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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 was amended to incorporate dashed arrow 2104, which is new matter.
See specification objection below for details.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed July 13, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Para [0041] discloses “Dashed arrow 2104 shows adjustment motion of the fixture arm 1401 with respect to the base member 1301, see Figure 13, below” and newly Annotated Figure 2 (showing dashed arrow 2104) are new matter. Pg. 7, Para [0040] in the originally filed disclosure states “The fixture 1000 includes a fixture arm (e.g., comprising arm members 1401, 1402, and 1403). In some embodiments, the fixture arm may be connected to at least a portion of the fixture base via a connecting element (e.g., element 1503). In some embodiments, a fixture- end saw blade receiver 1101 may be mounted to the fixture arm (e.g., arm member 1403 as illustrated in Fig. 1).” Page 7, [Para 0041], states “In some embodiments, the arm members, guides, and base members may be designed to be rearranged so that the fixture may be configures for right-handed use…or left-handed use…while maintaining the capability of the fixing angle 1 and angle 2 for the saw blade motion. There is no mention in the disclosure that the fixture arm.” Merriam Webster Dictionary, defines the term “rearrange” as to arrange (something or someone) again in a different way. The term “rearrange” does not provide specifics nor are there enough details in the disclosure to arrive at adjustment motion of the fixture arm 1401 with respect to the base member. In other words, there are no details to the fixture arm having any structure which permits movement relative to the base member. The term “rearrange” could simply imply the entire device is rotated 180 degrees to permit ambidextrous use.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 33, 36, and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter that was not described in the specification to reasonably convey one had possession at the time of filing the invention is as follows: Para [0041] discloses “Dashed arrow 2104 shows adjustment motion of the fixture arm 1401 with respect to the base member 1301, see Figure 13, below” and newly Annotated Figure 2 (showing dashed arrow 2104) are new matter. Pg. 7, Para [0040] in the originally filed disclosure states “The fixture 1000 includes a fixture arm (e.g., comprising arm members 1401, 1402, and 1403). In some embodiments, the fixture arm may be connected to at least a portion of the fixture base via a connecting element (e.g., element 1503). In some embodiments, a fixture- end saw blade receiver 1101 may be mounted to the fixture arm (e.g., arm member 1403 as illustrated in Fig. 1).” Page 7, [Para 0041], states “In some embodiments, the arm members, guides, and base members may be designed to be rearranged so that the fixture may be configures for right-handed use…or left-handed use…while maintaining the capability of the fixing angle 1 and angle 2 for the saw blade motion. There is no mention in the disclosure that the fixture arm.” Merriam Webster Dictionary, defines the term “rearrange” as to arrange (something or someone) again in a different way. The term “rearrange” does not provide specifics nor are there enough details in the disclosure to arrive at adjustment motion of the fixture arm 1401 with respect to the base member. In other words, there are no details to the fixture arm having any structure which permits movement relative to the base member. The term “rearrange” could simply imply the entire device is rotated 180 degrees to permit ambidextrous use.
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.
Claims 1- 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 1, the phrase “the saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a first angle, about a first rotational axis, relative to a normal direction defined by the base and the saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a second angle, about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction” is indefinite. It is unclear how the longitudinal stroke of the saw blade rotates about an angle. The claim has not established a structural relationship between the fixture-end saw blade receiver and rotation of the saw blade.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 13, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 3,171,736 to Ristow et al. in view of US Patent No. 3,117,600 to Davis.
In re claim 1, Ristow teaches a fixture comprising:
a base (11);
a fixture-end saw blade receiver (52), wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a stroke rod (14), the stroke rod (14) is adapted to removably couple to a first end of a saw blade (13), the stroke rod is adapted to guide the saw blade through a longitudinal stroke movement along a longitudinal direction (as shown in at least Figure 1), saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a first angle (Col. 2, lines 64-71, Col. 3, lines 1-10), about a first rotational axis, relative to a normal direction defined by the base (11), the longitudinal direction of the saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a second angle (Col. 2, lines 64-71, Col. 3, lines 1-10), about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis (the first and second rotational axes are coaxial, not parallel), and the powered tool is adapted to drive the saw blade and the stroke rod through the longitudinal stoke movement, the first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon the orientation of the fixture-end saw blade receiver (52).
In re claim 3, wherein the powered tool is a jigsaw (Fig. 1).
Note, the preamble is directed to a fixture, not the powered tool; therefore, the powered too merely has to be capable of being a jigsaw.
In re claim 13, Ristow teaches a fixture comprising:
a base (11);
a fixture-end saw blade receiver (52), wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a stroke rod (14), the stroke rod (14) is adapted to removably couple to a first end of a saw blade (13) and the stroke rod is adapted to guide the saw blade through a longitudinal stroke movement (as shown in at least Figure 1);
a powered tool, and
the powered tool is adapted to drive the saw blade and the stroke rod (14) through the longitudinal stroke movement along a longitudinal direction, the saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a first angle (Col. 2, lines 64-71, Col. 3, lines 1-10), about a first rotational axis, relative to a normal direction defined by the base (11), the longitudinal direction of the saw blade longitudinal stroke is configured to rotate by a second angle (Col. 2, lines 64-71, Col. 3, lines 1-10), about a second rotational axis, relative to the normal direction, and the first rotational axis is not parallel to the second rotational axis (the first and second rotational axes are coaxial, not parallel), and the first angle and the second angle are based at least in part upon the orientation of the fixture-end saw blade receiver (52).
In re claims 46 and 47, wherein the second angle (is capable of being) equal to 90 degrees minus the first angle.
Regarding claim 1, Ristow teaches a fixture having a base, but does not teach a frame, wherein the frame comprises a base and a tool receiver wherein the tool receiver is configured to couple a powered tool to the frame, the powered tool is adapted to couple to a tool-end saw blade receiver, the tool-end saw blade receiver is adapted to removable couple to a second end of the saw blade, wherein the fixture-end saw blade receiver is adapted to couple to the frame, wherein the powered tool is adapted to couple to the frame.
Davis teaches it is known to convert a jigsaw into a scroll saw. Davis further teaches a fixture having a frame (40) having a base (legs of 40), wherein the frame comprises a base (legs of 40) and a tool receiver (20) wherein the tool receiver is configured to couple a powered tool to the frame (40), the powered tool is adapted to couple to a tool-end saw blade receiver (18), the tool-end saw blade receiver is adapted to removable couple to a second end of the saw blade, the fixture-end saw blade receiver (13) is adapted to couple to the frame, and the power tool (as shown in at least Figure 4) is adapted to couple to the frame.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to convert the jigsaw of Ristow into a scroll saw having a frame, tool receiver, and tool-end saw blade receiver, as taught by Davis which is a design variant based on the workpiece and desired final cut. Scroll saws are advantageous for providing detailed and precise cuts.
In re claim 4, modified Ristow teaches, wherein the powered tool is adapted to removable couple to the frame (as shown in at least Figure 4, Davis).
Note, the preamble is directed to a fixture, not the powered tool; therefore, the powered tool merely has to be capable of being adapted to removable couple to the frame.
In re claim 42, modified Ristow teaches, a tool receiver (20, Davis), wherein the tool receiver is adapted to couple to the frame, and the tool receiver is adapted to removable coupled the powered tool to the frame (as shown in at least Figure 4, Davis).
Claims 2 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ristow et al. in view of Davis, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of CN 101909798 to Rakaczki.
In re claims 2 and 33, modified Ristow teaches a fixture-end saw blade receiver, but does not teach the fixture-end saw blade receiver comprises a spring element, and the spring element is adapted to apply a tension on the saw blade during at least a portion of the longitudinal stroke movement.
Rakaczki teaches a fixture (as shown in Figure 1) having a spring element (Para 0036) and the spring element is adapted to apply a tension on the saw blade during at least a portion of the longitudinal stroke movement.
Note, the fixture receiving a spring element, is a positive recitation; however, the function of the spring element with respect to the saw blade is intended use, since the preamble is directed to (only) the fixture.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the fixture of modified Ristow with a spring element as taught by Rakaczki to absorb impact and maintain straighter cuts.
Claims 5, 6, 12, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ristow et al. in view of Davis, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of DE19925747 to French at al.
In re claims 5, 6, 12, and 43, modified Ristow teaches a saw blade, but does not teach the saw blade is adapted to permit omnidirectional cutting, wherein the saw blade is a spiral saw blade (claim 6), wherein the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (claim 12), and the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (claim 43).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, and 43, French teaches a spiral scroll blade (33, Pg. 6, lines 1-2) adapted to permit omnidirectional cutting, and the teeth of the spiral saw blade point towards the powered tool (Fig. 1).
Note, the preamble is directed to a fixture, not the saw blade.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide modified Ristow with a spiral scroll blade as taught by French which is advantageous for cutting sharp inside corners and making quick and precise intricate curves and joints.
Claims 8-11, 36, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ristow et al. in view of Davis, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of in view of CN1116970 to Lutz at al.
In re claim 8-11, 36, 44, and 45, modified Ristow teaches a saw blade, but does not teach wherein the longitudinal stroke movement is greater than 2 mm, 5 mm, 8 mm, or 10 mm in one direction, wherein the tension is above 5 N, I0 N, or 20 N (claims 9), wherein the tension is below 60 N, 80 N, or 100 N (Claims 10), wherein the tension varies during the longitudinal stroke movement, and the spring element is adapted to apply the tension during more than 50%, 70%, 90%, or 95% of the longitudinal stroke movement (Claim 11).
Regarding claims 8-11, Lutz teaches a scroll saw with two clamping ends in which a saw blade disposed between a first leaf spring (50) and a second leaf spring (51, Pg. 7, lines 29-36)). The second spring in a neutral position imparts tension (spring force) of 12 N (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). The first spring is pretensioned and causes uniform saw blade tension over the working stroke of the blade. The first spring applies 50N to an end position, which increases to 65N with a stroke of 8mm (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). The teachings of Lutz satisfy the limitations of the longitudinal stroke movement is greater than 8 mm in one direction, wherein the tension is above 5 N, I0 N, or 20 N (the tension ranges from 50N to 65N), wherein the tension is below 100 N, wherein the tension varies during the longitudinal stroke movement, and the spring element is adapted to apply the tension during more than 50% the longitudinal stroke movement.
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the saw blade of modified Ristow with a spring having characteristics as taught by Lutz to permit uniform blade tension over the working stroke of the blade (Pg. 7, lines 29-36). One having ordinary skill in the art possess the knowledge that a spiral compression spring could impart the similar tensioning functions as a leaf spring.
Response to Arguments
The drawing and specification objections in the Office Action mailed January 13, 2026 have been obviated by the amendments filed July 13, 2026.
The 112, first and second paragraph rejections in the Office Action mailed January 13, 2026 have been obviated by the amendments filed July 13, 2026.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-13, 33, 36, 42-47 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights