IMPACT TOOL

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 9 February 2026. Claims 1 – 24 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 May 2026 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 5, the limitation, “forward and reverse rotation”, should read, “a forward rotation and a reverse rotation”. Regarding claim 9, the limitation, “a front end portion”, should read, “a front-end portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner Note The examiner notes that while the first non-provisional parent application 18/647,665 was filed 26 April 2023, the specification of this first non-provisional application does not support the claimed invention until the Continuation-in-Part parent application 18/904,395 was filed 26 April 2024. Since claims are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112 by this earlier Continuation-in-Part parent application, the claims have the effective filing date of that earlier Continuation-in-Part parent application. 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 1 – 2, 6 – 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1). PNG media_image1.png 718 289 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Seith (US 11,865,679 B2) – Annotated fig. 2)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (C)] [AltContent: textbox (B’)] Regarding claim 1, Seith discloses a powered rotary impact tool, comprising: a housing (26, 30, 40, 68, fig. 1) extending along a tool axis (axis A, annotated fig. 1), the housing including: a rear handle (30, fig. 1) at a rear end portion of the housing; a battery receptacle portion (40, fig. 1) axially forward of the rear handle, the battery receptacle portion including peripheral side walls (Figure 2 shows a battery dock 40 having three side walls) and a base wall (Figure 2 shows a battery dock 40 having a bottom base wall) that at least partially define a cavity (the cavity within the three side walls and the bottom base wall of the battery dock 40, fig. 2) configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis (58, fig. 5); a motor housing portion (portion of tool housing axially forward of a battery dock 40 surrounding a motor 12, fig. 1) axially forward of the battery receptacle portion; and an impact mechanism housing portion (66, fig. 1) axially forward of the motor housing portion; a motor drive unit (12, fig. 1) disposed in the motor housing portion; and a rotary impact mechanism (16, 18, fig. 1) disposed in the impact mechanism housing portion and drivable upon rotation of the motor drive unit, the rotary impact mechanism including: a hammer (16, fig. 1); and an anvil (18, fig. 1). While Seith does not explicitly disclose the limitation, “in response to a torque on the anvil that is less than or equal to a threshold torque value, the hammer continuously engages the anvil so that the hammer and the anvil rotate together, and in response to a torque on the anvil that is greater than the threshold torque value, the hammer applies intermittent rotational impacts to the anvil”, the rotary impact mechanism of Seith is old and well known to one having ordinary skill in the art to function in this manner. However, arguendo that Seith does not disclose the limitation, “in response to a torque on the anvil that is less than or equal to a threshold torque value, the hammer continuously engages the anvil so that the hammer and the anvil rotate together, and in response to a torque on the anvil that is greater than the threshold torque value, the hammer applies intermittent rotational impacts to the anvil”, Ellice, in the same field of endeavor, discloses in response to a torque on an anvil (200, fig. 2) that is less than or equal to a threshold torque value, the hammer (204, fig. 2) continuously engages the anvil so that the hammer and the anvil rotate together, and in response to a torque on the anvil that is greater than the threshold torque value, the hammer applies intermittent rotational impacts to the anvil ([0091] – [0092]). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by Seith, with the function of the rotary impact mechanism, as taught by Ellice, with the motivation to convert the continuous rotational force or torque provided by the motor to a striking rotational force or intermittent applications of torque to the anvil. The modified Seith does not explicitly disclose a battery receptacle portion axially forward of the rear handle, the battery receptacle portion including peripheral side walls and a base wall that at least partially define a cavity configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis that is transverse to the tool axis, wherein the battery receptacle portion substantially surrounds five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape. However, Masatoshi, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a battery receptacle portion (115, fig. 3) axially forward of a rear handle (112, fig. 3), the battery receptacle portion including peripheral side walls (the four side walls of an insertion groove 115, fig. 3) and a base wall (the bottom wall of the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) that at least partially define a cavity (the cavity created by the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis (103, fig. 3) that is transverse to the tool axis (axis A’, annotated fig. 3), wherein the battery receptacle portion substantially surrounds five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape (As shown in fig. 3). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by Seith, for the battery receptacle portion axially forward of the rear handle, the battery receptacle portion including peripheral side walls and a base wall that at least partially define a cavity configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis that is transverse to the tool axis, wherein the battery receptacle portion substantially surrounds five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape, as taught by Masatoshi, with the motivation to better protect the battery from the outside environment. Regarding claim 2, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses the rear handle (30, fig. 1) is D-shaped. Regarding claim 6, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses a front handle (62, fig. 2) coupled to the housing (26, 30, 40, 68, fig. 2) axially forward of the motor housing portion (portion of tool housing axially forward of a battery dock 40 surrounding a motor 12, fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses the front handle (62, fig. 2) is rotatable relative to the housing (26, 30, 40, 68, fig. 2) (Col. 4, ll. 28 – 30). Regarding claim 8, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses the front handle (62, fig. 2) is pivotable about a handle axis (C’, annotated fig. 2) that is transverse to the tool axis (A’, annotated fig. 2) (Col. 4, ll. 28 – 30). Regarding claim 13, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses a terminal block (46, fig. 2) provided in the battery receptacle portion (40, fig. 1) and coupled to a first peripheral side wall (Figure 2 shows electrical connectors 46 coupled to the middle side wall between the two side walls having guide rails 50) of the peripheral side walls (Figure 2 shows a battery dock 40 having three side walls) of the battery receptacle portion. Regarding claim 15, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses a control module (16, fig. 5) located to the side of the base wall (the bottom wall of the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) of the battery receptacle portion (115, fig. 3) generally perpendicular to the tool axis (A’, annotated fig. 3). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the control module to be located below the base wall of the battery receptacle portion generally parallel to the tool axis because it has been held that the rearrangement of parts is routine and an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art. First, in re Japikse (181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Likewise, claim 15 reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of the control module, thus shifting the position of the control module would be unpatentable because the shifting of the position of the control module would not have modified the operation of the device. Second, in re Kuhle (526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Likewise, applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality in regard to the placement of the control module thus the particular placement of the control module in powered rotary impact tool would be an obvious matter of design choice. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Li (US 2025/0100111 A1). Regarding claim 3, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Seith discloses a trigger (32, fig. 1) coupled to the rear handle (30, fig. 1), wherein the motor drive unit is actuated in response to actuation of the trigger (Col. 2, ll. 56 – 57). The modified Seith does not disclose a first mode selector coupled to the rear handle for selecting a mode of operation of the rotary impact tool. However, Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first mode selector (183, fig. 2) coupled to the rear handle (151, fig. 2) for selecting a mode of operation of the rotary impact tool ([0014] describes a switching portion 183 configured to operate an electric motor 11 to rotate in a forward rotation direction or a reverse rotation direction). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with first mode selector coupled to the rear handle for selecting a mode of operation of the rotary impact tool, as taught by Li, with the motivation to increase the functionality of the powered rotary impact tool to provide the user the option to cause the electric motor to rotate in the forward rotation direction in which the fastener is fastened or screwed or the reverse rotation direction in which the fastener is loosened or unscrewed. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the first mode selector on the rear handle so that the user can easily access the first mode selector when using the powered rotary impact tool. Claims 4 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Li (US 2025/0100111 A1), in further view of Teng (US 2025/0065487 A1). Regarding claim 4, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Li, discloses the invention as recited in claim 3. The modified Seith does not disclose a second mode selector coupled to the rear end portion of the housing within a boundary of the rear handle. However, Teng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a second mode selector (7, fig,. 4) coupled to the rear end portion (12, fig. 4) of the housing (13, 14, 15, 111, fig. 4) within a boundary of the rear handle (Figure 4 shows a setting module 7 adjacent to a handle 15). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the second mode selector coupled to the rear end portion of the housing within a boundary of the rear handle, as taught by Teng, with the motivation to increase the functionality of the powered rotary impact tool to provide the user the option to choose different modes such as a torque value setting mode, a rotational speed value setting mode, a voltage value setting mode, a hammer strike number setting mode, and/or a torque error value setting mode. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the second mode selector within the boundary of the rear handle so that the user can easily access the second mode selector when using the powered rotary impact tool. Regarding claim 5, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Li, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 4. The modified Seith discloses the first mode selector (Li – 183, fig. 2) selects between forward and reverse rotation of the motor drive unit (Li – [0014] describes a switching portion 183 configured to operate an electric motor 11 to rotate in a forward rotation direction or a reverse rotation direction) and the second mode selector (Teng – 7, fig,. 4) selects among two or more control modes for the motor drive unit (Teng – [0037] describes the setting module 7 selecting any combination of one or more modes such as a torque value setting mode, a rotational speed value setting mode, a voltage value setting mode, a hammer strike number setting mode, a torque error value setting mode). Claims 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Nick (US 12,544,883 B2). Regarding claim 9, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Seith does not disclose a light assembly coupled to a front-end portion of the impact mechanism housing portion. However, Nick, in the same field of endeavor, a light assembly (160, fig. 2) coupled to a front-end portion of the impact mechanism housing portion (22, fig. 2). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the light assembly coupled to the front-end portion of the impact mechanism housing portion, as taught by Nick, with the motivation to aid a user to be able to adequately see the workpiece or work area that is being worked on or machined by the powered rotary impact tool even in substandard light conditions. Regarding claim 10, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Nick, discloses the invention as recited in claim 9. The modified Seith discloses the light assembly (Nick – 160, fig. 3) includes a plurality of lights (Nick – 181, fig. 3) mounted on one or more circuit boards (Nick – 180, 181, fig. 3). Regarding claim 11, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Nick, discloses the invention as recited in claim 10. The modified Seith discloses a plurality of wires (Nick – 186, 188, fig. 4) routed from at least one of the one or more circuit boards (Nick – 180, 181, fig. 3), under the rotary impact mechanism (Nick – 70, fig. 2) and the motor drive unit (Nick – 42, fig. 2), to a control board (Nick – 65, fig. 2) located adjacent the battery receptacle portion. Regarding claim 12, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Nick, discloses the invention as recited in claim 12. The modified Seith discloses a wire harness (Nick – 200, fig. 6) coupled to the light assembly (Nick – 160, fig. 3) and extending beneath the impact mechanism housing portion (22, fig. 2) to support the plurality of wires (Nick – 186, 188, fig. 4). Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Suzuki (US 2024/0238948 A1). Regarding claim 14, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Seith does not disclose a vibration isolator positioned between the terminal block and the first peripheral side wall. However, Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vibration isolator (100, fig. 23) positioned between the terminal block (3, 9, fig. 23) and the first peripheral side wall (28, fig. 23). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the vibration isolator positioned between the terminal block and the first peripheral side wall, as taught by Suzuki, with the motivation to reduce transmission of vibrations from the main housing to the battery receptacle portion that may cause the electrical connections within the terminal block of the battery receptacle portion to wear or be damaged. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Ellice (US 2023/0202022 A1), in further view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Kondo (US 2015/0343617 A1). Regarding claim 16, Seith, as modified by Ellice, as further modified by Masatoshi, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Seith does not disclose a vibration isolator positioned between the control module and the base wall. However, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vibration isolator (55, fig. 15. [0090] describes a case 55 made of an elastic material) positioned between a control module (52, fig. 15) and the base wall (the top wall of a battery attaching portion 44, fig. 15). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the vibration isolator positioned between the control module and the base wall, as taught by Kondo, with the motivation to reduce transmission of vibrations to the controller that may cause the electrical circuits within the control module to wear or be damaged. Claims 17 – 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Teng (US 2025/0065487 A1). Regarding claim 17, Seith discloses powered rotary impact tool, comprising: a housing (26, 30, 40, 68, fig. 1) extending generally along a tool axis (axis A, annotated fig. 1), the housing including: a motor housing portion (portion of tool housing axially forward of a battery dock 40 surrounding a motor 12, fig. 1); a first handle portion (30, fig. 1) coupled to a rear end portion of the housing; a battery receptacle (40, fig. 1) defining a cavity (the cavity within the three side walls and the bottom base wall of the battery dock 40, fig. 2) formed between the first handle portion and the motor housing portion, a trigger (32, fig. 1) coupled to the first handle portion; and The modified Seith does not explicitly disclose the battery receptacle is configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis that is transverse to the tool axis wherein the battery receptacle is configured to substantially surround five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape. However, Masatoshi, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a battery receptacle (115, fig. 3) is configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis (103, fig. 3) that is transverse to the tool axis (axis A’, annotated fig. 3) wherein the battery receptacle is configured to substantially surround five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape (As shown in figure 3). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by Seith, for the battery receptacle is configured to removably receive a battery pack along an insertion axis that is transverse to the tool axis wherein the battery receptacle is configured to substantially surround five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape, as taught by Masatoshi, with the motivation to better protect the battery from the outside environment. The modified Seith does not disclose a mode selector coupled to the rear end portion of the housing adjacent the first handle portion, wherein the mode selector is manipulatable to select a mode of operation of the powered rotary impact tool. However, Teng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a second mode selector (7, fig. 4) coupled to the rear end portion (12, fig. 4) of the housing (13, 14, 15, 111, fig. 4) adjacent the rear handle (15, fig. 4), wherein the mode selector is manipulatable to select a mode of operation of the powered rotary impact tool ([0037] describes the setting module 7 selecting any combination of one or more modes such as a torque value setting mode, a rotational speed value setting mode, a voltage value setting mode, a hammer strike number setting mode, a torque error value setting mode) 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the second mode selector coupled to the rear end portion of the housing within a boundary of the rear handle, as taught by Teng, with the motivation to increase the functionality of the powered rotary impact tool to provide the user the option to choose different modes such as a torque value setting mode, a rotational speed value setting mode, a voltage value setting mode, a hammer strike number setting mode, and/or a torque error value setting mode. Additionally, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the second mode selector within the boundary of the rear handle so that the user can easily access the second mode selector when using the powered rotary impact tool. Regarding claim 18, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 17. The modified Seith discloses the first handle portion (Seith – 30, fig. 1) has a D-shaped contour, and the trigger (Seith – 32, fig. 1) and the mode selector (7, fig. 4) are located on the D-shaped contour (Teng – Figure 4 shows the setting module on the rear portion 12 of the housing opposite the handle 15. With the incorporation of the teachings of Teng with the invention of the modified Seith, the setting module 7 would be positioned similarly opposite the handle 15 thus the setting module would be located on the D-shaped contour). Regarding claim 19, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 17. The modified Seith discloses the cavity (Masatoshi – the cavity created by the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) of the battery receptacle (Masatoshi – 115, fig. 3) includes a base wall (Masatoshi – the bottom wall of the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) and peripheral side walls (Masatoshi – the four side walls of an insertion groove 115, fig. 3) that together at least partially define the cavity, wherein the battery receptacle is configured to substantially surround five sides of the battery pack having a rectangular prismatic shape (Masatoshi – As shown in fig. 3). Regarding claim 20, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 17. The modified Seith discloses a terminal block (Seith – 46, fig. 2) located in the battery receptacle (Seith – 40, fig. 2), the terminal block including a plurality of terminals (Seith – Figure 2 shows a plurality of electrical connections) and guide rails (Seith – 50, fig. 2 and Masatoshi – 115a, fig. 3) positioned on opposite sides of the plurality of terminals to guide insertion of the battery pack along the insertion axis (Masatoshi – 103, fig. 3). Regarding claim 22, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 17. Seith discloses a control module (16, fig. 5) located to the side of the base wall (the bottom wall of the insertion groove 115, fig. 3) of the battery receptacle portion (115, fig. 3) generally perpendicular to the tool axis (A’, annotated fig. 3). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have rearranged the control module to be located below the base wall of the battery receptacle portion generally parallel to the tool axis because it has been held that the rearrangement of parts is routine and an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art. First, in re Japikse (181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)), claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Likewise, claim 15 reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of the control module, thus shifting the position of the control module would be unpatentable because the shifting of the position of the control module would not have modified the operation of the device. Second, in re Kuhle (526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. Likewise, applicant’s specification does not provide any criticality in regard to the placement of the control module thus the particular placement of the control module in powered rotary impact tool would be an obvious matter of design choice. Regarding claim 24, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 17. The modified Seith discloses the mode selector (Teng – 7, fig. 4) is configured to select between one or more of an operating speed, an output torque, a fastening mode, or a breakaway mode ([0037] describes the setting module 7 selecting any combination of one or more modes such as a torque value setting mode, a rotational speed value setting mode, a voltage value setting mode, a hammer strike number setting mode, a torque error value setting mode). Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Teng (US 2025/0065487 A1), in further view of Suzuki (US 2024/0238948 A1). Regarding claim 21, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 20. The modified Seith does not disclose a vibration isolator positioned between the terminal block and the first peripheral side wall. However, Suzuki, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vibration isolator (100, fig. 23) positioned between the terminal block (3, 9, fig. 23) and the first peripheral side wall (28, fig. 23). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the vibration isolator positioned between the terminal block and the first peripheral side wall, as taught by Suzuki, with the motivation to reduce transmission of vibrations from the main housing to the battery housing. Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seith (US 11,865,679 B2), in view of Masatoshi (US 2018/0207831 A1), in further view of Teng (US 2025/0065487 A1), in further view of Kondo (US 2015/0343617 A1). Regarding claim 23, Seith, as modified by Masatoshi, as further modified by Teng, discloses the invention as recited in claim 22. The modified Seith does not disclose a vibration isolator positioned between the control module and the base wall. However, Kondo, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a vibration isolator (55, fig. 15. [0090] describes a case 55 made of an elastic material) positioned between a control module (52, fig. 15) and the base wall (the top wall of a battery attaching portion 44, fig. 15). 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 powered rotary impact tool, as disclosed by the modified Seith, with the vibration isolator positioned between the control module and the base wall, as taught by Kondo, with the motivation to reduce transmission of vibrations to the controller that may cause the electrical circuits within the control module to wear or be damaged. Conclusion 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 25 September 2026