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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 30 September 2025 has been entered. Claims 21-31 and 33 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 31 March 2025, except for a rejection under 35 USC 112(b) repeated below.
Election/Restriction Note
The examiner is not presently making any election of species requirement in view of the current claims being generic to various disclosed species. However, if applicant presents species claims to more than one patentably distinct species of the invention after an Office action on only generic claims, with no restriction requirement, the Office may require the applicant to elect a single species for examination. See MPEP 808.01(a). The examiner notes that the present application includes various species of saw slides, various species of locking mechanisms, and various species of saw stands.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 at lines 5-6 recites, “the left workpiece fence portion and right workpiece fence portion”. This recitation should read either of: -- the left workpiece fence portion and the right workpiece fence portion – and – the left and right workpiece fence portions
Claim 27 at lines 5-6 recites, “the left workpiece fence portion and right workpiece fence portion”. This recitation should read either of: -- the left workpiece fence portion and the right workpiece fence portion – and – the left and right workpiece fence portions
Claim 27 at line 41 recites, “a pinion gear shaft , the pinion gear shaft”. The space before the comma in this recitation should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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:
“an operator controlled locking mechanism” as recited in claim 21 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “locking” and “adapted to fix in place the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “operator controlled” does not describe sufficient structure for performing a locking function because various operator controlled structures such as an alignment mechanism do not perform any locking function); and
“an operator controlled locking mechanism” as recited in claim 27 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “locking” and “adapted to fix in place the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “operator controlled” does not describe sufficient structure for performing a locking function because various operator controlled structures such as an alignment mechanism do not perform any locking function).
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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 21-31 and 33 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,040,406 B1 to Young et al. in view of US Pat. No. 7,823,575 B2 to O’Banion.
Regarding present claim 21, claim 1 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 21, except for the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism including an operator controlled rotator to perform the linear traversing, that the pinion gear shaft is operatively connected to the operator controlled rotator, the operator controlled rotator attached to a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft, and that the movement of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member is with the operator controlled rotator as required by present claim 21. Regarding the feature “the miter saw mount member adapted to operatively attach and fix the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member to a saw stand mount member” as required by present claim 21, this feature is disclosed by claim 1 of Young because Young discloses that the at least one gear rack is mounted to bottom surface of the miter saw mount member and the at least one pinion gear is fixed to the saw stand mount member, where the at least one pinion gear rotatably engages with the at least one gear rack – when the pinion gear is not rotating, the pinion gear fixes the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member. Note that claim 1 of Young discloses that the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism moves the miter saw along a traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis, which discloses the movement of the miter saw and miter saw mount member as required by present claim 21 even if different language is used to describe the movement. That is, the same movement required by present claim 21 is disclosed in claim 1 of Young, albeit with differences in phrasing.
Regarding present claim 22, claim 2 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 22.
Regarding present claim 23, claim 3 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 23.
Regarding present claim 24, claim 4 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 24.
Regarding present claim 25, claim 6 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 25.
Regarding present claim 26, claim 5 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 26.
Regarding present claim 27, claim 7 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 27, except for the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism including an operator controlled rotator to perform the linear traversing, wherein the pinion gear shaft is operatively connected to the operator controlled rotator, that the pinion gear is attached to the pinion gear shaft first longitudinal end, the operator controlled rotator attached to a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft, and that the movement of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member is with the operator controlled rotator.
Regarding the feature “the miter saw mount member adapted to operatively attach and fix the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member to a saw stand mount member” as required by present claim 27, this feature is disclosed by claim 7 of Young because Young discloses that the at least one gear rack is mounted to bottom surface of the miter saw mount member and the at least one pinion gear is fixed to the saw stand mount member, where the at least one pinion gear rotatably engages with the at least one gear rack – when the pinion gear is not rotating, the pinion gear fixes the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member. Note that claim 7 of Young discloses that the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism moves the miter saw along a traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis, which discloses the movement of the miter saw and miter saw mount member as required by present claim 27 even if different language is used to describe the movement. That is, the same movement required by present claim 27 is disclosed in claim 7 of Young, albeit with differences in phrasing.
Regarding present claim 28, claim 8 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 28.
Regarding present claim 29, claim 9 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 29.
Regarding present claim 30, claim 10 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 30.
Regarding present claim 31, claim 11 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 31.
Regarding present claim 33, claim 13 of Young discloses each feature of present claim 33.
O’Banion teaches an operator controlled saw support and saw positioning system that includes an operator controlled rotator 154 perform the linear traversing (see Fig. 1, where a double-headed arrow adjacent member 19 indicating the linear traversing), and where the operator controlled saw support and saw position system further includes a rack 376, a pinion 340, a pinion shaft 150 including a first longitudinal end and a second longitudinal end (ends at the pinion gear 340 visible in Fig. 3 and the rotator 154 relative to Fig. 3, respectively), the first longitudinal end operatively connected to the at least one pinion gear 340 (i.e., the pinion gear 340 visible in Fig. 3) and the second end operatively attached to the operator controlled rotator 154 (see Fig. 3), where a user rotates the rotator 154 to produce a linear movement of a saw support (including structures 16 and 17) and a saw unit 13 (see Figs. 2 and 3). Providing the operator controlled system of O’Banion with the rotator is advantageous because the rotator allows a user to provide an input rotational force when a linear movement of the saw support and saw unit is desired.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of claims 1 and 7 of Young with an operator controlled rotator connected to an opposing end of the shaft from the pinion gear in view of the teachings of O’Banion in order to allow a user to produce desired linear motion of the saw. That is, prior to this modification, claims 1 and 7 fail to expressly disclose any structure that actually allows for the ‘operator controlled’ feature of the alignment mechanism, and this modification provides a rotator that allows a user to control the alignment mechanism by rotating the pinion gear to drive movement of the rack.
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(s) 21-31 and 33 is/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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the fixed bottom surface of the saw stand mount member" in each of lines 30 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 21 indefinite. First, it is unclear whether this recitation intends to introduce a new surface (as suggested by the fact that no ‘fixed bottom surface’ of the saw stand mount member is previously introduced), or whether this recitation intends to refer to a previously introduced surface (as suggested by the use of “the” to refer to the surface). Second, in view of the fact that “[i]nherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in the recitation of the elements themselves” (see MPEP 2173.05(e)), it is unclear whether the recitation “the fixed bottom surface” intends to be an implicit acknowledgement that a saw stand mount member inherently has a fixed bottom surface. That is, is unclear whether the Applicant believes a fixed bottom surface to be an inherent component of a saw stand mount member. Even if this is assumed to be the case, it is unclear whether claim 21 permits the saw stand mount member to have a shape that comprises two bottom surfaces (such as if the saw stand mount member’s lowest portion is defined by two rectangular projections that are slightly spaced apart from one another, such that each of the two projections defines a respective bottom surface). If a saw stand mount member has two bottom surfaces, it is unclear which of these surfaces is referred to by “the fixed bottom surface”. This suggests that, if Applicant believes there to be an inherent antecedent basis for “the fixed bottom surface”, it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to limit the saw stand mount member to having only a single bottom surface. For these reasons, the lack of antecedent basis for “the fixed bottom surface” renders claim 21 indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the recitation as at line 30 as being satisfied by either of line 30 introducing a new bottom surface and line 30 referring to a previously introduced surface, and the examiner further interprets the recitation at line 31 as referring to the same surface as line 30.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the fixed bottom surface of the saw stand mount member" in each of lines 30 and 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis renders claim 27 indefinite for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 21. For examination purposes, the same interpretation applied to claim 21 is considered applicable to claim 27.
Claim 27 at lines 45-46 recites, “the at least one pinion gear attached to the pinion gear shaft first longitudinal end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the pinion gear shaft first longitudinal end” in the claim, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the recitation “the pinion gear shaft first longitudinal end” intends to introduce a new longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft, or whether the recitation inadvertently includes the phrase “first longitudinal end” such that the recitation is intended to refer only to “the pinion gear shaft”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the recitation as introducing a new first longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft. Furthermore, claim 27 is indefinite because the claim at lines 48-49 introduces, “a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft”, and the relationship between the longitudinal end of lines 48-49 and the longitudinal end of lines 45-46 is unclear. Are the two permitted to be the same longitudinal end, or must the end of lines 48-49 be an end in addition to the previously introduced end of lines 45-46? For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the ‘first longitudinal end’ as being a distinct end relative to the “longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft” as recited in lines 48-49.
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.
Claims 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 8,191,449 B2 to Wiezorek in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0131306 A1 to Snider, US Pub. No. 2004/0250901 A1 to Ursell et al., US Pat. No. 7,823,575 B2 to O’Banion et al., and US Pub. No. 2005/0006002 A1 to Barclay deTolly, as evidenced by 3 Advantages of Aluminum Extrusion Frames Over Welded Steel by Emily Park for Izumi International (obtained from info.izumiinternational.com on 7 February 2023; hereinafter referred to as “Izumi International”).
Regarding claim 21, Wiezorek discloses a traversing miter saw table 10, a miter saw 400 (see Fig. 4) and a miter saw stand 700 combination (see Figs. 7 and 8) comprising:
the miter saw 400 including a workpiece table 410, a circular saw blade (of saw 420 as can be seen in Fig. 4) oriented to crosscut a workpiece positioned on the workpiece table 410 (see Fig. 4), and a workpiece fence 440/450 including a left workpiece fence portion 440 and a right workpiece fence portion 450 (see Fig. 4; ‘left’ and ‘right’ are interpreted in the same manner the terms are used in the present application), the left workpiece fence portion 440 and [the] right workpiece fence portion 450 both extending along a workpiece fence longitudinal axis perpendicular to a zero degree crosscut alignment axis of the circular saw blade of the miter saw (see annotated Fig. 4 below);
the miter saw stand 700 including a base 720, a first workpiece support 730, and at least one saw stand rail 710 (see Fig. 7), the at least one saw stand rail 710 including at least one saw stand rail bracket 500A/500B (see Figs. 5 and 8 and col. 3, lines 44-63) which is fixable along a saw stand rail longitudinal axis of the at least one saw stand rail 710 (Fig. 8 shows the brackets 500A/500B fixable to the rail 710); and
the traversing miter saw table 10 including:
a miter saw mount member 110, the miter saw mount member 110 including a top surface and a bottom surface (relative to Fig. 3, the top surface faces out of the page and the bottom surface faces the saw stand mount member 120), the miter saw mount member 110 adapted to operatively attach and fix the miter saw 400 to the top surface of the miter saw mount member 110 (see Figs. 3 and 4, with Fig. 4 showing the miter saw 400 fixed to the top surface of the mount member 110; see also col. 2, lines 51-65) and the miter saw mount member 110 adapted to operatively attach and fix the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member 110 to a saw stand mount member 120 (see Fig. 2 and col. 2, lines 38-41, as well as col. 5, lines 43-45; note that consistent with the present specification, the phrase “adapted to operatively attach and fix the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member to a saw stand mount member” is satisfied so long as the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member joins to the saw stand mount member such that the miter saw mount member and saw stand mount member are joined together, even if movement is permitted between the miter saw mount member and the saw stand mount member);
the saw stand mount member 120 operatively supporting the miter saw mount member 110 (see Fig. 3), the saw stand mount member 120 adapted to operatively attach and fix the saw stand mount member 120 to the at least one saw stand rail bracket 500A/500B of the miter saw stand 700 (see Figs. 5 and 8; see also col. 3, lines 38-63);
an operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism (see Fig. 2, col. 4, lines 3-17, and col. 5, lines 39-45, where this rejection relies on the operator controller miter saw alignment mechanism being the mechanism performing the lateral/translational displacement of the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120; the mechanism is ‘operator controlled’ because an operator is able to move the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120; alternatively, the mechanism is ‘operator controlled’ following the modification of Wiezorek in view of O’Banion below), the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism operatively connected to the miter saw mount member 110 and the saw stand mount member 120 (see Fig. 2; see also col. 5, lines 39-45), the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism linearly traversing the top surface of the miter saw mount member 110 and the miter saw 400, including the workpiece table 410, the saw blade (of saw 420), and the workpiece fence 440/450 (the table, blade, and fence are part of the saw 400 and move with the saw 400), from a first location relative to the fixed bottom surface of the saw stand mount member 120 to a second location relative to the fixed bottom surface of the saw stand mount member 120 (see Figs. 2 and 4, along with the disclosure of col. 5, lines 39-45; the lateral translational displacement of the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120 includes traversing the entire miter saw mount member 110, including its top surface, as well as the miter saw 400 positioned on the miter saw mount member 110, between two laterally spaced locations relative to the entirety of the saw stand mount member 120, including relative to the bottom surface of the saw stand mount member 120) along the saw stand rail longitudinal axis of the miter saw stand 700 and relative to a fixed location of the saw stand mount member 120 (see Fig. 7 and col. 5, lines 39-45; the lateral translational displacement of the saw stand mount member 120 corresponds to movement along the saw stand rail longitudinal axis of the stand 700 as can be seen in Fig. 7, and the movement is relative to the saw stand mount member 120 being stationary since the displacement is of the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120), the saw stand mount member 120 attached and fixed to the at least one saw stand rail bracket 500A/500B (see Fig. 8 and col. 3, lines 38-63), and the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism moving the miter saw 400 along a traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis from the first location to the second location (see Fig. 7 and col. 5, lines 39-45 – the lateral translational displacement of col. 5, lines 39-45 corresponds to a traversing movement parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis as can be seen in Fig. 7; note that the miter saw 400 moves along with the miter saw mount member 110), the first location associated with a first circular saw blade location relative to the first workpiece support 730 and the second location associated with a second circular saw blade location relative to the first workpiece support 730 (see Fig. 7 and col. 5, lines 39-45, where the first and second locations are spaced apart locations in the lateral direction of the miter saw 400 and of the miter saw mount member 110, which corresponds to the locations being spaced relative to the first workpiece support 730 since movement of the miter saw mount member 110 in the lateral direction changes the distance of the miter saw mount member 110 and the miter saw 400 relative to the first workpiece support 430), the second location laterally offset from the first location along the traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis (see Fig. 7, noting that the lateral direction of col. 5, lines 39-45 corresponds to a direction along the saw stand rail 710), and
a locking mechanism operatively associated with the traversing miter saw table (see col. 4, lines 51-54), the locking mechanism adapted to fix in place the miter saw mount member 110 to the saw stand mount member 120 to prevent movement of the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120 with the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism (see col. 4, lines 51-54).
PNG
media_image1.png
661
1049
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Wiezorek discloses that the miter saw mount member 110 is a flat plate (see Fig. 3) made of one or more of steel, aluminum, metal, wood, plastic and composite material (see col. 5, lines 22-24).
Regarding claim 23, Wiezorek discloses that the miter saw mount member 110 includes a plurality of slots 140 extending from the top surface to the bottom surface to operatively attach and fix the miter saw 400 to the miter saw mount member 110 (see Fig. 3 and col. 2, lines 51-65).
Wiezorek includes several other disclosures that are pertinent to the present claims:
Wiezorek explicitly discloses that the illustrated operator controller miter saw alignment mechanism 200 that allows for rotation of the miter saw mount member 110 relative to the saw stand mount member 120 is merely an example (see col. 4, lines 3-8).
Wiezorek discloses that other miter saw alignment mechanisms that permit rotation between the miter saw mount member 110 and the saw stand mount member 120 may be utilized (see col. 5, lines 29-30). This disclosure suggests that these “other mechanisms” are an alternative to the explicitly disclosed mechanism, as there is no need for two rotational alignment mechanism.
Most importantly in regards to the present claims, Wiezorek discloses that, “while angular/rotational displacement [provided by the miter saw alignment mechanism 200] is illustrated, other devices such as rails may be used to provide lateral/translational displacement between the platform 110 and base 120.” (See col. 5, lines 42-45.)
Finally, Wiezorek makes clear that its miter saw table can be used with other types of tools beyond the disclosed miter saw that has rotating fence portions (see col. 5, lines 57-60).
At least for the purposes of this rejection, Wiezorek fails to disclose: that the miter saw stand includes a second workpiece support (although the examiner notes claim 3 suggests providing a workpiece support at “at least one of the ends” of the rail); that the at least one saw stand rail bracket is moveable along the saw stand rail longitudinal axis; that the saw stand mount member includes a frame member with a front surface mounting channel and a top surface mounting channel, the front surface mounting channel adapted to receive a flanged fastener and the top surface mounting channel adapted to receive a flanged drop-in guide operatively connected to the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member; that the miter saw alignment mechanism includes an operator controlled rotator to perform the linear traversing (of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member); that the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism includes at least one gear rack, at least one pinion gear and a pinion gear shaft, the pinion gear shaft operatively connected to the at least one pinion gear and the operator controlled rotator, the at least one gear rack mounted to the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member and extending along a miter saw mount member longitudinal axis which is parallel to the workpiece fence longitudinal axis of the miter saw, the at least one pinion gear fixed to the saw stand mounting member, the at least one pinion gear rotatably engaged with the at least one gear rack to move the miter saw along the traversing axis parallel to the stand rail longitudinal axis, and the operator controlled rotator attached to a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft; and that the lock mechanism is an operator controlled locking mechanism; and that the movement of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member is with the operator controlled rotator, all as recited in claim 21.
First regarding the ‘second workpiece support’, Snider discloses a miter saw stand 10 that includes a first workpiece support 500 and a second workpiece support 600 (see Fig. 1). Providing two workpiece supports is advantageous because it allows for supporting a long workpiece at two ends of workpiece, with ends of the workpiece being supported on opposing sides of a miter saw stationed on the stand.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the miter saw stand of Wiezorek with a second workpiece support as taught by Snider. This modification is advantageous because it enhances the ability of the stand to support particularly long workpieces. For example, considering Fig. 8 of Wiezorek, if a very long workpiece is used (while the fence is in its linear configuration shown in Fig. 4), then a first end of the workpiece can be supported by the first workpiece support, but an opposing second end of the workpiece then extends a large distance past the miter saw without any support. By modifying Wiezorek via the provision of a second workpiece support, a long workpiece is better supported because it can be support at the first workpiece support, the miter saw, and the second workpiece support. This modification is further suggested by claim 3 of Wiezorek, which suggests that a work support can be provided at more than one end of the rail (the rail referred to as a ‘crossbeam’ in claim 3).
Next regarding the at least one saw stand rail bracket being moveable, Snider discloses two saw stand rail brackets 400A and 400B that are moveable and fixable along a saw stand rail longitudinal axis of at least one saw stand rail 215/225 (see Fig. 1, where the ‘saw stand rail longitudinal axis extends along the length of the rails 215/225, and paragraph 38). Providing the brackets with the ability to move along the rails allows a user to choose where along the rails to provide the brackets, and thus where along the rails to position a miter saw. This enhances the versatility of the miter saw stand by providing additional adjustability, which is advantageous to carry out a variety of different types of cuts. For example, the position of the brackets relative to one of the workpiece supports can be varied depending on the length of workpiece to be cut.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the brackets of Wiezorek to be movable along the saw stand rail longitudinal axis as taught by Snider. This modification is advantageous because it allows a user to select the position of the brackets relative to the workpiece supports to be optimal for the particular type of cut the user is performing, thus providing additional adjustability to the stand.
Regarding details of the frame member, Ursell discloses a saw stand mount member 60 that can be made of an extruded aluminum material having channels 62 and 64 (see paragraph 28 and Fig. 6, where the member 60 is mounted to saw stand 16 and 18), where the saw stand mount member 60 includes a frame member with a front surface mounting channel 64 and a top surface mounting channel 62 (see Fig. 2), the front surface mounting channel 64 adapted to receive a flanged fastener (see Fig. 6, where the channel 64 is ‘adapted’ as recited due to the geometry of the channel 64 – i.e., the channel 62 has an interior portion whose dimension is greater than an opening portion dimension of the channel 64) and the top surface mounting channel 62 adapted to receive flanged drop-in guide 66 operatively connected to the bottom surface of an overlying structure (see Fig. 6, where the channel 62 is ‘adapted’ as recited due to the geometry of the channel 62 – i.e., the channel 62 has an interior portion whose dimension is greater than an opening portion dimension of the channel 62, such that the guide 66 is retained within the channel 62). The configuration of the frame of Ursell is advantageous for multiple reasons. The provision of the channels in the frame enhances the versatility of the frame by allowing attachment to multiple types of components and also enhances adjustability. Regarding attachment to multiple types of components, the front surface mounting channel is able to receive fasteners for attachment to vertically extending mounting brackets 72 and 74 (see Fig. 6), such that the front surface mounting channels allow for connection to types of brackets having vertical extensions (see paragraph 30). Regarding adjustability, because fasteners can be positioned at various locations along the front surface mounting channels, the front surface mounting channels allow for fore and aft adjustment of the saw stand mount member, which allows for adjusting the position of a miter saw in a fore/aft direction (i.e., a direction perpendicular to the lateral direction). Similarly, the top surface mounting channels are advantageous for guiding sliding movement of an overlying structure (see Fig. 6, where fasteners 66 are slideable along the channel 62; see also the ‘adjustable’ feature described in paragraph 28). Indeed, Izumi International recognizes various advantages of constructing a frame from aluminum extrusions as taught by Ursell, including ease of assembly (e.g., no welding is required since connectors lock tightly into slots and little cleanup is required) and adaptability (e.g., connectors can be moved a few inches in the channels). While Izumi International discusses advantages over a welded steel construction, the advantages discussed by Izumi International are likewise applicable to other types of construction, too.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art construct the saw stand mount member of Wiezorek from extrusions that provide a frame having front surface mounting channels and top surface mounting channels as taught by Ursell. This modification is advantageous for a variety of reasons, including enhancing the versatility of the frame by allowing attachment to multiple types of components and also enhancing adjustability. The front surface mounting channel is able to receive fasteners for attachment to vertically extending mounting bracket, thus allowing attachment of the saw stand mount member to additional types of brackets. Further, fasteners can be positioned at various locations along the front surface mounting channels, the front surface mounting channels allow for fore and aft adjustment of the saw stand mount member, which allows for adjusting the position of a miter saw in a fore/aft direction (i.e., a direction perpendicular to the lateral direction). Similarly, the top surface mounting channels are advantageous for guiding sliding movement of an overlying structure. Indeed, Izumi International recognizes various advantages of constructing a frame from aluminum extrusions as taught by Ursell, including ease of assembly (e.g., no welding is required since connectors lock tightly into slots and little cleanup is required) and adaptability (e.g., connectors can be moved a few inches in the channels).
Regarding the miter saw alignment mechanism, the examiner again notes that Wiezorek explicitly discloses that the operator controller miter saw alignment mechanism can be configured to laterally translate the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member per col. 5, lines 39-45, although Wiezorek fails to disclose any particular structure of the alignment mechanism that provides the lateral translation.
O’Banion, however, teaches a structure for permitting a lateral translation of a saw carrying unit 13 (see Fig. 1). O’Banion teaches an operator controlled saw alignment mechanism (including rack 376, operator controlled rotator 154, shaft 150, and pinion 340) including an operator controlled rotator 154 to perform linear traversing of a saw mount member (see Figs. 2 and 3, where the saw mount member includes elements 16, 17, and 19; rotation of the rotator 154 by a user causes the saw mount member to move linearly). O’Banion teaches that the saw alignment mechanism moves the saw laterally (see Fig. 2, relative to which ‘laterally’ is a left-right direction along the plane of the page). O’Banion teaches that the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism includes at least one gear rack 376, at least one pinion gear 340 and a pinion gear shaft 150 (see Fig. 3), the pinion gear shaft 150 operatively connected to the at least one pinion gear 340 and the operator controlled rotator 154 (see Fig. 3), the at least one gear rack 376 is mounted to a bottom surface of the saw mount member (see Fig. 3), the at least one pinion gear 340 fixed to a structure 11 relative to which the saw mount member moves (see Figs. 2 and 3 and col. 3, lines 47-51), the at least one pinion gear 340 rotatably engaged with the at least one gear rack 376 to move a saw (of saw unit 13) along a traversing axis parallel to the lateral direction (see Fig. 2, where traversing axis extends in a left-right direction). The operator controlled saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion is a structure that provides a lateral translation of a saw mount member relative to an underlying structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wiezorek, at least in the embodiment of Wiezorek where the miter saw mount member is moved in a lateral translational direction relative to the saw stand mount member as disclosed at col. 5, lines 39-45, with the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion that includes at least one gear rack, at least one pinion gear, a pinion gear shaft, and an operator controlled rotator by providing the gear rack on the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member of Wiezorek oriented in the lateral direction of travel of the miter saw mount member of Wiezorek (i.e., a direction parallel to the fence longitudinal axis relative to Fig. 4 of Wiezorek and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the saw stand rail relative Fig. 7 of Wiezorek), and by providing the saw stand mount member with the at least one pinion gear fixed thereto such that rotation of the pinion gear drives lateral translational movement of the miter saw mount member. This modification is advantageous because O’Banion teaches a structure for achieving a lateral translation of a saw mount member relative to an underlying structure, Wiezorek is in need of a structure for achieving this lateral translation per the disclosure of col. 5, lines 39-45. Moreover, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wiezorek and O’Banion disclose each claimed element, although not in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the traversing miter saw table of Wiezorek with the rack-and-pinion of O’Banion and in this combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately. To elaborate, the embodiment of the miter saw table of Wiezorek at col. 5, lines 39-45 already requires the function of a lateral translation of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member, and this function is retained by the modification. Likewise, the rack-and-pinion structure of O’Banion continues to provide the function of a lateral translation of a saw mount member relative to an underlying structure, even in the combination. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable for a variety of reasons. First, Wiezorek explicitly discloses that the miter saw alignment mechanism can be configured to provide a lateral translation of the miter saw mount member relative to the saw stand mount member, so it is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve this exact function. Second, O’Banion teaches a rack-and-pinion structure that produces a lateral movement of a saw mount member, so it is predictable to provide this functionality to Wiezorek’s miter saw table upon modification. Therefore, KSR Rationale A also supports a determination of obviousness. Still further, this modification is advantageous because it allows a user to perform cuts with a variety of lengths of workpieces, while still supporting the workpiece on at least one of the workpiece supports. For example, if a workpiece is too short to extend between the first workpiece support and the workpiece table, the user can laterally translate the miter saw mount member toward the first workpiece support in order to permit the workpiece table and first workpiece support to be sufficiently close to one another to support the workpiece. Finally, this modification can be achieved by replacing the existing operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of Wiezorek with the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion.
As a result of this modification: the miter saw alignment mechanism of Wiezorek as modified moves the miter saw along a traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis because the lateral direction of Wiezorek is parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis as can be seen in Fig. 7 of Wiezorek; the at least one gear rack is mounted to the bottom surface of the miter saw mount member and extends along a miter saw mount member longitudinal axis which is parallel to the workpiece fence longitudinal axis of the miter saw because the gear rack is mounted to extend in the direction of movement of the miter saw mount member, which is a lateral direction relative to Fig. 4 of Wiezorek that is parallel to the fence longitudinal axis; and the at least one pinion gear is fixed to the saw stand mount member because the saw stand mount member is the structure underlying the miter saw mount member of Wiezorek. Also as a result of this modification, the linear traversing is along the saw stand rail longitudinal axis because the modification provides for a lateral movement of the miter saw along the longitudinal direction of the saw stand; the second location is laterally offset from the first location along the traversing axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis for the same reason as explained above; and the movement of the miter saw mount member is with the operator controlled rotator because the rotator is what drives rotation of the pinon gear and movement of the rack.
Regarding the locking mechanism, Barclay deTolly teaches an operator controlled locking mechanism 60 (see Figs. 5-7) that locks an upper slidable component 56 to an underlying component 12 (see paragraph 68). The locking mechanism 60 of Barclay deTolly corresponds to the locking mechanism of Fig. 14 of the present application.
Noting that Wiezorek discloses a generic ‘lock mechanism’ for locking the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Wiezorek with the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of Barclay deTolly. This modification is advantageous because Barclay deTolly teaches a specific locking mechanism structure and Wiezorek is in need of some particular locking mechanism structure in view of Wiezorek merely discloses a generic ‘lock mechanism’. Moreover, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale A – Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Wiezorek and Barclay deTolly disclose each claimed element, although not in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the traversing miter saw table of Wiezorek with the locking mechanism of Barclay deTolly and in this combination each element would have performed the same fun