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 12 December 2025.
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 December 2025 has been entered.
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:
“lock biasing member configured to bias” in claims 1 and 17. Which is interpreted as “a lock biasing member 29 is interposed between the lock member 28 and the holder 24. A compression spring may be used for the lock biasing member 29. The lock biasing member 29 biases the lock member 28 against the holder 24 in a direction projecting to the feed direction.” (Specification ¶[0070]).
“removal preventing member configured to prevent” in claim 6. Which is interpreted as “the removal preventing member 24d, which restricts the range of movement of the lock member 28, is a shaft member as shown in FIG. 12. Instead, the removal preventing member may be configured to use a protrusion.” (Specification ¶[0091]). “The removal preventing member 24d may be replaced by a spring pin.” (¶[0092]). “A removal preventing member 24d provided on the guide portion 24c enters the recess 28c. In this example, a shaft member is used for the removal preventing member 24d. The removal preventing member 24d is supported in the thickness direction of the lock member 28. The removal preventing member 24d restricts the lock member 28 from being removed from the guide portion 24c.” (¶[0067]).
“a pusher biasing member configured to bias” in claim 12. Which is interpreted as “[t]he pusher biasing member 27 configured to bias the pusher 22 m the feed direction T of the driven member t is a coiled leaf spring as shown in FIG. 7. Alternatively, a compression spring or a tension spring may be used as a pusher biasing member.” (Specification ¶[0097])
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-11 are disclosed as a second embodiment (Specification ¶[0113]), which is not disclosed as being usable with the first embodiment, claim 1, and/or would be capable of working with the first embodiment. Therefore, the combination of claim 1 with claims 8-11 are new matter because the combination of claims 1 and 8-11 were not previously disclosed in the originally filed specification and drawings.
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 7-11 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 7, recites “plate-like”, which is indefinite because it is unclear what exactly a plate like member is, is it a plate or not. Further, is it shaped like a dinner plate that holds something or is it a flat plate shaped.
Claim 8, recites “the lock member is displaceable in the pusher in a direction different from the movement direction of the pusher”, which contradicts claim 1 wherein the lock member is displaceable parallel to a movement direction. Referring to the Applicant’s specification “[a]ccording to the first example, the lock member 28 is provided displaceable in the holder 24 of the pusher 22 in a direction parallel to the movement direction of the pusher 22. Thus, the lock member 28 may be compactly incorporated into the pusher 22.” ¶[0084]. Then later in the specification “the lock member is displaceable in the pusher in a direction different from the movement direction of the pusher.” ¶[0119]. “The magazine 70 is equipped with a lock member 80 shown in FIG. 16, which differs from that of the first example.” ¶[0113]. Which clearly states that these are two different embodiments that are not disclosed as being usable together, therefore it is unclear how the lock member is both movable parallel and not parallel, therefore indefinite. Examiner is unable to interpret this limitation.
Claims 9-11 are also rejected as being dependent from claim 8 and being of a different embodiment not disclosed being usable with the embodiment claimed in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 7,182,236) in view of Zimmerman (US 2021/0299833).
Wen teaches:
Claim 1: A driving tool (1-fig.1) comprising:
a driver (15-fig.1) configured to drive a driven member into a workpiece (2:32-44);
a contact arm (13-fig.2) pressed against the workpiece and configured to move with respect to a tool body (1-fig.1) for a driving operation of the driver (2:45-53);
a magazine (17-fig.1) configured to load the driven member (2:32-37);
a pusher (14-figs.1-2) moveable within the magazine configured to push and load the driven member into a driving channel of the driver (2:32-37);
a lock member (2-fig.2) that is integrated within the pusher and capable of being displaceable parallel to a movement direction of the pusher (see figs. 6 and 10 showing 10 integrated with the pusher 14 and displaceable parallel to the movement direction of the magazine; 3:4-8); and
PNG
media_image1.png
413
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a lock biasing member (3-fig.2) configured to bias the lock member in a direction projecting from the pusher (3:9-15), wherein
the lock member (2-fig.2) moves against a biasing pressure of the lock biasing member (3-fig.2) and is displaced to a retracted position when a distal end face (A-annotate fig.8) of the lock member is abutted from a side (A-annotate fig.8) against the contact arm (figs.4-8), when the driver is in a standby position and when one more than a predetermined number of driven members remains in the magazine (3:20-34),
the lock member (2-fig.2) enters a movement path (up arrow shown in fig.10) of the contact arm (13-fig.2) from the retracted position to restrict the movement of the contact arm when the number of driven members remaining in the magazine reaches the predetermined number (3:35-52).
Wen does not expressly teach a lift mechanism configured to return the driver in a direction opposite to a driving direction of the driven member.
However, Zimmerman teaches a lift mechanism (78-fig.3) configured to return the driver in a direction opposite to a driving direction of the driven member [¶0037]).
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 device of Wen, by having the driving/lift mechanism, as taught by Zimmerman, as a well-known alternative driving mechanism for driving nails and returning the driver blade to stand-by in nail guns.
Wen as modified by Zimmerman further teaches:
Claim 2: The driving tool according to claim 1, wherein the driven member is configured to encounter a lateral side of an end in the driving direction of the driver in a stand-by position (Wen: 3:35-52; fig.5).
Claim 3: The driving tool according to claim 2, wherein the driven member (Wen: 5-fig.5; Zimmerman: ¶[0033]) is pushed and loaded by the pusher into the driving channel of the driver (Wen: 14-fig.5, 2:32-37) while the driver reaches a top dead center from the stand-by position (Zimmerman: ¶[0033],[0037]).
Claim 6: The driving tool according to claim 1, wherein the pusher has
a guide portion (Wen: 141-fig.2) movable to support the lock member (Wen: 3:4-8) and
PNG
media_image2.png
486
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a removal preventing member (Wen: B-annotated fig.2) configured to prevent the lock member from being removed from the guide portion (Wen: 3:4-8).
Claim 7: The driving tool according to claim 6, wherein the lock member is a plate-like (Wen: C-annotated fig.2) member including:
PNG
media_image3.png
357
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a support portion (Wen:22-fig.2) located within the guide portion (Wen: 141-fig.2), and
an engaging portion (Wen: D-annotated fig.2) located outside the guide portion and bent against the support portion extending along a plane across the guide portion (Wen: see annotated fig.2).
Claim 12: The driving tool according to claim 1 further comprising: a pusher biasing member (Wen: 18-fig.2) configured to bias the pusher toward the driving channel (Wen: 2:64-2:3).
Claim 13: The driving tool according to claim 12, wherein a force of the lock biasing member (Wen: 3-fig.2) is weaker than a biasing force of the pusher biasing member (Wen: 3:4-15).
Claim 14: The driving tool according to claim 1, wherein the pusher includes a holder (Wen: 4-fig.7) in which the lock member (Wen: 2-fig.2) is displaceable and a pusher piece (Wen: 14-fig.7) that is rotatably provided (Wen: see fig.4 showing 14 is not tightly placed within the guide track therefore capable of minute rotation when the nails are pushed) on the holder and is in contact with the driven member (Wen: 2:34-3:3).
Claim 15: The driving tool according to claim 1, wherein the driven member is loaded in the driving direction as the driven member comes closer to the driving channel (Wen: 2:64-2:3; figs. 4-7).
Claim 16: The driving tool according to claim 1, wherein the driver (Zimmerman: 26-fig.2) has a coupled piston (Zimmerman: 22-fig.2), and wherein a movement of the coupled piston generates gas pressure that causes the driver to perform a driving operation (Zimmerman: ¶[0033],[0037]).
Wen teaches:
Claim 17: A driving tool (1-fig.1) comprising:
a driver (15-fig.1) configured to drive a driven member into a workpiece (2:32-44);
a driving nose (at least 11,12-fig.1) allocated at a lower part of a tool body (1-fig.1), wherein the driving nose includes
a driver guide (111-fig.1) coupled to a lower part of the tool body (see fig.1 showing 111 at the lower part of the tool body 1), and
a contact arm (13-fig.2) pressed against the workpiece and configured to move with respect to the tool body (1-fig.1) for performing a driving operation of the driver (2:45-53);
a magazine (17-fig.1) coupled to a rear side of the driver guide (see fig.1 showing 17 coupled to 11 on a rear side) and configured to load the driven member (2:32-37);
a pusher (14-fig.1) configured to push the driven member toward a driving channel of the driver, wherein the pusher includes a holder (4-fig.7), a lock member (2-fig.2), and a pusher piece (14-fig.7); and
PNG
media_image4.png
384
299
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the lock member (2-fig.2) that is integrated within the pusher and capable of being displaceable parallel to a movement direction of the pusher (2:45-53; and
a lock biasing member (3-fig.2) configured to bias the lock member in a direction projecting from the pusher (3:9-15), wherein
the lock member (2-fig.2) moves against a biasing pressure of the lock biasing member (3-fig.2) and is displaced to a retracted position when a distal end face (A- annotate fig.8) of the lock member is abutted from a side (A-annotate fig.8) against the contact arm (figs.4-8), when the driver is in a standby position and when one more than a predetermined number of driven members remains in the magazine (3:20-34),
the lock member (2-fig.2) encounters a movement path (up arrow shown in fig.10) of the contact arm (13-fig.2) from the retracted position to restrict the movement of the contact arm when the number of driven members remaining in the magazine reaches the predetermined number (3:35-52).
Wendoes not teach expressly teach a driver configured to drive a driven member into a workpiece, wherein the driver has a plurality of engaging portions, and the driver is coupled to a piston; lift mechanism sequentially engageable with the plurality of engaging portions for returning the driver in a direction opposite to a driving direction of the driven member.
However, Zimmerman teaches a driver (10-fig.2) configured to drive a driven member into a workpiece (¶[0037]), wherein the driver has a plurality of engaging portions (¶[0036]-[0037]), and the driver is coupled to a piston (22-fig.2; ¶[0033]); lift mechanism sequentially engageable with the plurality of engaging portions for returning the driver in a direction opposite to a driving direction of the driven member (¶[0036]-[0037]).
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 device of Wen, by having the driving/lift mechanism, as taught by Zimmerman, as a well-known alternative driving mechanism for driving nails and returning the driver blade to stand-by in nail guns.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wen (US 7,182,236) in view of Zimmerman (US 2021/0299833), further in view of Yu (US 8,104,658).
Wen as modified by Zimmerman further teaches:
Claim 18: The driving tool according to claim 17.
Wen as modified by Zimmerman does not expressly teach a pusher comprises a pusher claw supported by the holder via a support shaft, wherein the holder has an upper guide edge allocated on an upper surface of the holder and a lower guide edge allocated on a lower surface of the holder.
PNG
media_image5.png
437
339
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Yu teaches a pusher (21-fig.1) comprises a pusher claw (22-fig.1) supported by the holder via a support shaft (D-annotated fig.1), wherein the holder has an upper guide edge (E-annotated fig.1) allocated on an upper surface of the holder and a lower guide edge (F-annotated fig.1) allocated on a lower surface of the holder (3:20-45).
PNG
media_image6.png
354
268
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Wen and Zimmerman, by adding a pusher claw, as taught by Yu, to assist in moving the strip of nails to the driving channel, thus decreasing the chance of incorrect feeding or misfire.
Wen as modified by Zimmerman and Yu further teaches:
Claim 19: The driving tool of claim 18, wherein the magazine (Yu: 2-fig.1) comprises an upper guide rail (Yu: G-annotated fig.1) configured to hold the upper guide edge, and a lower guider rail (Yu: H-annotated fig.1) configured to hold the lower guide edge (Yu: 3:20-45).
Claim 20: The driving tool according to claim 17, wherein the pusher piece is biased by a torsion spring (Yu: 73-fig.1) having a first end engageable with an upper surface of the pusher piece and a second end engageable with the holder (Yu: 4:1-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 at (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
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731