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 29 May 2026.
Claims 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 are pending.
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 16 – 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1).
[AltContent: textbox (Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1) – Annotated fig. 2)]
Regarding claim 1, Voegele discloses a staple comprising:
a pair of legs (21, 22, fig. 2) extending approximately parallel to each other in a longitudinal direction (axis L, fig. 2);
a crown (14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, fig. 2) connected to base ends of the pair of legs, the crown defining a width greater than a separation distance between the pair of legs (Figure 2 shows the width between the first and second interior surfaces 25, 26 being greater than the separation distance between the interior surface of the first and second leg arms 21, 22) and centrally located on the crown in a width direction (As shown in figure 2); wherein
each tip (19, 20, fig. 2) of the pair of legs has an inclined surface (inclined surfaces A, B, annotated fig. 2) that is inclined with respect to the longitudinal direction, the inclined surface of one leg of the pair of legs facing in a first lateral direction, and the inclined surface of the other leg of the pair of legs facing in a second lateral direction opposite to the first lateral direction (As shown in annotated fig. 2), such that when the staple is driven into a workpiece, the pair of legs extend in opposite lateral directions relative to the longitudinal direction (As shown in figures 7 – 9), and
a planar top surface (16, fig. 2) has a width that is less than the separation distance between the pair of legs in the width direction (As shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Voegele discloses the driving tool (31, figs. 7 – 9) includes a driver (35, figs. 7 – 9) having a driving surface (flat surface on one end of an applier push rod 35, figs. 7 – 9) oriented substantially perpendicular to a driving direction and configured to surface-connect the planar top surface (16, fig. 2) of the staple.
Regarding claim 16, Voegele discloses a staple comprising:
a pair of legs (21, 22, fig. 2) extending approximately parallel to each other in a longitudinal direction (L, fig. 2);
a crown (14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, fig. 2) connected to base ends of the pair of legs, the crown defining a width greater than a separation distance between the pair of legs (Figure 2 shows the width between the first and second interior surfaces 25, 26 being greater than the separation distance between the interior surface of the first and second leg arms 21, 22); and
a planar top surface (16, fig. 2) defined on the crown forming a first linear portion and oriented away from the pair of legs, the planar top surface centrally located on the crown in a width direction (As shown in figure 2), wherein:
the crown further includes a first curved portion (29, 30, fig. 2) extending from the planar top surface and bulging in a width direction, and a second linear portion (portions C, D, fig. 2) that defines a widest part of the crown,
each tip (19, 20, fig. 2) of the pair of legs has an inclined surface (inclined surfaces A, B, annotated fig. 2) that is inclined with respect to the longitudinal direction, the inclined surface of one leg of the pair of legs facing in a first lateral direction, and the inclined surface of the other leg of the pair of legs facing in a second lateral direction opposite to the first lateral direction (As shown in annotated fig. 2), such that when the staple is driven into a workpiece, the pair of legs extend in opposite lateral directions relative to the longitudinal direction (As shown in figures 7 – 9), and
the planar top surface has a width that is less than the separation distance between the pair of legs in the width direction (As shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 17, Voegele discloses the second linear portion includes a planar guide surface (the outer surfaces of portions C, D, annotated fig. 2) that faces outwardly in the width direction and extends in a direction in which the pair of legs extends (As shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 20, Voegele discloses the driving tool (31, figs. 7 – 9) includes a driver (35, figs. 7 – 9) having a driving surface (flat surface on one end of an applier push rod 35, figs. 7 – 9) oriented substantially perpendicular to a driving direction and configured to surface-connect the planar top surface (16, fig. 2) of the staple.
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 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1) in view of Carroll (US 1,574,790 A).
Regarding claim 2, Voegele discloses the invention are recited in claim 1.
Voegele does not explicitly disclose each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction.
Carroll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches each of the pair of legs (7, fig. 1) comprises a barb (9, fig. 1) that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown (5, fig. 1) protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction.
Carroll is evidence that having each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the staple of Voegele with each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction, as taught by Carlsson. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the staple of Voegele with each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction, as taught by Carlsson, in order to better engage the workpiece (Pg. 1, ll. 64 – 83).
Regarding claim 19, Voegele discloses the invention are recited in claim 16.
Voegele does not explicitly disclose each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, the barb being centrally located on each of the pair of legs in a front-rear direction, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs.
Carroll, in the same field of endeavor, teaches each of the pair of legs (6, fig. 1) comprises a barb (9, fig. 1) that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, the barb being centrally located on each of the pair of legs in a front-rear direction (Figure 1 shows two sets of barbs 9 facing outwardly of shanks 6 wherein the last barb of the upper set of barbs 9 is centrally located (“near the center” – Merriam Webster dictionary) on the shank 6) and the crown (5, fig. 1) protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction.
Carroll is evidence that having each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the staple of Voegele with each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction, as taught by Carlsson. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the staple of Voegele with each of the pair of legs comprises a barb that protrudes outwardly and away from each other, and the crown protrudes outwardly beyond the barbs in the width direction, as taught by Carlsson, in order to better engage the workpiece (Pg. 1, ll. 64 – 83).
Claims 3, 5, and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1).
PNG
media_image1.png
275
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1) – Annotated fig. 2)][AltContent: arc]
Regarding claim 3, Voegele discloses the invention recited in claim 1.
Voegele discloses a width of the planar top surface (16, fig.2).
Voegele does not explicitly disclose a width of the planar top surface is within a range from one-sixth to two-thirds of the maximum width of the crown.
However, the width of the planar top surface determines the maximum holding power of staple wherein the advantages of a shorter width planar top surface are reduced visibility and better precision fastening which allows for more accurate placement in detailed work, such as cabinetry or upholstery. Thus, the width of the planar top surface is a result-effective variable which achieves the recognized result of maximizing the holding power and precision of the staple and the minimizing its visibility.
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 width of the planar top surface to be within a range from one-sixth to two-thirds of the maximum width of the crown in order to maximize the holding power and precision of the staple and the minimize its visibility because it has been held “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).
Regarding claim 5, Voegele discloses the invention recited in claim 3.
Voegele discloses the crown (14, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, fig. 2) includes a curved portion (29, 30, fig. 2) bulging in the width direction and extending from the planar top surface (16, fig. 2) to a maximum width portion of the crown or toward a region of the maximum width portion of the crown.
Regarding claim 14, Voegele discloses the invention recited in claim 5.
Voegele discloses the crown further includes a straight portion (portions C, D, annotated fig. 2), the straight portion forming the maximum width portion of the crown (As shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Voegele discloses the invention recited in claim 5.
Voegele discloses the base ends of the pair of legs (21, 22, fig. 2) extend toward respective curved portions (curved portions between straight leg arms 21, 22 and camming marker surfaces 23, 24) at an angle greater than 90 degrees (As shown in annotated figure 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1) in view of Carlsson (US 2025/0347306 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Voegele discloses an adhesive coating applied to at least a portion of the pair of legs to increase resistance to remove the staple from a workpiece.
Voegele does not explicitly disclose an adhesive coating applied to at least a portion of the pair of legs to increase resistance to remove from a workpiece.
However, Carlsson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an adhesive coating applied to at least a portion of the pair of legs to increase resistance to remove from a workpiece ([0042]).
Carlsson is evidence that having the adhesive coating applied to at least the portion of the pair of legs to increase resistance to remove the staple from a workpiece was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the staple of Voegele with the adhesive coating applied to at least the portion of the pair of legs, as taught by Carlsson. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the staple of Voegele with the adhesive coating applied to at least the portion of the pair of legs, as taught by Carlsson, in order to increase the resistance of the staple to be pulled out of a frame structure ([0042]).
Claims 8 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voegele (US 6,425,903 B1) in view of Lat (US 2005/0053448 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Voegele discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Voegele does not explicitly disclose the staple has a material gauge of 15 gauge or greater.
However, Lat, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the staple has a material gauge of 15 gauge or greater ([0035] describes a method of manufacturing a staple using a 16 gauge stock).
Lat is evidence that having the staple with a material gauge of 15 gauge or greater was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the staple of Voegele with the staple with a material gauge of 15 gauge or greater, as taught by Lat. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the staple of Voegele with the staple with a material gauge of 15 gauge or greater, as taught by Lat, because Voegele is silent regarding the gauge or wire thickness of the staple and thus would look to Lat for this information in order to ensure a secure and lasting fastening result.
Regarding claim 9, Voegele discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Voegele does not explicitly disclose the staple is provided as part of a collated assembly of multiple staples.
However, Lat, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the staple is provided as part of a collated assembly of multiple staples ([0034] describes fasteners 10 being releasably connected together so that they do not break apart during normal handling of strip 34 and tool 6).
Lat is evidence that having the staple provided as part of a collated assembly of multiple staples was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the staple of Voegele with the staple provided as part of a collated assembly of multiple staples, as taught by Lat. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the staple of Voegele with the staple provided as part of a collated assembly of multiple staples, as taught by Lat, so that the staples do not break apart during normal handling.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 12 – 13, and 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 29 May 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 2, 10 – 11, and 16 – 20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) the rejections of claims 3 – 9 and 12 – 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Voegele, Carlsson, and Lat.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
12 June 2026
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights