31DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 11-13-2025 was received. Claims 1, 4-7, 13-17, 19 were amended. Claims 2-3, 8-12, 18, and 20-34 were cancelled. Claims 13-17, and 19 are withdrawn. Claims 1 4-7 are examined in this action.
Claims 13-17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 13-17 and 19 should be labeled “withdrawn.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2009/0133559 to Sargeant in view of US 2009/0071017 to Gehret.
In re Claim 1, Sargeant teaches a plunge saw (see e.g., Figs. 1-2), comprising:
a motor (see e.g., Fig. 11, motor #24) including a motor shaft configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis (see Fig. 11, motor spindle #31); and
an arbor (see e.g., Fig. 11, #32/33) configured to operatively attach a circular saw blade (see e.g., Fig. 1-2, #34 and Para. 0054) having a blade diameter to the plunge saw (see Fig. 2, blade #34 has a diameter) and to receive a torque from the motor when the motor shaft rotates about the shaft rotational axis (see Par. 0054), wherein the arbor is configured to rotate about an arbor rotational axis, and further wherein the arbor rotational axis is parallel to the shaft rotational axis (see Fig. 11, the axis bout which #32/33 is offset from the axis of #31);
wherein the plunge saw has a maximum depth-of-cut (see Fig.6, showing the plunge saw have a maximum depth),
wherein the plunge saw further includes a workpiece support (see Fig. 3, foot plate #14) configured to position a workpiece and the plunge saw relative to one another when the workpiece is cut by the plunge saw (see Fig. 3, #14 locates the saw above workpiece #28), wherein the workpiece support includes a base plate (see Fig. 1, #14 is a base plate) that defines an arbor-facing side and an arbor-opposed side (see Fig. 3, #14 has an arbor-facing side “upward” and an arbor-opposed side “downward.”);
wherein the arbor is operatively attached to the arbor-facing side of the base plate via a base plate pivot (see Fig. 7, #22/52) and the arbor-facing side of the base plate faces toward the arbor such that the arbor is configured to pivot relative to the base plate during a cutting operation throughout a range of orientations which are bounded by a fully plunged orientation corresponding to the maximum depth-of-cut and a fully retracted orientation (see Fig. 6, illustrating the range of movement of the blade between a fully retracted position and a fully plunge position); and
wherein the plunge saw further includes a blade guard (see Figs. 1-3, #16) mounted on the base plate so that the saw blade pivots out of the blade guard when the saw blade pivots from the fully retracted position to the fully plunged position (see Figs. 1-2, in view of Fig. 6).
Sargeant does not teach wherein a ratio of the maximum depth-of-cut to the blade diameter is at least 0.35 and at most 0.45.
However, Gehret teaches that it is known to provide a saw with an increased depth of cut, such that for a circular saw blade diameter of 7.3 inches the depth of cut is 3.0 inches (see Gehret, abstract). 3.0 inches divided by 7.3 inches equals 0.41095.
In the same field of invention, circular saws with shoes/base plates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the depth of cut of Sargeant to be 3.0 inches for a 7.3 diameter blade (or a ratio of 0.41095). Doing so allows the saw to be more versatile in that the user can cut workpieces of larger depth without requiring a larger saw.
In re Claim 4, modified Sargeant, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the arbor is distinct from the motor shaft (see Sargeant, Fig. 11 showing #24 distinct from #32/33) and is configured to operatively engage with the motor shaft to receive the torque from the motor shaft (see Sargeant, Fig. 11, #31/33, the motor spindle is connected to the spindle arrangement #33 by a gear on the spindle arrangement and a gear on the motor spindle – see Para. 0054).
In re Claim 5, modified Sargeant, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the arbor includes an arbor gear (see Sargeant, Fig. 11, the gear of #33 on which motor spindle interacts – see also Para. 0054), wherein the motor shaft includes a shaft gear (see Sargeant, Fig. 11, # gear at #31), and further wherein the shaft gear is configured to interface with the arbor gear to convey the torque from the motor shaft to the arbor (see Sargeant, Para. 0054).
In re Claim 6, modified Sargeant, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the arbor gear is positioned between the shaft gear and the workpiece support (see Sargeant, Fig. 11, gear associated with #33 is between gear #31 and the workpiece support #14).
In re Claim 7, modified Sargeant, in re Clam 1, teaches wherein the arbor rotational axis extends directly between the shaft rotational axis and the workpiece support (see Sargeant, Fig. 11, gear associated with #33 is between gear #31 and the workpiece support #14).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724