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 Objections
Claims 7/6, 11 and 12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and/or, cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 7/6, 11 and 12 not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 recites the limitation "the mentioned connection tools" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further “connection parts” should be amended to --connection parts--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the barrel part" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chamber Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tip" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the gun-shaped screwing apparatus" in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “screwing drives necessary for…” in line three, rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what defines “necessary” in determining the scope.
Similarly, “suitable” as recited in line 5, renders the scope unascertainable, since the term does not define a limit or any structure.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the magazine opening of the magazine clearance" in the last line. There are insufficient antecedent bases for this limitations in the claim.
Claim 7/5 recites the limitation “the magnetic element/elements" in the last line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 4, 7/5 and 8, as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (4,989,480).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
434
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Chen discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as best understood, i.e., a screwing apparatus 1 which enables the assembly and disassembly of the mentioned connection tools 5 by carrying the connection parts 5 and connection members such as screws, washers, screwdriver blades necessary for the assembly of firearm at least capable of accessories which can be changed and detached afterwards, characterized in that it comprises the tip holding member 10 suitable for the attaching and detaching of different connection tools 5 at the barrel part and the chamber 35 which has a suitable structure for the storing of the different connection tools 5 and/or connection members within the gun-shaped screwing apparatus 1.
Regarding claim 2, PA (prior art, Chen) meets the limitations, i.e., screwing apparatus (1) according to Claim 1, characterized in that it comprises the chamber 35 equipped with at least one chamber lid 36 which can be opened and closed and which is connected to the magazine opening of the magazine clearance.
Regarding claim 4, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the screwing apparatus (1) according to Claim 1, characterized in that it comprises the chamber 35 equipped with at least one chamber inner fixing element 16 that is formed such that it connects to at least one of the connection tools 5 to fix it.
Regarding claim 7/5, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the screwing apparatus (1) according to Claim 5, characterized in that it comprises the chamber inner fixing element 16 which is magnetized by the magnetic element/elements or which has the magnetic element on its tip
Regarding claim 8, PA meets the limitations, i.e., the screwing apparatus (1) according to Claim 1, characterized in that it comprises the tip holding member 10 equipped with at least one tip clearance opening or chuck, Fig. 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.
Claim 3, as best understood is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of McCabe et al. (8,438,951 “McCabe”).
Chen meets all of the limitations of claim 3, as best understood, i.e., the chamber lid 36 which has a structure that can be manually opened and closed, except for being skidded.
PNG
media_image2.png
180
347
media_image2.png
Greyscale
McCabe teaches a pill bottle opening disclosing a cap 100 including ribs 130 forming skids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chen with knurled surface as taught by McCabe to provide a non-slipping grip surface for holding the lid while turning the chamber to opened or closed position.
PNG
media_image3.png
310
232
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
263
155
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 5, 6 and 7, as best understood are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Balzano (5,056,661).
Chen meets all of the limitations of either claim 5 or claim 6, as best understood, except for the chamber inner fixing element 16 in relation with the magnetic element or being magnetized by a magnetic element.
Balzano teaches screwdriver with a tool caddy in which the bits are held within a storage fixing element 12 further augmented with a magnet e.g., 42, Fig. 6 to magnetically hold the bits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chen with magnets as taught by Balzano to further enhance the retention of the bits.
Regarding claim 6, Chen meets all of the limitations, as best understood, i.e., the chamber lid 36 which has a structure that can be manually opened and closed, except for the chamber inner fixing element 16 to be designed as a protrusion or each connection tool 5 on the top wall of the inside of the chamber 35.
Balzano further teaches spring clips 13 for holding the bit forming fixing element with a protrusion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the invention, to modify the invention of Chen with spring clips as taught by Balzano to further enhance the retention of the bits.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon at this time, are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Chang and Cho are cited to show related inventions.
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/
June 11, 2026 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights