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 9 August 2026.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 – 21 are pending. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 7 – 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1) in view of Matsushita (US 10,836,019 B2).
[AltContent: textbox (Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1)
Annotated figure 2)]
Regarding claim 7, Bosch discloses a power tool comprising:
a housing (72a, fig. 1);
a motor (26a, fig. 2) positioned within the housing; and
an impulse assembly coupled to the motor to receive torque therefrom, the impulse assembly including
a cylinder (74a, fig. 2),
an anvil (100a, fig. 2) positioned at least partially within the chamber, and
a hammer (96a, fig. 2) positioned at least partially within the chamber and engageable with the anvil for transferring rotational impacts to the anvil ([0024]), the hammer including a first through hole (first through hole A, annotated fig. 2. Figure 2 shows a hammer 96a having a first through hole A in which an intermediate shaft 18a and a portion B of an anvil 100a is inserted) configured to at least partially receive the anvil when the hammer engages the anvil (Annotated figure 2 shows the first through hole A at least partially receiving portion B of an anvil 100a when the hammer 96a is engaged with the anvil 100a); and
a biasing member (138a, fig. 2) biasing the hammer towards the anvil;
wherein an annular opening (the opening between a cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a and the first through hole A. Please note, the claims do not specify between what portion of the anvil and the first through hole A should be used to define the annular opening. Thus, the examiner deems this cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a as the cross-section that aligns with a chamfer/bevel portion of the first through hole A when the hammer 96a has moved axially and is no longer engaged with the anvil 100a, annotated fig. 2) is defined between the anvil and the first through hole (annotated figure 2),
wherein the annular opening is defined by a first distance (first distance C, annotated fig. 2. This first distance C represents the distance of the annular opening – that is, the opening between the cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a as described above and the first through hole A when the hammer 96a is engaged with the anvil 100a as shown in figure 2) when the hammer translates toward the anvil to engage the anvil,
wherein the annular opening is defined by a second distance (second distance D, annotated fig. 2. This second distance D represents the distance of the annular opening – that is, the opening between the cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a as described above and the first through hole A – when the hammer 96a has moved axially and is no longer engaged with the anvil 100a and the cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a aligns with a chamfer/bevel portion of the first through hole A) greater than the first distance when the hammer translates away from the anvil (Annotated figure 2 shows the second distance D, due to the chamfer/bevel portion of the first through hole, being greater than the first distance C), and
wherein the first distance and the second distance are each defined between a portion of the anvil and a portion of the hammer (annotated figure 2).
Bosch does not explicitly disclose the cylinder at least partially forming a chamber containing a hydraulic fluid.
Matsushita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cylinder (13A, fig. 2) at least partially forming a chamber containing a hydraulic fluid (Col. 7, ll. 5 – 7).
Matsushita is evidence that having the cylinder at least partially forming the chamber containing the hydraulic fluid 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 cylinder of Bosch with the cylinder at least partially forming a chamber containing a hydraulic fluid, as taught by Matsushita. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cylinder of Bosch with the cylinder at least partially forming a chamber containing a hydraulic fluid, as taught by Matsushita, in order to cool or lubricate the impulse assembly contain in the cylinder (Col. 7, ll. 5 – 7).
Regarding claim 8, Bosch, as modified by Matsushita, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
Bosch discloses an area of the annular opening (the opening between a cross-section of the portion B of the anvil 100a and the first through hole A, annotated fig. 2) increases as the hammer (96a, fig. 2) translates away from the anvil (96a, fig. 2) (Annotated figure 2 shows the hammer 96a engaged with the anvil 96a wherein [0024] describes the hammer 96a configured to move axially. At the point the hammer 96a first begins to move axially the annular opening has a distance C and an associated area and when the hammer 96a moves axially such that the hammer 96a and the anvil 100a are no longer engaged the annular opening has a distance D and an associated area wherein the second distance D, due to the chamfer/bevel portion of the first through hole, is greater than the first distance C and thus has a greater associated area).
[AltContent: textbox (Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1)
Annotated figure 2)]
Regarding claim 9, Bosch, as modified by Matsushita, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
Bosch discloses the first through hole (first through hole A, annotated fig. 2) has a first portion (non-chamfer/bevel region, fig. 2) with a first diameter (diameter E, annotated fig. 2) and a second portion (chamfer/bevel region, fig. 2) with a second diameter (diameter F, annotated fig. 2) larger than the first diameter.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1) in view of Matsushita (US 10,836,019 B2) in further view of Ogura (JP 2015 188953 A).
Regarding claim 11, Bosch, as modified by Matsushita, discloses the invention as recited in claim 7.
The modified Bosch does not explicitly disclose the hammer includes a plurality of second through holes positioned radially outward of the first through hole.
However, Ogura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the hammer (33, fig. 4) includes a plurality of second through holes (46, fig. 4) positioned radially outward of the first through hole (33d, fig. 4).
Ogura is evidence that having the hammer include a plurality of second through holes positioned radially outward of the first through hole 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 hammer of the modified Bosch with the hammer include a plurality of second through holes positioned radially outward of the first through hole, as taught by Ogura. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the hammer of the modified Bosch with the hammer including a plurality of second through holes positioned radially outward of the first through hole, as taught by Ogura, in order to equalize or suppress an increase in the pressure between regions in the cylinder as the hammer moves axially ([0048]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5 – 6, and 12 – 20 are allowed.
Claims 10 and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1: the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 3 and 5 – 6 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 1.
Claim 1 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 1, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 1 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the inner portion including a resilient arm movable relative to the outer portion to selectively cover and uncover the through hole”
The closest prior art is Seith (US 6,782,956 B1). Seith discloses a valve having an outer portion and an inner portion. However, Seith uses a resilient circular valve stop – not a resilient arm movable relative to the outer portion to selectively cover and uncover the through hole as required by the claim. Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious this limitation. Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 10: the subject matter of the power tool would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claim 10 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 10, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 10 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the anvil includes a removable plug”
The closest prior art is Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1) in view of Matsushita (US 10,836,019 B2) in further view of Ogura (JP 2015 188953 A). The modified Bosch does not disclose the anvil including the removable plug as required by the claim. Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious this limitation. Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding independent claim 12: the subject matter of the power tool is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 13 – 20 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 12.
Claim 12 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 12, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 12 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“a one-way valve configured to control flow of the hydraulic fluid through the second through hole”
The closest prior art is Ogura (JP 2015 188953 A). Ogura discloses applicant’s invention having a housing, a motor, an impulse assembly with a chamber containing a hydraulic fluid, an anvil, and a hammer with a first through hole and a second through hole. However, Ogura is silent regarding “a one-way valve configured to control flow of the hydraulic fluid through the second through hole”. The prior art of record does not make obvious this limitation. Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Regarding dependent claim 21: the subject matter of the power tool would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another.
Claim 21 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 21, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 21 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“a flow rate of the hydraulic fluid through the annular opening varies as the hammer translates within the chamber”
The closest prior art is Bosch (DE 20 2016 103701 U1) in view of Matsushita (US 10,836,019 B2) in further view of Ogura (JP 2015 188953 A). The modified Bosch does not disclose the flow rate of the hydraulic fluid through the annular opening varies as the hammer translates within the chamber as required by the claim. Additionally, the prior art of record does not make obvious this limitation. Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 7 – 11 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 7 – 11 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
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 replying 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
5 September 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights