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 22 September 2025.
Claims 1 and 3-21 are currently pending and being examined.
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 5 and 18 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.
Claim 5, lines 7-12 recites “the cap solenoid valve generating the electromagnetic force that drives the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the first position when the cap solenoid valve is energized, the restoring element being a resilient member that resiliently abuts against the frame and the pin element, and generating the restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the second position.” With the amendment to claim 1, this limitation of claim 5 is new matter. As stated in Specification ¶[0051], this claim is referring to a different embodiment shown in figures 10-11, which is not combinable with the presently claimed embodiment of figures 8-9. Therefore, this limitation is new matter because the Applicant does not disclose in the drawings or specification the combination of claims 1 and 5.
This §112(a) rejection applies to claim 18, which contains the same limitations as claim 5, depends from claim 16, which contains the same limitations as claim 1.
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 1, 4-5, 16-18, and their dependents 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 1, last clause recites “the restoring element being mounted between the frame and the valve rod and being operable to generate a restoring force, the valve rod being driven by the electromagnetic force and the restoring force to urge the cap pushing member to move between the first position and the second position.” However, it is unclear how a spring (restoring force) could urge the cap pushing member from the first position to the second position. As shown in Applicant’s drawings figures 7-8 shows that when the cap pushing member is moved between the first position and the second position, the spring is compressed not providing a restoring force. As stated in the Specification ¶[0045], “[t]he restoring element 78 is operable to generate a restoring force that pushes the valve rod 741 to move the cap pushing member 75 toward the first position.” Applicant also argues in the Remarks p. 18 that “[t]he cap pushing member (75) is moved toward the first position by the restoring force generated by the restoring element (78)”. Therefore, it is unclear how the restoring force is used to urge the cap pushing member from first to second position, when the spring is actively fighting against the movement and as stated by the Applicant the resorting force is used to move from the second position to the first position.
Examiner will interpret the claim as if the claim was written to say, “the restoring element being mounted between the frame and the valve rod and being operable to generate a restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the first position, the valve rod being driven by the electromagnetic force
This §112(b) rejection applies to claim 16, as well.
Claim 5, lines 7-12 recites “the cap solenoid valve generating the electromagnetic force that drives the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the first position when the cap solenoid valve is energized, the restoring element being a resilient member that resiliently abuts against the frame and the pin element, and generating the restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the second position.” With the amendment to claim 1, this limitation of claim 5 is clearly in contradiction of what was previously claimed in the independent claim. As stated in Specification ¶[0051], this claim is referring to a different embodiment shown in figures 10-11, which is not combinable with the presently claimed embodiment of figures 8-9. Therefore, Examiner is unsure how to interpret this limitation because it was not previously disclosed by the Applicant.
This §112(b) rejection applies to claim 18, as well.
Claims 4 and 17, last clause recites “the restoring element is a resilient member that resiliently abuts against the frame and the positioning portion of the valve rod, and generates the restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the first position”, which contradicts claims 1 and 16. Applicant should amend claims 1 and 16 as mentioned in claim 1 and then delete the redundant language from claims 4 and 17, to overcome the §112(b) rejection.
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, 3-4, 6, 8, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruins (US 2003/0057248) in view of Brendel (US 2009/0250500) and Gross (US 2009/0114697), further in view of Caple (US 5,339,983).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
221
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1, Bruins teaches a cap feeding device (at least 29,26,28-fig.1) for a cap nailer (10-fig.1), the cap nailer including a machine body (14-fig.1), a muzzle (16-fig.1) that is connected to the machine body and that extends in an extending direction of a first axis (X-annotated fig.1), a nail feeding device (18-fig.1) that is connected to the muzzle and that is operable to push a plurality of nails (¶[0045]) in an extending direction of a second axis (Y-annotated fig.2b) such that the nails enter the muzzle one by one, and a nail striking device (16-fig.1) that is mounted to the machine body and that is drivable by an electric power to strike any one of the nails which is in the muzzle (¶[0045]), the cap feeding device comprising:
a cartridge (73-fig.5) connected to the machine body and adapted for accommodating a plurality of caps (32-fig.4b; ¶[0060]);
a cap rail (74-fig.5) connected to the cartridge and extending toward the muzzle in an extending direction of a third axis (Z-annotated fig.2b), the cap rail being adapted for urging the caps to be arranged therealong in the extending direction of the third axis (at least ¶[0077]), the third axis and the first axis intersecting and cooperatively defining an intersection point that is spaced apart from the muzzle (see annotated fig.2b), the third axis and the second axis defining an included angle (see annotated fig.2b showing an angle between Y and Z) therebetween;
PNG
media_image3.png
215
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a cap valve (149-fig.6) mounted to the cap rail and including a valve rod (A-annotated fig.26B) that is drivable to move in the extending direction of the third axis (¶[0067]); and
a cap pushing member (194-fig.26b) swingably connected to the valve rod (¶[0077]), and urged by the valve rod to move relative to the muzzle between a first position, in which the cap pushing member is adjacent to the muzzle (¶[0077]), and a second position, in which the cap pushing member is distal from the muzzle (¶[0077]; fig.26b), the cap pushing member (194-fig.26b) being adapted to be pushed by an adjacent one of the caps to swing away from the cap rail and slip off the adjacent one of the caps when the cap pushing member is urged to move from the first position toward the second position (¶[0077]), the cap pushing member being prevented from swinging by the adjacent one of the caps and the cap rail and being adapted to push the adjacent one of the caps toward the intersection point when the cap pushing member is urged to move from the second position toward the first position (¶[0077]);
wherein the cap feeding device further comprises a frame (at least 129-fig.13a and 145-fig.6; at least ¶[0066]), the frame being connected to the cap rail (129-fig.13a; ¶[0066]), the cap solenoid valve (149-fig.6) being mounted to the frame (¶[0067]), the valve rod (A-annotated fig.26B) being driven by a force to urge the cap pushing member to move between the first position and the second position (¶[0050]).
Bruins does not expressly teach a nailer including an electronic control device that is mounted to the machine body and that includes a battery unit for supplying electrical energy.
However, Brendel teaches a nailer (10-fig.1A) including an electronic control device (20-fig.14) that is mounted to the machine body and that includes a battery unit (26-fig.14) for supplying electrical energy (¶[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 Bruins, by making the driving system electric, as taught by Brendel, as a well-known equivalent driving system in nail guns.
Bruins as modified by Brendel does not expressly teach a solenoid valve including a valve rod that is drivable by an electromagnetic force.
However, Gross teaches a solenoid valve (1150a,1150b-fig.27) including a valve rod (746-fig.27) that is drivable by an electromagnetic force (¶[0096]-[0097]).
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 Bruins and Brendel, by having the valve be a solenoid valve, as taught by Gross, as a known alternative valve used for feeding in the nail gun art.
Bruins as modified by Brendel, and Gross does not expressly teach a restoring element and the restoring element being mounted between a frame and valve rod and being operable to generate a restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward a first position.
However, Caple teaches a restoring element (58-fig.1) and the restoring element (58-fig.1) being mounted between a frame (34-fig.1) and valve rod (42-fig.1) and being operable to generate a restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward a first position (3:38-55).
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 Bruins, Brendel, and Gross, by using a spring to assist in moving the pusher back to the first/punching position, as taught by Caple, because a spring is known to provide consist restoring forces and can endure multiple cycles of operation without deuteriation. Thus, allowing the solenoid/piston have to be used for both retracting and feeding, which in turn extends the life of the solenoid/piston.
Claim 3, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches the cap feeding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the frame (Bruins: at least 129-fig.13a and 145-fig.6; at least ¶[0066]) includes a guide rail that extends in the extending direction of the third axis (Bruins: ¶[0077]), the valve rod of the cap solenoid valve including a positioning portion (Bruins: 196-fig.22) that is slidable along the guide rail (Bruins:¶[0077]).
Claim 4, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches the cap feeding device as claimed in claim 3, wherein:
when the cap solenoid valve (Bruins:149-fig.6; Gross: 1150a,1150b-fig.27) is energized, the cap solenoid valve generates the electromagnetic force (Gross: ¶[0096]-[0097]) that drives the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the second position (Bruins: ¶[0077]); and
PNG
media_image4.png
575
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
the restoring element is a resilient member (Caple: 58-fig.1) that resiliently abuts against the frame (Caple:34-fig.1) and the positioning portion (Bruins: 196-fig.22) of the valve rod (Caple: 42-fig.1)), and generates the restoring force that pushes the valve rod to move the cap pushing member toward the first position (Caple: 3:38-55).
PNG
media_image2.png
221
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches the cap feeding device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cartridge defines an outlet (Bruins: B-annotated fig.20) that is adapted for the caps to pass through (Bruins: ¶[0070]-[0072], the cap rail having an import end (Bruins: C-annotated fig.20) that is adjacent to the outlet, an export end (Bruins: D-annotated fig.20) that is opposite to the import end and that is adjacent to the muzzle, a first surface (Bruins: E-annotated fig.20) that interconnects the import end and the export end, and that cooperates with the import end and the export end to define a rail slot (Bruins: F-annotated fig.20), a second surface (Bruins: G-annotated fig.20) that is opposite to the first surface, and an elongated hole (Bruins: H-annotated fig.20) that extends from the first surface to the second surface, and that is elongated in the extending direction of the third axis.
Claim 8, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches a cap nailer (Bruins: 10-fig.1) comprising:
a machine body (Bruins: 14-fig.1);
a muzzle (Bruins: at least 30-fig.1) connected to the machine body and extending in an extending direction of a first axis (Bruins: X-annotated fig.1);
a nail feeding device (Bruins: 18 and 20-fig.1) connected to the muzzle, and adapted for pushing a plurality of nails in an extending direction of a second axis such that the nails enter the muzzle one by one;
a nail striking device (Bruins: 16-fig.1) mounted between the machine body and the muzzle (Bruins: ¶[0046]), and drivable by an electric power to strike any one of the nails that is in the muzzle (Brendel: ¶[0033]);
an electronic control device (Brendel: 20-fig.14) mounted to the machine body and including a battery unit (Brendel:26-fig.14) for supplying electrical energy (Brendel: ¶[0033]); and
the cap feeding device as claimed in claim 1 (see claim 1 above), the cap feeding device being disposed between the machine body and the muzzle (Bruins: see figs.5-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
222
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 13, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple the cap nailer as claimed in claim 8, wherein, when being observed from the extending direction of the first axis, the included angle defined by the third axis and the second axis ranges from 20 degrees to 40 degrees (Bruins: see annotated fig.2b showing an angle of between 20-40° between Y and Z).
Claim 14, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple the cap nailer as claimed in claim 8, wherein, when the cap pushing member (Bruins: 194-fig.26b) is moved from the second position to the first position (Bruins: ¶[0077]), the cap pushing member pushes the adjacent one of the caps toward the intersection point such that the adjacent one of the caps stays at the intersection point when the cap pushing member is in the first position (Bruins: ¶[0077]), the intersection point that is defined by the third axis and the first axis being spaced apart from the muzzle along the first axis (Bruins: fig.2b), the nail striking device striking any one of the nails that is in the muzzle along the first axis such that the any one of the nails passes through the intersection point along the first axis and nails the adjacent one of the caps (Bruins: ¶[0045]-[0046]).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruins (US 2003/0057248) in view of Brendel (US 2009/0250500), Gross (US 2009/0114697), and Caple (US 5,339,983), further in view of Li (US 2012/0067934).
Claim 9, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches the cap nailer as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a driving device (Brendel:18-fig.1A), the driving device including a flywheel (Brendel:42-fig.2) that is rotatably disposed on the machine body (Brendel:¶[0037]), a motor (Brendel:40-fig.1D) that is disposed on the machine body and that drives the flywheel to rotate (Brendel:¶[0037]), a swing arm unit (Brendel:3000-fig.1D) that is pivotably connected to the machine body, the nail striking device (Brendel:32-fig.2) including an impact member that is movably disposed on the swing arm unit and that is movable along the first axis (Brendel:118-fig.2), and a nail striking member that is connected to the impact member and that partially extends into the muzzle (Brendel: see fig.1A), the impact member being thrown by rotation of the flywheel to urge the nail striking member to strike any one of the nails that is in the muzzle when the impact member is urged by the swing arm unit to be in contact with the flywheel (Brendel: ¶[0037]).
Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple does not expressly teach a swing arm solenoid valve that is disposed on the machine body and that is operable to urge the swing arm unit to pivot relative to the flywheel.
However, Li teaches a swing arm solenoid valve (251-fig.3) that is disposed on the machine body and that is operable to urge the swing arm unit to pivot relative to the flywheel (¶[0024]).
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 Bruins, Brendel, Gross, and Caple, by having a solenoid as part of the driving mechanism, as taught by Li, as a known equivalent driving mechanism having a swing arm and fly wheel for driving fasteners.
Claim 10, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, Caple, and Li the cap nailer as claimed in claim 9, wherein the electronic control device further includes a control unit that is signally connected to the motor, the swing arm solenoid valve, and the cap solenoid valve, the battery unit being electrically coupled to the control unit and being for supplying the electric energy to the motor, the swing arm solenoid valve, and the cap solenoid valve (Li: ¶[0024]; Brendel: fig.14, ¶[0033]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruins (US 2003/0057248) in view of Brendel (US 2009/0250500), Gross (US 2009/0114697), and Caple (US 5,339,983), further in view of Lim (US 2022/0161404).
Claim 12, Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple teaches the cap nailer as claimed in claim 8.
Bruins as modified by Brendel, Gross, and Caple does not expressly teach the nail feeding device includes a magazine that is connected to the machine body and the muzzle, and that is adapted for accommodating the nails, and a nail pushing member that is movably connected to the magazine and that is drivable by a biasing force, the nail pushing member being adapted for pushing the nails to move toward the muzzle along the second axis.
However, Lim teaches a nail feeding device (at least 155,156,154-fig.12) includes a magazine that is connected to the machine body and the muzzle (see fig.1), and that is adapted for accommodating the nails, and a nail pushing member that is movably connected to the magazine and that is drivable by a biasing force (154-fig.12), the nail pushing member being adapted for pushing the nails to move toward the muzzle along the second axis (¶[0053]).
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
Bruins, Brendel, Gross, and Caple, by the magazine feeding mechanism, as taught by Lim, as a known way to feed nails from a cannister magazine to the driving channel of a nail gun.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 7, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art:
PNG
media_image5.png
168
424
media_image5.png
Greyscale
“an extension portion that is connected to one side of the main plate, each of the abutment portions having an abutment surface that is adapted for abutting against the adjacent one of the caps, and a sloping surface that is opposite to the abutment surface, the extension portion extending through the elongated hole of the cap rail, and having a stop surface that is operable to abut against the second surface of the cap rail so that an angle of a swinging movement of the cap pushing member is limited.”
PNG
media_image6.png
333
364
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The prior art that comes closest to teaching this limitation is Vandenberg (US 10,960,525), see annotated figures 1 and 3 showing an extension portion attached to the cap pushing member. However, Vandenberg and the prior art is silent in regard to “the extension portion extending through the elongated hole of the cap rail, and having a stop surface that is operable to abut against the second surface of the cap rail so that an angle of a swinging movement of the cap pushing member is limited.”
Claim 11, includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 7, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art:
Claim 11, as a whole, in combination with claims 1 and 8-10.
A rejection for claim 11 would require an unreasonable amount of references, that would result in an unrealistic case of obviousness because the combination of references would require substantial reconstruction and redesign and change the principal operation of the prior art references (Bruins (US 2003/0057248) in view of Brendel (US 2009/0250500), Gross (US 2009/0114697), Caple (US 5,339,983), and Li (US 2012/0067934)) used to reject claims 1 and 8-10, that would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 15 and 19-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 15 is allowable for the same reason as claim 7 above.
Claim 19-21 are allowable for the same reason as claim 11 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 16-19, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 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 35 USC §103 and 112(b).
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