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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, 14 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln 8, please amend to --with [[the]] another--.
Claim 12 Ln 7, please amend to --is smaller [[that]] than each of--.
Claim 12 Ln 10, please amend to --within [[the]] another--.
Claim 14 Ln 1-2, please amend to --the second set of seals comprises a first seal[[,]] and a second seal, wherein the first seal is configured as a spring seal and the second seal is an O-ring--.
Claim 18 Ln 1, please amend to --wherein the second set of seals--.
Claim 18 Ln 3, please amend to --and [[the]] a second seal--.
Claim 18 Ln 4, please amend to --and [[the]] a third seal--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 Ln 2 states the limitation "disposed within the first channel and second set of seals disposed within the second channel”. Claim 1 Ln 8 previously stated this limitation, and it is unclear what this phrase is intended to add to claim 11. It appears that some language is missing. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as merely repeating what was previously stated in claim 1 Ln 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim 20 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, Neuhoff; Mitchell T. et al. US 20220388135 A1, hereinafter Neuhoff, discloses (Fig. 2, 5, 6) a power tool (10) comprising:
a cylinder (18);
a piston (22) movably received in the cylinder [0018] and defining a first channel (128) between a first land (depicted land rightwards of (128) in Fig. 6, hereinafter (1L)) and a second land (depicted land leftwards of (128) in Fig. 6, hereinafter (2L)), and a second channel (132) between the second land and a third land (depicted land leftwards of (132) in Fig. 6, hereinafter (3L));
a first set of seals (138) disposed within one of the first channel and the second channel; and
a second set of seals (146/150) disposed within the other of the first channel and the second channel, a number of seals in the first set of seals being different than a number of seals in the second set of seals (as depicted the quantity is different).
Neuhoff fails to explicitly state that a third gap between the third land and the cylinder is smaller than each of a first gap between the first land and the cylinder and a second gap between the second land and the cylinder.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the first, second and third gap. Although Neuhoff discloses a first, second and third gap, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neuhoff to incorporate the details of a third gap between the third land and the cylinder is smaller than each of a first gap between the first land and the cylinder and a second gap between the second land and the cylinder, along with the other claimed components of the power tool. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Neuhoff discloses (Fig. 2, 5, 6) a power tool (10) comprising:
a cylinder (18);
a piston (22) having a head (106) at a first end and a rod (102) at a second end, the piston defining a first channel (128) between a first land (1L) and a second land (2L), and a second channel (132) between the second land and a third land (3L) so that the first channel is between the first end and the second channel, and the piston moveably received in the cylinder [0018];
a first set of seals (138) disposed within one of the first channel and the second channel; and
a second set of seals (146/150) disposed within the other of the first channel and the second channel, a number of seals in the first set of seals being different than a number of seals in the second set of seals (as depicted the quantity is different).
Neuhoff fails to explicitly state that a second gap between the second land and the cylinder is smaller that each of a first gap between the first land and the cylinder and a third gap between the third land and the cylinder.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the first, second and third gap. Although Neuhoff discloses a first, second and third gap, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neuhoff to incorporate the details of a second gap between the second land and the cylinder is smaller that each of a first gap between the first land and the cylinder and a third gap between the third land and the cylinder, along with the other claimed components of the power tool. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim.
Claims 13-19 depend from claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, Neuhoff discloses (Fig. 2, 5, 6) a hydraulic actuator for a handheld power tool (10), the actuator comprising:
a cylinder (18) defining an axis (74);
a piston (22) including:
a rod (102);
a head (106) defining a head length along the axis between a first end (depicted right end) and a second end (depicted left end) opposite the first end, the second end coupled to the rod, the head further defining a first channel (128) between a first land (1L) at the first end of the head and a second land (2L), and a second channel (132) between the second land and a third land (3L) at the second end of the head,
the head received in the cylinder so that at least two of a first gap (the depicted space between (1L) and (82), hereinafter (1G)) between the first land and the cylinder, a second gap (the depicted space between (2L) and (82), hereinafter (2G)) between the second land and the cylinder, and a third gap (the depicted space between (3L) and (82), hereinafter (3G)) between the third land and the cylinder are a different radial size relative to the axis (as depicted the at least two include (2G, 3G) that are smaller (different radial size) than (1G));
a single seal (138) disposed within the first channel and comprising a fluorinated polymer (PTFE [0025]); and
a second set of seals (146/150) disposed within the second channel, the second set of seals including a first seal (146) configured as a spring seal [0026], and a second seal (150).
Neuhoff fails to explicitly state that the first spring seal is disposed between the second land and a third seal, the third seal is disposed between the first seal and the third land, and the second seal disposed between the first seal and the third seal.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claim, and specifically does not show the claimed structural relationship between the first, second and third seals. Although Neuhoff discloses a first and second seal, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Neuhoff to incorporate the details of that the first spring seal is disposed between the second land and a third seal, the third seal is disposed between the first seal and the third land, and the second seal disposed between the first seal and the third seal, along with the other claimed components of the hydraulic actuator. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 20250050483 A1, US 20050279802 A1, US 20140260505 A1, EP 0472271 A1 disclose power tools comprising fluid actuators comprising a piston with seals.
US 20060169134 A1, US 20120286478 A1, US 20060272498 A1, US 20210003152 A1, US 20060066058 A1, US 5879010 A disclose various piston arrangements comprising a plurality of seals/materials similar to the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights