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 in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 3 April 2026.
Claims 1, 3 – 19, and 20 are pending. Claims 2 and 19 are canceled.
This office action provides new grounds of rejection for claims previously indicated as allowable subject matter, thus the office action is non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 19 May 2026 and 5 June 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving member” in claims 1, 16, and 17.
“an energy storage device” in claims 1 and 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierdeman ‘500 (US 2020/0114500 A1).
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (A)]
[AltContent: textbox (Included angle)]
Regarding claim 1, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a fastener driver, comprising:
a striking assembly (22, 26, fig. 5) comprising a piston (22, fig. 5) and a firing pin (26, fig. 5) connected to the piston;
a transmission mechanism (92, fig. 7) comprising a driving member (100, fig. 13) configured to drive the striking assembly to move backward to a top dead center position ([0045] describes a lifter assembly 42 driving a piston 22/driver blade 26 towards a top dead center position wherein [0066] describes a lifter 100 as a component of the lifter assembly having drive pins 276 that engage the driver blade 26 to raise the driver blade 26 to the top dead center position); and
an energy storage device (30, fig. 5) configured to drive the striking assembly to move forward to a bottom dead center position to output an impact force ([0045] describes compressed gas above a piston 22/driver blade 26 and within the storage chamber cylinder 30 drives the piston 22/driver blade 26 to a bottom dead center position in order to drive a fastener via an impact force into a workpiece);
wherein a distance between the top dead center position and the bottom dead center position is defined as a stroke (76, fig. 76) of the striking assembly ([0050] describes a stroke length 76 of a piston 22/driver blade 26 being defined as the distance travelled by the piston 22/driver blade 26 between a top dead center position and a driven or bottom dead center position. [0050] further describes a stroke length being between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches), the fastener driver is configured to drive a fastener within a preset length to move ([0052] describes an impact energy of the fastener driver being sufficient to drive nails of up to 3.5 inches in length into a workpiece wherein the examiner deems the “up to 3.5 inches” as the claimed, “a preset length”), and a ratio of the stroke of the striking assembly to the preset length is less than or equal to 1.5 to 1 (The ratio of the stroke length of 4.1 inches to the preset length of 3.5 inches is 1.2 to 1 wherein the ratio of 1.2 to 1 is within the claimed range of less than or equal to 1.5 to 1).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose the stroke ([0050] further describes a stroke length being between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches, or in other words, between 104 mm and 129 mm).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose that the stroke being less than or equal to 80 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stroke to be less than or equal to 80 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 4, Biederman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Biederman ‘500 discloses the preset length ([0052] describes an impact energy of the fastener driver being sufficient to drive nails of up to 3.5 inches in length into a workpiece wherein the examiner deems the “up to 3.5 inches” as the claimed, “a preset length”) and the firing pin (26, figs. 5, 15A) comprising a toothed portion (portion A, annotated fig. 15A).
Biederman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a length of the toothed portion to the preset length is less than or equal to 1.21 to 1.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stroke to be less than or equal to 80 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 5, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Biederman ‘500 discloses the driving member (100, fig. 1) drives the firing pin (26, fig. 5) to move from the bottom dead center position (As shown in fig. 6A), pass through a switching position (the position where a lifter 100 first engages the last driver pin 276A) and a stop position (As shown in fig. 13 wherein the lifter 100 is engaged with the last driver pin 276A and is held in a stop position by latch 354) in sequence, and move to the top dead center position (As shown in figs. 6B and 14).
Regarding claim 6, Biederman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
Biederman ‘500 discloses a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position (the distance between where the lifter 100 is engaged with the last driver pin 276A and is held in a stop position by latch 354 as shown in fig. 13 and the top dead center position as shown in figs. 6B and 14) and a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position (the distance between where the lifter 100 first engages the last driver pin 276A and the top dead center position as shown in figs. 6B and 14).
Biederman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position being less than 1 to 1.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position and the stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position to be less than 1 to 1 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 7, Biederman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
Biederman ‘500 discloses a stroke distance of the firing pin (26, fig. 5) moving from the switching position (the position where a lifter 100 first engages the last driver pin 276A) to the top dead center position (As shown in figs. 6B and 14).
Biederman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position being greater than or equal to 3.7 mm and less than or equal to 4.8 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position to be greater than or equal to 3.7 mm and less than or equal to 4.8 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 8, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position (As shown in fig. 13 wherein the lifter 100 engages the last driver pin 276A and is held in a stop position by latch 354) to the top dead center position (As shown in fig. 6B and 114).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position is greater than or equal to 1.6 mm and less than or equal to 2.6 mm.
However, Bierdeman ‘500 in paragraph [0073] describes an angular distance traveled by a drive pin 276A corresponding to a linear distance traveled by a driver blade 26 from the stop position shown in fig. 13 to the TDC position shown in fig. 14. As such, reducing this angular distance traveled by the drive pin 276A and the corresponding linear distance traveled by the driver blade 26 after a user pulls a trigger 48 also reduces the time it takes for the driver blade 26 to fire after the user initiates a firing cycle by pulling the trigger 48. Thus, the angular distance traveled by the drive pin 276A/linear distance traveled by the driver blade 26 is a result effective variable with the predictable result of varying the time it takes for the driver blade 26 to fire after the user initiates a firing cycle.
Therefore, given these teachings of Bierdeman ‘500, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position to be greater than or equal to 1.6 mm and less than or equal to 2.6 mm because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). That is, the one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary the linear distance traveled by the driver blade 26 of Bierdeman ‘500 to discover the optimum or workable ranges of this linear distance in order to find the optimum or workable ranges of the time it takes for the driver blade 26 to fire after the user initiates a firing cycle.
Regarding claim 9, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
Biederman discloses a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position (the distance between where the lifter 100 is engaged with the last driver pin 276A and is held in a stop position by latch 354 as shown in fig. 13 and the top dead center position as shown in figs. 6B and 14) and a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position (the distance between where the lifter 100 first engages the last driver pin 276A and the top dead center position as shown in figs. 6B and 14).
Biederman does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position to a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position being greater than or equal to 0.5 to 1 and less than or equal to 0.9 to 1.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the stop position to the top dead center position to a stroke distance of the firing pin moving from the switching position to the top dead center position being greater than or equal to 0.5 to 1 and less than or equal to 0.9 to 1 during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 10, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 5.
Biederman discloses the firing pin (26, figs. 5, 15A) comprises a body portion (the body of firing pin 26, fig. 15A) extending along a direction of a first straight line (38, fig. 15A) and a plurality of meshing teeth (310, fig. 15A) disposed on the body portion, the driving member (100, fig. 13) comprises a plurality of driving teeth (276, fig. 13) configured to mesh with the firing pin to drive the firing pin, and the plurality of meshing teeth comprise a first meshing tooth (276A, fig. 13) that stops the firing pin at the stop position (As shown in fig. 13 wherein the lifter 100 engages the last driver pin 276A and is held in a stop position by latch 354).
Regarding claim 11, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 10.
Biederman discloses the first meshing tooth (276A, fig. 13) and a driving tooth (One of the other drive pins 276, fig. 13) of the plurality of driving teeth (276, fig. 13) are in contact at a contact point (The examiner interprets the limitation to mean that each of the first meshing tooth and the driving tooth have separate and distinct contact points. As shown in fig. 5 wherein a lifter 100 engages the first driver pin 276 at a contact point and as shown in fig. 13 wherein the lifter 100 engages the last driver pin 276A at a contact point) and generate a force perpendicular to a tangent at the contact point (As shown in annotated fig. 15B), and when the firing pin (26, figs. 5, 15A) moves from the switching position (As shown in fig. 5 wherein a lifter 100 engages the first driver pin 276) to the top dead center position (As shown in figs. 6B and 14), an included angle (angle A, fig. 15B) between a direction of the force and the direction of the first straight line (38, fig. 15A) gradually increases (Figure 15B shows a flat, slanted surface on teeth 310 with a rounded top wherein the included angle gradually increases about the rounded top of the teeth 310).
Regarding claim 12, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a guide assembly (330, fig. 5) configured to guide the fastener to move ([0058]).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a length of the guide assembly is less than or equal to 108 mm.
However, Bierdeman ‘500 in paragraph [0072] describes that a nosepiece guide 330 forms a firing channel 334 in communication with a fastener channel 336 of the magazine 14 and thus is sized according to the size of fasteners to be used in the fastener driver. Thus, the length of the guide assembly is a result effective variable with the predictable result of dictating the size of the fastener to be used in the fastener driver.
Therefore, given these teachings of Bierdeman ‘500, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the guide assembly to be less than or equal to 108 mm because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). That is, the one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary the length of the guide assembly of Bierdeman ‘500 to discover the optimum or workable ranges of this length in order to find the optimum or workable ranges of the sizes of fasteners to be used in the fastener driver.
Regarding claim 13, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a length of the fastener driver in a front direction and a rear direction (As shown in fig. 1).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction to be less than or equal to 295 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction to be less than or equal to 295 mm because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device if the prior art device having these claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art fastener driver of Bierdeman ‘500 and the claims is the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction being less than or equal to 295 mm. Additionally, there is no evidence that if the prior art fastener driver of Bierdeman ‘500 had the claimed length in the front direction and the rear direction being less than or equal to 295 mm, it would not perform differently than the prior art as described in Bierdeman ‘500. Thus, the claimed fastener device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Bierdeman ‘500.
Regarding claim 14, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the energy storage device (30, fig. 5) comprises a first cylinder (18, fig. 5) accommodating at least part of the piston (22, fig. 5), the first cylinder comprises a first inner wall (inner wall of cylinder 18, fig. 5) in contact with the piston, the first inner wall has a circular first cross section ([0051] describes a diameter for the cylinder 18 implying a circular cross section wherein this diameter for the cylinder 18 is equal to 1.732 inches), and a ratio of a stroke (76, fig. 76) of the firing pin (26, fig. 5) to a diameter of the first cross section is greater than or equal to 1.7 to 1 and less than or equal to 2.8 to 1 ([0050] describes a stroke length is between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches. Thus, the ratio of the diameter of 1.732 inches to the stroke length of 4.1 inches equals 2.3 to 1 wherein the ratio of 2.3 to 1 is within the claimed ratio of greater than or equal to 1.7 to 1 and less than or equal to 2.8 to 1).
Regarding claim 15, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
Biederman ‘500 discloses a product of the first cross section ([0051] describes the diameter of the cylinder 18 of 1.732 inches. Using the formula of Area = π(0.5d)2, the cross section would equal 2.356 in2 (15.2 cm2)) and the stroke ([0050] describes a stroke length is between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches (10.4 cm and 12.7 cm)) is defined as gas displacement (The product of the cross section of 15.2 cm2 and the stroke length of 10.4 cm is 158.08 cm3), and a ratio of a striking energy outputted by the fastener driver to the gas displacement is greater than or equal to 0.3 J to 1 cm3 and less than or equal to 0.7 J to 1 cm3 ([0052] describes the fastener driver 10 capable of performing at least 15 J and up to 120 J of impact energy upon a fastener during a fastener driving operation. Given an impact energy of 100 J, which is within the range of 15 J to 120 J, the ratio of the impact energy of 100 J to the gas displacement of 158.08 cm3 equals 0.63 to 1 wherein the ratio of 0.63 to 1 is within the claimed ratio of greater than or equal to 0.3 J to 1 cm3 and less than or equal to 0.7 J to 1 cm3).
Regarding claim 16, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a fastener driver, comprising:
a striking assembly (22, 26, fig. 5) comprising a piston (22, fig. 5) and a firing pin (26, fig. 5) connected to the piston;
a transmission mechanism (92, fig. 7) comprising a driving member (100, fig. 13) configured to drive the striking assembly to move backward to a top dead center position ([0045] describes a lifter assembly 42 driving a piston 22/driver blade 26 towards a top dead center position wherein [0066] describes a lifter 100 as a component of the lifter assembly having drive pins 276 that engage the driver blade 26 to raise the driver blade 26 to the top dead center position); and
an energy storage device (30, fig. 5) configured to drive the striking assembly to move forward to a bottom dead center position to output an impact force ([0045] describes compressed gas above a piston 22/driver blade 26 and within the storage chamber cylinder 30 drives the piston 22/driver blade 26 to a bottom dead center position in order to drive a fastener via an impact force into a workpiece).
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a length of the fastener driver in a front direction and a rear direction (As shown in fig. 1).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction to be less than or equal to 295 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction to be less than or equal to 295 mm because it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device if the prior art device having these claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the only difference between the prior art fastener driver of Bierdeman ‘500 and the claims is the length of the fastener driver in the front direction and the rear direction being less than or equal to 295 mm. Additionally, there is no evidence that if the prior art fastener driver of Bierdeman ‘500 had the claimed length in the front direction and the rear direction being less than or equal to 295 mm, it would not perform differently than the prior art as described in Bierdeman ‘500. Thus, the claimed fastener device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device of Bierdeman ‘500.
Biederman ‘500 further discloses the preset length ([0052] describes an impact energy of the fastener driver being sufficient to drive nails of up to 3.5 inches in length into a workpiece wherein the examiner deems the “up to 3.5 inches” as the claimed, “a preset length”) and the firing pin (26, figs. 5, 15A) comprising a toothed portion (portion A, annotated fig. 15A).
Biederman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a length of the toothed portion to the preset length is less than or equal to 1.21 to 1.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stroke to be less than or equal to 80 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio.
Regarding claim 17, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a fastener driver, comprising:
a striking assembly (22, 26, fig. 5) comprising a piston (22, fig. 5) and a firing pin (26, fig. 5) connected to the piston;
a transmission mechanism (92, fig. 7) comprising a driving member (100, fig. 13) configured to drive the striking assembly to move backward to a top dead center position ([0045] describes a lifter assembly 42 driving a piston 22/driver blade 26 towards a top dead center position wherein [0066] describes a lifter 100 as a component of the lifter assembly having drive pins 276 that engage the driver blade 26 to raise the driver blade 26 to the top dead center position); and
an energy storage device (30, fig. 5) configured to drive the striking assembly to move forward to a bottom dead center position to output an impact force ([0045] describes compressed gas above a piston 22/driver blade 26 and within the storage chamber cylinder 30 drives the piston 22/driver blade 26 to a bottom dead center position in order to drive a fastener via an impact force into a workpiece), wherein the energy storage device comprises a first cylinder (18, fig. 5) accommodating at least part of the piston, the first cylinder comprises a first inner wall (inner wall of cylinder 18, fig. 5) in contact with the piston, and the first inner wall has a circular first cross section ([0051] describes a diameter for the cylinder 18 implying a circular cross section wherein this diameter for the cylinder 18 is approximately equal to 1.732 inches);
wherein a distance between the top dead center position and the bottom dead center position is defined as a stroke (76, fig. 76) of the striking assembly ([0050] describes a stroke length 76 of a piston 22/driver blade 26 being defined as the distance travelled by the piston 22/driver blade 26 between a top dead center position and a driven or bottom dead center position. [0050] further describes a stroke length is between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches),
and a ratio of a stroke of the firing pin to a diameter of the first cross section is greater than or equal to 1.7 to 1 and less than or equal to 2.8 to 1 (The ratio of the stroke length of 4.1 inches to the diameter of 1.732 inches equals 2.4 to 1 wherein the ratio of 2.4 to 1 is within the claimed ratio of greater than or equal to 1.7 to 1 and less than or equal to 2.8 to 1).
Biederman ‘500 discloses the diameter of the first cross section ([0051] describes the diameter of cylinder 18 to be approximately equal to 1.732 inches or, in other words, 44 mm).
Biederman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first cross section being greater than or equal to 28 mm and less than or equal to 36 mm.
However, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter of the first cross section to be greater than or equal to 28 mm and less than or equal to 36 mm during routine engineering experimentation and practices to find the optimum or workable ranges of this length.
Regarding claim 18, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 17.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the energy storage device comprises a second cylinder, at least part of the first cylinder is accommodated in the second cylinder, the second cylinder comprises a second inner wall, the second inner wall has a circular second cross section.
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the diameter of the first cross section to a diameter of the second cross section is greater than or equal to 0.6 to 1 and less than or equal to 0.7 to 1.
However, Bierdeman ‘500 in paragraph [0047] describes that the compression ratio is defined as the ratio of the second total volume to the first total volume wherein the ratio of the second total volume to the first total volume are directly proportional to the ratio of diameter of the second cross section to the diameter of the first cross section, respectively. That is, Compression ratio = Volumesecond/Volumefirst = π(diametersecond/2)height / π(diameterfirst/2)height. Thus, the ratio of the diameter of the first cross section to a diameter of the second cross section is a result effective variable with the predictable result of varying the compression ratio of the fastener device.
Therefore, given the teachings of Bierdeman ‘500 it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ratio of the diameter of the first cross section to a diameter of the second cross section is greater than or equal to 0.6 to 1 and less than or equal to 0.7 to 1 because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). That is, the one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary the ratio of the diameter of the first cross section to a diameter of the second cross section to discover the optimum or workable ranges of this ratio in order to find the optimum or workable ranges of the compression ratio of the fastener device.
Regarding claim 20, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 17.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a product of the first cross section ([0051] describes the diameter of the cylinder 18 of 1.732 inches. Using the formula of Area = π(0.5d)2, the cross section would equal 2.356 in2 (15.2 cm2)) and the stroke ([0050] describes a stroke length is between 4.1 inches and 5.1 inches (10.4 cm and 12.7 cm)) is defined as gas displacement (The product of the cross section of 15.2 cm2 and the stroke length of 10.4 cm is 158.08 cm3), and a ratio of a striking energy outputted by the fastener driver to the gas displacement is greater than or equal to 0.3 J to 1 cm3 and less than or equal to 0.7 J to 1 cm3 ([0052] describes the fastener driver 10 capable of performing at least 15 J and up to 120 J of impact energy upon a fastener during a fastener driving operation. Given an impact energy of 100 J, which is within the range of 15 J to 120 J, the ratio of the impact energy of 100 J to the gas displacement of 158.08 cm3 equals 0.63 to 1 wherein the ratio of 0.63 to 1 is within the claimed ratio of greater than or equal to 0.3 J to 1 cm3 and less than or equal to 0.7 J to 1 cm3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierdeman ‘500 (US 2020/0114500 A1) in view of Goldring (US 3,035,268).
Regarding claim 3, Bierdeman ‘500 discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Bierdeman ‘500 discloses a length of the firing pin (26, figs. 5, 15A).
Bierdeman ‘500 does not explicitly disclose a length of the firing pin being less than or equal to 165 mm.
However, Goldring, in the same field of endeavor, teaches in col. 8, ll. 18 – 28 that the length of the firing pin directly relates to the size of the fasteners to be used in the fastener driver. Thus, the length of the firing pin is a result effective variable with the predictable result of dictating the size of the fastener to be used in the fastener driver.
Therefore, given the teachings of Goldring, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the firing pin of Bierdeman ‘500 to be less than or equal to 165 mm because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). That is, the one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to vary the length of the firing pin of Bierdeman ‘500 to discover the optimum or workable ranges of this length in order to find the optimum or workable ranges of the sizes of fasteners to be used in the fastener driver.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4 April 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 1, 13, 15 – 16, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1, 13, 15 – 16, and 20 have been withdrawn.
After further consideration, the examiner withdraws the indication of allowable subject matter of claims 2, 4, 6 – 7, 9, and 19 and submits new grounds of rejection made in view of Bierdeman ‘500.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
26 June 2026
Prosecution Insights