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
The Amendment filed 4 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending, of which claims 5 and 8-12 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 18 August 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 at lines 15-16 recites, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body”. This feature is not illustrated in the present drawings. The rotation plane as illustrated in the present drawings is a plane defined by axes X and Y (see page 29 of the present specification listing the rotation plane as plane ‘x-y’). Moreover, claim 1 also requires that the rotation plane is a plane in which the first workpiece contact surface extends (see claim 1 at lines 11-12). Thus, the rotation plane as illustrated in the present drawings is a top plane of the first body 100 in order for the illustrated first workpiece contact surface 100 to extend in the rotation plane. However, the present drawings do not illustrate that the second longitudinal extension direction of the work component contact surface is “in the rotation plane” as required by claim 1. It is true that the present drawings illustrate the work component contact surface 210 having a longitudinal extension direction parallel to direction Y (see Fig. 1), but the present drawings do not illustrate that the work component contact surface 210 extends all the way to the rotation plane. The direction of extent of the work component contact surface 210 toward the rotation plane is never clearly illustrated in the present drawings. For example, in Fig. 1, the amount of extension of the work component contact surface 210 toward the rotation plane cannot be seen due to the perspective of the figure. If the work component contact surface 210 ends 0.5 mm (as an example) from the top of the first body 100, then the work component contact surface 210 does not have a second longitudinal extension direction that is “in the rotation plane”. Instead, if the work component contact surface 210 ends any amount above the top surface of the first body 100, then the second longitudinal extension direction of the work component contact surface 210 is not “in the rotation plane” as required by claim 1. Put another way, claim 1 is only satisfied if the work component contact surface extends to meet the rotation plane – the claim is not satisfied if the work component contact surface is spaced even a miniscule amount above the rotation plane. However, in the present drawings, the extension of the work component contact surface 210 to meet the rotation plane is not illustrated. Therefore, the present drawings do not illustrate that the second longitudinal extension direction of the work component contact surface is “in the rotation plane” as required by claim 1. Claim 1 only encompasses a configuration where both of the first workpiece contact surface and the work component contact surface are in the same rotation plane, yet this feature is not illustrated in the present drawings. Therefore, the feature of “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). To overcome this issue, the examiner suggests reciting that a plane including the work component contact surface is orthogonal to the rotation plane, as one option. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 21 at the final paragraph recites, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in a rotation plane of the first body and the second body”. Claim 22 also recites, “wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body and the second body”. These features of claims 21 and 22 are not illustrated in the present drawings. In the present drawings, it is not illustrated that the work component contact surface extends to meet the rotation plane. As such, the extension direction of the work component contact surface is not illustrated as being “in a rotation plane”. Therefore, above quoted features of claims 21 and 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). To overcome this issue, the examiner suggests reciting that a plane including the work component contact surface is orthogonal to the rotation plane, as one option. No new matter should be entered.
The amendment drawings filed 4 December 2025 are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because Fig. 1 as amended 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: Fig. 1 is amended to illustrate a spring-loaded ball “142” and a lock “143”, and each and every feature of the spring-loaded ball “142” and the lock “143” now illustrated in Fig. 1 was not described in the present application as originally filed. For example, Fig. 1 is amended to illustrate the resilient element “141” including within both of the spring-loaded ball “142” and the lock “143”, and the spring-loaded ball “142” and the lock “143” being included within the element “141” was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. As another example, the lock “143” being positioned at a side of the spring-loaded ball “142” was not disclosed in the present application as originally filed. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 19 requires that spring-loaded ball is latchable into depressions in a spring-biased manner (see claim 19, which depends from claim 18; claim 19 recites, “wherein the resiliently mounted element is a spring loaded ball” and claim 18 recites “a resiliently mounted element latchable into depressions in a spring-biased manner”). Fig. 1 as amended does not illustrate that element “142” is a ball, since element “142” is indicated with a square shape. Moreover, element “142” is not illustrated in Fig. 1 as being able to latch into depressions in a spring-biased manner. As such, the block added to Fig. 1 to indicate a “spring-loaded ball” is insufficient to illustrate the spring-loaded ball in the manner required by claim 19. The spring-loaded ball must be shown as performing all functionality required by the claims, and the block added to Fig. 1 is not illustrated as being capable of the recited functionality. Therefore, the resiliently mounted element being “a spring-loaded ball” as required by claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 20 requires a lock that is “movable alternately between a state allowing movement of a resiliently mounted element and a state blocking movement of the resiliently mounted element”. No “lock” as described in claim 20 is illustrated in the present drawings. While the Applicant has added a block indicated by “143” to Fig. 1, this block is not illustrated as being movable in the manner required of the lock in claim 20. Therefore, the features of the lock, including the ability to move in the manner recited in claim 20, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 12 recites, “the second body, and a first transverse extension direction”. This recitation should read – the second body, and the first workpiece contact surface has a first transverse extension direction – to make clear that the first workpiece contact surface is the structure being described as having the first transverse extension direction.
Claim 1 at lines 16-17 recites, “the second body, and a second transverse extension direction”. This recitation should read – the second body, and the work component contact surface has a second transverse extension direction – to make clear that the work component contact surface is the structure being described as having the second transverse extension direction.
Claim 15 at the final line recites, “the longitudinal extension direction”. This recitation should recite – the second longitudinal extension direction – in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1.
Claim 17 should be amended in correspondence with the amendments to claim 1, with respect to the naming of the various extension directions.
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:
“a quick connection system” as recited in claim 1 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “fixing said work component to be fixed to the work component contact surface”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “quick connection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system – i.e., the system is for ‘quick connection’);
“an angle fixing device” as recited in claim 1 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “angle fixing” and “designed to fix the first body and the second body with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “angle fixing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device); and
“a quick connection system” as recited in claim 22 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “fixing said work component to be fixed to the work component contact surface”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “quick connection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system – i.e., the system is for ‘quick connection’); and
“an angle fixing device” as recited in claim 22 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “angle fixing” and “designed to fix the first body and the second body with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “angle fixing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device).
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 § 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) 1-4, 6-7, 13-20, and 22 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 1 introduces “a second inclination” at line 13 and again introduces “a second inclination” at line 17. Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the first transverse extension direction and the second transverse extension direction must have the same inclination (i.e., whether the claim is introducing a single “second inclination”), or whether the first transverse extension direction and the second transverse extension direction are permitted to have different inclinations (i.e., whether the claim is introducing two different “second inclinations”). That is, must the second inclination at line 17 be the same as the second inclination already introduced at line 13, as suggested by the same name “second inclination”? Alternatively, is claim 17 introducing an additional “second inclination” as suggested by the use of “a” as the article preceding “second inclination” at line 17? If two inclinations are intended, the examiner suggests referring to the inclination with different names, such as a first inclination and a second inclination. Alternatively, if one inclination is being twice introduced, the examiner suggests amending line 17 to recite “the second inclination”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 1 as being satisfied by any of the options set forth in this paragraph.
Claim 1 at lines 26-27 recites, “the plane in which the first body and the second body rotate with respect to each other.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plane” in the claim, rendering claim 1 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to implicitly limit the first and second bodies to rotating with respect to one another in a single plane. Consider the Wollenburg reference cited in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 section below. This refence discloses a second body that overlaps with a first body in a vertical direction, such that there are a plurality of planes in which the first and second bodies are rotatable with respect to each other (i.e., any of the planes in which the two bodies overlap can be considered as a ‘rotation plane’). It is unclear whether claim 1 limits there to being a single rotation plane. If not, it is unclear which particular plane is referred to by “the plane”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 1 as permitting there to be multiple planes in which the bodies rotate with respect to one another, where “the plane” can be any of these planes.
Claim 3 recites, “the first inclination of the first workpiece contact surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the first inclination” of the first workpiece contact surface, rendering claim 3 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether “the first inclination” is required to be the same as the previously introduced “second inclination” of the first workpiece contact surface as introduced in claim 1, or whether claim 3 is introducing some new inclination.
Claim 6 at line 3 recites that the support surface has an extension “in parallel” with the rotation plane of the first and second bodies. In view of the requirement in claim 1 that the rotation plane of the first and second bodies is the plane in which the first and second bodies rotate with respect to each other, claim 6 is indefinite. Conventionally, the definition of “parallel” is extending in the same direction, everywhere equidistant, and not meeting. Thus, two planes that are identical are not parallel under this definition because the two identical planes meet everywhere, thus failing the ‘not meeting’ requirement. Put another, two planes can only be parallel if the planes are spaced apart. However, the Applicant appears to use the term “parallel” to permit the extension of the support surface to be co-planar with, and thus not parallel to, the rotation plane. In Fig. 4 of the present drawings, the extension of the support surface and the rotation plane appear to be co-planar, not parallel. However, claim 6 is considered indefinite because the term ‘parallel’ is occasionally used in a manner that merely requires a distance between two planes to be constant, even if the distance is zero. That is, occasionally ‘parallel’ is used in a manner contradictory to its plain and ordinary meaning as including two planes always meet. The Applicant appears to use ‘parallel’ in this manner. However, since the intended meaning of ‘parallel’ is unclear, especially with respect to the ‘not meeting’ requirement, claim 6 is indefinite.
Claim 7 at line 5 recites that the support surface has an extension “in parallel” with the rotation plane of the first and second bodies. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6, in that Applicant appears to be using the term “parallel” to permit meeting between the extension and the rotation plane (i.e., Applicant appears to consider two planes that are co-planar as being ‘parallel’, even though the planes meet everywhere with no space between the planes).
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the clamp surface arrangement is required to protrude beyond each of the first and second workpiece contact surfaces. Claim 7 at lines 1-3 requires “a clamp surface arrangement, for each of the first workpiece contact surface and a second workpiece contact surface o f the first body, wherein the clamp surface arrangement protrudes beyond the corresponding workpiece contact surface”. This passage suggests that the clamp surface arrangement must protrude beyond each of the workpiece contact surfaces. However, claim 7 at lines 6-7 recites, “wherein the clamp surface arrangement protrudes beyond at least the first workpiece contact surface or the second workpiece contact surface”. The use of “or” in this passage suggests that the arrangement need only protrude beyond one of the surfaces. Claim 7 is thus indefinite because it is unclear the clamp surface arrangement is permitted to protrude beyond only one of the workpiece contact surfaces. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 7 as requiring that the clamp surface arrangement must only protrude beyond one of the workpiece contact surfaces since claim 7 recites “or” when describing the protrusion.
Claim 16 recites, wherein the stabilizing body is fixed with respect to the guide rail”. However, claim 15 expressly requires that the stabilizing body is displaceable along the guide rail, such that claim 15 requires that the stabilizing body is movable along the guide rail. Claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear whether claim 16 removes the requirement from claim 15 that the stabilizing body is movable along the guide rail. If the body is movable along the guide rail, the body is not fixed with respect to the guide rail. Should claim 16 be interpreted as requiring an ability to fix the stabilizing body with respect to the guide rail? Should claim 16 be interpreted as removing the requirement from claim 15 that the stabilizing body is displaceable along the guide rail? If so, claim 16 would raise an issue under 35 USC 112(d). Since it is unclear how to square the requirements of claims 15 and 16, claim 16 is indefinite.
Claim 22 at the final paragraph recites, “the plane in which the first body and the second body rotate with respect to each other.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the plane” in the claim, rendering claim 22 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether the Applicant intends to implicitly limit the first and second bodies to rotating with respect to one another in a single plane. Consider the Wollenburg reference cited in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102 section below. This refence discloses a second body that overlaps with a first body in a vertical direction, such that there are a plurality of planes in which the first and second bodies are rotatable with respect to each other (i.e., any of the planes in which the two bodies overlap can be considered as a ‘rotation plane’). It is unclear whether claim 22 limits there to being a single rotation plane. If not, it is unclear which particular plane is referred to by “the plane”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 22 as permitting there to be multiple planes in which the bodies rotate with respect to one another, where “the plane” can be any of these planes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 13-14, 17-18, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2021/0299905 A1 to Wollenburg.
Regarding claim 1, Wollenburg discloses an angle stop 10 comprising:
a first body 12 having a first workpiece contact surface 12f for contacting a workpiece side surface 200c of a workpiece 200 (see Fig. 7A);
a second body 14 having a work component contact surface (one of surfaces 40c and 40b’, noting that each of these surfaces is configured to contact a work component depending on the geometry of the work component; e.g., surface 40b’ is illustrated in Fig. 8 as contact work component 100, whereas surface 40c is configured to contact a work component shaped similar to work component 100, but with an additional leftward extending projection sized to abut surface 40c relative to Fig. 8; the work component is not part of the claimed structure, so Wollenburg need not disclose the work component that abuts surface 40c ) for contacting a work component to be fixed to the second body 14 (see Fig. 7, showing this feature being satisfied for work component 100), wherein the work component in a fixed state is placeable on a workpiece surface 200a of said workpiece 200 (see Fig. 7A, showing this feature being satisfied for work component 100);
a connector (including quick connection system 48) for fixing the work component to the second body 14 (see Fig. 7, showing this feature being satisfied for work component 100, and paragraph 48), wherein the connector is designed for fixing said work component to be fixed to the work component contact surface by a quick connection system 48 (see Figs. 7A and 8, showing this feature being satisfied for work component 100);
an angle fixing device 38;
wherein the first workpiece contact surface 12f has a first longitudinal extension direction in a rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 4, where the ‘rotation plane’ is a plane of the page extending along an upper surface 12a of the first body 12, and the first longitudinal extension direction is a left-right direction along the plane of the page of Fig. 4 with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright), and a first transverse extension direction with a second inclination with respect to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (the second transverse extension direction being into and out of the page relative to Fig. 4; i.e., a direction perpendicular to the upper surface 12a);
wherein the work component contact surface has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 4, where the second longitudinal extension direction is in an up-down direction along the plane of the page with the reference characters oriented upright; furthermore, Figs. 10 and 11 illustrate that the work component 100, as the work component 100 rests on an upper surface 34a of the second body 14 as can be seen in Fig. 8, is able to extend along the upper surface 12a of the first body 12 – this indicates that the upper surface 34a of the second body 14 is either parallel to or lower than the upper surface 12a of the first body 12; as such, the second longitudinal extension direction of the work component contact surface is in the rotation plane for at least one of work component contact surfaces 40c and 40b’), and a second transverse extension direction with a second inclination with respect to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (the transverse extension direction being into and out of the page relative to Fig. 4);
wherein the first body 12 and the second body 14 are connected together (see Fig. 1) and are orientable with respect to each other in an angle-defined manner in the rotation plane for orienting the work component contact surface in relation to the first workpiece contact surface 12f for orienting said work component 100 in relation to said workpiece side surface 200c in the angle-defined manner (compare Figs. 9 and 10);
wherein the angle fixing device 38 is designed to fix the first body 12 and the second body 14 with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner (see paragraphs 41 and 42);
wherein the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 is the plane in which the first body and the second body rotate with respect to each other (first, there is not one single plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate with respect to each other; however, one plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate with respect to each other is along the upper surface 12a of the first body). [Alternatively, claim 1 is satisfied in the same manner as claim 22 below, where the rotation plane is a plane through element 50 of the first body and through work component contact surface 40b’.]
Regarding claim 2, Wollenburg discloses that the first body 12 and the second body 14 are orientable with respect to each other in the angle-defined manner in the rotation plane about a centre of rotation (compare Figs. 9 and 10; the ‘centre of rotation’ is defined by hub 26 as shown in Fig. 2), and wherein the angle fixing device 38 is switchable between a first state for enabling a rotation between the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see paragraphs 41 and 42) and a second state for blocking a rotation between the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see paragraphs 41 and 42).
Regarding claim 3, Wollenburg discloses that the inclination of at least one of the first inclination of the first workpiece contact surface 12f and the second inclination of the work component contact surface is orthogonal to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Figs. 4 and 5; both are orthogonal to the rotation plane).
Regarding claim 4, Wollenburg discloses that the first body 12 has a second workpiece contact surface 12e for contacting the workpiece side surface (‘contacting’ is merely an intended use of the surface 12e; the surface 12e is an exposed planar surface and therefore is usable to contact the workpiece side surface), a surface normal direction of the second workpiece contact surface 12e being opposite to a surface normal direction of the first workpiece contact surface 12f (see Fig. 4; the former extends downward along the plane of the page while the latter extends upward along the plane of the page, with the reference characters oriented upright).
Regarding claim 6, Wollenburg discloses that the first body 12 has, spaced apart from a coupling region of the first body 12 and the second body 14, a support surface (an underside of tab 16; alternatively an upper surface of the tab 16) with an extension in parallel with the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 7A; note that “in parallel” feature is satisfied for the underside of the tab 16 to the same extent as disclosed in the present application; alternatively, to the extent that “in parallel” requires never intercepting, then the upper surface of the tab 16 satisfies this requirement), wherein the support surface protrudes beyond at least one of the first workpiece contact surface 12f and a second workpiece contact surface of the first body 12 and is placeable on a workpiece surface 200a (see Fig. 7A; either side of the tab 16 is placeable on the workpiece surface 200a by re-orienting the angle stop; there is no requirement that the ‘placeable on a workpiece surface’ feature is satisfied for the support surface at the same time as any other contact between the angled stop and the workpiece).
Regarding claim 7, Wollenburg discloses that the first body 12 has a clamp surface arrangement 16, for each of the first workpiece contact surface 12f and a second workpiece contact surface of the first body (see Fig. 7A, where the second workpiece contact surface is opposite to the first surface 12f; the clamp surface arrangement 16 is “for each” of the first and second workpiece contact surfaces because the clamp surface arrangement 16 aids in alignment of each of the first and second workpiece contact surfaces; being “for each” of the workpiece contact surfaces does not require that the clamp surface arrangement protrudes beyond each of the workpiece contact surfaces, since the claim later states that the clamp surface arrangement need only protrude beyond one of the workpiece contact surfaces), wherein the clamp surface arrangement 16 protrudes beyond the corresponding workpiece contact surface (see Fig. 7A; surface 12f can be considered as ‘the corresponding’ workpiece contact surface), wherein the clamp surface arrangement has a support surface (a surface facing into the page relative to Fig. 7A) with an extension in parallel with the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 7A; both the extension and the rotation plane are parallel with the plane of the page), wherein the clamp surface arrangement 16 protrudes beyond the first workpiece contact surface 12f and is configured to be arranged on a workpiece surface 200a (see Fig. 7A), and a clamp contact surface (a surface of arrangement 16 facing out the page relative to Fig. 7A) opposite the support surface for accommodating a clamp (‘accommodating a clamp’ is merely an intended use of the surface; in Wollenburg, since the surface is exposed and planar, a clamp is pressable against the ‘clamp contact surface’ even if Wollenburg does not expressly contemplate a clamp).
Regarding claim 13, Wollenburg discloses that the connector 48 is designed to exert a clamping force on a structure of the work component to be fixed (such as work component 100; see Fig. 8), in a perpendicular direction on the work component contact surface, to fix the work component to be fixed, in relation to the second body 14 (see Fig. 8; arm 48a of the connector 48 is pivoted per paragraph 49, and thus the force exerted by the arm 48a includes a component perpendicular to the work component contact surface since the arm 48a exerts a downward and leftward force in Fig. 8), wherein the clamping force has a force component in parallel with the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 8 – the clamping force has a horizontal component that is parallel to the rotation plane, since the force of the arm 48a on the work component 100 is diagonal, such that the force has both horizontal and vertical components), and wherein the second body 14 has an arm (either the entirety of element 42 can be considered as the ‘arm’, or an overhanging side of element 42 as can be seen in Fig. 5 can be considered as the ‘arm’; the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘arm’ includes a narrow extension of a larger area, mass, or group, and either of these structures satisfies this definition; either of these structures also satisfies another definition of ‘arm’ as something like or corresponding to an arm) designed to pre-position the structure of the work component, to be fixed, prior to clamping (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 59).
Regarding claim 14, Wollenburg discloses that the connector 48 has a clamp lever 48c pivotably fixed on the second body 12 (see Figs. 4 and 8 and paragraph 59) and a clamp element 48a pivotably fixed on the clamp lever 48c (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 49), wherein the clamp element 48a and the clamp lever 48c cooperate (see paragraph 49), whereby pivoting of the clamp lever 48c by a user results in pivoting of the clamp element 48a (see paragraph 49) and wherein the clamp element 48a exerts the clamping force on said structure of the work component to be fixed (see Fig. 8), in the perpendicular direction on the work component contact surface (the element 48a exerts a force having a leftward component relative to Fig. 8, which is in the perpendicular direction on the work component contact surface; note once again that no work component is claimed, and a work component can be provided that abuts either of surfaces 40c and 40b’), wherein the clamp lever 48c is configured to lie substantially in parallel with the rotation plane of the first body and the second body in a fixed state (see Fig. 1, noting that ‘substantially’ is a broad term), and wherein the clamp element 48a has a hook 48a’ at one end exerting the clamping force (see Fig. 8), said hook 48a’ being designed to engage behind an undercut in said structure of the work component 100 to be fixed (due to the curvature of the hook 48a’; see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Wollenburg discloses that the second body 14 is orientable in the rotation plane with respect to the first body 12 (compare Figs. 9 and 10), whereby the longitudinal extension direction of the work component contact surface is orientable with respect to a position perpendicular to the longitudinal extension direction of the workpiece contact surface 12f by at least +/- 60 degrees (see Fig. 9 showing the degree scale including a 60 degree marking; see also paragraph 10; note that the symbol “+/-” is interpreted to mean “plus or minus”), and wherein a first of the first body 12 and the second body 14 has an angle scale (see markings 44b in Fig. 9) and a second of the first body 12 and the second body 14 has an angle pointer 50c (see Fig. 9), wherein the angle scale is arranged along a circular arc about an axis of rotation between the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 18, Wollenburg discloses that one of the first body 12 and the second body 12 has a circular arc-shaped detent surface (see Fig. 9, where the surface defines members of the depressions 44c) with at least one detent geometry (the geometry including detents 44c; see Fig. 2) and the other one of the first body 12 and the second body 14 has at least one counter-detent geometry (see the geometry defined by hook 50c, which is a counter-detent geometry), wherein the detent geometry and the counter-detent geometry are designed to latch the first body 12 and the second body 14 in at least one predetermined angle position (see Fig. 11; the ‘designed to latch’ feature is satisfied because the engagement of the hook 50c with the geometry 44c provides at least some degree of restraint between the bodies 12 and 14), wherein depressions 44c are provided on the circular arc-shaped detent surface as the detent geometry (see Fig. 9) and a resiliently mounted element 50c latchable into the depressions 44c in a spring-biased manner is provided as the counter-detent geometry (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 53).
Regarding claim 21, Wollenburg discloses a method for operating and connecting an angle stop 10 with a work component 100, the angle stop 10 having a first body 12, a second body 14 and a connector 48 (see Fig. 7A), the method comprising:
placing the work component 100 on a workpiece surface 200a of a workpiece 200 (see Fig. 7A);
contacting the first body 12 having a first workpiece contact surface 12f with a workpiece side surface 200c of the workpiece 200 (see Fig. 7A);
contacting the second body 14 having a work component contact surface 40c with the work component 100 (see Fig. 8; note that the recitation merely requires that the second body 14 is contacted with the work component 100, not that the work component contact surface is contacted with the work component; the surface 40c is configured to contact a different style of work component 100 than that illustrated in Fig. 8);
fixing the work component 100 to the second body 14 (see Fig. 8);
fixing an angle between the first body 10 and the second body 12 (see Fig. 7A, or Fig. 12, showing two differ angles that are fixed); and
wherein the work component contact surface 40c has a second longitudinal extension direction in a rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (first, the rotation plane of the bodies 12 and 14 is along the upper surface 12a of the body 12, since this is one plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate relative to one another as evidenced by Figs. 10 and 11; surface 40c has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane since the work component 100 is on the upper surface 12a as shown in Figs. 10 and 11, which is evidence that surface 34a of the second body 14 is either co-planar with upper surface 12a and below surface 12a). [Alternatively, to the extent that the second body 14 is sufficiently recessed into the first body 12 that the surface 40b’ is in the rotation plane, then surface 40b’ can be considered as the work component contact surface. [Alternatively still, claim 21 is satisfied in the same manner as claim 22 below, where the rotation plane is a plane through element 50 of the first body and through work component contact surface 40b’.]
Regarding claim 22, Wollenburg discloses a set comprising an angle stop 10 and a work component 100, the set comprising:
a first body 12 having a first workpiece contact surface 12f for contacting a workpiece side surface 200c of a workpiece 200 (see Fig. 7A; note that the rejection refers to “first body 12” as including elements 50 and 16, since these elements are fixed to element 12, such that all of elements 12, 16 and 50 together form a single body);
a second body 14 having a work component contact surface 40b’ (see Fig. 8) for contacting the work component 100 to the second body 14 (see Figs. 7 and 8);
a connector (including quick connection system 48) for fixing the work component 100 to the second body 14 (see Fig. 7 and paragraph 48), wherein the connector is designed for fixing said work component 100 to the work component contact surface 40b’ by a quick connection system 48 (see Figs. 7A and 8);
an angle fixing device 38;
wherein the first workpiece contact surface 12f has a first longitudinal extension direction in a rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 1, where the ‘rotation plane’ is a plane above upper surface 12, where the plane extends through the element 50 of the first body 12 and through the surface 40b’; this is one plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate), and a first transverse extension direction with a first inclination with respect to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (the second transverse extension direction being into and out of the page relative to Fig. 4; i.e., a direction perpendicular to the upper surface 12a);
wherein the work component contact surface 40b’ has a second longitudinal extension direction in the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (see Fig. 1; relative to Fig. 8, the ‘second longitudinal extension direction’ is a direction of extent of the surface 40b’ into the page), and a second transverse extension direction with a second inclination with respect to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 (the transverse extension direction being into and out of the page relative to Fig. 4);
wherein the first body 12 and the second body 14 are connected together (see Fig. 1) and are orientable with respect to each other in an angle-defined manner in the rotation plane for orienting the work component contact surface 40b’ in relation to the first workpiece contact surface 12f (compare Figs. 9 and 10);
wherein the angle fixing device 38 is designed to fix the first body 12 and the second body 14 with respect to each other in an angle-stable manner (see paragraphs 41 and 42);
wherein the rotation plane of the first body 12 and the second body 14 is the plane in which the first body 12 and the second body 14 rotate with respect to each other (first, there is not one single plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate with respect to each other; however, one plane in which the bodies 12 and 14 rotate with respect to each other is a plane above upper surface 12a, where the plane is through element 50 of the first body 12 and through the surface 40b’ – see Fig. 1).
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenburg in view of US Pub. No. 2013/0160630 A1 to Groth.
Regarding claim 19, Wollenburg discloses that a plurality of detent geometries (each ‘detent geometry’ including at least two of the depressions 44c) are provided on the circular arc-shaped detent surface to configure the first body 12 and the second body 14 to be latchable at a plurality of predetermined angle positions (compare Figs. 7A and 12), wherein the plurality of predetermined angle positions has at least two of the following angles: 0 degrees, +/- 15 degrees, +/- 22.5 degrees, +/- 30 degrees, +/- 45 degrees, +/- 60 degrees (see the markings 44b in Fig. 12, which include multiples of these options), wherein the resiliently mounted element is a spring-loaded pointer 50c (see Fig. 12).
However, Wollenburg fails to disclose that the resiliently mounted element is a ball as required by claim 19.
Groth, though, teaches a device for defining an angle at which a power tool performs a cut, where the device includes a detent element 56 for engaging a detent 58 to set a cutting angle, where the detent element 56 is a ball (see paragraph 52, where the ball end pin includes a ball at an end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a ball-shaped detent as taught by Groth for the pointer shaped detent as taught by Wollenburg under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Wollenburg discloses the claimed invention except for a ball-shaped detent in place of the pointer-shaped detent disclosed by Wollenburg. Groth teaches that a ball-shaped detent is usable for the same purpose of setting a cutting angle as the pointer shaped detent of Wollenburg. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a ball-shaped detent as taught by Groth for the pointer-shaped detent of Wollenburg (including altering the geometry of the detent surface to correspond to the geometry of the ball shaped detent to ensure compatibility between the two interlocking detent parts) and the results of this substitution would have been predictable because the detent’s function of setting an angular position of a cutting tool remains the same – the two detent shapes performing the same function is evidence that there are no unexpected results from this substitution.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wollenburg in view of US Pub. No. 2016/0075049 A1 to Lilholt.
Regarding claim 20, Wollenburg discloses wherein the resiliently mounted element 50c is provided on the first body 12 (see Fig. 12) and the circular arc-shaped detent surface with the depressions 44c is provided on the second body 14 (see Fig. 12), and wherein the circular arc-shaped detent surface is oriented perpendicularly to the rotation plane of the first body 12 and of the second body 14 (this feature is satisfied because the detent surface extends into and out of the page relative to Fig. 12, which is a direction perpendicular to the rotation plane).
Wollenburg, though, fails to disclose a lock provided on the counter-detent geometry that is movable alternately between a state allowing movement of the resiliently mounted element and a state blocking movement of the resiliently mounted element as required by claim 20.
However, Lilholt discloses an angle stop including an angle fixing device (one combination of elements 340 and 345) and a lock (another combination of elements 340 and 345), where the lock prevents rotation of a first body 300 relative to a second body 200 (see paragraph 45, especially the portion of the paragraph at page 4). Thus, Lilholt teaches that providing more than one fixing device (in this case, both an angle fixing device and a lock) is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the counter-detent geometry of Wollenburg with a lock in addition to the existing angle fixing device in view of the teachings of Lilholt. This modification is advantageous to provide further security to limit movement of the first and second bodies, since providing two angle-fixing structures provides a more secure angle than merely one connection. As a result of this modification, Wollenburg as modified discloses that the lock is movable between a state allowing movement of the resiliently mounted element and a state blocking movement of the resiliently mounted element – e.g., when a user attempts to turn the first body relative to the second body, the state of the lock determines whether the resiliently mounted element is able to disengage the detent. When the lock is locked, rotation between the first and second bodies is blocked, such that the resiliently mounted element does not move in response to rotation of the first and second bodies. This interpretation appears consistent with the present application, where the Applicant has not illustrated any structure beyond one that prohibits rotation of the first and second bodies to block movement of the resiliently mounted element.
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 15-16 are currently not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103; however, no determination of allowability can be made in view of the issues raised above under 35 USC 112.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the recitation of “angle fixing device” as recited in claims 1 and 22 being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the Applicant asserts that an “angle fixing device” is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. This argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above, the recitation satisfies the three prong test for interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) as set forth in MPEP 2181. Second, the Federal Circuit has held that generic terms including “device” typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment. See Welker Brewing Company v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, the Applicant has provided no evidence that “angle fixing device” connotes sufficiently definite structure, and instead relies solely on argumentation to support this assertion. Indeed, the corresponding structure for the angle fixing device of the present application is a clamping screw. A clamping screw is a sufficiently definite name for structure. If the Applicant would like to avoid 112(f) interpretation, the Applicant is free to recite language such as a clamping screw that is directed to a particular structure. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and recitation of “angle fixing device” remain interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Turning to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102, the Applicant asserts that0 Wollenburg fails to disclose that the first workpiece contact surface has a first longitudinal extension in a rotation plane of the first body and the second body, in conjunction with the requirement that the rotation plane of the first body and the second body is the plane in which the first body and the second body rotate with respect to each other. The Applicant asserts that the ‘rotation plane’ of Wollenburg is the plane that defines recessed region 12k of the base 12 of Wollenburg. This argument is not persuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “rotation plane of the first body and the second body” includes any plane in which some portion of the second body rotates relative to the first body. The rotation plane is not limited to the plane including the recessed region 12k of the base 12 of Wollenburg. Since Applicant’s argument is premised on an overly narrow interpretation of a “rotation plane”, and since Applicant’s arguments fail to address the rotation planes set forth above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further makes arguments apparently against the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 at page 19 of the Remarks, asserting that the inventive first body is more slender than that of Wollenburg. However, these arguments are not against any particular langue of claim 1, and are thus not persuasive. There is no slenderness requirement of the first body required by claim 1. Similarly, the Applicant also makes arguments against a hypothetical modification of Wollenburg. Since these arguments are against a hypothetical modification of Wollenburg that is not included in the rejection, the arguments are moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 and 22 are unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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 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, 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights