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 17 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 18 April 2025.
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:
“a locking mechanism” as recited in claim 1 at lines 19-21 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “to lock in place the upper base portion to the lower base portion to prevent movement of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “locking” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism, noting that “locking” is a verb).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 and 5-6 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. 2008/0041211 A1 to Gibbons 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 US Pat. No. 5,875,828 to Quiram et al.
Regarding claim 1, Wiezorek discloses a sliding compound miter saw comprising (see Fig. 4, where per col. 5, lines 42-45 the base may provide lateral/translational displacement between the upper and lower base portions):
a circular saw blade (of saw 420; see Fig. 4) oriented to crosscut a workpiece positioned on an upper surface of a base 410, 110, and 120 (see Fig. 4; the upper surface is the surface defining slot 430), the base including an upper base portion (including elements 410 and 110, which are fastened together by fasteners 460 to form an integral structure; the connection between elements 410 and 110 permits the elements to be “an upper base portion”) including the upper surface (see Fig. 4) and the base 410, 110, and 120 including a lower base portion 120 slidably attached to the upper base portion (see Fig. 2, except where an ‘other device’ that provides lateral/translational displacement is provided per col. 5, lines 42-45; see also the modification of Wiezorek below), the upper surface having a slot 430 aligned with the circular saw blade (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 14-15);
a workpiece fence 440 and 450 attached to the upper base portion (see Fig. 4), the workpiece fence 440 and 450 including a left workpiece fence portion 440 and a right workpiece fence portion 450 (see Fig. 4, where the fence portions 440 and 450 are to the left and right of the slot 430, respectively), 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 (see Fig. 4, where the workpiece fence longitudinal axis extends along front faces of the fence portions 440 and 450; Fig. 4 illustrates the saw positioned in the zero degree cross-cut alignment); and
a miter saw alignment mechanism integrated into the upper base portion and the lower base portion (see Fig. 2, except where an ‘other device’ that provides lateral/translational displacement is provided per col. 5, lines 42-45; see also the modification of Wiezorek below), the miter saw alignment mechanism linearly traversing the upper base portion from a first location to a second location relative to a fixed location of the lower base portion 120 (since the alignment mechanism of col. 5, lines 42-45 provides lateral/translational displacement, the alignment mechanism linearly traverses – i.e., provides linear movement – of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion; the first and second locations can be any two laterally spaced locations of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion; further the lower base portion 120 may be retained at a fixed location such as by attachment of the lower base portion 120 to the brackets 500A and 500B shown in Fig. 5 and as described at col. 3, lines 38-63), and the miter saw alignment mechanism moving the upper base portion along parallel to a longitudinal axis of the lower base portion 120 (see Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 42-45; the longitudinal axis of the lower base portion 120 is an axis parallel to the front faces of the fence portions 440 and 450, and the miter saw alignment mechanism moves the upper base portion laterally, which is in a direction parallel to the fence portions 440 and 450),
a locking mechanism operatively associated with the sliding compound miter saw (see col. 4, lines 51-54; the ‘operatively associated’ feature is satisfied because the locking mechanism prevents movement of the miter saw on the upper base portion), the locking mechanism to lock in place the upper base portion to the lower base portion to prevent movement of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion (see col. 4, lines 51-54),
wherein an upper base portion longitudinal axis is parallel to the workpiece fence longitudinal axis (see Fig. 4, where both axes extends parallel to the front faces of the fence portions 440 and 450), the upper base portion movable relative to the lower base portion (see Fig. 2, except where an ‘other device’ that provides lateral/translational displacement is provided per col. 5, lines 42-45; see also the modification of Wiezorek below); and
wherein the lower base portion 120 is adapted to attach and fix the lower base portion 120 to at least one saw stand rail bracket 500A and 500B attached to a saw stand 700 (the lower base portion 120 is ‘adapted’ as recited due to including connection points 140 as shown in Fig. 5; see Figs. 5 and 7, noting that claim 1 is only directed to an adaptation of the lower base portion 120 and does not require the at least one saw stand rail bracket or the saw stand), and the miter saw alignment mechanism is adapted to move the upper base portion parallel to a saw stand rail longitudinal axis (the lateral direction of the miter saw is along an axis parallel to the saw stand rail longitudinal axis at least in the configuration illustrated in Fig. 7; again, this recitation is merely describing an adaptation of the alignment mechanism and does not require the saw stand having the saw stand rail longitudinal axis).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Wiezorek discloses that the ‘other devices’ that provide lateral/translational displacement can include rails (see col. 5, lines 43-45). However, Wiezorek does not explicitly disclose any particular structure of the rails.
Wiezorek, though, fails to disclose: that the slot is to provide clearance for the circular saw blade as the circular saw blade cuts the workpiece; that the miter saw alignment mechanism is operator controlled; that the locking mechanism is an operator controlled locking mechanism, the operator controlled locking mechanism including an operator controlled handle and a locking mechanism; and 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 at least one gear rack mounted to the upper base portion and extending along an upper base portion longitudinal axis, the at least one pinion gear fixed to the lower base portion, the at least one pinion gear attached to the pinion gear shaft, and the at least one pinion gear rotatably engaged with the at least one gear rack to move the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion; and wherein the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism includes an operator controlled rotator attached to a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft to move the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion, as required by claim 1. Wiezorek also fails to disclose: wherein the lower base portion includes at least one sliding glide track and the upper base portion includes at least one guide that mates with the at least one sliding glide track as required by claim 5 and wherein the upper base portion includes at least one sliding glide track and the lower base portion includes at least one guide that mates with the at least one sliding glide track as required by claim 6. However, Wiezorek does explicitly disclose 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.
Regarding the slot, Gibbons teaches a slot 210 on a base 200 that provides clearance for a circular saw blade as the circular saw blade cuts the workpiece (see Figs. 1 and 2 and paragraph 25). [Claim 1] Gibbons teaches that the slot should be dimensioned to provide a clearance for the blade, including for blades of different dimensions (see paragraph 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the slot of the upper surface of Wiezorek to provide a clearance for the circular saw blade as the circular saw blade cuts the workpiece in view of the teachings of Gibbons. This modification is advantageous because the clearance provided by the slot allows for the use of blades having different dimensions, such as a thicker blade. That is, without any clearance, the thickness of the blade is limited, whereas by providing some clearance a thicker blade may alternatively be used.
Regarding the operator controlled saw alignment mechanism, O’Banion teaches a structure for permitting lateral translation of a saw carrying unit 13 (see Fig. 1). In particular, O’Banion teaches that the structure that permits lateral translation of the saw carrying unit includes an operator controlled saw alignment mechanism (including rack 376, operator controlled rotator 154, shaft 150, and pinion 340), the operator controlled saw alignment mechanism comprising at least one gear rack 376, at least one pinion gear 340 and a pinion gear shaft 150 (see Fig. 3), the at least one gear rack 376 mounted to an upper base portion (see Figs. 1 and 3, where the upper base portion includes rails 19, carriages 17, rails 16 and saw 13) and extending along an upper base portion longitudinal axis (see Figs. 1 and 3, where the upper base portion longitudinal axis is parallel to the rails 19), the at least one pinion gear 340 fixed to a lower base portion 11 (see Figs. 1-2), the at least one pinion gear 340 attached to the pinion gear shaft 150 (see Figs. 2 and 3), and the at least one pinion gear 340 rotatably engaged with the at least one gear rack 376 to move the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion 11 (see Fig. 3). O’Banion further teaches that the operator controlled saw alignment mechanism includes an operator controlled rotator 154 attached to a longitudinal end of the pinion gear shaft 150 (see Figs. 2 and 3) to move the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion 11 (rotation of the rotator 154 moves the upper base portion because rotation of the rotator 154 produces rotation of the pinion gear 340, which in turn drives movement of the rack 376). [Claim 1] O’Banion further teaches that the lower base portion 11 includes at least one sliding glide track 18 and the upper base portion includes at least one guide 19 that mates with the at least one sliding glide track 18 (see Fig. 1) [claim 5]. Interpreted in another way, O’Banion teaches that the upper base portion includes at least one sliding glide track 19 and the lower base portion 11 includes at least one guide 18 that mates with the at least one sliding glide track 18 [claim 6]. Each of the interpretations applied to claims 5 and 6 is reasonable because the elements 18 and 19 of O’Banion slide with respect to each other, where each of elements 18 and 19 guides movement relative to other of elements 18 and 19, such that each of elements 18 and 19 can be considered as either of a glide track and a guide. The operator controlled saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion is a structure that provides a lateral translation of a saw-supporting structure relative to an underlying structure (see Figs. 1-3). Moreover, it is known in the art that providing a rack-and-pinion configuration to move a miter saw relative to an underlying structure is advantageous in order to provide a mechanical advantage to help the user move the miter saw (see Quiram at col. 4, lines 51-55). Further, providing the upper and lower base portions with at least glide track and at least one guide is advantageous because these structures, in conjunction with a lower friction material therebetween, provide for low friction sliding between the upper and lower base portions (see col. 2, line 57 to col. 3, line 10), and also because these structures constrain the movement between the upper base portion and lower base portion to a desired linear movement.
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 upper base portion is moved in a lateral translational direction relative to the lower base portion as disclosed at col. 5, lines 39-45, with the operator controlled saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion that includes at least one gear rack, at least one pinion gear, and a pinion gear shaft, by providing the gear rack on the bottom surface of the upper base portion of Wiezorek oriented in the lateral direction of travel of the upper base portion 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 lower base portion with the at least one pinion gear fixed thereto such that rotation of the pinion gear drives lateral translational movement of the upper base portion. This modification is advantageous because the rack-and-pinion configuration provides a mechanical advantage to help the user move the miter saw (as acknowledged by Quiram), thus reducing the amount of force required of the user to produce movement of the miter saw. This modification is further advantageous because O’Banion teaches a structure for achieving a lateral translation of saw relative to an underlying structure, and Wiezorek is in need of a structure for achieving this lateral translation. 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 base 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 base of Wiezorek at col. 5, lines 39-45 already requires the function of a lateral translation of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion, and this function is retained by the modification. Likewise, the rack-and-pinion structure of O’Banion continues to provide the function of producing 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 upper base portion relative to the lower base portion, 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. Finally, Quiram discloses that a rack-and-pinion structure can be provided between an upper base portion and a lower base portion to provide lateral movement of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion (see the embodiment of Figs. 7-8). 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 miter saw alignment mechanism of Wiezorek (see the mechanism 200 shown in Fig. 2) with the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism of O’Banion. As a result of this modification, Wiezorek as modified discloses that the at least one gear rack extends along the upper base portion longitudinal axis which is parallel to the workpiece fence longitudinal axis of the miter saw as required by claim 1 because the at least one gear rack is mounted to extend in the lateral direction in which the upper base portion is moved as explained above.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the upper base portion and the lower base portion with the guiding structures of O’Banion (i.e., with at least one sliding glide track and at least one guide that mates with the sliding glide track) as required by claims 5 and 6. This modification is advantageous because the guiding structures of O’Banion include a low friction material therebetween in order to reduce sliding friction during movement of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion. This modification is further obvious because the guiding structures of O’Banion constrain movement of the upper base portion to being linear relative to the lower base portion. Prior to this modification, there is no structure that limits the movement of the upper base portion of Wiezorek to being in the desired linear direction, whereas this modification provides a structure to constrain movement of the upper base portion to be along the desired lateral direction of Wiezorek. Moreover, as further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, Wiezorek already contemplates generic rails to provide lateral displacement (see Wiezorek at col. 5, lines 42-45), and this modification merely provides some particular embodiment of rails in a manner to provide lateral displacement.
Regarding the locking mechanism, Barclay deTolly teaches an operator controlled locking mechanism 60 (see Figs. 5-7; the mechanism 60 is ‘operator controlled’ because an operator is able to control handle 82) that locks an upper slidable component 56 to an underlying component 12 (see paragraph 68). The locking mechanism 60 of Barclay deTolly includes an operator controlled handle 82 and a locking mechanism 84 (see Figs. 5-7). [Claim 1] The locking mechanism 84 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 function as it did separately. To elaborate, Wiezorek already acknowledges the need to lock the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member. Likewise, the locking mechanism of Barclay deTolly continues to selectively lock a sliding structure of a miter saw mount to an underlying structure. Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable for a variety of reasons. Wiezorek explicitly discloses locking the miter saw mount member to the saw stand mount member, so it is predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve this exact function. Therefore, KSR Rationale A also supports a determination of obviousness.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiezorek as modified by Gibbons, O’Banion, and Barclay deTolly as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 349,105 to Keller.
Wiezorek, as modified, is silent regarding the materials of the gear rack, the pinion gear, and the pinon gear shaft. As a result, Wiezorek, as modified, fails to disclose that the at least one gear rack, the at least one pinion gear and the pinion gear shaft are made of one or more of metal, aluminum, steel, plastic, rubber, and ceramic as required by claim 2.
However, Keller teaches a rack E, a pinion B, and a pinion gear shaft that are formed of metal, and in particular steel (see page 1, lines 67-69, where the shaft is made of steel due to the disclosure of the shaft being formed integrally with the steel pinion).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the gear rack, the pinion gear, and the gear shaft of Wiezorek, as modified, from a metal, such as steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Keller provides evidence that steel is a suitable material for each of these structures. Further, this modification is advantageous because steel is a strong, yet generally inexpensive material. Moreover, even if Keller is interpreted as not disclosing a shaft made of steel, it would have nonetheless been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a metal, such as steel, for the material of the shaft of Wiezorek, as modified, since steel is known to be a suitable material to form various machine components (as evidenced by Keller). Indeed, it is well known in the art to form machine components of a variety of forms from metal or plastic.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 17 October 2025 have been considered but are not fully persuasive. Initially, regarding the rejections of claim 1 and 5-6 under 35 USC 103 relying on US Pat. No. 5,875,828 to Quiram et al. as a primary reference (beginning at page 6 of the Final Office action mailed 18 April 2025), the amendments to claim 1 have overcome this rejection. Quiram, even as modified in the Final Office action mailed 18 April 2025, does not disclose “wherein the lower base portion is adapted to attach and fix the lower base portion to at least one saw stand rail bracket attached to a saw stand, and the operator controlled miter saw alignment mechanism is adapted to move the upper baes portion parallel to a saw stand rail longitudinal axis” as now required by claim 1. Instead, the lower base portion of Quiram is part of a saw stand as can be seen in the annotated Fig. provided at page 8 of the Final Office action mailed 18 April 2025.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 USC 103 relying on US Pat. No. 8,191,449 B2 to Wiezorek as a primary reference (beginning at page 12 of the Final Office action mailed 18 April 2025), the Applicant argues against the reference individually, rather than arguing against the structure that results from the modifications of Wiezorek. That is, the Applicant asserts at page 10 that O’Banion fails disclose a sliding compound miter saw upper base portion and circular saw blade as required by claim 1. However, the rejection does not rely on O’Banion for this feature. Instead, Wiezorek teaches an upper base portion that includes a slot aligned with a circular saw blade, and Wiezorek also teaches an embodiment where the upper base portion is slideably laterally relative to the lower base portion. The feature that Wiezorek is missing is a structure that achieves the lateral sliding. O’Banion is relied upon only for its teachings related to providing sliding movement, and O’Banion is not relied upon for any teaching related to a miter saw. As such, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is a piecemeal argument against O’Banion rather than an argument against Wiezorek as modified.
Further, the Applicant also in regards to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 USC 103 relying on US Pat. No. 8,191,449 B2 to Wiezorek as a primary reference argues that the rejection relies on improper hindsight in modifying Wiezorek in view of O’Banion. This argument is not persuasive. The modification fills a gap in the disclosure of Wiezorek (noting that Wiezorek generally discloses lateral translation of the upper base portion, yet fails to disclose any particular structure for achieving the translation). O’Banion, though, teaches a particular structure to achieve laterally translation of a saw-support upper base portion, and that structure of O’Banion serves this same function when provided to Wiezorek. Therefore, the KSR Rationale A obviousness determination explained herein is proper. Moreover, there is further motivation to modify Wiezorek in view of O’Banion because Quiram teaches that a rack and pinion structure that laterally displaces an upper base portion that supports a miter saw relative to a lower base portion achieves a mechanical advantage to help a user move the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion (see Quiram at col. 4, lines 52-55). Thus, modifying Wiezorek in view of O’Banion is further obvious because the rack-and-pinion structure of O’Banion provides a mechanical advantage for moving the upper base portion, such that less force is required from a user to move the upper base portion. As such, the modification is not the result of hindsight, but is instead based on the evidence available to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Further still in regards to the rejections of claims 1 and 4 under 35 USC 103 relying on US Pat. No. 8,191,449 B2 to Wiezorek as a primary reference, the Applicant argues that “the combination of Wiezorek and O’Banion would produce a rack and pinion moveable saw platform without an operator controlled rotator to laterally move the saw/saw blade”. This argument is not persuasive because O’Banion’s structure includes an operator controlled rotator to produce rotation of the pinion gear, which in turn drives translation of the rack to which the upper base portion is attached. As such, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments, Wiezorek as modified by O’Banion does include an operator controlled rotator.
The Applicant further asserts that Wiezorek “suggests rails only and does not have a separate control knob/rotator for controlling orientation/alignment of the saw”. This argument is not persuasive because it is against Wiezorek only, rather than Wiezorek as modified by O’Banion as set forth herein. While the Applicant asserts that the rotator of O’Banion is usable only for movement of a saw during cutting, that argument is specific to O’Banion and is not against Wiezorek as modified by O’Banion. Furthermore, the argument ignores the evidence of Quiram that a rack-and-pinion configuration is able to move a miter saw on an upper base portion relative to a lower base portion.
The Applicant further argues that Wiezorek and O’Banion teach different saw alignments. However, this argument is not persuasive because it is against the reference individually, rather than against Wiezorek as modified. Wiezorek prior to any modification teaches lateral translation of the upper base portion. The modification of Wiezorek orients the rack-and-pinion system to retain this lateral translation. Furthermore, Quiram teaches that a rack-and-pinion system to achieve lateral translation is already known in the art, so the orientation of the rack-and-pinion system of O’Banion, when provided to Wiezorek, to achieve lateral translation is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. As, such Applicant’s argument related to the different blade orientations between Wiezorek and O’Banion is not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that O’Banion “does not really teach anything beyond a rack and pinion for table movement” is further not persuasive. Once again, this argument is against O’Banion alone, not Wiezorek as modified. It is critical to note that Wiezorek already contemplates lateral translation of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion. The idea of lateral translation of the upper base portion relative to the lower base portion therefore does not come from O’Banion, but from Wiezorek (Quiram also discloses lateral translation of an upper base portion supporting a miter saw). Since the Applicant’s argument against O’Banion is in relation to a feature for which O’Banion is not relied upon, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724