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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 19 May 2026.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 19 May 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 9-12, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross ‘418 (US 2008/0185418) in view of Gross ‘468 (US 2010/0032468).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Gross ‘418 teaches a tool (10-fig.1) for working a substrate (34-fig 1; ¶[0017]), the tool having a stator (302,304,306,308-fig.4) and a working piston (310-fig.4), which is configured to move relative to the stator along a working axis (A-annotated fig.2A; see figs. 2A&2B,4; ¶[0019],[0027]), also having a drive (300-fig.4), which is configured to drive the working piston from a starting position (fig.2A,fig.4) along the working axis to the substrate (¶[0018]), the drive comprising a piston coil (106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4; armature is defined as coils of wire around a metal core; “The armature member 106 can define (wholly or partially) a plunger member 108 that can move from a retracted condition (FIG. 2A) to an extended condition (FIG. 2C).” ¶[0019]) arranged on the working piston and a first stator coil (304-fig.4) arranged on the stator (¶[0027]), and the piston coil (304-fig.4) being configured to enter the first stator coil during a movement of the working piston relative to the stator along the working axis (¶[0018], [0027]), the working piston comprising a reluctance element (124-fig.2A) of a soft magnetic material (It is well known in the art that armature cores are made of laminated silicon steel plates, which is a soft magnetic material. Applicant has not traversed this statement previously made by the examiner; therefore, it is Applicant admitted prior art. MPEP §2144.03), which is accelerated into the first stator coil by the magnetic field that is generated by the first stator coil (¶[0018]-[0022],[0027]), the reluctance element (124-fig.2A) projecting transversely to the working axis from the rest of the working piston toward the first stator coil (see Fig.2A showing 124 being externally mounted on 106, therefore projecting transversely out from the axis towards 102),
PNG
media_image2.png
452
282
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
428
257
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the piston coil (106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4; armature is defined as coils of wire around a metal core; “The armature member 106 can define (wholly or partially) a plunger member 108 that can move from a retracted condition (FIG. 2A) to an extended condition (FIG. 2C).” ¶[0019]) is further configured to exit the first stator coil (304-fig.4) at an opposite end to an end of the first stator coil at which the piston coil enters the first stator coil (see fig.4 showing the portion of the stator coil that enters 304 and then see fig.2C showing the same portion of the stator coil exiting 304 opposite of the entrance. Examiner further notes that ¶[0019] states that the armature member is either wholly or partially part of the plunger, therefore it would be obvious that the armature is portion annotated in figs. 2C and 4).
Gross ‘418 does not expressly teach a driver comprising a first capacitor and a piston coil being electrically connectable to the capacitor in order during rapid discharge of the first capacitor to have a current flowing through the piston coil and to generate the magnetic field.
However, Gross ‘468 teaches a driver (100-fig.6) comprising a first capacitor (406-fig.19) and a piston coil (130-fig.6) being electrically connectable to the capacitor in order during rapid discharge of the first capacitor to have a current flowing through the piston coil and to generate the magnetic field (¶[0069]-[0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the tool of Gross '418, by having a voltage boosting circuit, as taught by Gross '468, so “more current can be delivered to the stages 210, 212, which increases the force imparted on the armature 24, while generally operating the fastening tool 10 (FIG. 2) at the nominal voltage of the battery 208.” (Gross ‘468: ¶[0058]).
Claim 2, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 1, the piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4) having a piston coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A) and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) having a first stator coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A), which coincides with the piston coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A).
Claim 3, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 2, with the piston coil and the first stator coil being able to be supplied with current in the same direction in order to generate magnetic fields in the same direction and to accelerate the piston coil into the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0018]&[0021]).
Claim 4, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 3, the drive having a second stator coil (Gross ‘418: 306-fig.4) arranged on the stator, which is arranged offset relative to the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) along the working axis (Gross ‘418: see fig.4 showing that 304 and 306 are offset along the axis A) and has a second stator coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A), which coincides with the piston coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A), with the piston coil and the second stator coil being able to be supplied with current in the same direction in order to generate magnetic fields in the same direction and to accelerate the piston coil into the second stator coil after the piston coil has been accelerated into the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0018]&[0021]), the piston coil being accelerated in the same direction relative to the first stator coil and relative to the second stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0021]).
Claim 5, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 2, the piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4) and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) being able to be supplied with current in opposite directions in order to generate opposing magnetic fields and to accelerate the piston coil out of the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0018]&[0021]).
Claim 6, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 5, the drive having a second stator coil (Gross ‘418: 306-fig.4) arranged on the stator, which is arranged offset relative to the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) along the working axis (Gross ‘418: see fig.2A showing that 304 and 306 are offset along the axis A) and has a second stator coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A), which coincides with the piston coil axis (Gross ‘418: A-annotated fig.2A), with the piston coil and the second stator coil being able to be supplied with current in opposite directions in order to generate opposing magnetic fields and to accelerate the piston coil out of the second stator coil after the piston coil has been accelerated out of the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0018]&[0021]), the piston coil being accelerated in the same direction relative to the first stator coil and relative to the second stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0021]).
Claim 7, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 4, the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) and the second stator coil (Gross ‘418: 306-fig.4) being wound in the same direction relative to one another (Gross ‘418: It is well known in the art that coils are wound in a clockwise direction for electronic components, therefore they would be wound in the same direction. Applicant has not traversed this statement previously made by the examiner; therefore, it is Applicant admitted prior art. MPEP §2144.03).
