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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/6/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments. The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn. The previous rejections have been updated to the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the propulsion mechanism comprising a material receiving portion provided on a shell of the propulsion mechanism, for communicating with the discharge end of the feeding mechanism to receive the mounting part, wherein a propulsion unit action of the propulsion mechanism can push the mounting part conveyed to the material receiving portion and mount same in a target position” in claims 11 and 18.
“resetting mechanism can drive the conveying pipe to reset after the conveying pipe oscillates.” In claim 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
When looking to the specification, the “propulsion mechanism” is defined to be a screwdriver, or other known fastener drivers. The propulsion unit is defined to be the screwdriver tip. This is the structure required for the claimed limitations, or equivalents thereof.
When looking to the specification, the “resetting mechanism” is discussed being an elastic member. This is the structure required by the claim, or equivalents thereof.
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 11-15, 17-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (DE10338902) in view of Lorenz (DE3931000), herein referred to as Lorenz B, in view of Lorenz (DE3815814A1), herein referred to as Lorenz C, in view of Vielle (EP 0350370 A1).
Regarding claim 11 (as best understood), Lorenz discloses a feeding structure comprising:
a feeding mechanism, one end of which is a feed end, another end of which is a discharge end, the feeding mechanism comprises a feed pipe (Item 7) and a conveying pipe (Item 5) that are in communication with each other, wherein a mounting part (screw, from disclosure) entering from the feed end of the feeding mechanism can be conveyed to the discharge end through the feeding pipe and the conveying pipe;
a propulsion mechanism (Item 2 and 1), which is provided on one side of the feeding mechanism and has a central axis that is parallel to a central axis of the feed pipe, the propulsion mechanism comprising a material receiving portion provided on a shell of the propulsion mechanism, for communicating with the discharge end of the feeding mechanism to receive the mounting part, wherein a propulsion unit action of the propulsion mechanism can push the mounting part conveyed to the material receiving portion and mount same in a target position; and
a bending pipe joint (Item 6) connecting the feed pipe and the conveying pipe, the bending pipe joint is fixed outside the shell of the propulsion mechanism, wherein the bending pipe joint comprises a body with a central bore, wherein a first end of the bending pipe joint is fixedly connected to the feed pipe, and a second end of the bending pipe joint is movably connected to the conveying pipe (Figures 1-2), wherein [[the opening]] of the bending pipe joint is structured relative to the conveying pipe so as to allow the conveying pipe can oscillate through the opening relative to the propulsion mechanism under the action of the propulsion mechanism (annotated figure 2 shows what the Examiner believes to be an opening and the conveying pipe in an oscillated state).
Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose having a central axis that is parallel to a central axis of the feed pipe AND wherein the bending pipe joint further comprises an opening on the body of the bending pipe joint adjacent the second end. Lorenz discloses the feed pipe, Item 7 as a hose, which is typically bendable. Lorenz shows an opening by the lack of cross hatching, but does not discuss what the cross section looks like.
Lorenz B teaches a feeding structure having a central axis that is parallel to a central axis of the feed pipe.(Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz with Lorenz B. By changing the angle the feed pipe comes out, it would allow for more connection points between the feed structure and the fastening tool, thus allowing the tool to be more solid.
Lorenz C teaches a feeding structure wherein the bending pipe joint further comprises an opening on a side of the body of the bending pipe joint adjacent the second end (Items 12 and 8, Figure 3; Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the body of Lorenz with the opening of Lorenz C. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04). Lorenz C discusses the configuration allows for the conveying pipe to pivot, but in the event of a malfunction, it can removed and reinserted in a simple manner, without the use of tools (Paragraph 7, Lorenz C).
Lorenz fails to further disclose wherein the first end of the bending pipe joint comprises a first connecting section and wherein the feed pipe is screwed into the first connecting section via a threaded connection.
Vielle teaches a feeding structure wherein the first end of the bending pipe joint comprises a first connecting section and wherein the feed pipe is screwed into the first connecting section via a threaded connection (Item 58; Paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz to include the threaded connection between the feed pipe and the joint. Threaded connections are known connections in the art for creating sealed connection between two pipe joints.
PNG
media_image1.png
676
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle discloses the feeding structure according to claim 11. Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose wherein an angle between a central axis of the cylindrical structure and the central axis of the propulsion mechanism is an angle selected from the range of 25 to 30 degrees.
Vielle teaches a feeding structure wherein an angle between a central axis of the cylindrical structure and the central axis of the propulsion mechanism is an angle is 30 degrees (Paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the “acute angle” of Lorenz with the 30 degrees as taught by Vielle. Such a modification would allow for the fastener to adequately be guided into place with the help of gravity.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 11, wherein a through hole for communicating with the discharge end is provided on an outer wall of the material receiving portion, such that when the propulsion unit is working, the propulsion unit can push against the conveying pipe to oscillate the conveying pipe, so as to separate a port of the discharge end from the through hole and to block the port (Lorenz Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 21, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 13. Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose wherein a stop part located on an outer wall of the material receiving portion, the stop part extending outwardly along a radial direction of the material receiving portion from a position close to the through hole, such that when the propulsion unit pushes the conveying pipe to oscillate, the stop part is abutted against the port of the discharge end to block the port (Lorenz Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 15 and 22, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 11, wherein the feeding mechanism also comprises a resetting mechanism that is provided on the bending pipe joint and that is abutted against the conveying pipe, such that the resetting mechanism can drive the conveying pipe to reset after the conveying pipe oscillates (Lorenz Items 16&17, Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 17 and 24, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 11, wherein the feed pipe is a feed hose (Lorenz Item 7 is disclosed as a hose).
Regarding claim 18, Lorenz discloses a fastening device comprising a feeding structure, the feeding structure comprising:
a feeding mechanism, one end of which is a feed end, an other end of which is a discharge end, the feeding mechanism comprises a feed pipe (Item 7) and a conveying pipe (Item 5) that are in communication with each other, wherein a mounting part (screw from disclosure) entering from the feed end can be conveyed to the discharge end through the feeding pipe and the conveying pipe;
a propulsion mechanism (Items 1 and 2), which is provided on one side of the feeding mechanism , the propulsion mechanism comprising a material receiving portion provided on a shell of the propulsion mechanism, for communicating with the discharge end of the feeding mechanism to receive the mounting part, wherein a propulsion unit action of the propulsion mechanism can push the mounting part conveyed to the material receiving portion and mount same in a target position; and
a bending pipe joint (Item 6) connecting the feed pipe and the conveying pipe, the bending pipe joint is fixed outside the shell of the propulsion mechanism, wherein the bending pipe joint comprises a body with a central bore, wherein a first end of the bending pipe joint is fixedly connected to the feed pipe, and a second end of the bending pipe joint is movably connected to the conveying pipe (Figures 1-2), wherein [[the opening]] of the bending pipe joint is structured relative to the conveying pipe so as to allow the conveying pipe can oscillate through the opening relative to the propulsion mechanism under the action of the propulsion mechanism (annotated figure 2 shows what the Examiner believes to be an opening and the conveying pipe in an oscillated state).
Lorenz fails to explicitly disclose having a central axis that is parallel to a central axis of the feed pipe AND wherein the bending pipe joint further comprises an opening on the body of the bending pipe joint adjacent the second end. Lorenz discloses the feed pipe, Item 7 as a hose, which is typically bendable. Lorenz shows an opening by the lack of cross hatching, but does not discuss what the cross section looks like.
Lorenz B teaches a feeding structure having a central axis that is parallel to a central axis of the feed pipe.(Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz with Lorenz B. By changing the angle the feed pipe comes out, it would allow for more connection points between the feed structure and the fastening tool, thus allowing the tool to be more solid.
Lorenz C teaches a feeding structure wherein the bending pipe joint further comprises an opening on a side of the body of the bending pipe joint adjacent the second end (Items 12 and 8, Figure 3; Paragraph 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the body of Lorenz with the opening of Lorenz C. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art. (see MPEP 2144.04). Lorenz C discusses the configuration allows for the conveying pipe to pivot, but in the event of a malfunction, it can removed and reinserted in a simple manner, without the use of tools (Paragraph 7, Lorenz C).
Lorenz fails to further disclose wherein the first end of the bending pipe joint comprises a first connecting section and wherein the feed pipe is screwed into the first connecting section via a threaded connection.
Vielle teaches a feeding structure wherein the first end of the bending pipe joint comprises a first connecting section and wherein the feed pipe is screwed into the first connecting section via a threaded connection (Item 58; Paragraph 30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lorenz to include the threaded connection between the feed pipe and the joint. Threaded connections are known connections in the art for creating sealed connection between two pipe joints.
Regarding claim 25 and 27, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 11, wherein the bending pipe joint comprises a second connecting section at the second end of the body and wherein the opening is located is provided on the second connecting section along an oscillating direction of the conveying pipe so that the conveying pipe can oscillate via the opening (Lorenz C Connection between Items 8 and 4 best shown in Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 26 and 28, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 11, wherein the opening in the body of the bending pipe joint is U-shaped (Lorenz C Figure 3).
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (DE10338902) in view of Lorenz B (DE3931000) in view of Lorenz C (DE3815814A1) in view of Vielle (EP 0350370 A1) in view of Graham (US 6,550,359)
Regarding claim 16 and 23, Lorenz in view of Lorenz B in view of Lorenz C in view of Vielle disclose the feeding structure according to claim 15. Lorenza fails to explicitly disclose wherein the resetting mechanism comprises an elastic member and a movable member, one end of the elastic member is fixed, an other end of the elastic member is abutted against one end of the movable member, and the other end of the movable member is abutted against the conveying pipe, such that when the conveying pipe oscillates, it acts on the movable member to compress the elastic member, and the conveying pipe having oscillated to a center position is reset by means of resetting the elastic member when an external force is withdrawn.
Graham teaches a feeding structure wherein the resetting mechanism comprises an elastic member (Item 166) and a movable member (Item 162), one end of the elastic member is fixed, an other end of the elastic member is abutted against one end of the movable member, and the other end of the movable member is abutted against the conveying pipe, such that when the conveying pipe (110) oscillates, it acts on the movable member to compress the elastic member, and the conveying pipe having oscillated to a center position is reset by means of resetting the elastic member when an external force is withdrawn. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the resetting mechanism of Lorenz for the resetting mechanism of Graham. Such a modification would lead to the predictable result of the conveying pipe returning to its original position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/6/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and 18 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Vielle (EP 0350370 A1).
Applicant argues ‘902 fails to disclose an opening that allows the conveying pipe to oscillate. As discussed above, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner believes there is an opening on the body, but in the disclosure, there is no discussion of the opening. The Examiner relies upon ‘814 to show what an opening on the side of a body might look like. The opening of ‘814 would not hinder the overall function of ‘902’s conveying pipe from oscillating. As such, the functional limitation of “the opening of the bending pipe joint is structured relative to the conveying pipe so as to allow the conveying pipe to oscillate through the opening relative to the propulsion mechanism under the action of the propulsion mechanism” is met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723