to the end of the portion A, annotated fig. 1) and the crank pin (16, fig. 1) includes a second distance (a distance D from the center of the shaft 5 to the center of crank pin 16, annotated fig. 1) that is greater than the first distance, the first distance and the second distance each measured in a direction perpendicular to the crank axis.
Regarding claim 3, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Haberhauer further discloses the spindle (20, fig. 1) has a second end (front end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) opposite the first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) and defines a third distance taken between the first end and the second end of the spindle (Figure 1 shows a distance between the front end portion of the sleeve 20, 21 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21); and wherein the spindle includes an anvil seat (step portion E, annotated fig. 1) between the first end and the second end, and defines a fourth distance between the anvil seat and the first end of the spindle (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the step portion E and the rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 4 – 7, 9 – 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberhauer (US 4,436,163 A).
Regarding claim 4, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
The modified Haberhauer discloses the third distance (Figure 1 shows a distance between the front end portion of the sleeve 20 and the rear end portion of the sleeve) and the fourth distance (Figure 1 shows a distance between the step portion E and the rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the fourth distance to the third distance being between 1:1.5 and 1:2.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the fourth distance to the third distance to be between 1:1.5 and 1:2 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 5, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
Haberhauer disclose the fourth distance (Figure 1 shows a distance between the step portion E and the rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21) and a fifth distance between the crank axis (axis B of pin 13, annotated fig. 1) and the second end of the spindle (20, fig. 1) (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between axis B of pin 13 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the fourth distance to the fifth distance being between 1:1.5 and 1:2.5.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the fourth distance to the fifth distance to be between 1:1.5 and 1:2.5 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 6, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
Haberhauer discloses an anvil (24, fig. 1) received in the spindle (20, 21, fig. 1), the anvil defining a bit seat (front surface F of the anvil 24, annotated fig. 1) configured to receive a tool bit, wherein a sixth distance is defined between the bit seat and the crank axis (axis B of pin 13, annotated fig. 1) when the anvil is in contact (via O-ring) with the anvil seat (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
Regarding claim 7, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Haberhauer discloses the sixth distance (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose the sixth distance being between 130 mm and 160 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sixth distance to be between 130 mm and 160 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this distance.
Regarding claim 9, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Haberhauer discloses the sixth distance (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21) and an entire length of the power tool, as measured in a direction perpendicular to the crank axis (Annotated figure 1 shows the entire length of the power tool, as measured in a direction perpendicular to the axis B of pin 13).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the sixth distance to the entire length of the power tool, as measured in the direction perpendicular to the crank axis, being between 1:2 and 1:2.5.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the sixth distance to the entire length of the power tool, as measured in the direction perpendicular to the crank axis, to be between 1:2 and 1:2.5 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 10, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Haberhauer discloses the third distance (Figure 1 shows a distance between the front end portion of the sleeve 20 and the rear end portion of the sleeve) and the sixth distance (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the third distance to the sixth distance being between 3:2 and 5:4.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the third distance to the sixth distance to be between 3:2 and 5:4 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 11, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Haberhauer discloses the fourth distance (Figure 1 shows a distance between the step portion E and the rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21) and the sixth distance (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the sixth distance to the fourth distance being between 9:1 and 6:1.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the sixth distance to the fourth distance to be between 9:1 and 6:1 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 12, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 6.
Haberhauer discloses a fifth distance between the crank axis (axis B of pin 13, annotated fig. 1) and the second end of the spindle (20, fig. 1) (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between axis B of pin 13 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20) and the sixth distance (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the sixth distance to the fifth distance being between 1:1.5 and 1:1.75.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the sixth distance to the fifth distance to be between 1:1.5 and 1:1.75 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 20, Haberhauer discloses a power tool comprising:
a motor (5, fig. 1);
a spindle (20, 21, fig. 1) defining a first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) with a slot (slot on the bottom, rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) and an anvil seat (step portion E, annotated fig. 1) spaced from the first end;
an anvil (24, fig. 1) defining a bit seat (front surface F of the anvil 24, annotated fig. 1) configured to receive a tool bit and engaging with the anvil seat to define a characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle; and
a crankshaft (16 and portion A, annotated fig. 1) including a counterweight (portion A, annotated fig. 1) and a crank pin (16, fig. 1) that are rotated by the motor about a crank axis (axis B of pin 13, annotated fig. 1) so that at least one of the counterweight and the crank pin is rotated through the slot (Annotated figure 1 shows a crankshaft having a crank pin 16 on one side of the crankshaft and a portion A/counterweight on the opposite side of the crankshaft wherein both the crank pin 16 and the portion A/counterweight are shown rotating through a slot on the bottom, rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1).
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose the characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle that is less than 175 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle that to be less than 175 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Claims 8 and 14 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberhauer (US 4,436,163 A) in view of Schallert (US 2021/0402583 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose an average impact energy imparted at the anvil is between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules.
However, Schallert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an average impact energy imparted at the anvil (14, fig. 1) is between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules ([0014] describes that chipping hammers and combination hammers have medium and low impact energies in a range of between 0.5 Joules and 20 Joules wherein the range of between 0.5 Joules and 20 Joules encompasses the claimed range of about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules).
Schallert is evidence that having an average impact energy imparted at the anvil being between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Haberhauer with an average impact energy imparted at the anvil being between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules, as taught by Schallert. Please note, while the power tool of Haberhauer imparts an impact energy, Haberhauer is silent regarding the number of joules suitable for such a power tool. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Schallert to determine the number of joules suitable for conventional chipping hammers and combination hammers as described in Schallert.
Regarding claim 14, Haberhauer discloses a power tool comprising:
a spindle (20, 21, fig. 1) defining an anvil seat (step portion E, annotated fig. 1) between a first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) and a second end (front end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1);
an anvil (24, fig. 1) defining a bit seat (front surface E of the anvil 24, annotated fig. 1) configured to receive a tool bit and engaging with the anvil seat (step portion E, annotated fig. 1 – via the O-ring) to define a characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle (Annotated figure 1 shows a distance between the front surface F of the anvil 24 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
a crankshaft (16 and portion A, annotated fig. 1) rotated by a motor (5, fig. 1) about a crank axis (axis B of pin 13, fig. 1) to impart impacts at the anvil with an impact energy.
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose an average impact energy imparted at the anvil is between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules.
However, Schallert, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an average impact energy imparted at the anvil (14, fig. 1) is between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules ([0014] describes that chipping hammers and combination hammers have medium and low impact energies in a range of between 0.5 Joules and 20 Joules wherein the range of between 0.5 Joules and 20 Joules encompasses the claimed range of about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules).
Schallert is evidence that having an average impact energy imparted at the anvil being between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Haberhauer with an average impact energy imparted at the anvil being between about 7.5 Joules and 9 Joules, as taught by Schallert. Please note, while the power tool of Haberhauer imparts an impact energy, Haberhauer is silent regarding the number of joules suitable for such a power tool. Thus, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to Schallert to determine the number of joules suitable for conventional chipping hammers and combination hammers as described in Schallert.
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose the characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle that is less than 175 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the characteristic length between the bit seat and the first end of the spindle that to be less than 175 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 15, Haberhauer, as modified by Schallert, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
Haberhauer discloses the first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) of the spindle (20, 21, fig. 1) defines a slot (slot on the bottom, rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) and the crankshaft (16 and portion A, annotated fig. 1) includes a counterweight (portion A, annotated fig. 1) that is rotated through the slot.
Regarding claim 16, Haberhauer, as modified by Schallert, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
Haberhauer discloses a spindle chamber length defined between the anvil seat (step portion E, annotated fig. 1) and the first end of the spindle (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) (Figure 1 shows a length or distance between the step portion E of the sleeve 20, 21 and the rear end portion of the sleeve 20, 21).
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a spindle chamber length defined between the anvil seat and the first end of the spindle being between 100 mm and 125 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spindle chamber length defined between the anvil seat and the first end of the spindle being between 100 mm and 125 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 17, Haberhauer, as modified by Schallert, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
Haberhauer discloses a distance from the crank axis (axis B of pin 13, fig. 1) to the first end (rear end portion of sleeve 20, 21, fig. 1) of the spindle (20, 21, fig. 1).
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a distance from the crank axis to the first end of the spindle being between 200 mm and 250 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance from the crank axis to the first end of the spindle to be between 200 mm and 250 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 18, Haberhauer, as modified by Schallert, discloses the invention as recited in claim 15.
Haberhauer disclose a radius (a distance C from the center of the shaft 13 to the end of the portion A, annotated fig. 1) of the counterweight (portion A, annotated fig. 1).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a maximum radius of the counterweight being between about 20 mm and about 25 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the maximum radius of the counterweight to be between about 20 mm and about 25 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 19, Haberhauer, as modified by Schallert, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
Haberhauer discloses the spindle (20, 21, fig. 1) has an inner diameter.
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose the spindle has an inner diameter that is between 25 mm and 35 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spindle has an inner diameter being between 25 mm and 35 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
[AltContent: textbox (G)]Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haberhauer (US 4,436,163 A) in view of Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1).
PNG
media_image5.png
751
425
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (G)][AltContent: textbox (Thorson (US 2022/0371172 A1)
Annotated figure 2)]
Regarding claim 13, Haberhauer discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Haberhauer discloses an inner diameter of the spindle (20, 21, fig. 1).
Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a seventh distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis.
However, Thorson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an in-line motor having a distance between the motor axis (axis G, annotated fig. 2) and the spindle axis (74, fig. 2).
Thorson is evidence that having an in-line motor having a distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the power tool of Haberhauer with an in-line motor having a distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis, as taught by Thorson. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the power tool of Haberhauer with an in-line motor having a distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis, as taught by Thorson, to provide a tool which is more compact and better balanced than tools having the motor arranged with its axis set at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the inter-operating striker and anvil.
The modified Haberhauer does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a seventh distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis to an inner diameter of the spindle being between 1:2 and 3:5.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the seventh distance between the motor axis and the spindle axis to an inner diameter of the spindle to be between 1:2 and 3:5 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and argument, filed 4 March 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 16 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed 4 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 14 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection(s) of claims 14 – 20 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
29 May 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights