DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15, 21, and 22 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on March 05, 2026. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“impact assembly” in claims 1, 21, and 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 218639511 U), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses an impact wrench (1 in Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (15 in Figures 1-30);
an electric motor (11 in Figures 3-6) accommodated in the housing (15) (apparent from Figure 3) and comprising a stator assembly (115 in Figures 6 and 8) and a rotor assembly (114 in Figures 4, 6, and 8), the rotor assembly (114) comprising a rotor shaft (111 in Figures 3-10) and a drive gear (121 in Figures 8 and 9), driven by the rotor shaft (111) (Page 7 lines 42-43 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U), disposed at a front end of the rotor shaft (111) (apparent from Figures 8 and 10);
an anvil (141 and 1411 collectively in Figures 3 and 5) for mounting a tool head (one of the “working heads” described in Page 3 lines 55-57 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U) to output power externally (Page 3 lines 55-57 and Page 6 lines 48-54 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U);
a grip (151 in Figure 1) connected to or formed on the housing (15) (apparent from Figure 1);
an impact assembly (134 in Figures 3-5) disposed in the housing (15) and used for providing an impact force to the anvil (141 and 1411 collectively) (Page 6 lines 48-50 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U); and
a transmission assembly (131, pins 1223, gears 1222, 1221, and 123 collectively in Figure 5), disposed in the housing (15) between the electric motor (11) and the impact assembly (134) (apparent when Figures 3-5 are viewed in relation to one another), configured for transmitting power outputted by the rotor shaft (111) to the impact assembly (134) (Page 8 lines 45-55 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U) and comprising:
a main shaft (131, pins 1223, and gears 1222 in Figure 5, collectively), disposed in an extension direction of the rotor shaft (111) (apparent from Figure 3), comprising a plurality of planetary shafts (pins 1223) and a plurality of planet gears (gears 1222), driven by the drive gear (121), disposed around the plurality of planetary shafts (pins 1223), respectively (Page 8 lines 45-55 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U); and
a rear cover (1221 and 123 collectively in Figure 4; or 1221 in Figure 4), surrounding at least part of the main shaft (131, pins 1223, and gears 1222, collectively) from rear to front (apparent when Figures 3-5 are viewed in relation to one another), formed with an inner ring gear (1221; or the radially inner portion/half of 1221 which comprises gear teeth) that meshes with the plurality of planet gears (gears 1222) (Page 8 lines 50-52 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U);
wherein, when the plurality of planet gears (gears 1222) rotate in the inner ring gear (1221; or the radially inner portion/half of 1221 which comprises gear teeth), the rear cover (1221 and 123 collectively; or 1221) is in direct sliding contact with the main shaft (131, pins 1223, and gears 1222, collectively) (at least because gears 1222 of the main shaft directly contact, mesh with, and slide on ring gear 1221 of the rear cover when gears 1222 rotate, Page 8 lines 50-52 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses that the rear cover (1221) and the inner ring gear (the radially inner portion/half of 1221 which comprises gear teeth) are integrally formed (apparent from Figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses that an outer diameter of the drive gear (121) is greater than a diameter of the rotor shaft (111) (apparent from Figure 8).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses that the electric motor (11) is an inner rotor motor (because rotor 114 is located internally of stator 115 of motor 11, as is apparent from Figures 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of making a product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, the limitation “wherein the rear cover is made through powder metallurgy” does not patentably distinguish the claimed rear cover from the rear cover of Xu which meets all the structural limitations. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product, i.e. the rear cover, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. powder metallurgy. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lottes et al. (US 2023/0405775), hereinafter Lottes.
Regarding claim 1, Lottes discloses an impact wrench (10 in Figure 1), comprising:
a housing (14 in Figure 1);
an electric motor (42 in Figure 2) accommodated in the housing (14) (apparent from Figure 2) and comprising a stator assembly (46 in Figure 2) and a rotor assembly (the “rotor” described in Paragraph 0029 and 82 in Figures 2 and 3, collectively) (Paragraph 0029), the rotor assembly (“rotor” and 82, collectively) comprising a rotor shaft (50 in Figures 2 and 3) and a drive gear (82), driven by the rotor shaft (50) (Paragraph 0035), disposed at a front end of the rotor shaft (50) (apparent from Figures 2 and 3);
an anvil (126 in Figure 2) for mounting a tool head (the “tool element” described in Paragraph 0041) to output power externally (Paragraph 0041);
a grip (45 in Figures 1 and 2) connected to or formed on the housing (14) (Paragraphs 0025 and 0023);
an impact assembly (130 in Figure 2) disposed in the housing (14) (apparent from Figure 2) and used for providing an impact force to the anvil (126) (Paragraphs 0041 and 0042); and
a transmission assembly (94, pins 88, gears 86, and 90 collectively in Figures 2 and 3), disposed in the housing (14) between the electric motor (42) and the impact assembly (130) (apparent from Figures 2 and 3), configured for transmitting power outputted by the rotor shaft (50) to the impact assembly (130) (Paragraphs 0037, 0054, and 0055) and comprising:
a main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 in Figures 2 and 3, collectively), disposed in an extension direction of the rotor shaft (50) (apparent from Figures 2 and 3), comprising a plurality of planetary shafts (pins 88) and a plurality of planet gears (gears 86), driven by the drive gear (82) (Paragraphs 0035 and 0037), disposed around the plurality of planetary shafts (pins 88), respectively (apparent from Figures 2 and 3); and
a rear cover (90 in figure 3), surrounding at least part of the main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively) from rear to front (apparent from Figure 3), formed with an inner ring gear (90; or the radially inner portion/half of 90 which comprises gear teeth) that meshes with the plurality of planet gears (gears 86) (Paragraph 0035);
wherein, when the plurality of planet gears (gears 86) rotate in the inner ring gear (90; or the radially inner portion/half of 90 which comprises gear teeth), the rear cover (90) is in sliding contact with the main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively) (at least because gears 86 of the main shaft directly contact, mesh with, and slide on rear cover 90 when gears 86 rotate, Paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 7, Lottes discloses that the impact wrench (10) has no bearing for the main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively) (a bearing for the main shaft is not described or shown in any part of the specification of Lottes).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 11-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu.
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: an axial overlap length of a contact region between the rear cover and the main shaft is greater than or equal to 1.5 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the axial overlap length of the contact region between the rear cover of Xu and the main shaft of Xu be greater than or equal to 1.5 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0008 and 0116 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses that the impact assembly (134) comprises an impact block (134) driven by the electric motor (11) (Page 6 lines 46-50 and Page 10 lines 9-31 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U), and the impact block (134) is configured to reciprocate along an axial direction and impact the anvil (141 and 1411 collectively) along a rotational direction (Page 10 lines 9-31 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U).
However, Xu does not expressly disclose: a ratio of an axial movement distance of the impact block to a diameter of the impact block is less than or equal to 0.3, and a distance between a rearmost edge of the housing and a frontmost edge of the anvil is less than or equal to 95 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the ratio of the axial movement distance of the impact block of Xu to the diameter of the impact block of Xu be less than or equal to 0.3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0008 and 0116 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
It would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing of Xu and the frontmost edge of the anvil of Xu be less than or equal to 95 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0016-0018, 0057, and 0058 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Xu discloses that the impact assembly (134) comprises an impact block (134) driven by the electric motor (11) (Page 6 lines 46-50 and Page 10 lines 9-31 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U).
However, Xu does not expressly disclose: a ratio of a distance between a rearmost edge of the housing and a frontmost edge of the anvil to a diameter of the impact block is less than or equal to 2.5, and the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing and the frontmost edge of the anvil is less than or equal to 95 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the ratio of the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing of Xu and the frontmost edge of the anvil of Xu to the diameter of the impact block of Xu be less than or equal to 2.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0017 and 0129 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
It would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing of Xu and the frontmost edge of the anvil of Xu be less than or equal to 95 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0016-0018, 0057, and 0058 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses that the impact assembly (134) comprises an impact block (134) driven by the electric motor (11) (Page 6 lines 46-50 and Page 10 lines 9-31 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U).
However, Xu does not expressly disclose: a ratio of a distance between a rearmost edge of the housing and a frontmost edge of the anvil to a front-to-rear length of the impact block is less than or equal to 4.7, and the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing and the frontmost edge of the anvil is less than or equal to 95 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the ratio of the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing of Xu and the frontmost edge of the anvil of Xu to the front-to-rear length of the impact block of Xu be less than or equal to 4.7, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0018 and 0129 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
It would further have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have made the distance between the rearmost edge of the housing of Xu and the frontmost edge of the anvil of Xu be less than or equal to 95 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in Paragraphs 0016-0018, 0057, and 0058 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0206410), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: material hardness of a contact region of the rear cover is greater than or equal to 20 HRC.
Liu teaches that it was known to make a material hardness of a contact region (bottom or top surface of 45 in Figure 6) of a rear cover (45 in Figures 5 and 6) be greater than or equal to 30 HRC (Paragraph 0048 lines 17-18), in order to provide the rear cover (45) with good wear resistance and prevent the rear cover (45) from being worn (Paragraph 0048 lines 17-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Liu by making a material hardness of a contact region of the rear cover be greater than or equal to 30 HRC, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of providing the rear cover with good wear resistance and prevent the rear cover from being worn. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Breitbach et al. (US 2024/0342888), hereinafter Breitbach.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above but does not expressly disclose: a contact region between the rear cover and the main shaft is carburized.
Breitbach teaches that it was known to carburize a contact region (outer surface of 38 in Figure 4, which contacts the “tool bit” as described in Paragraph 0065) between a first part (the “tool bit” described in Paragraph 0065) and a shaft (38 in Figure 4) (Paragraph 0084), in order to increase the hardness, strength, and wear resistance of the contact region (Paragraph 0084 lines 1-7 and Paragraph 006 lines 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Xu to incorporate the teachings of Breitbach by carburizing a contact region between the rear cover and the main shaft, because doing so would achieve the predictable result of increasing the hardness, strength, and wear resistance of the contact region. KSR Int’l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 21 and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art reference, Xu (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), discloses a front bearing (112 in Figure 3).
However, Xu, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious that: axial positions of the front bearing, the stator assembly, the rear cover, and the main shaft at least partially overlap.
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art reference, Xu (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), discloses a chuck bushing (shown in an annotated version of Figure 3 of Xu, hereinafter Figure 3x, below) and an anvil bushing (shown in Figure 3x below).
PNG
media_image1.png
780
1323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3x: an annotated version of Figure 3 of Xu
However, Xu, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious that: axial positions of the chuck bushing and the anvil bushing at least partially overlap.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art reference, Xu (see 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 above), discloses a battery pack (16 in Figure 1).
However, Xu, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole, fails to teach or render obvious: a gear button, wherein the gear button is used for controlling a working gear of the impact wrench, and the gear button is disposed on a side of the battery pack.
Regarding independent claim 21, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitation of claim 21 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 21:
“wherein axial positions of the front bearing, the stator assembly, the rear cover, and the main shaft at least partially overlap”.
As explained in detail in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/05/2026, Xu (considered to be the closest prior art reference by the examiner) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 that were present before the claim amendments filed on 05/20/2026, which limitations constitute lines 1-5 and 7-20 of pending claim 21. Xu further teaches a front bearing (112 in Figure 3) supporting the rotor shaft (111) (Page 7 lines 10-11 of Machine Translation of CN 218639511 U).
However, Xu, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the limitation shown in quotation marks above.
Regarding independent claim 22, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 22 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 22:
the impact wrench comprises a gear button, the gear button is used for controlling a working gear of the impact wrench, and the gear button is disposed on a side of the battery pack.
As explained in detail in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 03/05/2026, Xu (considered to be the closest prior art reference by the examiner) teaches all the limitations of claim 1 that were present before the claim amendments filed on 05/20/2026, which limitations constitute lines 1-19 of pending claim 22. Xu further teaches a battery pack (16 in Figure 1).
However, Xu, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the following combination of limitations: the impact wrench comprises a gear button, the gear button is used for controlling a working gear of the impact wrench, and the gear button is disposed on a side of the battery pack.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
“The Office action maps the claimed rear cover to Xu's rear cover 1221 and 123 collectively, or to 1221, and maps the claimed main shaft to Xu's spindle 131, pins 1223, and gears 1222 collectively. The Office action then asserts that the claimed sliding contact is satisfied because gears 1222 slide on ring gear 1221 when gears 1222 rotate. Respectfully, this asserted gear meshing does not disclose the amended claim requirement that the rear cover is in direct sliding contact with the main shaft. Under the amended claim language, the rear cover itself must be in direct sliding contact with the main shaft, not merely in meshing engagement with planet gears.
…
Because Xu fails to disclose at least the amended "direct sliding contact" limitation of independent claim 1, Xu cannot anticipate claim 1 or any claim depending therefrom. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) is respectfully requested.”,
the examiner asserts that lines 13-14 of pending claim 1 define the plurality of planet gears as being part of the main shaft. Since the plurality of planet gears (gears 1222) of Xu are part of the main shaft (131, pins 1223, and gears 1222, collectively) of Xu, and the plurality of planet gears (gears 1222) of Xu directly contact, mesh with, and slide on ring gear 1221 of the rear cover (1221 and 123 collectively; or 1221) of Xu when planet gears 1222 rotate, the rear cover (1221 and 123 collectively; or 1221) of Xu can be properly interpreted as being in direct sliding contact with the main shaft (131, pins 1223, and gears 1222, collectively) of Xu.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
“The Office action maps the claimed rear cover to Lottes's ring gear 90 and maps the claimed main shaft to Lottes's camshaft 94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively. The Office action asserts that the claimed sliding contact is present because gears 86 slide on ring gear 90 when gears 86 rotate. Respectfully, Lottes does not disclose that the rear cover, identified by the Office action as ring gear 90, is in direct sliding contact with the main shaft.
…
Because Lottes fails to disclose at least the amended "direct sliding contact" limitation of dependent claim 1, Lottes cannot anticipate claim 1 or claim 7 depending therefrom. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is respectfully requested.”,
the examiner asserts that lines 13-14 of pending claim 1 define the plurality of planet gears as being part of the main shaft. Since the plurality of planet gears (gears 86) of Lottes are part of the main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively) of Lottes, and the plurality of planet gears (gears 86) of Lottes directly contact, mesh with, and slide on the rear cover (90) of Lottes when planet gears 86 rotate, the rear cover (90) of Lottes can be properly interpreted as being in direct sliding contact with the main shaft (94, pins 88, and gears 86 collectively) of Lottes.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights