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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the amendments filed of 9/11/2026. Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15-16 have been amended.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
The “driver blade guide” in claims 1 and 16 and corresponding to element 110 which comprises ledges 112, shoulders, 116, and engagement surface 130.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 1-5, 7, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hung (US 2019/0077000 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hung discloses a tool comprising: a housing (see annotated Fig. 1 below) having a drive channel (as can be seen in Fig. 1 there is channel in which driver member 23 travels); a nosepiece assembly (300 – Fig. 1) connected to a forward end of the housing and having a nose portion (32 – Fig. 2) that extends in a longitudinal direction and a nose door (311 – Fig. 4) pivotably connected to the nose portion (see Fig. 4); a driver member (the assembly of 22 and 23 – Fig. 1) provided in the housing and configured for movement within the drive channel from an extended position (the position of the assembly of 22 and 23 in Fig. 7) to drive a lead fastener through the nosepiece assembly and into a workpiece during a drive stroke (para. 0038) to a returned position and a home position (the position of the assembly of 22 and 23 in Fig. 5) during a return stroke (para. 0039), the driver member having a driver body (22 – Fig. 1) and a connected driver blade (23 – Fig. 1) configured to contact a head portion of the lead fastener (para. 0038); and a driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 below) mounted to the nose portion and configured to engage the driver blade when the driver member is in the home position (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
550
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
340
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hung further discloses:
Claim 2, the driver blade (23 – Fig. 1) is connected to the driver body (22 – Fig. 1) at a proximal end and comprises a tip portion (the left end of 23 – Fig. 1) at a distal end (see Fig. 1, 23 is connected to 22 at the right end and has a tip at the left end), and wherein the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is configured to engage the tip portion of the driver blade when the driver member is the home position (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
Claim 3, the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is stationary (based on the disclosure it is clear that the driver blade guide does not move relative to 100).
Claim 4, the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) is disposed on the nose portion (32 – Fig. 2) of the nosepiece assembly (as can be seen in annotated Fig. 2 above, the driver blade guide is disposed on 32).
Claim 5, the nose portion (32 – Fig. 2) comprises a pair of flanges (322 – Fig. 2) projecting orthogonally with respect to a longitudinal direction on opposite lateral sides of the nose portion (see Fig. 2, 322 project up orthogonal to the longitudinal direction which runs proximal to distal).
Claim 7, the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) comprises an engagement surface (as seen in annotated Fig. 1 above, the upper surface of the driver blade guide engages the tip of 32) that engages the tip of the driver blade.
Claim 9, the nose door (311 – Fig. 4) is pivotably disposed on the nose portion (32 – Fig. 2) to have an open position (the position of 311 depicted in Fig. 4) and a closed position (the position of 311 depicted in Fig. 1).
Claim 10, the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) has a bifurcated body (as can be seen in Fig. 2, the driver blade guide has a left and a right portion separated by a channel, similar to applicant’s driver blade guide).
Claim 11, the bifurcated body comprises a pair of shoulders (see annotated Fig. 2 above, the two projections having an aperture) that pivotably support the nose door (311 – Fig. 4) on the nose portion (see Fig. 4).
Claim 12, the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2) comprises axially aligned shoulder apertures (see annotated Fig. 2 above, the apertures in the 2 projections on the driver blade guide) through the pair of shoulders (see annotated Fig. 2 above, the two projections having an aperture) for mounting a pivot pin (see Fig. 2, there is an unlabeled pivot pin that is indicated as inserted through the apertures) of the nose door (see Fig. 4).
Claim 15, in both the open position (the position of 311 depicted in Fig. 4) and the closed position (the position of 311 depicted in Fig. 1), the driver blade guide (see annotated Fig. 2 above) remains engaged with the tip of the driver blade (see annotated Fig. 1 above, 23 rests on the driver blade guide, hence it remains engaged whether the nose door is in the open position or the closed position).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is allowed.
Claims 6, 8, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6 and 13, Hung does not disclose flanges on the nose portion between which the driver blade guide is disposed. Regarding claim 8, the engagement surface does not have projections that extend into grooves on the nose door side of the driver blade.
Regarding claim 16, similar to claim 8 above Hung does not disclose that the driver blade body has grooves thereon and the engagement surface comprises projections that extend into the grooves of the driver blade body. While it would not necessarily be unreasonable to modify Hung to include this feature, there is no known reference that would provide the necessary teaching to allow Hung to be modified to include this feature without engaging in impermissible hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Hung does not disclose a nose door pivotably connected to the nose portion and a driver blade guide mounted to the nose portion and configured to engage the driver blade since the driver blade guide of Hung is not mounted to the nose portion that is configured to engage the driver blade.
In response, it is noted that the claim does not recited that the driver blade guide must be mounted to the nose portion that is configured to engage the driver blade. The claim simply recited that the driver blade guide is mounted to the nose portion and the driver blade guide is configured to engage the driver blade when the driver member is in the home position. As can be seen in annotated Fig. 1 above, Hung clearly discloses this. Furthermore, even if the claim required the driver blade guide to be mounted to the nose portion that is configured to engage the driver blade, it is clear from annotated Fig. 2 that Hung discloses this. As can be seen in annotated Fig. 2, the portion in the box is interpreted to be the driver blade guide and it is integral with element 32, the element interpreted to be the nose portion. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wen (US 7182236 B1) discloses a similar tool comprising a driver member (15 – Fig. 2), a nose portion (the portion of 11 below the flanges – Fig. 2), and a driver blade guide (the portion of 11 including the flanges – Fig. 2).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
9/26/2026
