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 on 10/03/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitation “a bevel lock configured to selectively retain the bevel guide at a selected bevel angle” (cited in claim 14) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “a bevel lock” coupled with functional language “configured to selectively retain the bevel guide at a selected bevel angle” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “bevel lock” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term "means".
Since the claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 14 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see page 9, line 35 to page 10, line 2) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartmann (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0000046) in view of Schutz (U.S. Patent No. 2,562,396).
Regarding claim 1, Hartmann discloses a bevel saw (see Figs.1-2) configured to make a bevel cut in a workpiece (M), the bevel saw comprising:
a circular saw blade (1, note the bevel saw is a circular saw, see claim 1);
a driving mechanism (3) for driving the circular saw blade (1);
an arbor (11) configured to operatively attach the circular saw blade (1) to rotate the circular saw blade (1) with a blade plane and about an arbor rotational axis when the arbor (11) receives a torque from the driving mechanism (3);
a base plate (2) that defines an arbor-facing side (e.g., a top side as seen in Fig.1) and an arbor-opposed side (e.g., a bottom side as seen in Fig.1), wherein the arbor-facing side (e.g., the top side) of the base plate (2) faces toward the above (11); and
a bevel guide (4’,4’’, see Fig.1 as annotated below) configured to selectively vary a bevel angle between the blade plane (2) and the arbor-opposed side (e.g., the bottom side) of the base plate (2) within a bevel cut angular range-of-motion to selectively vary an angle of the bevel cut within the workpiece (M), wherein the bevel guide (4’,4’’) includes a guide plate (4’,4’’) that includes:
PNG
media_image1.png
732
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(i) a first circular arc-shaped slot (5’, see the annotated Fig.1) that has a first radius of curvature (C1) that extends from a first origin (O1); and
(ii) a second circular arc-shaped slot (5’’) that has a second radius of curvature (C2) that extends from a second origin (O2) that is spaced apart from the first origin (O1) by a distance at least 1% and at most 50% of the first radius curvature (C1), wherein the first radius of curvature (C1) differs from the second radius of curvature (C2) substantially as claimed except Hartmann does not explicitly mention the driving mechanism (3) is a motor including a motor shaft.
Schutz shows a driving mechanism for driving a circular saw blade (20) of a saw, wherein the driving mechanism comprises a motor (see column 4, line 15) having a motor shaft (see column 4, line 14), and an arbor (21) extending from the motor shaft (see column 4, lines 13-14) and coupled to a saw blade (20) configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis for driving the saw blade (20).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Hartmann by using a well-known an commercially available driving mechanism such as Schutz’s motor with a motor shaft so that the arbor (11)receives a torque from the motor via rotation of the motor shaft for the predictable result of driving the saw blade as taught by Schutz.
Regarding claim 3, in Hartmann, a ratio of the first radius of curvature (C1) to the second radius of curvature (C2) is at least 1.25 (see the annotated Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, in Hartmann, the first radius of curvature (C1) is greater than zero, and further wherein the second radius of curvature (C2) is greater than zero.
Regarding claim 14, Hartmann’s bevel guide (4’,4’’) further includes a bevel lock (14) configured to selectively retain the bevel guide (4’,4’’) at a selected bevel angle.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 93/19907 is cited to shows a motor (14) for operatively connected to an arbor (16) for driving a circular saw blade (21).
An English translation of CN 104014868A is provided in the attached PTO-892 for CN 104014868A that is cited in the IDS filed on 08/20/2025.
Remarks
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3, 4 and 14 have been considered but are moot in light of the above new ground(s) of rejection.
It is noted the term “a lock” cited in claim 14 does not define structure but is defined as a device for securing something. As further evidenced by the Applicant (see page 9, line 1), the bevel lock 680 includes a cam, a cam lock, a set screw or a thumb screw. The terms “a cam”, “a cam lock”, “a set screw” and “a thumb screw” all define structure but the term “bevel lock” does not define structure.
CN 104014868A cited in the 08/20/2025 has been considered. The two circular arc-shaped slots (50) shown in Fig.8 each has a radius of curvature, wherein the two radius of curvatures extend from the same origin.
Action Made Final
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.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724