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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanford et al. (10,870,188 “Sandford”).
Sanford meets all of the limitations of claim 1, i.e., a protective cap 30 to be mounted to a power type rotary tool capable of being attached to a driving bit 14 of a power tool for screw driving, the protective cap comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
347
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (28)]a main body portion 30; and
a cushion portion lower resilient force applying member 28 arranged above above/below depends on the orientation of the implement, when direction not otherwise defined the main body portion, and formed of a material having a rubber hardness 02:55 that is lower than a plastic hardness 04:34 of the main body portion;
wherein a through hole accommodating 14 penetrating penetrates between an upper surface of the cushion portion and a lower surface of the main body portion Fig. 6; and a groove portion @41 formed by the step annotated formed along a circumference direction on an outer surface defined by the step of the main body portion, except for using a rubber material for the upper part that has less hardness than the cushion lower part 28 annotated above.
Sanford discloses a plastic main body a softer cushion material, except for the use of the specific materials. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to form the main body out of hard rubber (instead of plastic), for its qualities such as strength, rigidity, lightness and durability, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, modified Stanford) meets the limitations, i.e., the protective cap according to claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the cushion portion 28 is a plane Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the protective cap according to claim 1, further comprising a fixing member threaded upper portion of 30 including a plurality of protrusions threads on an inner peripheral surface of the through hole.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the protective cap according to claim 1,except for the main body 30 portion to have a rubber hardness of 30 or more and 90 or less; and for the cushion portion 28 to have a rubber hardness of 30 or more and 60 or less. Hard rubber generally has a high durometer or hardness and choosing the degree of hardness of the main body depends on the intended use and the cushion proton has a hardness less than the main body. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to use a high durometer of hardness main body, e.g., 60, for its strength and rigidity in adapting for a particular application; and a relatively lower hardness cushion portion, e.g., 40 to provide the desired resiliency, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image3.png
596
199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that art applied, Sanford, fails to disclose a groove portion formed along a circumferential direction on an outer surface of the main body portion. Applicant argues that the slot 34 of Sanford is not part of the main body 30 and that it is formed around the drive unit 16 of the shaft 14. This is not found persuasive. The slot 34 is formed around the driving portion 16 and it is not formed on the drive portion 16. The protective cap as recited in the instant claims, is met by the force applying element as disclosed by Stanford. Stanford discloses a force applying member, e.g., 28’’ as described for Figs. 4A-4C, which includes a portion 30.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (GROOVE)]Similarly in the embodiment of Fig. 6, the force applying member is described to have a slot 34. The threaded collar 30 that is in the form of a separate element, formed from metal or plastic material, that functions to form a slot 34 around the driving portion 16 in which accommodates the resilient portion of the force applying portion. Stanford further, discloses that the resilient portion of the force applying element may be glued or otherwise attached to the collar 30. Accordingly, the main body of the protective cap is defined by both 30 and the resilient member forming the slot, as annotated above (pls. see Sanford column 4, lines 27-48).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI SHAKERI whose telephone number is (571)272-4495. The fax phone number for forwarding unofficial documents for discussion purposes only is (571) 273-4495. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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, Brian Keller can be reached on 571 272 8548. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hadi Shakeri/
August 18, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights