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 .
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.
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: intake part in claim 1; an exhaust part in claim 1; a ventilation part in claim 2; a ventilation part in claim 4, and exhaust part in claim 4; in take part in claim 4; first ventilation exit part in claim 5; second ventilation exit part in claim 5; guide part in claim 8; a first duct exhaust part in claim 9; second dust exhaust part in claim 9; a first straightening part in claim 11.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 16-19 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.
In re Claim 1, “an exhaust part for causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the outside of the dust collection box and being provided in a rear part of the dust collection box,” is indefinite. As best understood, the exhaust part is 84e (see applicant’s Fig. 11). However, this structure does not appear to allow air to be discharged outside of the dust collection box. Is applicate claiming discharge hole 82H? The claims were interpreted as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 16-17, 4-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,074, 044 to Duncan.
In re Claim 1, Duncan teaches a work machine (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a motor that drives a tip tool for performing cutting forward with respect to a machining material;
a fan that rotates due to driving of the motor (see Fig. 1, #38);
a tool cover that covers at least a portion of the tip tool (See Fig. 1, #22); and
a dust collection box that is connected to the tool cover (see Fig. 1, #40/34),
wherein the dust collection box includes
an intake part for causing an air flow generated due to rotating of the fan or an air flow generated due to cutting to flow into the dust collection box and being provided in a front part of the dust collection box (see annotated Fig. 1, below see also arrows in Fig. 3), and
an exhaust part for causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust collection box to be discharged to the outside of the dust collection box and being provided in a rear part of the dust collection box (see annotated Fig. 1, below), and
wherein the intake part and the exhaust part are apart from each other in a forward-rearward direction, and an air passage connecting the intake part and the exhaust part is formed in the dust collection box in a manner of extending in the forward-rearward direction (see Figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 3, Duncan teaches wherein the tool cover has a ventilation part connected to the intake part (See Fig. 1, #32 in view of annotated Fig. 1, above), and the air flow generated by the fan or the air flow generated by cutting is sent to the intake part by the ventilation part (see Fig.3 ).
In re Claim 16, Duncan teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, #14), and the tool cover is configured to cover an upper part of the circular saw blade (see Figs. 1-3, #14), and wherein a measurement of the dust collection box in an upward-downward direction is set to be smaller than a measurement thereof in a forward-rearward direction (see Fig. 3).
In re Claim 17, Duncan teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, #14), wherein the intake part is positioned in front of a rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and wherein the exhaust part is positioned behind the rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1 above).
In re Claim 4, Duncan teaches a work machine (see Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a motor that drives a tip tool for performing cutting forward with respect to a machining material;
a fan that rotates due to driving of the motor (see Fig. 1, #38);
a tool cover that covers at least a portion of the tip tool (see Fig. 1, #22); and
a dust collection box that is connected to the tool cover (see Fig. 1, #40/34),
wherein the tool cover is provided with a ventilation part for sending an air flow generated by rotating of the fan and an air flow generated by cutting to the dust collection box (see Figs. 1-3, #32),
wherein the dust collection box has
a case internally having a dust chamber for collecting machining chips generated during cutting (see Fig. 3, showing arrows moving through a “dust chamber”),
an intake part connected to the ventilation part and causing the air flow to flow into the dust chamber (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and
an exhaust part causing the air flow which has flowed into the dust chamber to be discharged to an inward side of the tool cover (see annotated Fig. 1, above), and
wherein the work machine further comprises an air passage that is configured to cause the air flow generated by the fan to flow into the dust collection box via the intake part and to be discharged to the inward side of the tool cover from the exhaust part (see Figs. 1-3).
In re Claim 5, Duncan teaches wherein the ventilation part has a first ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake part without passing through an operation space of the tip tool in the tool cover (see annotated Fig. 3, below), and a second ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by cutting to flow out to the intake part (see annotated Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
625
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 6, Duncan teaches wherein the first ventilation exit part and the second ventilation exit part are disposed adjacent to each other (see annotated Fig. 3, showing the first and second ventilation exit parts adjacent to each other).
In re Claim 7, Duncan teaches wherein the first ventilation exit part and the second ventilation exit part are open in the same direction (both ventilation exit parts are open in the direction “left/right” as illustrated in Fig. 3). In re Claim 12, Duncan teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, #14), and the tool cover is configured to cover an upper part of the circular saw blade (see Figs. 1-3, #22), and wherein a measurement of the dust chamber in an upward-downward direction is set to be smaller than a measurement thereof in a forward-rearward direction (see Fig. 3).
In re Claim 12, Duncan teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, #14), and the tool cover is configured to cover an upper part of the circular saw blade, and wherein a measurement of the dust chamber in an upward-downward direction is set to be smaller than a measurement thereof in a forward-rearward direction (see Fig. 3).
In re Claim 13, Duncan teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3, #14), wherein the intake part is positioned in front of a rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1, above ), and wherein the exhaust part is positioned behind the rotation center of the circular saw blade (see annotated Fig. 1, above).
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 5-6, 8-11, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 7,275,326 to Tanimoto.
In this interpretation, Duncan only has a second ventilation exit part.
In re Claim 5, Duncan teaches a second ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by cutting to flow out to the intake part (see annotated Fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
626
395
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Duncan does not teach wherein the ventilation part has a first ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake part without passing through an operation space of the tip tool in the tool cover
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known in the circular blade cutting art to provide a ventilation part (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, #12/19/14) has a first ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by a fan (see Tanimoto , Fig. 3, #7)to flow out to the intake part without passing through an operation space of the tip tool in the tool cover (see Figs. 1-5, #17/9).
In the same field of invention, circular blade cutting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to add the path taught by Tanimoto to from the fan, around the outer diameter of the bonnet #40. Doing so provides fan wind to scatter chips at the cutting edge of the saw bade to improve visibility/workability (see Tanimoto, Col. 2, ll. 44-49)
In re Claim 6, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the first ventilation exit part and the second ventilation exit part are disposed adjacent to each other (in the combination the first and second ventilation exit parts are disposed adjacent to each other).
In re Claim 8, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the dust collection box has a guide part for guiding the air flow flowing into the dust chamber from the intake part to a lower side (see Duncan, Fig. 3, #92), wherein the first ventilation exit part is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit part (The ventilation exit of Tanimoto would be placed on the outside of bonnet and would be above the second ventilation exit part), and wherein the air flow which has flowed out to the intake part from the first ventilation exit part is guided to the lower side by the guide part (see Tanimoto, Figs. 1-5, #17).
In re Claim 9, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the second ventilation exit part communicates with the inside of the tool cover (see Duncan Fig. 3, arrow between #28/42 ), wherein the ventilation part is configured to include a duct for causing the air flow to branch (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, showing the air flow branching between #12 and the saw blade cover), and wherein the duct has a first duct exhaust part for causing one of the branched air flows to be discharged to the first ventilation exit part (see Tanimoto, Figs. 1-5, #17) and a second duct exhaust part for causing the other of the branched air flows to be discharged to the inside of the tool cover (see Duncan Fig. 3, arrows between #28/42), and the other of the branched air flows is discharged to the second ventilation exit part side by the second duct exhaust part (see Duncan Figs. 1-3 in view of Tanimoto, Figs. 1-5).
In re Claim 10, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the tip tool is a circular saw blade having a circular shape (see Figs. 1-3), and wherein the second duct exhaust part is disposed on the inward side of an external shape of the circular saw blade in a radial direction when viewed in a plate thickness direction of the circular saw blade (see Tanimoto, Fig. 1 and 5, #12/9 is located on inner side of an external shape of the circular saw blade in a radial direction when viewed in a plate thickness direction of the circular saw blade).
In re Claim 11, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein a first straightening part is provided between the second ventilation exit part and the second duct exhaust part, and wherein the first straightening part straightens the air flow discharged from the second duct exhaust part to the second ventilation exit part side (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, showing a straight part where the air from the fan goes from #12 up towards the top of the page).
In re Claim 14, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein the intake part is positioned behind a front end of the circular saw blade (see Duncan #32 in Figs. 1-2), and wherein the exhaust part is positioned in front of a rear end of the circular saw blade (see Duncan, Fig. 1, #46).
In re Claim 20, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, teaches wherein at least a part of the first ventilation exit part is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit part or is disposed on a side in front of the second ventilation exit part (see Duncan Figs 1-3, #46 and Tanimoto, Figs. 1-5, #17).
In re Claim 19, Duncan teaches a second ventilation exit part for causing the air flow including the machining chips to flow out to the intake part (see annotated Fig. 3, above under Claim 5).
Duncan does not teach wherein the ventilation part has a first ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by the fan to flow out to the intake part without passing through an operation space of the tip tool in the tool cover, wherein at least a part of the first ventilation exit part is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit part or is disposed on a side in front of the second ventilation exit part.
However, Tanimoto teaches that it is known in the circular blade cutting art to provide a ventilation part (see Tanimoto, Fig. 5, #12/19/14) has a first ventilation exit part for causing the air flow generated by a fan (see Tanimoto , Fig. 3, #7)to flow out to the intake part without passing through an operation space of the tip tool in the tool cover (see Figs. 1-5, #17/9).
In the same field of invention, circular blade cutting, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to add the path taught by Tanimoto to from the fan, around the outer diameter of the bonnet #40. Doing so provides fan wind to scatter chips at the cutting edge of the saw bade to improve visibility/workability (see Tanimoto, Col. 2, ll. 44-49)
Such a combination would read on wherein at least a part of the first ventilation exit part is disposed on a side above the second ventilation exit part (The ventilation exit of Tanimoto would be placed on the outside of bonnet and would be above the second ventilation exit part) or is disposed on a side in front of the second ventilation exit part (see Duncan Figs 1-3, #46 and Tanimoto, Figs. 1-5, #17).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 2009/0007441 to Duncan (hereinafter Duncan, ‘441).
In re Claim 7, modified Duncan, in re Claim 5, does not teach teaches wherein the first ventilation exit part and the second ventilation exit part are open in the same direction However, Duncan ‘441 teaches that it is known to place a discharge at the front of the tool (see Duncan ‘441, Fig. 1, #104). In the same field of invention circular bladed cutting tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to place the second ventilation exit part at the front of the too. Doing so is a known location and allows the hose to not be “behind” the cutting device in the way of the user.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,074, 044 to Duncan in view of US 2010/0325903 to Patel.
In re Claim 15, Duncan does not teach wherein a base for sliding on the machining material is provided below the tool cover, and wherein the dust collection box is attached to one side of the tool cover in a lateral direction.
However, Patel teaches that it is known in the circular bladed cutting structures to provide a base (see Patel, Fig. 1, #160). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a base to Duncan. Doing so allows the user to control the depth of cut (see Patel, Para. 0052).
In re Claim 18, Duncan does not teach wherein a base for sliding on the machining material is provided below the tool cover, and wherein the dust collection box is attached to one side of the tool cover in a lateral direction.
However, Patel teaches that it is known in the circular bladed cutting structures to provide a base (see Patel, Fig. 1, #160). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a base to Duncan. Doing so allows the user to control the depth of cut (see Patel, Para. 0052).
Conclusion
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724