DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 1/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
In this action 7 IDS documents have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not 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 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 limitations are:
“detection element” in claim 4, which is being interpreted to encompass sensor detectable portions and equivalents thereof.
“bias member” in claim 10, which is being interpreted to encompass coil springs and equivalents thereof.
“bias member” in claim 17, which is being interpreted to encompass coil springs and equivalents thereof.
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 structure 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.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 18:
In each of claims 1, 15, and 18 “the fastener” lacks antecedent basis. Examiner recommends changing “the fastener” to “a fastener”.
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 recites “the rotating direction is a direction along which the impactor moves from the second position to the first position”, however “the first position” and “the second position” lack any antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 recites “the second position” and “the first position”, however these positions lack any antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 15, 16, and 9:
Claim 15 recites “the second engaging member is configured to [] move in a crossing direction crossing to the rotation direction by a reaction force of a rotational force to rotate the rotary component in the rotation direction”, however it is unclear what is meant by “a crossing direction crossing to the rotation direction” (does this mean rotation in a direction opposite the rotation direction?) and “by a reaction force of a rotational force” (what is this reaction force? What causes it?). The claim should be amended to clearly define what moving “in a crossing direction crossing to the rotation direction by a reaction force of a rotational force to rotate the rotary component in the rotation direction” means, as it is currently not understood, rendering the claim indefinite. Claims 9 and 16 are indefinite for the similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 recites “the second engagement member and the third engagement member protrude from the impactor body part in opposite directions each other” which is indefinite because the second engagement member is claimed as part of the rotary component and thus cannot protrude from the impactor. For examination purposes, the limitation is being interpreted to read “the first engagement member and the third engagement member protrude from the impactor body part in opposite directions each other” in view of the disclosure.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected 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, 3, 5-7, 9-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oda et al. US 2007/0210134.
Regarding claim 1:
Oda teaches a driver comprising:
an impactor (18/18B) movable in a first direction (down) to drive [a] fastener (6);
a motor (8);
a drive shaft (8A/12) coupled with the motor; and
a rotary component (12) coupled with the drive shaft configured to move the impactor in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0071]-[0073]), wherein the impactor includes a first engaging member (18A), wherein
the rotary component includes a body part (12), and a second engaging member (12C) configured to engage with the first engaging member, wherein
the body part includes first (12A) and second (17A) supporting parts spaced apart in an axial direction of the drive shaft, and wherein the second engaging member includes a pin (12C, as shown in FIG. 5, has a pin-like structure) supported by the first supporting part and the second supporting part ([0051], second to last sentence).
Regarding claim 3:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first engaging member is provided on a first side of the impactor, wherein the rotary component is arranged on the first side of the impactor, and wherein the first engaging member extends between the first supporting part and the second supporting part (all shown in FIGS. 1, 5, and 13).
Regarding claim 5:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein each of the first supporting part and the second supporting part has an outer edge, wherein the outer edge has a radially-expanded portion at around the pin (see 12A and 2D in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 6:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprises a first bearing (12A) and a second bearing (17A) between which the rotary component is disposed, wherein the drive shaft is rotatably supported by the first bearing and the second bearing (see FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 7:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the second engagement member has first to Nth pins (envisaged in FIG. 13), wherein N is the total number of pins (i.e., where N is not explicitly disclosed), wherein the pins are disposed along a rotating direction of the rotary component in that order, wherein the rotating direction is a direction along which the impactor moves from the second position to the first position, and wherein a distance between the first pin and the Nth pin is greater than any other distances between the pins adjacent to each other (the counterclockwise distance between any pin N and the (N-1)th pin, where the (N-1)th pin is the next pin in the clockwise direction, is the greatest distance between any two distinct pins).
Regarding claim 9:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the pin is configured to move in a crossing direction crossing to a rotating direction of the drive shaft (the pins move in both directions).
Regarding claim 10:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 9, as discussed above, further comprising a bias member (11) that biases the pin toward an outside direction of the drive shaft (i.e., when the drive shaft is rotating).
Regarding claim 15:
Oda teaches a driver comprising:
an impactor (18/18B) movable in a first direction (down) to drive [a] fastener (6);
a motor (8);
a drive shaft (8A/12) coupled with the motor; and
a rotary component (12) coupled with the drive shaft, the rotary component, when driven by the motor, rotating to move the impactor in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0071]-[0073]), wherein the impactor includes a first engaging member (18A), wherein the rotary component includes a second engaging member (12C) configured to engage with the first engaging member, wherein the second engaging member is configured to move in a rotation direction so that the second engaging member is engaged with the first engaging member to move the impactor in the second direction, and configured to move in a crossing direction [opposite] to the rotation direction by a reaction force of a rotational force to rotate the rotary component in the rotation direction (described in at least [0071]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 16:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 16, as discussed above, wherein the second engaging member is configured to move in the crossing direction by the reaction force received from the first engaging member while the drive shaft rotates the rotary component in the rotating direction (evident from [0073] as 12C drives 18).
Regarding claim 17:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 16, as discussed above, further comprising a bias member (11) that biases the second engaging member toward an initial position that the second engaging member engages the first engaging member.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al. US 2014/0202724.
Regarding claim 18:
Moore teaches a driver (see FIG. 15) comprising:
an impactor (206) movable in a first direction (down) to drive [a] fastener (32);
a motor (210);
a drive shaft (212) coupled with the motor; and
a rotary component (200 to the left of 206) coupled with the drive shaft, the rotary component, when driven by the motor, rotating to move the impactor in a second direction opposite the first direction ([0049] last sentence), wherein
the impactor includes an impactor body part (central area of 206) extending in the first direction, and a first engaging member (teeth 208 on left side of 206) which provided on a first side of the impactor body part, wherein
the rotary component arranged on the first side of the impactor includes a second engaging member (204) configured to engage with the first engaging member, wherein
the impactor further includes: a third engagement member (teeth 208 on right side of 206) provided on a second side of the impactor body part, the second side being opposite to the first side; and
a fourth engagement member (teeth 204 of 200 on the right side of 206) configured to engage with the third engagement member, and wherein the [first] engagement member and the third engagement member protrude from the impactor body part in opposite directions each other (shown in FIG. 15).
Regarding claim 19:
Moore teaches the driver according to claim 19, as discussed above, further comprising: a controller (22) configured to control the motor to drive the rotary component; and an actuator (second motor described in [0049]) configured to operate the fourth engagement member in response to a signal from the controller, the actuator being arranged on the second side of the impactor body part ([0049], see FIG. 15).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda, as applied above, and further in view of Leimbach US 2009/0090762.
Regarding claim 4:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising: a detection element configured to rotate together with the body part; and a rotation angle sensor configured to detect a rotating position of the detection element.
Leimbach discloses a related driver having a detection element (114) configured to rotate together with the body part (100); and a rotation angle sensor (130) configured to detect a rotating position of the detection element ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the driver of Oda, by providing a detection element configured to rotate together with the body part; and a rotation angle sensor configured to detect a rotating position of the detection element, as taught by Leimbach, since this detection would allow for better control of the device.
Regarding claim 12:
Oda teaches the driver according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach the driver further comprises: a piston connected to the impactor; a cylinder in which the piston travels in the first direction and the second direction; and a compression chamber configured to be filled with a gas for moving the piston in the first direction.
Leimbach discloses a related driver that further includes a piston (80) connected to the impactor; a cylinder (71) in which the piston travels in the first direction and the second direction; and a compression chamber (74) configured to be filled with a gas for moving the piston in the first direction ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the driver of Oda by providing a piston connected to the impactor; a cylinder in which the piston travels in the first direction and the second direction; and a compression chamber configured to be filled with a gas for moving the piston in the first direction, as taught by Leimbach, since Leimbach teaches the “pressure of the gas in the combined main storage chamber 74 and displacement volume 76 is sufficiently high to quickly force the driver 90 downward, and such pneumatic means is typically much faster than a nail driving gun that uses exclusively mechanical means (such as a spring) for driving a fastener.” ([0092]).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Oda and Leimbach teaches the driver according to claim 12, as discussed above, wherein the impactor is configured to move from a first position toward a second position when driving in the first direction, wherein the driver further comprises a controller (Oda, 4) which controls the impactor to move and stop, and wherein the controller is configured to control the impactor stopping between the first position and the second position after driving the fastener ([0071]; alternatively, when 4 is deactivated the impactor may be stopped).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Oda and Leimbach teaches the driver according to claim 12, as discussed above, but does not teach further comprising a latch configured to engage with the impactor to avoid the impactor from moving toward the second position, and disengage with the impactor when the impactor moves toward the first position.
Leimbach, however, also discloses a latch (120) configured to engage with the impactor to avoid the impactor from moving toward the second position (see FIG. 4), and disengage with the impactor when the impactor moves toward the first position (see FIGS. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the driver of the combination of Oda and Leimbach, by providing a latch configured to engage with the impactor to avoid the impactor from moving toward the second position, and disengage with the impactor when the impactor moves toward the first position, since Leimbach teaches the “latch is controlled to move into either an interfering position or a non-interfering position with respect to the driver protrusions, and acts as a safety device, by preventing the driver from making a full driving stroke at an improper time” (abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, as applied above, and further in view of Oda et al. US 2007/0210134.
Regarding claim 20:
Moore teaches the driver according to claim 19, as discussed above, wherein the rotary component further includes a body part (200) supporting the second engaging member (see FIG. 15).
Moore does not teach wherein the body part includes first and second supporting parts spaced apart in an axial direction of the drive shaft, wherein the second engaging member includes a pin supported by the first supporting part and the second supporting part, and wherein the first engaging member extends between the first and second supporting parts.
Oda discloses a related driver wherein the rotary component has a body part (12) that includes first (12A) and second (17A) supporting parts spaced apart in an axial direction of the drive shaft, wherein
the second engaging member includes a pin (12C, as shown in FIG. 5, has a pin-like structure) supported by the first supporting part and the second supporting part ([0051], second to last sentence), and wherein
the first engaging member extends between the first and second supporting parts (envisaged in FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the driver of Moore, by providing the body part with first and second supporting parts spaced apart in an axial direction of the drive shaft, wherein the second engaging member includes a pin supported by the first supporting part and the second supporting part, and wherein the first engaging member extends between the first and second supporting parts, as taught by Oda, since this would afford the rotary component with increased structural stability to support the first and second engaging members in use.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8, and 11 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 does not teach or render obvious a retainer configured to prevent the pin detach from the rotary component (claim 2); the Nth pin has a diameter greater than diameters of other pins (claim 8); and the body part has a guide hole, the pin being movably held in the guide hole (claim 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731