DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 1 September 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are currently presented for examination, of which claims 9-11 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 July 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Action on 12 June 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 12-17, and 21-22
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 12-17, and 21-222 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0138623 to Bierdeman et al. (hereinafter “Bierdeman”) in view of United States Patent 2015/0096776 to Garber (hereinafter “Garber”).
Regarding claim 1, Bierdeman discloses a driving tool (10) comprising: a driver (26) that is movable in an up-down direction (see paragraph [0069]; along axis 62 in Fig. 3) for striking a driven member (fasteners; see paragraph [0079]; motion of driver causes driving of fastener into workpiece); a lifter (66) on either a left side or a right side of the driver (26; see Fig. 3, lifter is located to one side of the driver), wherein the lifter (66) rotates around a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction (see paragraph [0069]) to return the driver to an initial position (causes driver to return from bottom dead center position to top dead center position) of the driver; and a magazine (14) on a second side of the driver (26) opposite the lifter (66; see Fig. 2; magazine appears to be located into the page, lifter located out of the page), wherein the magazine feeds driven members from rear to front (fasteners in magazine understood to travel from left to right with respect to Fig. 1) at a feeding angle (magazine shown extending at an angle relative to vertical direction at driving tip; see Fig. 2), the feeding angle is inclined in a left-right direction relative to the rotation axis of the lifter (see Fig. 2), wherein the driver (26) is planar (see Fig. 10 and paragraph [0083]; driver 26 and driver 226 understood to have a planar configuration) with its thickness direction (thickness of member 26 out of the page or into the page with respect to Fig. 3) oriented in a feeding direction (out of the page) of the driven members (fasteners understood to travel through magazine 14, shown unnumbered in the bottoms of Figures. 3-5), the driver has a striking portion (lowermost portion with respect to Fig. 3) configured to strike the driven member (fastener; not shown) and a plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) projecting from the striking portion toward the lifter (66) to engage successively with the lifter (see paragraph [0069]), each of the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) has an engaging portion front surface (front surface; more easily seen with respect to equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10) coplanar with a front surface of the striking portion (terminal end of the driving member understood to be planar) and an engaging portion rear surface (rear face of driving member, not visible, but thickness shown in equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10) coplanar with a rear surface of the striking portion (terminal end of driving member 26 understood to have constant thickness; see Fig. 10), engagement surfaces (see Figs. 3-5) of the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) are configured in a plane that is parallel to the rotation axis (see Figs. 3 and 10; driving member 26 front surface faces out of page, as does surface defined at axis of rotation of lifter 66; a side surface of the respective engaging surfaces can be selected which extends in a vertical direction with respect to Figure 5, which appears to be illustrated extending parallel to dashed line passing through center of fastener).
Bierdeman does not explicitly disclose that the front-rear direction, the up-down direction, and the left-right directions are mutually orthogonal. The magazine taught by Bierdeman appears to be inclined in the front-rear direction as described by Applicant in the interview of 27 August 2026.
Other magazine orientations are well-known and conventional. For example, Garber teaches driving tool having such a magazine.
Garber teaches a fastener driving tool (1) having a magazine (100) which can be selectively coupled to a tool housing (see paragraph [0060]). The magazine has an inclined position with an upper magazine (107) and lower magazine (109) inclined in a front-rear direction (see Figs. 1 and 2) relative to the tool housing. Garber further teaches that the magazine may be orientated an offset angle G relative to a left-right direction relative to the body (see Fig. 2C). Garber teaches that an offset angle facilitates a nose-stop which allows fasteners to be stopped in a desired manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the driving tool taught by Bierdeman to include another and conventional magazine configuration, such as the inclined magazine taught by Garber. The device of the combination would have a magazine inclined and extending along both a left-right direction and a front-rear direction, where the respective directions are orthogonal to one another. One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the device of the combination would be capable of supporting and delivering a plurality of fasteners in a convention and predictable manner because the offset magazine of Garber delivers fasteners in a known manner.
Thus, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bierdeman teaches further comprising a plurality of engagement pins (120) that are arranged along an outer circumferential edge of the lifter (66) and successively engages the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) of the driver (26; see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Bierdeman teaches that the lifter (66) includes a front flange (118A) to support a front end of the plurality of engagement pins (120) and a rear flange (118B) to support a rear end of the plurality of engagement pins (120; see Fig. 7, flanges extend at front and rear of the pins).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bierdeman teaches further comprising a piston (see paragraph [0067]) that is movable by gas pressure (pressurized gas; see paragraph [0067]), wherein the driver (26) has a plate-shaped coupling portion (entire body of driver understood to be plate shaped, see equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10, and all of driver at least indirectly coupled to piston; see paragraph [0067]) that is coupled to the piston (piston; see paragraphs [0067] and [0069]), a front surface of the coupling portion is flush with the front surface of the striking portion (terminal end of the driving member understood to be planar such that front surface of driver is coplanar with the remainder of the driver), and a rear surface of the coupling portion is flush with the rear surface of the striking portion (terminal end of the driving member understood to be planar, such that rear surface at striking portion is coplanar with the remainder of the driver).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bierdeman teaches that an end of the striking portion (lowermost end of driver 26 with respect to Fig. 3) is thinner than a body of the striking portion (striking portion of driver at projections 74 is thicker in left-right direction with respect to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further Bierdeman teaches that the front flange (118A) of the lifter (66) has a relief surface around an entire circumference that is inclined with respect to a plane (see Fig. 7; edge of flange appears to be chamfered at perimeter thus inclined) orthogonal to the rotation axis (about axis 90) for avoiding interference with the engaging portion of the front surface (front surface adjacent 74, 74A; see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Bierdeman discloses a driving tool (10) comprising: a tool body (10) having a body housing (30) and a cylinder (34) within the body housing; a piston (see paragraph [0067]) that is reciprocally movable in an up-down direction within the cylinder; a driver (26) coupled to the piston (see paragraph [0067]) via a coupling portion (see paragraph [0069]; driver and piston are coupled), wherein the driver is movable in an up-down direction for striking a driven member (fasteners; see paragraph [0079]; motion of driver causes driving of fastener into workpiece); a lifter (66) on a first side that is either a left side or a right side of the driver (26; see Fig. 3, lifter is located to one side of the driver), wherein the lifter (66) rotates around a rotation axis extending in a front-rear direction (see paragraph [0069]) to return the driver to an initial position (causes driver to return from bottom dead center position to top dead center position) of the driver; and a magazine (14) on a second side of the driver (26) opposite to the lifter (66; see Fig. 2; magazine appears to be located into the page, lifter located out of the page), the driver (26) is planar (see Fig. 10 and paragraph [0083]; driver 26 and driver 226 understood to have a planar configuration) with a thickness direction (thickness of member 26 out of the page or into the page with respect to Fig. 3) oriented in a feeding direction (out of the page) of the driven members (fasteners understood to travel through magazine 14, shown unnumbered in the bottoms of Figures. 3-5), the driver has a striking portion (lowermost portion with respect to Fig. 3) configured to strike the driven member (fastener; not shown) and a plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) projecting from the striking portion toward the lifter (66) to engage successively with the lifter (see paragraph [0069]), each of the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) has an engaging portion front surface (front surface; more easily seen with respect to equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10) coplanar with a front surface of the striking portion (terminal end of the driving member understood to be planar) and an engaging portion rear surface (rear face of driving member, not visible, but thickness shown in equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10) coplanar with a rear surface of the striking portion (terminal end of driving member 26 understood to have constant thickness; see Fig. 10), and engagement surfaces (see Figs. 3-5) of the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A) are configured in a plane that is parallel to the rotation axis (see Figs. 3 and 10; driving member 26 front surface faces out of page, as does surface defined at axis of rotation of lifter 66; a side surface of the respective engaging surfaces can be selected which extends in a vertical direction with respect to Figure 5, which appears to be illustrated extending parallel to dashed line passing through center of fastener).
Bierdeman does not explicitly disclose that the front-rear direction, the up-down direction, and the left-right directions are mutually orthogonal. The magazine taught by Bierdeman appears to be inclined in the front-rear direction as described by Applicant in the interview of 27 August 2026 rather than both the front-rear direction and defining a feeding angle inclined in a left-right direction.
Other magazine orientations are well-known and conventional. For example, Garber teaches driving tool having such a magazine.
Garber teaches a fastener driving tool (1) having a magazine (100) which can be selectively coupled to a tool housing (see paragraph [0060]). The magazine has an inclined position with an upper magazine (107) and lower magazine (109) inclined in a front-rear direction (see Figs. 1 and 2) relative to the tool housing. Garber further teaches that the magazine may be orientated an offset angle G relative to a left-right direction relative to the body (see Fig. 2C). Garber teaches that an offset angle facilitates a nose-stop which allows fasteners to be stopped in a desired manner.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the driving tool taught by Bierdeman to include another and conventional magazine configuration, such as the inclined magazine taught by Garber. The device of the combination would have a magazine inclined and extending along both a left-right direction and a front-rear direction, where the respective directions are orthogonal to one another. One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the device of the combination would be capable of supporting and delivering a plurality of fasteners in a convention and predictable manner because the offset magazine of Garber delivers fasteners in a known manner.
Thus, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further Bierdeman teaches that the tool body (10) comprises a driving nose portion (lowermost portion below cylinder housing 34; see Fig. 2), and the driving nose portion further comprises a driver guide (see Annotated Figure, unnumbered guide member) and a contact arm (see Annotated Figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 13, and further Bierdeman teaches that the magazine (14) is coupled to the driving nose portion (see Fig. 2) at a rear side (magazine appears to be coupled in rear direction towards battery portion 54).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further Bierdeman teaches that the cylinder (34) comprises a downward motion end damper (spring 350 shown in equivalent lifter assembly 266 in Fig. 12) at a bottom of the cylinder for shock absorption.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further Bierdeman further teaches comprising a lift mechanism (lifter assembly 88; see paragraph [0071]) configured for returning the driver (26) and the piston to an upper initial position after the driver and the piston reaches downward motion end (BDC and TDC; see paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 12, and further Bierdeman teaches that the lifter (66) further comprises a plurality of engagement pins (120), and each of the plurality of engagement pins (120) is configured to engaged with the plurality of engaging portions (74, 74A; see Figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bierdeman teaches that each of the engagement surfaces (surfaces of 74, 74A) is orthogonal to the front surface of the striking portion (lowermost portion of driver 26, 226 with respect to Fig. 3) and to the rear surface of the striking portion (side surfaces understood to have at least tangent planes which can be defined, best seen in Figs. 4 and 13, which engage driver at an orthogonal position).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Bierdeman teaches that each of the plurality of engagement portions (at 74, 74A) includes a tip ridge on the engagement surface (at side surface, shown engaging driver elements portions 120 in Fig. 4), and the tip ridge is parallel to the rotation axis (see Fig. 4; ridge at side surface facing axis of rotation of drive understood to travel in a linear path parallel to a vertical direction through central axis) and is inclined at the feeding angle with respect to the feeding direction (as best understood, the engagement portions will be inclined with respect to the feeding direction in the tool taught by the combination, because the magazine and thus the feeding direction will be offset from the body as taught by Garber).
Claim 4
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bierdeman and Garber as applied to claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0126433 to Leimbach et al. (hereinafter “Leimbach”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bierdeman does not fully illustrate the rear surface of the driving member (best seen in equivalent driver 226 in Fig. 10). Thus, it is not apparent whether there is a relief inclined with respect to the engaging portion rear surface.
It is known in the art of fastener driving tools to provide drivers having reliefs.
For example, Leimbach teaches such a driving tool. Leimbach teaches a fastener driving tool (10) which includes a driver (90) which engages a rotary lifter (100; see Fig. 6). The driver includes a plurality of projections (92) and reliefs therebetween (best seen in Figs. 6-7). The rear and side surfaces of the teeth 92 are shown extending at an angle relative to the midline of the driver 90, such that the corresponding reliefs will also have an inclined or angled surface defining the relief.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Bierdeman and Garber to include another and conventional driver, such as the driver taught by Leimbach, having a plurality of reliefs on one face. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would predictably include a driver capable of engaging with a rotary lifter in a predictable manner, without modification of the principles of operation of the device of Bierdeman. The reliefs taught by Leimbach include a surface which is inclined relative to the engaging portion rear surfaces of the driver.
Thus, the combination of Bierdeman, Garber, and Leimbach teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierdeman and Garber as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bierdeman does not explicitly disclose that the feeding angle of the magazine is about 5 degrees to 15 degrees with respect to a direction parallel to the rotation axis of the lifter. Bierdeman appears to be silent as to the angle of the magazine (14).
The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of angles for the feeding angle of the magazine would cause the device taught by Bierdeman to behave differently in use than any other angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions or angular position of the magazine as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Bierdeman.
Thus, Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Claim 23
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bierdeman and Garber as applied to claim 1, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0114500 to Bierdeman et al. (hereinafter “Bierdeman ‘500”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Bierdeman and Garber teaches the limitations of claim 1, however, the combination does not explicitly disclose that the front surface of the striking portion of the lifter comprises a guide groove extending in a longitudinal direction of the driver over an entire area of the striking portion from a top of the striking portion to a lower end of the striking portion.
However, it is known in the art of driving tools to provide lifters with grooves therein. For example, Bierdeman ‘500 teaches such a lifter.
Bierdeman ‘500 teaches a fastener driving device (10) including a rotary driver which engages with a longitudinal lifter (see Fig. 5). The lifter (26; see Fig. 15A) may have a plurality of engagement teeth extending in a longitudinal direction, and may have a groove portion (338) which extends along a longitudinal direction of the lifter to guide movement of the lifter along the axis (see paragraph [0078]) during operation and inhibit misalignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Bierdeman and Garber to include a guide groove in the lifter as taught by Bierdeman ‘500. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting device would advantageously exhibit improved alignment of the lifter portion during operation of the device.
Thus, the combination of Bierdeman, Garber, and Bierdeman teaches the limitations of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 September 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-8 and 12-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Rejection of 12 June 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 1 September 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claims 1-8 and 12-20 under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 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 Garber.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 12-19 were previously rejected as anticipated by Bierdeman.
Claims 4 and 20 were previously rejected over the combination of Bierdeman and Leimbach.
Claim 8 was previously rejected over Bierdeman.
Applicant asserts that Bierdeman teaches its magazine (14) has a feeding angle which is inclined in the front-rear direction relative to Figure 2, and fails to disclose inclination in a left-right direction relative to the rotation axis, as now required by claim 1.
The examiner agrees that the inclined angle of the magazine of Bierdeman appears to be shown only along one orthogonal direction. However, it is conventional to provide magazines which are inclined relative to two orthogonal directions.
Applicant separately asserts that Bierdeman teaches that lift teeth 74 are formed along an edge 78 of the driver blade 26 and thus does not disclose “engagement surfaces of the plurality of engagement portions are configured in a plane that is parallel to the rotation axis.”
As best understood, each of the engagement teeth taught by Bierdeman can be defined in part by an imaginary plane which may be defined by another imaginary plane which passes through the rotation axis of the driver. The examiner continues to agree that Bierdeman does not anticipate the amended claim, however the respective surfaces can be defined in terms of planes which appear to meet the claimed limitations.
Independent claim 12 and dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, and 13-17 are alleged allowable for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 8 are alleged allowable for depending from claim 1.
Conclusion
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 DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights