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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5-7, 10-20, and 29 are pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. US 11325235 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-20, and 29 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "retain the support foot in the desired position" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since the amended limitation was recited in claim 8 which deepened from claim 7 that deepened from claim 6 which introduced the position feature “support foot reaches a desired position” and thus provided the antecedent basis, examiner suggest either adding the subject matter claims 6-7 or properly introduce the position feature from claim 6 to give the proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 10-20, and 29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasudeva et al. (US 20050200087 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vasudeva et al. (US 20050200087 A1) in view of Schnell (US 7025242 B1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20100327037 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 14-18, and 20, Vasudeva et al. discloses a method of removably attaching a support foot (48 and/or anti-roll base 140) to a lower surface (72) of a fastening tool (10) and a method of maintaining a desired angle of the drive axis of the fastening tool (10) relative to a work surface, comprising:
providing a fastening tool (10) having a drive axis and a contact trip (quick connect means 36 attaching 46/44/50 and/or depth gauge attachment 204) adjustable along the drive axis (attaching 46/44/50 adjust the height along the drive axis, [0060-0067, 0099], claim 20, figs. 1-5 and18) providing a support foot/one-piece support member (48) having a single unitary body that includes a work surface engaging portion (84) that engages a work surface moving the support foot toward the fastening tool (10) so that the support foot engages the lower surface of the fastening tool (10); deflecting (interference/location /transition fit [0071]) a portion of the support foot (84) over a portion (42) of the lower surface; and retaining the support foot/one-piece support member on the lower surface solely by the single unitary body/solely by the lower surface of the fastening tool at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip, wherein no tools are required to effect the engaging and moving steps; and wherein the one-piece support member is free of movable parts, other than the one-piece support member itself, in the engaging moving and retaining steps ([0057-0072], [0081-0082, 0087], figs. 1-5 and 11) and Vasudeva et al. discloses the support foot and the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool each define a detent (interference/location /transition fit [0071]), and wherein the respective detents cooperate to retain the support foot in the desired position, wherein a portion of the support foot deflects to permit the support foot to ride over the detent formed on the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool, further comprising: limiting the distance that the support foot can be moved along the lower surface of the fastening tool and the tracks and slots define respective cooperating detents such that the support member may be retained at a desired position on the tracks, each track defines a plurality of male detents, wherein each slot defines a plurality of female detents cooperating with respective male detents, and wherein the support member may be retained at a plurality of desired positions on the tracks corresponding to the respective positions of the plurality of male detents and moving the support foot in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, along the tracks so that the at least one female detent is disengaged from the at least one male detent; continuing to move the support foot along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the channels clear the tracks; and moving the support foot away from the fastening tool ([0057-0072], [0081-0082, 0087], figs. 1-5 and 11).
In the alternative, if it can be argued that Vasudeva et al. fails to teach having a contact trip adjustable along the drive axis and retaining the support foot on the lower surface solely by the single unitary body at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip.
Schnell teaches an adjustable angle nail gun (500) having a contact trip (nose casting assembly 518) adjustable along the drive axis (fig. 5) and retaining a support foot (514) on the lower surface at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle (via sleeve 510/512) with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip (col. 5, lines 15-67, claims 1, 6, and 8, figs. 1-5).
Zhang et al. also teaches a fastener driving tool (10) having a contact trip (40) adjustable along the drive axis (via 44), a support foot (50) having a single unitary body (fig. 14) and retaining the support foot on the lower surface solely by the single unitary body at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip ([0030-0032], figs. 1-8 and 14).
Given the teachings of Vasudeva et al. to have a contact trip adjustable via attachments and a moveable support foot, it 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 to modify the contact trip with being adjustable along the drive axis and retaining the support foot on the lower surface solely by the single unitary body at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip to have precise adjustment angles and/or for secure positioning/securing purposes as taught by Schnell and Zhang et al.
Regarding claim 12-13 and 29, Vasudeva et al. discloses the lower surface of the fastening tool defines two opposing tracks (74/42), wherein the support member defines two opposing channels (84) wherein the two opposing channels of the support foot are parallel to each other and each has an open front end and a closed rear end (figs. 2 and 5) associated with respective opposing tracks (74/42) and moving the support foot in a first direction along the lower surface of the fastening tool; and engaging the channels with respective tracks ([0057-0072], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Vasudeva et al. discloses other than the support foot, there are no moving parts required to retain the support foot on the fastening tool ([0057-0072], [0081-0082], figs. 1-5 and 11).
Regarding claims 6-7, Vasudeva et al. discloses prior to the deflecting step, moving the support foot along the lower surface of the fastening tool (lead-in 80) until the support foot reaches a desired position (stop-wall 82) relative to the fastening tool (stop-wall 82) moving the support foot along the lower surface of the fastening tool so that the support foot and the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool cooperate to attach and retain the support foot in the desired position ([0057-0072], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claims 11, Vasudeva et al. discloses preventing the support foot from being attached to the fastening tool at an incorrect orientation (lead-in 80 with dovetail connection prevents incorrect orientation ([0070-0072], figs. 1-5).
Regarding claims 19, Vasudeva et al. discloses no tools are required to retain the support member in the desired position wherein the support foot is retained on the lower surface of the fastening tool without using any tools wherein the support member is retained on the lower surface of the fastening tool without tools when the desired angle of the drive axis is reached ([0070-0072], figs. 1-5 and teaches having support member anti-roll base 140 having walls 146 with projection/feet 147 to keep the tool 10 from rolling [0081-0082], fig. 11).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 10, 14-20, and 29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vasudeva et al. (US 20050200087 A1) in view of Yang (US 4810137 A) and further in view of FIALA et al. (US 20160354919 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Vasudeva et al. (US 20050200087 A1) in view of Schnell (US 7025242 B1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20100327037 A1) in view of Yang (US 4810137 A) and further in view of FIALA et al. (US 20160354919 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 10, 14-20, and 29, Vasudeva et al./modified Vasudeva et al. discloses/teaches the invention as substantially claimed. See above. In the alternative, if it can be argued that Vasudeva et al. fails to disclose deflecting a portion of the lower surface over a portion of the support foot a portion of the support foot deflects to permit the support foot to ride over the detent formed on the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool, the support foot and the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool each define a detent, and wherein the respective detents cooperate to retain the support foot in the desired position, wherein a portion of the support foot deflects to permit the support foot to ride over the detent formed on the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool, further comprising: limiting the distance that the support foot can be moved along the lower surface of the fastening tool and the tracks and slots define respective cooperating detents such that the support member may be retained at a desired position on the tracks, each track defines a plurality of male detents, wherein each slot defines a plurality of female detents cooperating with respective male detents, and wherein the support member may be retained at a plurality of desired positions on the tracks corresponding to the respective positions of the plurality of male detents and moving the support foot in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, along the tracks so that the at least one female detent is disengaged from the at least one male detent; continuing to move the support foot along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the channels clear the tracks; and moving the support foot away from the fastening tool moving the one-piece support member along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the desired angle is reached when the support member engages the work surface and two opposing channels of the support foot are parallel to each other and each has an open front end and a closed rear end -
Yang teaches a method of maintaining a desired angle of the drive axis of a fastening tool (101, fig. 1) relative to a work surface (work to be drilled or 107), comprising: engaging a one-piece support member (104) with a lower surface (105 or 1039) of the fastening tool (101), the support member also being engageable with the work surface (107 or 104 can contact a work surface with uneven topography); moving the one-piece support member along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the desired angle is reached (figs. 1-1-5) when the support member engages the work surface; wherein no tools are required to effect the engaging and moving steps (drill slides in keyway with no tools required); and wherein the one-piece support member is free of movable parts, other than the one-piece support member itself, in the engaging and moving steps wherein the support member is retained on the lower surface of the fastening tool without tools when the desired angle of the drive axis is reached (col. 3, lines 59-67, col. 4, lines 1-67, claim 1, figs. 1-1-5) and teaches deflecting a portion of the lower surface over a portion of the support foot (screws 121 adjust width/deflecting the keyway 106) and wherein the two opposing channels (104, figs. 1-1-15) of the support foot are parallel to each other and each has an open front end and a closed rear end, (col. 4, lines 1-67, claim 1, figs. 1-1-5).
FIALA et al. teaches a fastener hand tool (114) with tracks (142) on the bottom a support member (102) with mating tongues/detents (138/140) and high spot/detent (144 [0038-0063], figs. 1-7).
Given the teachings of Vasudeva et al. to have a support with a mating slot for the track, it 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 to modify the tracks and slots to have a deflecting a portion of the lower surface over a portion of the support foot a portion of the support foot deflects to permit the support foot to ride over the detent formed on the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool, the support foot and the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool each define a detent, and wherein the respective detents cooperate to retain the support foot in the desired position, wherein a portion of the support foot deflects to permit the support foot to ride over the detent formed on the portion of the lower surface of the fastening tool, further comprising: limiting the distance that the support foot can be moved along the lower surface of the fastening tool and the tracks and slots define respective cooperating detents such that the support member may be retained at a desired position on the tracks, each track defines a plurality of male detents, wherein each slot defines a plurality of female detents cooperating with respective male detents, and wherein the support member may be retained at a plurality of desired positions on the tracks corresponding to the respective positions of the plurality of male detents and moving the support foot in a second direction, opposite to the first direction, along the tracks so that the at least one female detent is disengaged from the at least one male detent; continuing to move the support foot along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the channels clear the tracks; and moving the support foot away from the fastening tool moving the one-piece support member along the lower surface of the fastening tool until the desired angle is reached when the support member engages the work surface and two opposing channels of the support foot are parallel to each other and each has an open front end and a closed rear end to have precise adjustment angles and/or for secure positioning/securing purposes as taught by Yang and FIALA et al.
Response to Arguments
Some of applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-20, and 29 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) issue(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., different retaining locations/positions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Attorney argues that the support foot can be positioned and retained at different locations/positions along the lower surface of the fastening tool. However, the claims are directed the support foot to being at a single position. Also, attorney argues that Vasudeva et al. does not suggest/teach having different retaining locations for the support foot. Examiner contends Vasudeva et al. at least teaches having the support foot located at different positions-
Vasudeva et al. states: “various types of fits including a loose fit, a location fit, a transitional fit or even an interference fit depending on the type and use of the attachment” [0071]. Moreover, since the support foot is not discloses as being at different locations, both Zhang et al. and Schnell teaches lifting the bottom of tool with or without a support foot up and down to desired angle and Zhang et al. teaches moving a support foot to different positions along the bottom to desired positions. Given the teachings of Vasudeva et al. to have a contact trip adjustable via attachments and a moveable support foot, it 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 to modify the contact trip with being adjustable along the drive axis and retaining the support foot on the lower surface solely by the single unitary body at a position that maintains the drive axis at a desired angle with respect to the work surface to compensate for adjustments of the contact trip to have precise adjustment angles and/or for secure positioning/securing purposes as taught by Schnell and Zhang et al.
Examiner suggest reciting as in the instant specification the magazine or lower surface of the fastening tool “defines first and second male detents” or plurality of detents that provide different retaining locations for the support foot.
Conclusion
Additional prior art considered pertinent: US 6796389 B2 – support foot with detents and see references cited, form 892.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, 8-9pm (EST).
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, Hemant Desai can be reached on (571) 272-4458. 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.
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731