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 filing on 8 January 2026.
Claims 16 – 35 are pending. Claims 1 – 15 are cancelled by Applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8 January 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected for the following reason(s):
The subject matter of the abstract seems to differ from that of the subject matter of the claims. While both the abstract and the claims are directed towards an impact tool and a spindle groove, the abstract recites the depth of the spindle groove differing in accordance with the location within the spindle groove in an axial direction of a spindle but the claims recites the spindle groove having a circular-arc shape in a first plane that is tilted by a first angle relative to a rotational axis of the spindle and does not describe the depth of the spindle groove.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Examiner’s Note
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The examiner interprets the term, “a circular-arc shape”, broadly as a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc. The examiner further interprets the term, “a circular path”, broadly as a path having the form of a circle or being round.
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)(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 16, 19 – 21, 24 – 26, and 32 – 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Britz (US 2025/0058435 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Britz (US 2025/0058435 A1) – Annotated figure 3)][AltContent: textbox (α2)]
Regarding claim 16, Britz discloses an impact tool comprising:
a spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) having a first spindle groove (111A, annotated figs. 3. Figure 3 shows the intermediate shaft 101 having two guide grooves 111 wherein the examiner in annotated figure 3 shows one guide groove 111A as the claimed, “a first spindle groove”) defined therein;
a motor (205, fig. 1) configured to rotate the spindle around a rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3);
a first ball (115, fig. 2. Figure 2 shows two spherical guide bodies 115 deems one spherical guide body 115 as the claimed, “a first ball”) movably disposed in the first spindle groove;
a hammer (103, fig. 2) supported on the spindle via the first ball;
at least one spring (135, fig. 2) that biases the hammer forward; and
an anvil (105, fig. 2) configured to be impacted by the hammer in a rotational direction;
wherein the first spindle groove has a circular-arc shape in a first plane (plane B, annotated fig. 3) that is tilted by a first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3) relative to the rotational axis (Annotated figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc – in a first plane B that is tilted by an angle α1 relative to a rotation axis A of an intermediate shaft 101).
Regarding claim 19, Britz discloses the first spindle groove (111A, annotated fig. 3) is circular arc-shaped in the first plane (plane B, annotated fig. 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc) such that the first spindle groove is configured to cause the first ball (115, fig. 2) to move along a first circular path (117A, annotated fig. 3) as the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) rotates.
Regarding claim 20, Britz discloses the center (129, fig. 3) of the first circular path (117A, annotated fig. 3) is offset from the rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3) of the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a reversing point 129 of a guide surface 117A being offset from the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft 101 in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 21, Britz discloses further comprising a second spindle groove (111B, annotated fig. 3. Figure 3 shows the intermediate shaft 101 having two guide grooves 111 wherein the examiner in annotated figure 3 shows the other guide groove 111B as the claimed, “a second spindle groove”) defined in the spindle (101, fig. 3), and a second ball (115, fig. 2. Figure 2 shows two spherical guide bodies 115 deems the other spherical guide body 115 as the claimed, “a second ball”) disposed in the second spindle groove, wherein the second spindle groove has a circular-arc shape in a second plane (plane C, annotated fig. 3) that is tilted by a second angle (angle α2, annotated fig. 3) relative to the rotational axis ([0084] describes the two guide grooves 111 as configured identically thus the first guide groove 111A shown in figure 3 would be identical to the second guide groove 111B opposite it. Therefore, this second guide groove 111B would have the circular-arc shape – or in other words, the smooth, continuous curve segment whose the curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as the circular arc – in a second plane C that is tilted by the angle α2 relative to the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft 101).
Regarding claim 24, Britz discloses the second spindle groove (111B, annotated fig. 3) is circular arc-shaped in the second plane (plane C, annotated fig. 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows the second guide groove 111B having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc) such that the second spindle groove is configured to cause the second ball (115, fig. 2) to move along a second circular path (117B, fig. 3) as the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) rotates.
Regarding claim 25, Britz discloses the center (129, fig. 3) of the second circular path (117, fig. 3) is offset from the rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3) of the spindle (149, figs. 2, 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a reversing point 129 of a guide surface 117 being offset from the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft 101 in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 26, Britz discloses the first plane (plane B, annotated fig. 3) intersects the second plane (plane C, annotated fig. 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows the plane B tilted towards the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft. [0084] describes the two guide grooves 111 as configured identically thus the first guide groove 111A shown in annotated figure 3 would be identical to the second guide groove 111B opposite it. Therefore, plane C would be tilted towards the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft in the same way plane B is tilted towards the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft such that plane B and plane C would intersect).
Regarding claim 32, Britz discloses an impact tool comprising:
a spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) having a first spindle groove (111A, annotated figs. 3. Figure 3 shows the intermediate shaft 101 having two guide grooves 111 wherein the examiner in annotated figure 3 shows one guide groove 111A as the claimed, “a first spindle groove”) defined therein;
a motor (205, fig. 1) configured to rotate the spindle around a rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3);
a first ball (115, fig. 2. Figure 2 shows two spherical guide bodies 115 deems one spherical guide body 115 as the claimed, “a first ball”) movably disposed in the first spindle groove;
a hammer (103, fig. 2) supported on the spindle via the first ball;
at least one spring (135, fig. 2) that biases the hammer forward; and
an anvil (105, fig. 2) configured to be impacted by the hammer in a rotational direction;
wherein the first spindle groove is configured such that the first spindle groove causes the first ball to move along a circular path as the spindle rotates (Figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a round path).
Regarding claim 33, Britz discloses the first spindle groove (111A, annotated figs. 3) is circular arc-shaped (Annotated figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc).
Regarding claim 34, Britz discloses the center (129, fig. 3) of the first circular path (117A, annotated fig. 3) is offset from the rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3) of the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a reversing point 129 of a guide surface 117A being offset from the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft 101 in the radial direction).
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.
Claims 17 – 18, 22 – 23, 27 – 31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Britz (US 2025/0058435 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 16.
Britz discloses the first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the first angle is 30° or more and 60° or less.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle [and the second angle] to be 30° or more and 60° or less because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the first angle [and the second angle] would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 18, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 16.
Britz discloses the first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the first angle is 45°.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle [and the second angle] to be 45° because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the first angle [and the second angle] would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 22, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
Britz discloses the second angle (angle α2, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the second angle is 30° or more and 60° or less.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle and] the second angle to be 30° or more and 60° or less because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying [the first angle and] the second angle would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 23, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
Britz discloses the second angle (angle α2, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the second angle is 45°.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle and] the second angle to be 45° because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying [the first angle and] the second angle would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 27, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 26
Britz discloses the first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3) and the second angle (angle α2, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the first angle and the second angle are 30° or more and 60° or less.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle and the second angle to be 30° or more and 60° or less because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the first angle and the second angle would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 28, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 27.
Britz discloses the first spindle groove (111A, annotated fig. 3) is circular arc-shaped in the first plane (plane B, annotated fig. 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc) such that the first spindle groove is configured to cause the first ball (115, fig. 2) to move along a first circular path (117A, annotated fig. 3) as the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) rotates.
Regarding claim 29, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 27.
Britz discloses the center (129, fig. 3) of the first circular path (117A, annotated fig. 3) is offset from the rotational axis (axis A, annotated fig. 3) of the spindle (101, figs. 2, 3) (Annotated figure 3 shows a reversing point 129 of a guide surface 117A being offset from the rotation axis A of the intermediate shaft 101 in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 30, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 29.
Britz discloses the first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3) and the second angle (angle α2, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the first angle and the second angle being 45°.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle and the second angle to be 45° because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the first angle and the second angle would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 31, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 20.
Britz discloses the first angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the first angle is 30° or more and 60° or less.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 first angle [and the second angle] to be 30° or more and 60° or less because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the first angle [and the second angle] would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Regarding claim 35, Britz discloses the invention as recited in claim 35.
Britz discloses the circular arc-shape (Annotated figure 3 shows a first guide groove 111A having a circular-arc shape – or in other words, a smooth, continuous curve segment whose curvature is approximately constant or whose shape is modeled as a circular arc) of the first spindle groove (111A, annotated figs. 3) is located in a plane (plane B, annotated fig. 3) that is tilted by an angle (angle α1, annotated fig. 3) relative to the rotational axis (angle α1, annotated fig. 3).
Britz does not disclose the angle being 30° - 60°.
However, [0096] describes that by guiding the spherical guide bodies 115 in the substantially parabolic guide grooves 111, 113, the intermediate shaft 101 and the impact body 103 can be rotated relative to each other about the longitudinal axis L and can be displaced along the longitudinal axis L. Thus, the angle of guide groove/spindle grooves 111A, 111B in the first plane and the second plane that is tilted relative to the rotational axis is a result effective variable that determines the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer 103 along the longitudinal axis L.
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 angle[s] to be 30° - 60° because it has been held that "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)), wherein the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success that modifying the angle[s] would determine the amount of displacement of the impact body/hammer along the longitudinal axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwenk (US 2,907,240 A) anticipates applicant’s invention of claim 16, 19 – 20, and 32 – 34.
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
23 July 2026
Prosecution Insights