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 24 June 2026.
Claims 15-27 and 97-101 are currently pending and being examined.
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) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassner (US 4,624,401) in view of Wojcicki (US 2008/0308597).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gassner teaches:
Claim 15: A fastener driver (1-fig.1) comprising:
a magazine (3-fig.2) configured to receive fasteners (4-fig.1), the magazine having a length extending between a first end (annotated fig.1) and a second end (annotated fig.1), the magazine including a latch member (23-fig.2) positioned proximate the second end;
a nosepiece (annotate fig.1) including a fastener driving channel from which consecutive fasteners from the magazine are driven (3:28-38), the nosepiece coupled to the first end of the magazine (see annotated fig.1 showing the magazine couple to the magazine);
a pusher (16-fig.1) slidably coupled to the magazine (3:54-60), the pusher including a body (18-fig.2) and a lever (19-fig.2) movably coupled to the body (3:61-4:2), the body configured to contact one of the fasteners for biasing the fasteners toward the nosepiece (3:61-4:2), the lever including a first end (22-fig.2) and a second end (26-fig.2) opposite the first end; and
a spring (21-fig.2) configured to bias the first end of the lever away from the body of the pusher (4:17-29),
wherein the first end of the lever is configured to selectively engage with the latch member when the pusher is moved toward the second end of the magazine for retaining the pusher in a rearward position (4:1-29), and wherein the second end of the lever is movable by a user for releasing the engagement between the first end of the lever and the latch member (4:30-51).
Gassner does not expressly teach a body, a pivot joint disposed on the body, and a lever pivotally coupled to the body via the pivot joint, and a spring configured to bias the first end of the lever away from the body of the pusher, the spring is offset from the pivot joint to create a moment about the pivot joint, wherein the pivot joint is disposed between the first end and the second end of the lever.
However, Wojcicki teaches body (34-fig.3B), a pivot joint (36-fig.3A) disposed on the body (¶[0024]), and a lever (34-fig.3B) pivotally coupled to the body via the pivot joint (¶[0024]-[0025]), and a spring (38-fig.3A) configured to bias the first end of the lever away from the body of the pusher (¶[0027],[0031]), the spring is offset from the pivot joint to create a moment about the pivot joint (see fig.3A showing 38 is horizontally offset from 36), wherein the pivot joint is disposed between the first end (46-fig.3A) and the second end (54-fig.3A) of the lever (see fig.3A showing 36 is between 46 and 54).
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 Gassner, by using the lever arm configuration, as taught by Wojcicki, as known equivalents known for the same purpose, both are lever arms that are to be urged by a spring force at the first end and the second end is an user press release. MPEP §2144.06(II).
Gassner as modified by Wojcicki further teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
171
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: The fastener driver of claim 15, further comprising a fastener support member (Gassner: at least A-annotated fig.2) coupled to the end of the body and extending between the body and a last one of the fasteners within the magazine (Gassner: see annotated fig.2 showing A is extending from body 18).
Claim 17: The fastener driver of claim 16, wherein the fastener support member has a similar shape as the fasteners (Gassner: see fig.3a showing the profile of A is of a similar shape of a nail).
Claim 18: The fastener driver of claim 16, wherein
the magazine (Gassner: 3-fig.1) includes a rail (Gassner: 15-fig.3a) defining a fastener channel extending along the length thereof (Gassner: 3:54-60),
the rail includes an edge portion at least partially defining the fastener channel (Gassner: see fig.3a showing 18 riding in the space next to 15), and
the fastener support member is wrapped around the edge portion of the rail (Gassner: see fig.3a showing a portion of 18 is wrapped around 15).
Claim 19: The fastener driver of claim 15, wherein the spring is supported by a first portion of the body of the pusher and the lever is pivotally coupled to a second portion of the body of the pusher (Gassner: see fig.2; 3:61-4:29).
Claim 20: The fastener driver of claim 15, wherein the latch member (Gassner: 23-fig.2) includes an opening formed on the magazine proximate the second end of the magazine (Gassner: 4:14-17).
Claim(s) 21, 24-27, 97, and 101 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2019/0039219) in view of Wang (US 2019/0077001).
Suarez teaches:
Claim 21: A powered staple driver (“A powered fastener driver” Abstract) comprising:
PNG
media_image3.png
341
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a magazine (10-fig.1) including a rail (18-fig.6) defining an edge portion (annotated fig.6) and two opposed sidewalls (annotated fig.6; 26-fig.4 and 28-fig.5; ¶[0021]) adjacent the edge portion, the magazine (10-fig.1) configured to receive a strip of collated staples straddling the edge portion and the sidewalls of the rail (“With reference to FIG. 1, a powered fastener driver is operable to drive fasteners (e.g., nails, staples, tacks, etc.) held within a magazine assembly 10 into a workpiece. In other words, the magazine assembly 10 includes a magazine 14 having a magazine body 18 configured to receive the fasteners to be driven into the workpiece by the powered fastener driver.” ¶[0021]); see fig.11A showing staples straddling the edge and sidewall);
a pusher (50-fig.5) slidably coupled to one of the sidewalls of the rail (¶[0025]); and
a support member (54-fig.6) coupled to the pusher for movement therewith (¶[0024]),
wherein the support member (54-fig.6) straddles the edge portion and the sidewalls of the rail to engage the strip of collated staples supported upon the edge portion of the rail (see figs.5-6 showing 54 straddling the sides and edge portion of 18).
Suarez does not expressly teach the edge portion includes a horizontal segment that is perpendicular to the two opposed sidewalls and two oblique segments extending from opposite ends of the horizontal segment, respectively, at an oblique angle relative to the horizontal segment, the two oblique segments disposed between the horizontal segment and the two opposed sidewalls, respectively.
However, Wang teaches a rail (35-fig.9) having an edge portion includes a horizontal segment (annotated fig.9) that is perpendicular to the two opposed sidewalls
PNG
media_image4.png
375
509
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(annotated fig.9) and two oblique segments (annotated fig.9) extending from opposite ends of the horizontal segment (see annotated fig.9 showing the oblique segments extending from the horizontal segment), respectively, at an oblique angle relative to the horizontal segment (see annotated fig.9 showing an oblique angle between the horizontal and oblique segments), the two oblique segments disposed between the horizontal segment and the two opposed sidewalls, respectively (see annotated fig.9 showing the oblique sections between the horizontal and sidewall segments).
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 Suarez, by having the rail have a horizontal and oblique sections, as taught by Wang, because as shown in figure 11 the staples are compliment to the shape of the rail, therefore allowing for smooth feeding of the staples and preventing the staples from getting out of line and crooked while being fed in the magazine.
Suarez as modified by Wang further teaches:
Claim 24: The powered staple driver of claim 21, wherein the support member (Suarez: 54-fig.6) has a similar shape as the staples (Suarez: see fig.6 showing 54 has two legs and a crown portion just like a staple).
Claim 25: The powered staple driver of claim 21, wherein each of the staples in the strip of collated staples includes a crown portion and two leg portions extending from opposite ends of the crown portion (Suarez: at least ¶[0003],[0021]; Examiner notes all staples have a crown portion and two leg portions in powered staple drivers.), and wherein the support member contacts an entirety of the crown portion and the leg portions of a rearmost staple in the strip of collated staples (Suarez: ¶[0024]-[0025],[0038]; see fig. 11A showing 50 engaged with the leg portions, see also fig.5 showing 50 is sized so as the pusher would engage the crown of the staple).
Claim 26: The powered staple driver of claim 21, further comprising a nosepiece (Suarez: 30-fig.1) defining a staple driving channel (Suarez: 248-fig.8) from which consecutive staples from the magazine are driven (Suarez: ¶[0038]), and
a workpiece contact element (Suarez: 46-fig.3) extending along the nosepiece (Suarez: ¶[0022],[0026]).
Claim 27: The powered staple driver of claim 26, further comprising a blocking member (Suarez: at least 56-fig.10) that extends from the support member towards the nosepiece (Suarez: see fig. 11A showing 56 extending towards 34), and wherein the blocking member is configured to block movement of the workpiece contact element relative to the nosepiece in at least one direction (Suarez: at least ¶[0030],[0037]).
PNG
media_image5.png
363
438
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 97: The powered staple driver of claim 21, further comprising a fastener retention portion (Wang: annotated fig.11) is positioned on the edge portion and extends at least partially along a length of the magazine (Wang: see fig.6 showing the fastener retention portion extending along the whole of the magazine rail), the fastener retention portion is configured to engage with at least one bend of the collated staples of the strip of collated staples for retaining the strip of collated staples on the magazine (Want: see annotated fig.11 showing the fastener retention portion engaging with the bend of the staple and retaining the strip of staples in the magazine).
Claim 101: The powered staple driver of claim 97, wherein the fastener retention portion has a complementary shape to that of the strip of collated staples (Wang: see annotated fig.11 showing the fastener retention portion has a complementary shape to the staple).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2019/0039219) in view of Wang (US 2019/0077001), further in view of Gassner (US 4,624,401).
Suarez as modified by Wang teaches:
Claim 22: The powered staple driver of claim 21.
Suarez does not expressly teach wherein the pusher includes a body and a lever movably coupled to the body, and wherein the support member is integrated with the
PNG
media_image2.png
171
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
body and is configured to contact one of the staples for biasing the strip of collated staples toward a nosepiece.
Gassner teaches a pusher (16-fig.1) includes a body (18-fig.1) and a lever (19-fig.2) movably coupled to the body (3:61-4:2), and wherein a support member (at least A-annotated fig.2) is integrated with the body (see annotated fig.1 showing A is integrated with 18) and is configured to contact one of the fasteners for biasing the strip of collated staples toward a nosepiece (3:54-4:2).
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 Suarez as modified by Wang, by adding a rocking lever, as taught by Gassner, so while the magazine is opened to be reloaded with fasteners the pusher is safely retained, thus preventing the pusher and spring getting in the way of the operators’ hands while loading. (Gassner 3:61-4:51).
Suarez as modified by Wang and Gassner further teaches:
Claim 23: The powered staple driver of claim 22, wherein a first end (Gassner: 22-fig.2) of the lever is configured to selectively engage with a latch member when the pusher is moved toward a second end of the magazine for retaining the pusher in a rearward position (Gassner: 4:1-29), and wherein a second end of the lever is movable by a user for releasing the engagement between the first end of the lever and the latch member (Gassner: 4:30-51).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 98-100 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The subject matter of the powered staple driver would be allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Claim 98 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of the claims, are what would make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“the fastener retention portion includes a first projection and a second projection laterally extending away from and on opposite sides of the edge portion”
The prior art that comes closest to teaching the claim limitations is Suarez (US 2019/0039219) and Wang (US 2019/0077001), she rejection 103 rejection above. Morrell (US 4,524,896) teaches a first projection (32-fig.10) and a second projection (34-fig.10), but fails to teach a horizontal segment, oblique segment and the projections extend away from the edge portion. Yang (US 2010/0230463) teaches a first projection (12-fig.4) extending from a first sidewall and a second projection (12-fig.4) extending from a second sidewall, but fails to teach a first and second projection from the same fastener retention portion. It would require improper hindsight to use the teachings of the prior art to teach the claim limitations and would not result in a realistic case of obviousness. Therefore, the combination set forth in the claims are not discussed, taught, or suggested in the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 15 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights