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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-6 and 16-17 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the method and device are linked so as to form a single general inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as addressed below Froewis et al. (US 5,054,983) anticipates the features of claim 1. Applicant’s argument in regard to Rosenbaum et al. (WO 2020/0011602) are moot as Froweis et al. anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, there can be not feature that forms a single general inventive concept between the method and device.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/2036.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4: In line 2, the claim recites “completely filling the sleeve in a cavity”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the sleeve is not completely filed. Instead the sleeve completely fills the cavity.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Froewis et al. (US 5,054,983).
Claim 1: Froewis et al. discloses a method for fastening a component (25 of Figure 3) to a substrate (26 of Figure 3), the method including providing a nail (27 of Figure 3) having a nail shank (28 of Figure 3) and a nail head (29 of Figure 3), wherein the nail head has a head diameter which projects beyond the nail shank (as depicted in Figure 3), arranging a sleeve (24 of Figure 3) on the nail shank, providing a driving-in element (explosive power charge tool of Col. 3, Lines 17-21) and a guide channel (channel formed by the inner diameter of 23 of Figure 3), wherein the guide channel has an inside diameter which exceeds the head diameter (as depicted in Figure 3), arranging the nail head and the sleeve in the guide channel such that a peripheral gap is formed between the nail head and the guide channel (as depicted in Figure 3), driving the driving-in element through the guide channel toward the nail head in order to move the nail in a driving-in direction toward the substrate (Col. 3, Lines 17-37; Col. 4, Lines 4-32), compressing the sleeve between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head while the nail moves toward the substrate (Col. 3, Lines 25-37; Col. 4, Lines 9-32), and applying a preload to the sleeve by means of the nail head (Col. 4, Lines 9-15; the step of carrying on the sleeve on the nail as it is initially displaced is considered the applied preload).
Claim 2: Froewis et al. further discloses that a diameter of the nail head is larger than an outside diameter of the sleeve (as depicted in Figure 3).
Claim 3: Froewis et al. further discloses physically deforming the sleeve is plastically deformed during the compression between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head (see the change in shape of 14 between Figures 3 and 4; Col. 4, Lines 16-20).
Claim 16: Froewis et al. further discloses fastening an insulating material to a wall or ceiling of a building (Col. 1, Lines 41-47, the structural components are considered the wall or ceiling of a building).
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 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froewis et al. (US 5,054,983) in view of Schmidle et al. (US 5,611,474).
Note: Claim 1 is properly rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) considering the limitation guide channel under the principle of broadest reasonable interpretation. This rejection is provided using an alternative interpretation of the limitation.
Claim 1: Froewis et al. discloses a method for fastening a component (25 of Figure 3) to a substrate (26 of Figure 3), the method including providing a nail (27 of Figure 3) having a nail shank (28 of Figure 3) and a nail head (29 of Figure 3), wherein the nail head has a head diameter which projects beyond the nail shank (as depicted in Figure 3), arranging a sleeve (24 of Figure 3) on the nail shank, providing a driving-in element (explosive power charge tool of Col. 3, Lines 17-21), wherein the guide channel has an inside diameter which exceeds the head diameter (as depicted in Figure 3), arranging the nail head and the sleeve in the guide channel such that a peripheral gap is formed between the nail head and the guide channel (as depicted in Figure 3), driving the driving-in element through the guide channel toward the nail head in order to move the nail in a driving-in direction toward the substrate (Col. 3, Lines 17-37; Col. 4, Lines 4-32), compressing the sleeve between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head while the nail moves toward the substrate (Col. 3, Lines 25-37; Col. 4, Lines 9-32), and applying a preload to the sleeve by means of the nail head (Col. 4, Lines 9-15; the step of carrying on the sleeve on the nail as it is initially displaced is considered the applied preload).
Interpreting the guide channel as a physical feature of the driving-in element, Froewis et al. fails to disclose a driving-in element having a guide channel.
However, Schmidle et al., teaches driving in a nail (29 of Figure 4) of a fastening component (28 of Figure 4) using a driving-in element (24 of Figure 4) having a guide channel (25 of Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the driving-in element having the guide channel of Schmidle et al. for that of Froewis et al. because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In this instant case the predictable result would be that the driving-in element having the guide channel would be used to drive in the nail of Froewis et al.
Further, this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because the guide channel would aid in the alignment of the nail during the driving in of the nail.
Claim 2: Froewis et al. further discloses that a diameter of the nail head is larger than an outside diameter of the sleeve (as depicted in Figure 3).
Claim 3: Froewis et al. further discloses physically deforming the sleeve is plastically deformed during the compression between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head (see the change in shape of 14 between Figures 3 and 4; Col. 4, Lines 16-20).
Claim 4: Froewis et al. fails to explicitly disclose completely filling the sleeve in a cavity between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head during the compression between the nail shank, the guide channel and the nail head.
However, compressing the sleeve of Froewis et al. until it achieved a desire diameter during compression would be achieved through routine experimentation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely experiment with the driving in process until the sleeve was compressed to the point that it completely filled the cavity between the nail shank, guide channel, and nail head. It has long been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 6: Schmidle et al. further discloses providing a power-operated setting device (as depicted in Figure 1, Col. 3, Line 61 to Col. 4, Line 2), having the guide channel (25 of Figure 4), the driving-in element and a drive (6 of Figure 1) for the driving-in element, wherein the guide channel projects beyond the driving-in element in all positions of the driving-in element in the driving-in direction (as depicted in Figures 1-4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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. The prior art of record does not provide the guide channel bearing against the shaft bottom and sleeve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 01/21/2026