Claim 9, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 as modified by Shima teaches the tool as claimed in claim 1, the drive having a second capacitor (Gross ‘468: 406-fig.19), the piston coil (Gross ‘468: 130-fig.6) being electrically connectable to the second capacitor in order during rapid discharge of the second capacitor to have a current flowing through the second stator coil and/or the piston coil and to generate the magnetic field (Gross ‘468: ¶[0069]-[0070]).
Claim 10, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 4, comprising a detection device (Gross ‘418: 200-fig.3) for detecting a position of the working piston (Gross ‘418: ¶[0026]) and a control device (Gross ‘418: 22-fig.1) for supplying electrical current to the second stator coil in dependence on a position of the working piston detected by the detection device (Gross ‘418: ¶[0026]&[0040]-[0041]).
Claim 11, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 1, the piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4) and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) being electrically connected to one another in series (Gross ‘418: armature circuits are in series) and wound in the same direction or in opposite directions relative to one another (Gross ‘418: It is well known in the art coils are typically wound in a clockwise direction for electronic components, therefore they would be wound in the same direction. However, it is also known in the art that the coils can be wound in opposite directions and operate in the same way. Applicant has not traversed this statement previously made by the examiner; therefore, it is Applicant admitted prior art. MPEP §2144.03).
Claim 12, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 1, the piston coil having a piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A,310-fig.4) outer diameter (Gross ‘418: see Fig.2A showing that 106 has an outer diameter), and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 304-fig.4) having a stator coil inner diameter (Gross ‘418: see Fig.2A showing that 102 has an inner diameter) which is larger than the piston coil outer diameter (Gross ‘418: see Fig.2A showing 106 inside of 102, therefore the stator coil inner diameter is larger).
PNG
media_image1.png
448
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 1, having a receptacle (Gross ‘418: 24-fig.1) which is configured to receive a fastening element (Gross ‘418: 32-fig.1), the working piston (Gross ‘418: 108-fig.2A) or the stator (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A,310-fig.4) being configured to transfer a fastening element received in the receptacle into the substrate (Gross ‘418: 34-fig.1) along the working axis (Gross ‘418: ¶[0017]-[0018]).
Claim 17, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 3, the piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4) and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 102-fig.2A) being able to be supplied with current in opposite directions in order to generate opposing magnetic fields and to accelerate the piston coil out of the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: ¶[0022]).
Claim 18, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 5, the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 102-fig.2A) and the second stator coil (Gross ‘418: 104-fig.2A) being wound in the same direction relative to one another (Gross ‘418: It is well known in the art that coils are wound in a clockwise direction for electronic components, therefore they would be wound in the same direction. Applicant has not traversed this statement previously made by the examiner; therefore, it is Applicant admitted prior art. MPEP §2144.03).
Claim 19, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 6, comprising a detection device (Gross ‘418: 200-fig.3) for detecting a position of the working piston (Gross ‘418: ¶[0026]) and a control device (Gross ‘418: 22-fig.1) for supplying electrical current to the second stator coil in dependence on a position of the working piston detected by the detection device (Gross ‘418: ¶[0026]&[0040]-[0041]).
Claim 20, Gross ‘418 as modified by Gross ‘468 teaches the tool as claimed in claim 2, the piston coil (Gross ‘418: 106-fig.2A, 310-fig.4) and the first stator coil (Gross ‘418: 102-fig.2A) being electrically connected to one another in series (Gross ‘418: armature circuits are in series) and wound in the same direction or in opposite directions relative to one another (Gross ‘418: It is well known in the art that coils are typically wound in a clockwise direction for electronic components, therefore they would be wound in the same direction. However, it is also known in the art that the coils can be wound in opposite directions and operate in the same way. Applicant has not traversed this statement previously made by the examiner; therefore, it is Applicant admitted prior art. MPEP §2144.03).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
“It is respectfully submitted that neither Gross '418 nor Gross '468, alone or in any permissible combination, can reasonably be considered to suggest features corresponding to the above quoted claim recitations of independent claim 1.” (Remarks p.7)
Quoted text: Claim 1, as amended, recites: "wherein the piston coil is further configured to exit the first stator coil at an opposite end to an end of the first stator coil at which the piston coil enters the first stator coil."
Examiner’s Response:
Gross ‘418 does teach the quoted claim limitation as written, Gross ‘418 teaches in ¶[0019] that the armature member is either wholly or partially part of the plunger, therefore it would be obvious that the armature is the portion annotated in figs. 2C and 4 in claim 1 above. See annotated fig.4 in claim 1 showing the portion of the stator coil that enters 304 and then see fig.2C showing the same portion of the stator coil exiting 304 opposite of the entrance. Therefore, Gross ‘418 teaches the claim written because a portion of the piston coil enters and exits from a stator coil.
Examiner’s Note:
Claims 1, 7, 11, 18, and 20, the Applicant has not challenged the Official Notice/Common Knowledge taken by the examiner (in the Office Action dated 25 April 2025 to reject claim 1, 7, 11, 18, and 20). “If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420.” MPEP §2144.03(C).
Since the Applicant failed to properly challenge the Official Notice/Common Knowledge during examination, the Applicant's right to challenge the Official Notice is waived, and the subject matter recited in claim 1, 7, 11, 18, and 20 is considered as Applicant's admitted prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights