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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, regarding the 112 rejections and drawing rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections/objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“Li and Saitou Employ Fundamentally Different Drive Architectures” – the Examiner does not agree. While the two devices utilize slightly different driving options, the basic shape and design of the two devices are the same. As a matter of fact, the Saitou device utilizes a more compact drive system, which could easily fit withing the Li device.
“The Claimed Controller Location Is Not Suggested by the Prior Art” – the Examiner does not agree. The Examiner uses the location of Saitou in their argument -this ignores the Li reference.
“Li's Controller Placement Is Functionally Dictated by Sensor Requirements” – this argument is irrelevant.
“The Claimed Front-Rear Compactness Is Not Taught or Suggested” – this feature is neither claimed, taught, nor suggested.
“The Examiner's Combination Relies on Impermissible Hindsight. The Examiner's proposed combination relies on reconstructing Saitou's internal architecture using Applicant's disclosure as a blueprint” – The Examiner does not understand this argument. This argument completely ignores the Li reference.
The arguments concerning claims 12 and 6 and 7 are addressed by the arguments to 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li, US 20210276170 in view of Saitou, US 11491629.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses: A driving tool (Fig. 1, electric nail gun), configured to drive a driven member into a workpiece, the driving tool comprising:
a grip (Fig. 1, handle 2) configured to extend rearwardly from the tool body;
a driver (Fig. 1, striker 5) configured to strike the driven member;
a battery mounting section ([0018], “A battery box 20 is disposed in the back end of the handle 2”) located at a rear part of the grip and configured to attach a battery;
an electric motor configured as a drive source for the lift mechanism (see 103 combination below), wherein the electric motor is housed inside a motor housing extending rearwardly rearwardly from the tool body below the grip ([0016], “An assorted motor 7 is disposed in the middle of gun body 1.”);
a magazine (Fig. 1, charger 6) configured to accommodate the driven members, and wherein the magazine extends rearward from a lower part of the tool body
and
a controller (Fig. 1, circuit controller 9) located below the electric motor and configured to control an operation of the electric motor, wherein the controller is arranged in an orientation with a front-rear direction as a longest side and an up-down direction as a shortest side (see Fig. 1), wherein the controller is arranged between the magazine and the electric motor (see Fig. 1), and wherein a rear surface of the magazine is positioned flush with or in front of a rear surface of the battery attached to the battery mounting section (see Fig. 1).
Li does not explicitly disclose: a gas spring configured to generate thrust power of compressed air as a driving force for the driver;
a plurality of rack gears protruding laterally from the driver and lined up in a longitudinal direction of the driver;
a lift mechanism configured to sequentially engage with the plurality of rack gears and return the driver to a stand-by position.
Saitou teaches: a gas spring (Fig. 1, pressure chamber 13) configured to generate thrust power of compressed air as a driving force for the driver;
a plurality of rack gears (Fig. 3, convex portions 25A to 25H provided to the driver blade 25) protruding laterally from the driver and lined up in a longitudinal direction of the driver;
a lift mechanism (Fig 3. Pin wheel 45) configured to sequentially engage with the plurality of rack gears and return the driver to a stand-by position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the gas spring, rack gear lifting system as taught by Saitou, in combination with the device of Li, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. This alteration represents a simple substitution of one driving system for another, as neither affords any particular benefit over the other, merely just a different type of system accomplishing the same goal.
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses: a long side of the controller with a box-shape extends along a front-rear direction (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses: a magazine support (see Fig. 1), and wherein the magazine support extends from the motor housing along a lateral side of the magazine.
Regarding claim 9, Li further discloses: a rear surface of the battery attached to the battery mounting section is inclined forward and upward (see Examiner Illustration 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses: the tool body has a piston (Fig. 1, second piston 102) configured to move downward together with the driver due to gas pressure within a cylinder.
Regarding claim 11, Li further discloses: the tool body has a lift mechanism (Fig. 1, first cylinder 101) configured to move the driver upward to increase the gas pressure in the cylinder.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner notes that all of the claim limitations are previously claimed in claims 1-11. As such, the attached claim citations are incorporated by reference.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li, US 20210276170 in view of Braun, US 20210268636.
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the device of claim 1.
Li does not explicitly disclose: an elastic member wherein the elastic member is interposed between either one of or both of upper and lower surfaces of the controller and the motor housing, and wherein the elastic member is configured to suppress impacts of the controller.
Braun teaches: an elastic member (Fig. 3, securing element 78) wherein the elastic member is interposed between either one of or both of upper and lower surfaces of the controller (Fig. 3, electronics module 44) and the motor housing, and wherein the elastic member is configured to suppress impacts of the controller.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an elastic member in order to absorb shock from reaching the controller as taught by Braun in combination with the device of Li, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this combination is that it reduces shock to the delicate controller, extending the life of the device by preventing vibration/shock damage.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Li, US 20210276170 in view of Mandel, US 20130082084.
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses: a nose (Fig. 1, nozzle 4) located at a lower part of the tool body to move in an up-down direction, wherein the nose has an ejection port.
Li does not explicitly disclose: the nose protrudes downward from the magazine by about 40 mm or more in an upper position.
Mandell teaches: the nose (Fig. 1, 700) protrudes downward from the magazine (Fig. 1, magazine 40) by about 40 mm or more in an upper position (while the figures are generally considered not to scale, due to the excessively long nose of the Mandell device, the Examiner is able to affirmatively state that the claim limitation is met. Furthermore, the Examiner has viewed YouTube videos online of this tool in use, and it is clear from the videos that the nose is significantly longer than the claimed 40mm (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOmehbHNd68)).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Li discloses the device of claim 6.
The modified Li does not explicitly disclose: the nose has a width of about 15 mm or less in at least one direction.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the smallest nose diameter possible as a matter of design choice, in this instance less than 15mm, as the smaller the nose diameter the greater the amount if things the nose can fit within. The Examiner notes that both Li and Mandell tools almost definitely meet the claim limitation, but are silent on this dimension as it is an extremely common feature.
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitou, US 11491629, in view Li, US 20210276170.
Regarding claim 12, Saitou discloses: A driving tool (Fig. 1, driver 10) for driving a driven member into a workpiece, the driving tool comprising:
a tool body (Fig. 1, housing 11),
a grip (Fig. 1, handle 18) configured to extend rearwardly from the tool body;
a battery mounting section (Fig. 1, connecting portion 20) located at a rear part of the grip and configured to attach a battery (Fig. 1, battery 37) at a mounting surface, the mounting surface is inclined to a driving direction (see Fig. 1);
a driver configured to strike the driven member (Fig. 1, striking mechanism 12)
a gas spring (Fig. 1, pressure chamber 13) configured to generate thrust power of compressed air as a driving force for the driver;
a plurality of rack gears (Fig. 3, convex portions 25A to 25H provided to the driver blade 25) protruding laterally from the driver and lined up in a longitudinal direction of the driver;
a lift mechanism (Fig 3. Pin wheel 45) configured to sequentially engage with the plurality of rack gears and return the driver to a stand-by position.
An electric motor (Fig. 1, motor case 19) configured as a drive source for the lift mechanism, wherein the electric motor is housed inside a motor housing extending rearwardly from the tool body below the grip to accommodate an electric motor to move the driver (Fig. 1, motor 15);
a magazine (Fig. 1, magazine 50) having a lower surface that extends in a front-rear direction and a rear surface that extends in an up-down direction.
Saitou does not explicitly disclose: a controller located below the electric motor and configured to control an operation of the electric motor, wherein the controller is arranged in an orientation with a front-rear direction as a longest side and an up-down direction as a shortest side, wherein the controller is arranged between the magazine and the electric motor, a front edge of the controller is positioned forward of the electric motor and a rear side of the controller is positioned rearward of the grip.
Li teaches: a controller (Fig. 1, circuit controller 9) located below the electric motor and configured to control an operation of the electric motor, wherein the controller is arranged in an orientation with a front-rear direction as a longest side and an up-down direction as a shortest side (see Fig. 1), wherein the controller is arranged between the magazine and the electric motor (see Fig. 1), a front edge of the controller is positioned forward of the electric motor (see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the controller below the motor as taught by Li in combination with the design of Saitou, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this is that it allows for a shorter front to back length of the tool, as the components (magazine, motor, controller) are aligned in parallel, rather than in serial (note that the motor compartment of Saitou ends immediately behind the motor, with no further additional length required for the tool).
The modified Saitou does not explicitly disclose: a rear edge of the controller positioned rearward of the grip.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to locate the controller in an ideal position, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Saitou further discloses: a planetary gear reduction mechanism (Fig. 1, gear case 39) coupled to the electric motor, wherein the planetary gear reduction mechanism is located at a front of the electric motor.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Saitou further discloses: a lift mechanism (Fig. 1, second moving mechanism 45) located at a front of the planetary gear reduction mechanism.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Saitou further discloses: the planetary gear reduction mechanism and the lift mechanism are arranged in an alignment on a motor axis of the electric motor (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Saitou further discloses: the battery mounting section has a lower portion extending in an orthogonal direction to the mounting surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Saitou further discloses: the battery is configured to attach to a rear surface of the battery mounting section, and wherein the rear surface is inclined forward and upward (see Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights