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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 11/25/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 12 and 17 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are pending and examined below.
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, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Pomeroy et al. (10,710,227)(referred as Pomeroy '227) in view of reference Patel (7,508,149).
Regarding claim 1, Pomeroy ‘227 disclose a fastener driver (10) comprising:
a motor (46);
a trigger (col 2 ln 48);
a battery pack interface configured to receive a battery pack (50);
a lifting assembly (42) operable to be moved by the motor (46);
a sensor (54); and
a controller (62) connected to the trigger (col 2 ln 48), the motor (46), and the sensor (54),
wherein the controller (62) configured to:
provide, in response to actuation of the trigger (col 2 ln 48) and based on a position of the lifting assembly (42), power the motor (46);
receive signals from the sensor (54);
compare the signal from the sensor (54) to an expected threshold;
determine a condition of the fastener driver based on the comparison; and
provide an indication of a condition of the fastener driver (10).
(Figures 1, 2 and Column 2 lines 9-16, 26-38, 46-49, 58-62)
However, Pomeroy ‘227 do not disclose a speed sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, wherein the controller uses the sensors to determine a torque of the motor, and wherein the controller determines a condition of the fastener driver based on the torque of the motor.
Patel discloses a system (100) comprising: a motor (102); a speed sensor (120); a voltage sensor (124); a current sensor (126); and a controller (108), wherein the controller (108) is configured to:
receive speed signals from the speed sensor (120) indicative of the speed of the motor (102);
receive voltage signals from the voltage sensor (124) indicative of the voltage of the motor (102);
receive current signals from the current sensor (126) indicative of the current of the motor (102);
determine a torque of the motor (102) based on the speed signals, the voltage signals, and the current signals;
compare the determined torque of the motor (102) to an expected torque threshold; and
determine a condition of the motor (102) based on the comparison.
(Figure 2 and Column 2 lines 34-43, Column 3 lines 3-14, 39-44, Column 4 lines 49-56)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the fastener driver of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the speed sensor, voltage sensor, and current sensor as taught by Patel, since column 4 lines 41-46 of Patel states such a modification would allow the system to prevent torque overload in the motor.
Regarding claim 4, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose a pressurized cylinder (Pomeroy ‘601 – 18), wherein the condition of the fastener driver (Pomeroy ‘227 – 10) includes a determination that a pressure of the cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18) is below a pressure threshold. (Pomeroy ‘227 – Column 2 lines 53-62, Column 3 lines 9-12)
Regarding claim 6, Pomeroy ‘227 disclose a method of determining a condition a fastener driver (10), the method comprising the steps of:
providing, in response to actuation of a trigger (col 2 ln 48) and based on a position of a lifting assembly (42), power the motor (46);
receiving signals from a sensor (54);
comparing the signal from the sensor (54) to an expected threshold;
determining a condition of the fastener driver based on the comparison; and
providing an indication of a condition of the fastener driver (10).
(Figures 1, 2 and Column 2 lines 9-16, 26-38, 46-49, 58-62)
However, Pomeroy ‘227 do not disclose a speed sensor, a voltage sensor, and a current sensor, wherein the controller uses the sensors to determine a torque of the motor, and wherein the controller determines a condition of the fastener driver based on the torque of the motor.
Patel discloses a system (100) comprising: a motor (102); a speed sensor (120); a voltage sensor (124); a current sensor (126); and a controller (108), wherein the controller (108) is configured to:
receive speed signals from the speed sensor (120) indicative of the speed of the motor (102);
receive voltage signals from the voltage sensor (124) indicative of the voltage of the motor (102);
receive current signals from the current sensor (126) indicative of the current of the motor (102);
determine a torque of the motor (102) based on the speed signals, the voltage signals, and the current signals;
compare the determined torque of the motor (102) to an expected torque threshold; and
determine a condition of the motor (102) based on the comparison.
(Figure 2 and Column 2 lines 34-43, Column 3 lines 3-14, 39-44, Column 4 lines 49-56)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the step of receiving speed signals, voltage signals, and current signals as taught by Patel, since column 4 lines 41-46 of Patel states such a modification would allow the system to prevent torque overload in the motor.
Regarding claim 9, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose determining a pressure of a cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18) is below a pressure threshold. (Pomeroy ‘227 – Column 2 lines 53-62, Column 3 lines 9-12)
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Pomeroy et al. (10,710,227)(referred as Pomeroy '227) in view of reference Patel (7,508,149) as applied to claims 1 and 6 respectively, and further in view of reference Pomeroy et al. (10,632,601)(referred as Pomeroy '601).
Regarding claim 2, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the condition includes a condition of the lifting assembly.
Pomeroy ‘601 disclose a fastener driver (10) comprising: motor (46); a lifting assembly (42), wherein the motor powers the lifting assembly (42) to move a driver blade (30); a sensor (202); and a controller (136), wherein the controller determines a jamming of the motor (46) and lifting assembly (42) based on a signal from the sensor (202). (Column 10 lines 39-45, 53-61)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the fastener driver of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the function of determining a jamming of the motor and lifting assembly as taught Pomeroy ‘601, since column 1 lines 52-67 of Pomeroy ‘601 states such a modification would allow the controller respond according to the jamming.
Regarding claim 5, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel and Pomeroy ‘601 disclose the condition of the fastener driver includes a jamming of the motor (Pomeroy ‘227 – 46). (Pomeroy ‘601 – Column 10 lines 53-61)
Regarding claim 7, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the condition includes a condition of the lifting assembly.
Pomeroy ‘601 disclose a fastener driver (10) comprising: motor (46); a lifting assembly (42), wherein the motor powers the lifting assembly (42) to move a driver blade (30); a sensor (202); and a controller (136), wherein the controller determines a jamming of the motor (46) and lifting assembly (42) based on a signal from the sensor (202). (Column 10 lines 39-45, 53-61)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the step of determining a jamming of the motor and lifting assembly as taught Pomeroy ‘601, since column 1 lines 52-67 of Pomeroy ‘601 states such a modification would allow the controller respond according to the jamming.
Regarding claim 10, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel and Pomeroy ‘601 disclose the condition of the fastener driver includes a jamming of the motor (Pomeroy ‘227 – 46). (Pomeroy ‘601 – Column 10 lines 53-61)
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Pomeroy et al. (10,710,227)(referred as Pomeroy '227) in view of reference Patel (7,508,149) as applied to claims 1 and 6 respectively, and further in view of reference Mashiko et al. (11,602,829).
Regarding claim 3, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose a pressurized cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18); and a bumper (Pomeroy ‘227 – see figure 2 below) located at a bottom of the cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18). (Pomeroy ‘227 – Figure 2 and Column 2 lines 12-14)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bumper)][AltContent: textbox (Pomeroy ‘227)]
PNG
media_image1.png
625
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel do not disclose the condition of the fastener driver includes a condition of the bumper.
Mashiko et al. disclose a fastener driver (10) comprising: a pressurized cylinder (22); a bumper (33) located at the bottom end of the cylinder (22); a sensor (80); and a controller (62), wherein controller receives signals form the sensor (80) to determine the condition of the bumper (33). (Figure 3 and Column 3 lines 41-43, Column 4 lines 13-16, Column 5 lines 33-41, Column 10 lines 9-24)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the fastener driver of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the function of determining the condition of the bumper as taught by Mashiko et al., since column 2 lines 1-7 of Mashiko et al. states such a modification would allow to extend the life of the bumper.
Regarding claim 8, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel disclose a pressurized cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18); and a bumper (Pomeroy ‘227 – see figure 2 above) located at a bottom of the cylinder (Pomeroy ‘227 – 18). (Pomeroy ‘227 – Figure 2 and Column 2 lines 12-14)
However, Pomeroy ‘227 modified by Patel do not disclose the condition of the fastener driver includes a condition of the bumper.
Mashiko et al. disclose a fastener driver (10) comprising: a pressurized cylinder (22); a bumper (33) located at the bottom end of the cylinder (22); a sensor (80); and a controller (62), wherein controller receives signals form the sensor (80) to determine the condition of the bumper (33). (Figure 3 and Column 3 lines 41-43, Column 4 lines 13-16, Column 5 lines 33-41, Column 10 lines 9-24)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Pomeroy ‘227 by incorporating the step of determining the condition of the bumper as taught by Mashiko et al., since column 2 lines 1-7 of Mashiko et al. states such a modification would allow to extend the life of the bumper.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13-16, and 18-20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 11/25/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 12 and 17 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-11, 13-16, and 18-20 are pending in this application.
In response to the objections towards the claims, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the claim objections.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the arguments, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Pomeroy et al. (10,710,227) modified by reference Patel (7,508,149), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Patel is silent regarding determining a condition of the fastener drive “based on the comparison of the determined torque of the motor to the expected torque threshold,” as recited by independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Patel is not relied upon for the teaching of determining a condition of the fastener drive. Patel is relied upon for the teaching of receive speed signals from the speed sensor, receive voltage signals from the voltage sensor; receive current signals from the current sensor; determine a torque of the motor based on the speed signals, the voltage signals, and the current signals; compare the determined torque of the motor to an expected torque threshold, and determine a condition of the motor based on the comparison. Pomeroy et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a fastener driver comprising: a sensor; and a controller connected to the sensor, wherein the controller is configured to: receive signals from the sensor; determine a condition of the fastener drive based on the signals from the sensor; and provide an indication of the condition of the fastener driver. Therefore, Pomeroy et al. in view of Patel is interpreted to disclose a fastener driver comprising: speed sensor; a voltage sensor; a current sensor; and a controller connected to the sensors, wherein the controller is configured to: receive signals from the sensors; determine a torque of the motor based on the signals from the sensors; compare the determined torque of the motor to an expected torque threshold; determine a condition of the fastener drive based on the signals from the sensors; and provide an indication of the condition of the fastener driver.
In column 4 lines 41-46 of Patel, the action of determining a torque value and comparing said determined torque value to a predetermined maximum torque value is disclosed to prevent the motor from being overloaded. In other words, when the determined torque value is different from the predetermined maximum torque value, an error is generated indicating that the motor might be overloaded. In column 3 lines 3-8 of Patel, the controller then takes the additional action of altering the speed command. Just because the controller takes additional action to prevent a torque overload condition of the motor does not mean the controller doesn’t determine the condition of the motor, i.e. is approaching a torque overload condition. Therefore, Patel does disclose the function of: receiving speed signals from the speed sensor, receiving voltage signals from the voltage sensor; receiving current signals from the current sensor; determining a torque of the motor based on the speed signals, the voltage signals, and the current signals; comparing the determined torque of the motor to an expected torque threshold; and determining the condition of the motor based on the comparison of the determined torque of the motor to the expected torque threshold.
Applicant states:
Applicant notes that, as admitted by the Office, Pomerory ‘227 does not disclose determining “a condition of the fastener drive based on the torque of the motor,” and, accordingly, Pomeroy ‘227 cannot then disclose providing “an indication of the condition of the fastener driver.”
In column 2 lines 53-62 of Pomerory ‘227, the fastener driver is disclose to have a sensor (54) configured to sense property of the fastener driver; a controller (62) that receives signals from the sensor (54); and an indicator (58) that indicates the condition of the fastener driver, wherein the controller (62) compares the signal from the sensor (54) to a predetermined threshold value, determines a condition of the fastener driver based on the comparison, and then indicates the condition of the fastener driver via the indicator (58). Therefore, Pomerory ‘227 do disclose the process of “providing an indication of the condition of the fastener driver.
In response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Pomeroy et al. (10,710,227) modified by reference Patel (7,508,149) and Mechlenburg (2022/0355451), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 March 26, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731