P27871.A07
`
`REMARKS
`
`Initially, Applicants would like to express appreciation to the Examiner for the detailed
`
`Final Official Action provided.
`
`Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of the
`
`outstanding rejection and allowance of claims 1—12 in the present application. Such action is
`
`respectfully requested and is now believed to be appropriate and proper.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over WATANABE (US. Patent No. 6,687,567) in view of WATANABE (US. Patent No.
`
`6,598,684).
`
`However, Applicants note that WATANABE ‘567 and WATANABE ‘684 fail to teach
`
`or suggest the subject matter claimed in claim 1.
`
`In particular, claim 1 sets forth a rotary impact
`
`tool including, inter alia, a rotary driving mechanism, a hammer, an output shaft, a main switch,
`
`and “a controller that controls on and off of the motor, and having a normal fastening mode and a
`
`tight fastening mode where the rotary impact tool fastens the fastening member a little further to
`
`completion of the normal fastening mode by stopping the fastening of the fastening member in
`
`normal fastening torque by restarting driving of the motor so as to apply a predetermined number
`
`of impact blows of the hammer; wherein a time period sensor, which senses time periods from a
`
`time when the main switch is switched on to a time when the main switch is switched off and
`
`from a time when the main switch is switched off to a time when the main switch is switched on
`
`next, is further comprised; and the controller gives transition to the tight fastening mode from the
`
`normal fastening mode when the time period from the time when the main switch is switched off
`
`
`
`REMARKS
`
`Initially, Applicants would like to express appreciation to the Examiner for the detailed
`
`Final Official Action provided.
`
`Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Applicants respectfully request reconsideration of the
`
`outstanding rejection and allowance of claims 1—12 in the present application. Such action is
`
`respectfully requested and is now believed to be appropriate and proper.
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over WATANABE (US. Patent No. 6,687,567) in view of WATANABE (US. Patent No.
`
`6,598,684).
`
`However, Applicants note that WATANABE ‘567 and WATANABE ‘684 fail to teach
`
`or suggest the subject matter claimed in claim 1.
`
`In particular, claim 1 sets forth a rotary impact
`
`tool including, inter alia, a rotary driving mechanism, a hammer, an output shaft, a main switch,
`
`and “a controller that controls on and off of the motor, and having a normal fastening mode and a
`
`tight fastening mode where the rotary impact tool fastens the fastening member a little further to
`
`completion of the normal fastening mode by stopping the fastening of the fastening member in
`
`normal fastening torque by restarting driving of the motor so as to apply a predetermined number
`
`of impact blows of the hammer; wherein a time period sensor, which senses time periods from a
`
`time when the main switch is switched on to a time when the main switch is switched off and
`
`from a time when the main switch is switched off to a time when the main switch is switched on
`
`next, is further comprised; and the controller gives transition to the tight fastening mode from the
`
`normal fastening mode when the time period from the time when the main switch is switched off
`
`
`
`P27871.A07
`
`to the time when the main switch is switched on next sensed by the time period sensor is shorter
`
`than a first predetermined time period”.
`
`It is respectfully submitted that WATANABE ‘567 and WATANABE ‘684 fail to teach
`
`or suggest the rotary impact tool claimed in pending claim 1.
`
`In this regard, while Applicants agree with the Examiner’s indication that (as noted by
`
`the Examiner in Paragraph 3 of the Final Official Action) the WATANABE ‘567 patent does not
`
`disclose “normal fastening and tight fastening modes”, Applicants further wish to make clear that
`
`the Examiner has not asserted that
`
`the WATANABE ‘567 patent discloses the remaining
`
`elements of the device in pending claim 1.
`
`In particular, the Examiner takes the position that
`
`WATANABE ‘567 discloses “a controller (control device 38) for controlling on and off of the
`
`motor (22); a term sensor (30) for sensing terms of switching on and off of the main switch (48)
`
`is further comprised; and the term sensor (30) senses a term between a time when the main
`
`switch (48) is switched off and a time when the main switch is switched on next as controlled by
`
`the controller” (Paragraph 3 of the Final Official Action). However, the above quoted language
`
`is not the language of pending claim 1. Pending claim 1 sets forth a rotary impact tool including,
`
`inter alia, a time period sensor, which senses time periods from a time when the main switch is
`
`switched on to a time when the main switch is switched off and from a time when the main
`
`switch is switched off to a time when the main switch is switched on next; and the controller
`
`gives transition to the tight fastening mode from the normal fastening mode when the time period
`
`from the time when the main switch is switched off to the time when the main switch is switched
`
`on next sensed by the time period sensor is shorter than a first predetermined time period. Thus,
`
`the Examiner has not asserted that the WATANABE ‘567 device includes the claimed controller
`
`3
`
`
`
`P27871.A07
`
`and time period sensor. Therefore, the Examiner also has not contended that the WATANABE
`‘567 patent and the WATANABE ‘684 patent teach or suggest the claimed subject matter.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it is respectfiilly submitted that for at least the above reasons, the rejection of claim
`
`1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over WATANABE ‘567 in View of WATANABE ‘684 is improper
`
`and should be withdrawn.
`
`Moreover, as recognized by the Examiner in the Final Official Action, the WATANABE
`
`‘567 patent fails to teach or suggest a rotary impact tool including a normal fastening mode and a
`
`tight fastening mode.
`
`Applicants respectfully submit that the WATANABE ‘684 patent fails to teach or suggest
`
`“a controller that controls on and off of the motor, and having a normal fastening mode and a
`
`tight fastening mode where the rotary impact tool fastens the fastening member a little further to
`
`completion of the normal fastening mode by stopping the fastening of the fastening member in
`
`normal fastening torque by restarting driving of the motor so as to apply a predetermined number
`
`of impact blows of the hammer”, as recited in claim 1.
`
`In this regard, the WATANABE ‘684
`
`patent discloses, in column 5, lines 5-11, that “the power tool can be temporarily switched to a
`
`manual mode by operating the selector switch if the source may possibly be stopped before the
`
`fastening has reached the seated position due to a burr or other imperfection of the fastener.
`
`Thereafter, the tightening operation can be continued in normal mode until the fastener reaches
`
`the seated position”. Accordingly, the WATANABE ‘684 patent merely teaches a device in
`
`which the operation mode of the power tool can be switched to manual mode from normal mode
`
`by operating the selector switch.
`
`
`
`P27871.A07
`
`Moreover, in the WATANABE ‘684 device, even though the motor may be stopped due
`
`to a burr or another imperfection of the fastener, electric power is continuously supplied to the
`
`motor while the motor is stopped. Accordingly, although the motor is stopped, the normal
`
`fastening operation in the normal mode is not completed by stopping the fastening of the
`
`fastening member in the normal fastening mode.
`
`However, the rotary impact tool as set forth in claim 1 does not require the selector
`
`switch to manually switch the operation mode from the normal fastening mode to the manual
`
`mode. The controller determines whether to switch the operation mode from the normal mode to
`
`the tight fastening mode or to continue the normal fastening mode in accordance with time
`
`periods sensed by the time period sensor.
`
`Thus, in the WATANABE ‘684 device, even though the motor may be stopped due to a
`
`burr or another imperfection of the fastener, electric power is continuously supplied to the motor
`
`while the motor is stopped. Accordingly, although the motor is stopped, the normal fastening
`
`operation in the normal mode is not completed by stopping the fastening of the fastening member
`
`in the normal fastening mode. Accordingly, WATANABE ‘684 fails to teach or suggest a rotary
`
`impact tool including, inter alia, “a controller that controls on and off of the motor, and having a
`
`normal fastening mode and a tight fastening mode where the rotary impact tool fastens the
`
`fastening member a little further to completion of the nermal fastening mode by stopping the
`
`fastening of the fastening member in normal fastening torque by restarting driving of the motor
`
`so as to apply a predetermined number of impact blows of the hammer”, as set forth in claim 1.
`
`Therefore,
`
`the WATANABE ‘684 patent
`
`fails
`
`to cure the deficiencies of the
`
`WATANABE ‘567 device, and even assuming, arggendo, that the teachings cf WATANABE
`
`5
`
`
`
`P27871.A07
`
`‘567 and WATANABE ‘684 have been properly combined, Applicants' claimed rotary impact
`
`tool would not have resulted from the combined teachings thereof.
`
`Further, there is nothing in the cited prior art that would lead one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art to make the modification suggested by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1 under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over WATANABE ‘567 in view of WATANABE ‘684. Thus, the only reason
`
`to combine the teachings of WATANABE ‘567 and WATANABE ‘684 results from a review of
`
`Applicants' disclosure and the application of impermissible hindsight. Accordingly, the rejection
`
`of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over WATANABE ‘567 in View of WATANABE ‘684 is
`
`improper for all the above reasons and withdrawal thereof is respectfully requested.
`
`Applicants submit that dependent claims 2-12, which are at least patentable due to their
`
`dependency from claim 1 for the reasons noted above, recite additional features of the invention
`
`and are also separately patentable over the prior art of record based on the additionally recited
`
`features.
`
`Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request reconsideration and withdrawal of the
`
`rejection, and an early indication of the allowance of claims 1—12.
`
`SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, it is submitted that the present response is proper and that none
`
`of the references of record, considered alone or in any proper combination thereof, anticipate or
`
`render obvious Applicants’ invention as recited in claims 1-12. The applied references of record
`
`have been discussed and distinguished, while significant claimed features of the present
`
`invention have been pointed out.
`
`
`
`P27871.A07
`
`Accordingly, consideration of the present response, reconsideration of the outstanding
`
`Final Official Action, and allowance of all of the claims in the present application are
`
`respectfully requested and now believed to be appropriate.
`
`Applicants have made a sincere effort to place the present application in condition for
`
`allowance and believe that they have now done so.
`
`Should the Examiner have any questions,
`
`the Examiner is invited to contact
`
`the
`
`undersigned at the below-listed telephone number.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Hidenori SHIMIZU et a1.
`
`2
`
`Linda J. Hodge
`
`Reg.#47,348
`
`
`Bruce H.
`ernstein
`
`Reg. No. 29,027
`
`February 29, 2008
`GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`
`Reston, VA 20191
`(703)716—1191
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
