Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/611,756

Fastener Driving Device

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Mar 21, 2024
Examiner
BETIT, JACOB F
Art Unit
3731
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Togroup Technology (Suzhou) Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 11m
To Grant
51%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allow Rate
53 granted / 151 resolved
-34.9% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+16.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 11m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
178
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.6%
+2.6% vs TC avg
§102
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§112
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 151 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . 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: “an energy storage unit” in claim 1 (interpreted to be a spring, see for example Para. 0022 of Applicant’s specification), “an impact unit” in claim 1 (interpreted to be an impactor and a driving wheel, see for example Para. 0025 of Applicant’s specification), “a transmitting unit” in claim 1 (interpreted to be a belt and pulleys, see for example Para. 0027 of Applicant’s specification), “a driving unit” in claim 1 (interpreted to be a motor, see for example Para. 0024 of Applicant’s specification), “a fixing element” in claim 10 (interpreted to be a screw, see for example Para. 0028 of Applicant’s specification), “a first engaging mechanism” in claim 11 (interpreted to be an output shaft, a first cam, and a second cam, see for example claim 12), “a second engaging mechanism” in claim 11 (interpreted to be a first engaging portion and a second engaging portion, see for example claim 12). 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 § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohno et al (US 2022/0355456), hereinafter Ohno. Regarding claim 1, Ohno discloses a fastener driving device (Fig. 1, item 10), comprising: an energy storage unit (Fig. 2, item 36), having an energy storage state (Para. 0045-0047) and an energy release state (Para. 0045-0047); an impact unit (Fig. 2, item 32, 34), moving along a first direction (Fig. 2, item DR1) to drive a fastener into a workpiece (Para. 0036); a transmitting unit (Fig. 2, item 40, 42), connecting the energy storage unit with the impact unit (Para. 0047-0048); a driving unit (Fig. 2, item 20), capable of cooperating with the impact unit (Para. 0049-0051); wherein, during a transition of the energy storage unit (Para. 0045-0051) from the energy release state to the energy storage state (Para. 0045-0051), the driving unit drives the impact unit to move in a second direction (Fig. 2, item DR2) (Para. 0045-0051) different from the first direction (Para. 0045-0051), and the impact unit drives the energy storage unit (Para. 0045-0051) to store energy through the transmitting unit (Para. 0045-0051); during a transition of the energy storage unit (Para. 0045-0051) from the energy storage state to the energy release state (Para. 0045-0051), the energy storage unit releases energy along the second direction (Para. 0045-0051) to drive the transmitting unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the transmitting unit drives the impact unit to move along the first direction (Para. 0045-0051). Regarding claim 2, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein the first direction is opposite to the second direction (Fig. 2, DR1 is opposite DR2) (Para. 0045-0051). Regarding claim 4, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein during the transition of the energy storage unit from the energy release state to the energy storage state (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the driving unit is cooperated with the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the driving unit drives the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056) to move in the second direction different from the first direction (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056); during the transition of the energy storage unit from the energy storage state to the energy release state (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the driving unit is not cooperated with the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the energy storage unit releases energy along the second direction to drive the transmitting unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the transmitting unit drives the impact unit to move along the first direction (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 5, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein the transmitting unit comprises a transmitting belt (Fig. 2, item 40) (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the transmitting belt is connected between the energy storage unit and the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 6, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 5, wherein the transmitting unit further comprises at least one fixed pulley (Fig. 2, item 42), the transmitting belt is mounted on the at least one fixed pulley (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the energy storage unit comprises a spring (Fig. 2, item 36), the spring comprises a fixed end (Fig. 4, item 36a) and a movable end (Fig. 4, item 36b), the movable end is movable relative to the fixed end (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the movable end is associated with the impact unit through the transmitting unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), a moving direction (Fig. 4) of the movable end is different from a moving direction (Fig 4) of the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 7, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein the energy storage unit comprises a spring (Fig. 2, item 36), the spring comprises a fixed end (Fig. 4, item 36a) and a movable end (Fig. 4, item 36b), the movable end is movable relative to the fixed end (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the movable end moves along the second direction (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056) to make the energy storage unit release energy (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the movable end moves along the first direction (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056) to make the energy storage unit store energy (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 8, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 7, wherein the energy storage unit further comprises a baffle (Fig. 4, baffle is at base of spring 36a) and an end cap (Fig. 4, item 38), the fixed end is fixed to the baffle (Fig. 4), the movable end is accommodated in a receiving space (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056) formed by the end cap (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), and the end cap moves together with the movable end (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 9, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 8, wherein the transmitting unit comprises a transmitting belt (Fig. 4, item 40) (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056), the transmitting belt is connected between the end cap and the impact unit (Para. 0045-0051) (Para. 0053-0056). Regarding claim 16, Ohno discloses the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein the fastener driving device further comprises at least one guiding rail (Fig. 3, item 46), the impact unit moves along the at least one guiding rail (Para. 0057-0064); the fastener driving device further comprises a first base (Fig. 2, item 38) connected to the at least one guiding rail (Para. 0045-0051) and a first buffering member (Fig. 4, item 50) mounted on the first base (Para. 0045), after the impact unit moves along the first direction to drive the fastener into the workpiece (Para. 0045-0051), the impact unit strikes the first buffering member (Para. 0045-0051). 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno in view of Wolf et al (US 2022/0063076), hereinafter Wolf. Regarding claim 3, Ohno is silent about the fastener driving device according to claim 1, wherein when the energy storage unit is in the energy storage state, at least part of the impact unit is disposed in the energy storage unit. However, Wolf teaches at least part of an impact unit (Wolf, Fig. 4, item 199, 110, 100) disposed in an energy storage unit (Wolf, Fig. 4, item 210) when the energy storage unit is in an energy storage state (Fig. 4, spring 210 is in energy storage state). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Ohno and Wolf to modify the fastener driving device of Ohno to orient the impact unit to be disposed in the energy storage unit, as taught by Wolf. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to reduce the overall size of the fastener driving tool (Wolf, Para. 0003). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-15 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00. 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571)270-1926. 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. /VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 21, 2024
Application Filed
May 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 15, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 9339688
CORE EXERCISE APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted May 17, 2016
Patent 9043275
DATA SYNCHRONIZATION USING STRING MATCHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2015
Patent 9026539
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted May 05, 2015
Patent 9020954
RANKING SUPERVISED HASHING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 28, 2015
Patent 8819054
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, METHOD FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Aug 26, 2014
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
51%
With Interview (+16.3%)
4y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 151 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month