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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/16/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/16/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of “the rolling element projects further from the groove toward the biasing member as the rolling element moves in a direction opposite to the striking direction” renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear what is meant by moving “in a direction opposite to the striking direction”. The claim does not specify the reference with respect to which the rolling element moves in the recited direction, i.e. relative to the tool body, to the groove or merely rolling or rotating resulting from relative movement between the rolling element and another component.
In claim 11, the limitation of “legs adjacent to each other” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10, 13-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshiyama et al. (2024/0066672) in view of Wang et al. (8,695,860).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Hoshiyama discloses a driving tool (Fig. 1), comprising: a drive channel (20a) through which fasteners are supplied (Fig. 4); a movable member (40) that moves between a protruding position (Fig. 4) protruding into the drive channel and a retracted position (Fig. 6) retracted from the drive channel in a direction away from a feed-side of the fasteners; and a driver (15) configured to strike the fasteners, wherein the movable member (40) is configured to contact a struck fastener so as to correct an orientation of the fastener, and wherein the movable member (40) is configured to move from the protruding position to the retracted position upon being pushed by the fastener, but fails to disclose wherein the fastener is a staple. Wang discloses a staple driving tool having a staple guiding arrangement for the purposes of properly positioning the staples during driving operation, thereby preventing crooked driving or jamming. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Hoshiyama’s driving tool to accommodate staples as taught by Wang because staples are a known alternative type of fasteners for driving tools and the modification would permit the tool to drive and guide staples while obtaining the known benefit of maintaining proper fastener orientation and reducing crooked and jamming.
Regarding claim 2, Hoshiyama discloses a biasing member (25; Fig. 4) configured to bias the movable member (40) toward the protruding position.
Regarding claim 3, Hoshiyama discloses a rolling element (24) provided between the biasing member and the movable member.
Regarding claim 4, Hoshiyama discloses wherein the movable member (40) includes a groove (40c) into which the rolling element (24) is inserted.
Regarding claim 6, Hoshiyama discloses wherein the biasing member is a spring but fails to disclose a leaf spring. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a leaf spring for Hoshiyama’s spring because leaf springs and coil springs are well known alternative spring structures for providing a biasing force to a movable member. Such substitution would have yielded predictable results of a simple substitution of one known element for another to bias the movable member toward the protruding position.
Regarding claim 7, Hoshiyama discloses wherein a base portion of the spring (25) in the striking direction of the driver is supported by a tool body (22), and a front portion of the spring in the striking direction pushes the movable member.
Regarding claim 10, Hoshiyama discloses wherein the driver (15) includes a receiving groove (not shown numerically) that extends in the striking direction and allows the movable member to move relative to the driver without interference (Figs. 4-7).
Regarding claims 13-15 and 17-19, Hoshiyama also discloses a compression spring (i.e. air spring) and a contact arm (22, 22a); a hollow portion (not shown numerically) in which at least a part of an interface mechanism (i.e. spring 25, movable member 40 and rolling element 24) is inserted; and a friction-reducing interface (rolling 24).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshiyama et al. (2024/0066672) in view of Wang et al. (8,695,860), as applied above in claim 1, and further in view of Nettleton (11,913,483).
Regarding claim 11, the modified invention of Hoshiyama discloses a driving tool for driving staples arranged side by side and connected via a connecting portion as taught by Wang, but fails to disclose wherein the connecting portion comprises gaps between legs adjacent to each other in a feed direction, and wherein the staples are fed one by one into the drive channel. Nettleton teaches an arrangement of a plurality of staples connected to each other with gaps between the staples (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the staple arrangement of Hoshiyama, as modified by Wang, to provide a gap between adjacent staples, as taught by Nettleton, because spacing adjacent staples is known arrangement for positioning individual staples relative to one another. Such a modification would have amounted to the application of a known staple-spacing arrangement to the known staple-driving system to obtain the predictable result of maintaining the desired separation and positioning between adjacent staples.
Regarding claim 12, Nettleton also discloses wherein the staple has a U-shaped body made of metal and a covering body (18) made of resin (plastic) configured to cover at least a portion of a crown of the U-shaped body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 8-9 and 16 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: The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the claimed combination including the following features:
Regarding claim 8, an advance and retract path for the movable member, wherein a front wall of the advance and retract path in the striking direction includes a guide slope extending in a staple feed direction toward the striking direction of the driver.
Regarding claim 16, an adjustment mechanism configured to adjust a magnitude of a biasing force applied by the biasing member to the movable member.
Regarding claim 20, wherein the groove has a depth that varies along a striking direction such that the rolling element projects from the groove toward the biasing member by a varying amount depending on a position of the rolling element within the groove, and wherein, when the movable member moves toward the retracted position, the 25 rolling element moves relative to the groove to a position where the rolling element 5 projects further toward the biasing member to increase a spacing between the movable member and the biasing member.
The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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 at (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 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.
/MICHELLE LOPEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
