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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to claims filed on December 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are being examined in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” (or “step”) and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are:
A means for reversibly retracting (Claim 20)
A means for reversibly latching (Claim 20)
The means (claim 20)
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
fastener driving mechanism (Claim 14)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient struture to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
**Examiner notes that the limitation “pusher assembly” recited in claims 1-20 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the following recitations:
having a pusher assembly knob and a pusher (claim 1);
comprises a spring located between the pusher assembly knob and the pusher (claim 5)
free of a compressive spring between the pusher assembly knob and a portion of the pusher (claim 6)
a pivot about which a pivot stem can move to release the pusher assembly knob from the detent (claim 8)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
A means for reversibly maintaining is disclosed briefly in Applicant’s Specification [27] [29] as being a detent, latch, or stop, however no further structure is provided for the means for reversibly latching, as recited in claim 20. Please note, that because the recitation differs (i.e. maintaining vs latching), the Specification is not deemed to provide structure. Furthermore, no further structure is provided for the means for reversibly retracting, recited in claim 20, or the fastener driving mechanism, recited in claim 14.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 14-17 and 20 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 limitations: “fastener driving mechanism” recited in claim 14 and “means for reversibly latching” and “means for reversibly retracting” recited in claim 20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
A means for reversibly latching and retracting are deemed to be exemplary of the common state of the art whereby a means for reversibly latching is most commonly used to hold an object in place, whereas a means for reversibly retracting is most commonly used to withdraw, or pull back an object. A means for reversibly maintaining is disclosed briefly in Applicant’s Specification [27] [29] as being a detent, latch, or stop, however no further structure is provided for the means for reversibly latching, as recited in claim 20. Please note, that because the recitation differs (i.e. maintaining vs latching), the Specification is not deemed to provide structure. Furthermore, no further structure is provided for the means for reversibly retracting, recited in claim 20.
Furthermore, a is fastener driving mechanism is deemed to be exemplary of the common state of the art whereby a fastener driving mechanism is most commonly used to impart a force, or drive, a fastener in a desired direction. However, no structure is provided in Applicant’s Specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the means” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-3 of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,179,836 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,827,658 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the U.S. Patent No. ‘658 recite a fastening device and a magazine for a fastening device.
In addition, claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,179,836 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and the U.S. Patent No. ‘836 recite a magazine for a fastening device.
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, 5-8, 10-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arata et al. (US 2009/0200354 A1, herein Arata).
Regarding claim 1, Arata discloses [0060-0063] a magazine (magazine 30, Fig. 7) for a fastening device (fastener driving tool 1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a pusher assembly (pusher holding device 70, Fig. 7) adapted to have an engaged state and a retracted state,
the pusher assembly (70) having a pusher assembly knob (push button 71a and stopper rod 71, Fig. 7) and a pusher (pusher 32 having a feeding claw 32a, Figs. 4 and 7);
the pusher adapted to contact a fastener and to impart a force upon the fastener in a direction (fastener feeding direction P, Fig. 7) toward a nose end of the magazine when the pusher assembly (70) is in the engaged state;
a recess (31b) (Fig. 4) [0038] into which the pusher (32, 32a) is reversibly retracted at least in part when the pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) is moved to reversibly retract the pusher (32, 32a) to achieve the retracted state;
a detent (L-shaped notch-like engaging recess 74, Fig. 7) adapted to reversibly maintain the pusher assembly (70) in the retracted state; and
the pusher assembly knob (71 a, 71) adapted to reversibly latch (via hook portion 71b, Fig. 7) to the detent (74).
Regarding claim 2, Arata discloses wherein the detent (74) has a latch portion (71b) to which the pusher assembly knob (71 a, 71) is reversibly latched when the pusher assembly (70) is in the retracted state.
Regarding claim 3, Arata discloses wherein the detent (74) has a detent base end (as shown in an annotated Fig. 7, below) to which the pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) is reversibly latched when the pusher assembly (70) is in the retracted state.
PNG
media_image1.png
493
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7, Arata, annotated
Regarding claim 5, Arata discloses wherein the pusher assembly (70) comprises a spring (73) located between the pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) and the pusher (32).
Please note, regarding the recitation, “the spring allowing the pusher assembly knob to be tilted to achieve an unlatched state from a latched state," is a statement of intended use. Accordingly, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 10, Arata discloses wherein a guide frame (magazine body, 31) comprises the detent (74).
Regarding claim 11, Arata discloses wherein the detent (74) is located proximate to a pusher assembly (70) guide path (in the direction of feeding direction, P, as shown in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, Arata discloses wherein the pusher assembly (70) is biased by a constant force spring (73, Fig. 7).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, Arata discloses in which the fastening tool (1) is a nailer and the fastener is a nail [0036].
Regarding claim 14, Arata discloses [0060-0063] a fastening device (1), comprising:
a nosepiece adapted to receive a fastener (n) from a magazine (30) (Figs. 1,3);
a power source (i.e. switch lever coupled to a control device for controlling a compressed air as a drive source) [0034-0035] adapted to power a fastener driving mechanism which can drive the fastener into a workpiece when triggered;
a pusher assembly (70) (Fig. 7) adapted to have an engaged state and a retracted state;
the pusher assembly (70) having a pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) and a pusher (32, 32a);
the pusher (32, 32a) adapted to contact a fastener and to impart a force upon the fastener in a direction (P) toward the nosepiece when the pusher assembly (70) is in the engaged state;
a recess (31b) (Fig. 4) [0038] into which the pusher (32, 32a) is reversibly retracted at least in part when the pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) is moved to reversibly retract the pusher (32, 32a) to achieve the retracted state; and
a detent (74) adapted to reversibly maintain the pusher assembly (70) in the retracted state.
Regarding claim 15, Arata discloses wherein the detent (74) has a latch (hook portion 71b, Fig. 7) to which the pusher assembly knob (70) is reversibly latched when the pusher (32, 32a) is in the retracted state.
Regarding claim 18, Arata discloses [0060-0063] a method for loading fasteners into a magazine (magazine 30, Fig. 7) of a fastening device (fastener driving tool 1, Fig. 1), comprising the steps of:
providing the magazine having a pusher assembly (pusher holding device 70, Fig. 7) adapted to have an engaged state and a retracted state, the pusher assembly (70) having a pusher assembly knob (push button 71a and stopper rod 71, Fig. 7) connected to a pusher (pusher 32 having a feeding claw 32a, Figs. 4 and 7), the pusher adapted to contact a fastener and to impart a force upon the fastener in a direction (fastener feeding direction P, Fig. 7) [0036] [0040] toward a nose end of the magazine when the pusher assembly (70) is in the engaged state;
providing a recess (31b) (Fig. 4) [0038] of the magazine into which the pusher (32, 32a) is reversibly retracted at least in part when the pusher assembly knob (71a, 71) is moved to reversibly retract the pusher (32, 32a) to achieve the retracted state;
providing a detent (L-shaped notch-like engaging recess 74, Fig. 7) of the magazine adapted to reversibly maintain the pusher assembly (70) in the retracted state, and the pusher assembly knob is adapted to reversibly latch (via hook portion 71b, Fig. 7) to the detent (74);
reversibly retracting the pusher assembly into the retracted state (see annotated Fig. 7, Arata, above);
maintaining the pusher assembly in the retracted state [0040];
feeding one or more fasteners to the track [0040]; and
engaging the pusher assembly from the retracted state into the engaged state [0040].
Regarding claim 19, Arata discloses in which the step of feeding one or more fasteners into the track, further comprises feeding one or more nails into the track [0036] (“fastener stick N consists of a plurality of parallel fasteners n that are joined in series with each other. For example, the fasteners n may be nails.”)
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, Arata discloses [0057-0059] a magazine (magazine 30, Fig. 6) for a fastening device (fastener driving tool 1, Fig. 1), comprising:
a pusher assembly adapted to have an engaged state and a retracted state,
the pusher assembly having a pusher assembly knob (stopper, 61, Fig. 6) and a pusher (pusher, 32);
the pusher adapted to contact a fastener and to impart a force upon the fastener in a direction (fastener feeding direction P, Fig. 7) toward a nose end of the magazine when the pusher assembly is in the engaged state;
a recess (31b) (Fig. 4) [0038] into which the pusher (32) is reversibly retracted at least in part when the pusher assembly knob (61) is moved to reversibly retract the pusher (32) to achieve the retracted state; and
a detent (engaging recess, 63, Fig. 6) adapted to reversibly maintain the pusher assembly in the retracted state; and
the pusher assembly knob (61) adapted to reversibly latch to the detent (63).
Regarding claim 6, Arata discloses (i.e. third embodiment, [0057-0059]) the claimed invention, as stated above.
The third embodiment of Arata further teaches wherein the pusher assembly is free of a compressive spring between the pusher assembly knob (61) (Fig. 6) and a portion of the pusher (32).
Regarding claim 7, Arata discloses (i.e. third embodiment, [0057-0059]) the claimed invention as stated above.
The third embodiment of Arata further teaches wherein the pusher assembly knob (61) can be pivoted to release the pusher assembly knob (61) (Fig. 6) from the detent (63) to achieve an unlatched state from a latched state.
Regarding claim 8, Arata discloses (i.e. third embodiment, [0057-0059]) the claimed invention as stated above.
The third embodiment of Arata further teaches a pivot (support shaft, 62) (Fig. 6) about which a pivot stem (61) can move to release the pusher assembly knob from the detent to achieve an unlatched state from a latched state.
Regarding claim 20, Arata discloses [0057-0059] a means for reversibly retracting (Fig. 6) a pusher assembly, comprising:
a means for reversibly latching (i.e. support shaft, 62, Fig. 6; Arata) a pusher assembly knob (61) to a detent (63);
wherein the means for reversibly latching (62) the pusher assembly knob (61) to the detent (63) is adapted to reversibly latch a portion of the pusher assembly knob to the detent when the pusher assembly is in a retracted state; and
wherein the means (62) is adapted to unlatch the pusher assembly knob (61) when a pivoting motion is imparted to the pusher assembly knob (61).
Alternatively, claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perra et al. (US 5,297,713, herein Perra).
Regarding claim 18, Perra discloses a method for loading fasteners into a magazine (16) of a fastening device (10), comprising the steps of:
providing a magazine (16) having a pusher assembly (110,116) adapted to have an engaged state and a retracted state, the pusher assembly (110,116) having a pusher assembly knob (116) connected to a pusher (110), the pusher (110) adapted to contact a fastener and to impart a force upon the fastener in a direction toward a nose end (14) of the magazine (16) when the pusher assembly (110,116) is in the engaged state;
providing a recess (160) of the magazine (16) into which the pusher (110) is reversibly retracted at least in part when the pusher assembly knob (116) is moved to reversibly retract the pusher (110) to achieve the retracted state;
providing a detent (150,152, Fig. 3) of the magazine adapted to reversibly maintain the pusher assembly (110,116) in the retracted state, and the pusher assembly knob (116) is adapted to reversibly latch to the detent (Col. 6, lines 62-68);
reversibly retracting the pusher assembly (110,116) into the retracted state;
maintaining the pusher assembly (110,116) in the retracted state;
feeding one or more fasteners to the track; and
engaging the pusher assembly from the retracted state into the engaged state (by reversing the steps).
Regarding claim 19, Perra discloses (Col. 4, lines 48-54) in which the step of feeding one or more fasteners into the track, further comprises feeding one or more nails into the track.
Regarding claim 20, Perra discloses a means for reversibly retracting (142) a pusher assembly (110, Fig. 1), comprising:
a means for reversibly latching (112,Fig. 3) a pusher assembly knob (116, Figs. 1,3) to a detent (150,152, Fig. 3);
wherein the means for reversibly latching (112) a pusher assembly knob (116) to the detent (150,152) is adapted to reversibly latch a portion of the pusher assembly knob (116) to the detent (150,152) when the pusher assembly knob (116) is in a retracted state; and
wherein the means (112) is adapted to unlatch the pusher assembly knob when a pivoting motion is imparted to the pusher assembly knob.
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 4, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arata.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Arata discloses (i.e. fourth embodiment, [0060-0063]) the claimed invention as stated above.
The fourth embodiment of Arata does not expressly disclose wherein said detent (74) has a spring latch.
Arata (i.e. second embodiment; [0054-0056]) teaches a detent (engaging member 51, Fig. 5) having a spring latch (i.e. leaf spring) to which the pusher assembly knob is reversibly latched when the pusher assembly is in the retracted state.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time applicant's invention was made, to have modified the detent (74, Fig. 7) as taught by Arata (i.e. fourth embodiment), by incorporating the spring loaded detent (51, Fig. 5) as taught by Arata (i.e. second embodiment). Doing so would provide an alternative rapid, manual means to easily remove clogged fasteners within the fastener driving channel [0056].
Regarding claim 9, Arata discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the pusher assembly knob has a knob clearance of 0.05 mm or greater when the pusher assembly is in an engaged state. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the pusher assembly knob clearance, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRAACHI M. PATHAK whose telephone number is (571)272-8005. The examiner can normally be reached Monday & Tuesday 8:30 am-5:30 pm ET.
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.
/Praachi M Pathak/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
February 10, 2026