DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 8/25/2025.
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keusch US 7,171,872.
Regarding claims 1 and 8:
Keusch teaches a screwdriver, comprising: a main housing (10) provided with an accommodation space (19, not shown in its entirety) and extending substantially along a straight line; a drive mechanism at least partially accommodated in the accommodation space and comprising a motor (see claim 12); a working head (32) comprising an output shaft (33), the output shaft being driven by the drive mechanism to rotate about an output axis and having a mounting slot (36) for mounting a screwdriver bit formed at an end of the output shaft opposite the drive mechanism; and a connection assembly comprising an input portion (16) connected to the drive mechanism and an output portion (39) connected to the output shaft; wherein the connection assembly rotates the working head around a first axis (center of 20) relative to the main housing.
Because Keusch does not show the length of the main housing, Keusch does not teach a ratio of a distance L3 between the first axis and the end of the output shaft to a maximum distance L2 between a rear end of the main housing and the end of the output shaft is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.4 (or 0.3) when the output axis is parallel to the straight line.
However, given that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the length of the main housing to any desired length, including a length such that a ratio of a distance L3 between the first axis and the end of the output shaft to a maximum distance L2 between a rear end of the main housing and the end of the output shaft is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.4 (or 0.3) when the output axis is parallel to the straight line. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a longer housing would provide more gripping area and would allow for increased manually applied torque.
Regarding claim 2:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the working head comprises a limit position where the working head moves to a limit around the first axis (see FIG. 3).
Since Keusch teaches the limit angle being 90 degrees (see FIG. 3 and claim 1), Keusch does not teach an included angle a between an axis of the input portion and an axis of the output portion is less than or equal to 85 degrees when the working head is located at the limit position.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the angle to be any desired limit angle, including 85 degrees or less, based on the desired characteristics of the screwdriver.
Regarding claim 3:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the working head further comprises a first position where the axis of the input portion is parallel to or coincident with the axis of the output portion (see FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 4:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the limit position comprises a first limit position where the working head moves to a limit along a first direction around the first axis, and the first limit position is located on a side of the first position (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 3, as discussed above, wherein a ratio of output torque of the output shaft when the working head is located at the limit position to output torque of the output shaft when the working head is located at the first position is equal to 1 (evident from FIGS. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 7, 9, 10, 11:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 3, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein, when the working head is located at the first position, output torque of the output shaft is greater than or equal to 2.5 N-m; the drive mechanism comprises a direct current power supply; the direct current power supply comprises a battery and has a nominal voltage less than or equal to 7.2 V; a charging interface is provided at the rear end of the main housing, and the charging interface is one or more of a universal serial bus (USB) interface, a Type-C interface, and a lighting interface.
However, Examiner takes official notice that each of these aspects are old and well-known in the art as matters of design and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Keusch screwdriver by implementing any of these common features, such that the screwdriver has desirable and useful features.
Regarding claim 16:
Keusch teaches a screwdriver, comprising: a main housing (10) provided with an accommodation space(19, not shown in its entirety); a drive mechanism at least partially accommodated in the accommodation space and comprising a direct current power supply and an electric motor (see claim 12); a working head (32) comprising an output shaft (33), the output shaft being driven by the drive mechanism to rotate about an output axis and having a mounting slot (36) for mounting a screwdriver bit formed at an end of the output shaft opposite the drive mechanism; and a connection assembly, connecting the output shaft to the drive mechanism, comprising at least one connector (39) and configured to rotate the working head around a first axis relative to the main housing.
Keusch does not teach wherein a maximum output torque of the output shaft is greater than or equal to 2.5 Nm, and a distance between the first axis and the end of the output shaft is less than or equal to 50 mm.
However, Examiner takes official notice that a maximum output torque of the output shaft greater than or equal to 2.5 Nm is old and well-known in the art as a matter of component selection and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the Keusch screwdriver by having a maximum output torque of the output shaft greater than or equal to 2.5 Nm, in order to provide sufficient torque to loosen or tighten screws. Further, given that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have a distance between the first axis and the end of the output shaft less than or equal to 50 mm, to make the screwdriver smaller and more compact.
Regarding claims 17-18:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 16, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein a ratio of the distance between the first axis and the end of the output shaft to a maximum length of the screwdriver is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.3; the maximum length of the screwdriver is less than or equal to 195 mm;
However, given that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Keusch by having a ratio of the distance between the first axis and the end of the output shaft to a maximum length of the screwdriver greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.3 and the maximum length of the screwdriver is less than or equal to 195 mm. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a longer housing would provide more gripping area and would allow for increased manually applied torque.
Claims 5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keusch, as applied above, and further in view of Bone US 2003/0095842.
Regarding claim 5:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 3, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the limit position further comprises a second limit position where the working head moves to a limit along a second direction opposite to the first direction around the first axis, and the first limit position and the second limit position are located on two sides of the first position.
Bone discloses allowing for a second limit position opposite a first limit position ([0015]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the screwdriver of Keusch, by allowing for a second limit position where the working head moves to a limit along a second direction opposite to the first direction around the first axis, and the first limit position and the second limit position are located on two sides of the first position, as taught by Bone, since this would allow the screwdriver to be used in multiple orientations without having to change how the screwdriver is gripped by the user.
Regarding claims 12-15:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the main housing comprises a grip and a connecting portion connecting the grip and the working head, and a switch operating member is disposed at the connecting portion.
Bone teaches a related screwdriver wherein the main housing comprises a grip (6) and a connecting portion (above 6) connecting the grip and the working head, and a switch operating member (40/42) is disposed at the connecting portion.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the screwdriver of Keusch by having the main housing comprises a grip and a connecting portion connecting the grip and the working head, and a switch operating member is disposed at the connecting portion, as taught by Bone, to allow the screwdriver to have an ergonomic and practical design. It would further have been obvious as a matter of alternative design choices to have an electric motor is disposed in the grip, and the switch operating member is used for controlling the start and stop of the electric motor; the connecting portion comprises an outer arc portion, and the switch operating member is disposed at the outer arc portion; and a trigger operating member for locking the position of the working head, wherein the trigger operating member is disposed at a joint of the grip and the connecting portion.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keusch, as applied above, and further in view of Townsan US 7,156,187.
Regarding claim 19:
Keusch teaches the screwdriver of claim 16, but does not teach further comprising a lighting assembly, wherein the lighting assembly rotates with the working head about the first axis.
Townsan discloses a related screwdriver comprising a lighting assembly (34), wherein the lighting assembly rotates with the working head about the first axis (col. 6, lines 1-8).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the screwdriver of Keusch by providing a lighting assembly that rotates with the working head about the first axis, in order to illuminate the working area at any angle in which the working head is used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights