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
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. It is unclear whether the present drawings illustrate the features of claim 8 because no ‘stroke of a housing’ and no ‘gap’ is indicated with a reference character in the present drawings. (Indeed, the meaning of a ‘stroke of a housing’ is unclear as discussed in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below.) Therefore, the features of claim 8 should be shown in the present drawings, or the features must be canceled from the claim(s). If the features of claim 8 are shown in the drawings, then the ‘stroke’ of the housing and the ‘gap’ should be indicated with reference characters to make clear that these features are illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). 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 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 cutting member” as recited in claims 1, 16, and 20 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting” – i.e., in order for a member to be considered as a “cutting member”, the member must perform a cutting function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., being “rotatable about a first axis” is insufficient structure for performing a cutting function, since a structure such as a lever or a shaft can be rotatable about a first axis without performing any cutting function);
“a heat dissipation element” as recited in claim 6 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “heat dissipation” – i.e., in order for an element to be considered as a “heat dissipation element”, the element must perform a heat dissipating function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., being “disposed at the air inlet” is insufficient structure for performing a heat dissipating function); and
“a lifting assembly” as recited in claim 12 (first, “assembly” is a generic placeholder for “means” because an “assembly” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for some particular structure – any structure can be considered as an “assembly”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “lifting” – i.e., in order for an assembly to be considered as a “lifting assembly”, the assembly must perform a lifting function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., being “disposed at the air inlet” is insufficient structure for performing a heat dissipating function).
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 1-20 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 at lines 3-4 recites, “a cutting assembly for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece movable relative to the workbench assembly”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite. It is unclear whether “movable relative to the workbench assembly” is describing the workpiece during the cutting operation, or whether “movable relative to the workbench assembly” is describing the cutting assembly. Either of these interpretations is consistent with the present application, since each of the cutting assembly and workpiece is movable relative to the workbench assembly in the structure as disclosed. For examination purposes, the examiner considers the claim as being satisfied by either of these interpretations.
Claim 8 recites that the first and second housing portions are “spaced apart by a stroke of a housing”. This recitation is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, this recitation is indefinite because the relationship between the previously introduced “mounting housing” and the recitation of “a housing” in claim 8 is unclear. If “a housing” is not previously introduced, is “a housing” even part of the claimed structure? Or, alternatively, is “a housing” an unclaimed structure to introduce merely to describe a spacing between the first and second housing portions? The present specification does not indicate which housing’s “stroke” is referred to, such that the structure in the present application corresponding to “a housing” as recited in claim 8 is unclear. It is thus unclear whether “a housing” must be some housing in addition to the mounting housing, or whether “a housing” is permitted to be a portion of the mounting housing. Second, the recitation is indefinite because the intended meaning of “a stroke of a housing” is unclear. The present drawings do not indicate any “stroke” of the housing, and the present application does not a special definition of “a stroke of a housing”. Moreover, the term “stroke”, when used as a noun, has multiple definitions. The most relevant definitions of “stroke” appear to be: a single unbroken movement, and the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (such as a piston) having a reciprocating motion. However, it is unclear that this meaning of “stroke” is intended by the Applicant because no movement of a housing that separates the first and second housing portions is expressly disclosed, and it is not clear what particular movement as disclosed in the present application could even be referred to. Therefore, it appears that the Applicant may intend an alternative meaning of “stroke”. As one option for an alternative meaning of “stroke”, the Applicant may be using the term “stroke” as synonymous with “length”, where “stroke” describes a dimension, rather than a movement distance, of a housing. As such, claim 8 is indefinite. The examiner suggests indicating the “stroke” and the “housing” with reference characters in the drawings, so that the meaning of claim 8 can more accurately be determined. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim as being satisfied by any of the potential meanings set forth in this paragraph.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the communication portion is disposed at an end of the first housing portion and the second housing portion facing away from the cutting member”. This recitation is indefinite due to the singular use of “an end” modifying the two housing portions. It is unclear whether claim 10 is intending to introduce two ends, including a first end of the first housing and a second end of the second housing, where both ends must face away from the cutting member. This interpretation is reasonable because “an end” is modified by “of the first housing portion and the second housing portion”, such that it is reasonable for the claim to require two ends because there are two housing portions. Another interpretation is that the claim requires there to be a single end that is part of both housing portions. While this interpretation appears consistent with the plain language of the claim, this interpretation does not appear consistent with the present disclosure because, as disclosed, the first and second housing portions do not appear to share an end. Yet another interpretation is that the claim requires the communication portion is disposed at (i) an end of the first housing portion and (ii) the second housing portion. However, in this interpretation, the phrase “facing away from the cutting member” becomes unclear, since this phrase appears to modify “an end”. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the claim as being satisfied if the communication is disposed at an end of either of the first and second housing portions, where the end faces away from the cutting member.
Claim 16 at lines 3-4 recites, “a cutting assembly for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece movable relative to the workbench assembly”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite for the same reasons as explained above in regards to claim 1. For examination purposes, the same interpretation is considered above in regards to claim 1 is applied.
Claim 20 at lines 3-4 recites, “a cutting assembly for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece movable relative to the workbench assembly”. The run-on nature of this recitation renders the recitation indefinite for the same reasons as explained above in regards to claim 1. For examination purposes, the same interpretation is considered above in regards to claim 1 is applied.
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) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2018/0133819 A1 to Yamamura et al.
Regarding claim 1, Yamamura discloses a table cutting device 300 (see Figs. 39-41 and paragraph 160), comprising:
a workbench assembly (including table 20) for holding a workpiece (see paragraph 64, noting that the table 20 shown in Fig. 41 has a planar upper support surface that enables the workbench assembly to hold a workpiece);
a cutting assembly 100 for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece (see Fig. 41; the cutting assembly including cutting member 102 per paragraph 167, so the cutting assembly 100 is able to perform a cutting operation) movable relative to the workbench assembly (each of the cutting assembly 100 and the workpiece is movable relative to the workpiece assembly; regarding the cutting assembly, compare Figs. 39 and 41; regarding the workpiece, the workpiece is movable by, as one example, sliding the workpiece along the fence 80) and comprising a cutting member 102 rotatable about a first axis (see paragraph 167 describing the cutting member 102 as being rotatable; the first axis extends into and out of the page relative to Fig. 39 through spindle 130 consistent with paragraph 116);
a motor 303 disposed on a side of the workbench assembly (an upper side relative to Fig. 41) for driving the cutting assembly 100 to move (see Fig. 41, where the motor 303 drives the cutting member 102 of the cutting assembly 100 to rotate via gear head 120; the structure of the gear head 120 is shown in Fig. 23) and rotatable about a second axis (see paragraph 170; the axis being an axis defined by the output shaft of the motor 303); and
a circuit board (described at paragraph 169);
wherein the table cutting device further comprises a mounting housing (see Fig. 41, where the mounting housing includes housing portion 305 and housing portion 304, and optionally also includes the housing portion housing the gear head 140 as can be seen in Fig. 41) in which the circuit board and the motor 303 are disposed (see paragraphs 169 and 170).
Regarding claim 2, Yamamura discloses that the mounting housing is formed with a first housing portion (see the annotated portion of Fig. 41 below) and a second housing portion 305 which communicate with each other (see paragraph 170), the motor 303 is disposed in the first housing portion (see paragraph 170), and the circuit board is disposed in the second housing portion 305 (see paragraph 169).
PNG
media_image1.png
810
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yamamura discloses that the mounting housing is formed with an air inlet 305a formed at an end of the second housing portion 305 and facing an end of the circuit board (see Fig. 41; since the circuit board is within housing 305, and since the air inlet 305a faces a direction into the interior of housing 305, which is where the circuit board is located, the air inlet 305a faces in a direction toward an end of the circuit board).
Regarding claim 4, Yamamura discloses that the mounting housing is formed with an air outlet 306 formed at an end of the first housing portion (a lower end relative to Fig. 41), and the circuit board and the motor are disposed between the air inlet and the air outlet (see Fig. 41 and paragraph 170; in Fig. 41, the air inlet 305a is above both the circuit board and the motor since the air inlet 305a is at a top of the mounting housing, and the air outlet 306 is below both the motor 303 and the housing portion 305 in which the circuit board is located; the ‘disposed between’ feature is further met along an air path per paragraph 170).
Regarding claim 5, Yamamura discloses that the air outlet 306 and the air inlet 305a are located at different positions along a direction of the first axis (the first axis extends in a left-right direction relative to the key of Fig. 41, and the air outlet 306 is further in the left direction than the air inlet 305a).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamura discloses a heat dissipation element (see the annotated portion of Fig. 39 below; the corresponding structure of the heat dissipation element disclosed in the present specification is fins with gaps between the fins, and this is the structure disclosed by Yamamura).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Yamamura discloses that the first housing portion and the second housing portion are spaced apart (the first and second housing portions are spaced apart, at least at their upper ends relative to Fig. 41 by the communication portion as can be seen in the annotated Fig. above).
Regarding claim 8, Yamamura discloses that the first housing portion and the second housing portion are spaced apart by a stroke of a housing, a gap, or a combination of the housing and the gap (e.g., relative to Fig. 41, ends of the first and second housing portions opposite the blade 102 are separated from each other by a gap, where the gap is outward of the communication portion in the annotated Fig. above; note that being separated by a gap permits the ends to be separated by the gap plus the communication portion).
Regarding claim 9, Yamamura discloses that at least a communication portion is disposed between the first housing portion and the second housing portion (see the annotated Fig. provided above), and the first housing portion is connected to the second housing portion through the communication portion (see the annotated Fig. provided above).
Regarding claim 10, Yamamura discloses that the communication portion is disposed at an end of the first housing portion and the second housing portion facing away from the cutting member 102 (see the annotated Fig. provided above; the communication portion is disposed at an end of the first housing portion facing away from the cutting member; see the indefiniteness rejection of this claim above).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamura discloses that an end of the first housing portion is connected to the second housing portion (by the connecting portion; the present specification acknowledges that a connection can be indirect – see, e.g., the phrase “directly or indirectly connected” at paragraph 49), and an air outlet 306 is disposed at another end of the first housing portion (see the annotated Fig. provided above).
Regarding claim 12, Yamamura discloses a mounting base (see the annotated Figs. 40 and 41 below, where for the purposes of claim 12 the mounting base does not include the housing portion that houses the gear head 140), wherein the motor 303 is disposed on the mounting base (see Fig. 41), and the mounting base is connected to a lifting assembly (including guide rails 75 and 76; consistent with claim 15, a pair of guide rails is the structure corresponding to the lifting assembly; also, the rails 75 and 76 perform a ‘lifting’ function because the rails 75 and 76 hold the cutting assembly 100 above the table 20, such that the rails 75 and 76 lift the cutting assembly 100) and moves on the lifting assembly to move the cutting assembly 100 (this feature is satisfied because the mounting base is slidable along the rails 75 and 76).
PNG
media_image3.png
665
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
689
785
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Yamamura discloses that an air outlet portion 306 is formed in the mounting base (see annotated Fig. 41 above).
Regarding claim 14, Yamamura discloses that the mounting housing is connected to the mounting base (see Fig. 41).
Regarding claim 15, Yamamura discloses that the lifting assembly comprises guide rails 75 and 76 (see the annotated Figs. 40 and 41 above), and the mounting base is connected to the guide rails 75 and 76 and is movable along the guide rails 75 and 76 (see Figs. 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 16, Yamamura discloses a table cutting device 300 (see Figs. 39-41 and paragraph 160), comprising:
a workbench assembly (including table 20) for holding a workpiece (see paragraph 64, noting that the table 20 shown in Fig. 41 has a planar upper support surface that enables the workbench assembly to hold a workpiece);
a cutting assembly 100 for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece (see Fig. 41; the cutting assembly including cutting member 102 per paragraph 167, so the cutting assembly 100 is able to perform a cutting operation) movable relative to the workbench assembly (each of the cutting assembly 100 and the workpiece is movable relative to the workpiece assembly; regarding the cutting assembly, compare Figs. 39 and 41; regarding the workpiece, the workpiece is movable by, as one example, sliding the workpiece along the fence 80) and comprising a cutting member 102 rotatable about a first axis (see paragraph 167 describing the cutting member 102 as being rotatable; the first axis extends into and out of the page relative to Fig. 39 through spindle 130 consistent with paragraph 116);
a motor 303 disposed on a side of the workbench assembly (an upper side relative to Fig. 41) for driving the cutting assembly 100 to move (see Fig. 41, where the motor 303 drives the cutting member 102 of the cutting assembly 100 to rotate via gear head 120; the structure of the gear head 120 is shown in Fig. 23); and
a circuit board (described at paragraph 169);
wherein the table cutting device further comprising a mounting housing (see Fig. 41, where the mounting housing includes housing portion 305, housing portion 304, and the housing portion housing the gear head 140 as can be seen in Fig. 41) formed with an air inlet 305a and an air outlet 306 (see paragraph 169), and the circuit board and the motor are disposed between the air inlet and the air outlet (see Fig. 41 and paragraph 170; in Fig. 41, the air inlet 305a is above both the circuit board and the motor since the air inlet 305a is at a top of the mounting housing, and the air outlet 306 is below both the motor 303 and the housing portion 305 in which the circuit board is located; the ‘disposed between’ feature is further met along an air path per paragraph 170).
Regarding claim 17, Yamamura discloses that the mounting housing is formed with a first housing portion (see the annotated portion of Fig. 41 above) and a second housing portion 305 which communicate with each other (see paragraph 170), the motor 303 is disposed in the first housing portion (see paragraph 170), and the circuit board is disposed in the second housing portion 305 (see paragraph 169).
Regarding claim 18, Yamamura discloses that the air outlet 306 and the air inlet 305a are located at different positions along a direction of the first axis (the first axis extends in a left-right direction relative to the key of Fig. 41, and the air outlet 306 is further in the left direction than the air inlet 305a).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamura discloses that the air outlet 306 is formed at an end of the first housing portion (see the annotated Fig. above), and the air inlet is formed at an end of the second housing portion 305 (see the annotated Fig. 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2018/0133819 A1 to Yamamura et al.
Regarding claim 20, Yamamura discloses a table cutting device 1 (see Fig. 1; the cutting device 1 includes a table 20, and is therefore “a table cutting device”), comprising:
a workbench assembly (including table 20) for holding a workpiece W (see paragraph 64 and Fig. 2);
a cutting assembly 100 for performing a cutting operation on the workpiece (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 65) movable relative to the workbench assembly (each of the cutting assembly 100 and the workpiece is movable relative to the workpiece assembly; regarding the cutting assembly 100, relative movement is described in paragraph 65; regarding the workpiece, the workpiece is movable by, as one example, sliding the workpiece along the fence 80) and comprising a cutting member 102 rotatable about a first axis (see paragraph 116, where the first axis extends in the ‘left-to-right’ direction indicated on the key in Fig. 1);
a motor 101 disposed on a side of the workbench assembly (an upper side relative to Fig. 1) for driving the cutting assembly 100 to move (see paragraph 107; the motor 101 drives the cutting blade 102 of the cutting assembly 100 to move); and
wherein the table cutting device further comprises a controller 141 disposed along a first direction (see Fig. 23, where the first direction is a direction parallel to the axis indicated by axis ‘J’ as labeled in the figure, but through the controller 141; the controller 141 is disposed along such a direction) and the first direction is parallel to a rotation axis of the motor 101 (see Fig. 23 and the explanation of the direction above).
Yamamura, in the embodiment relied upon for the features of claim 20 discussed above, fails to explicitly disclose a circuit board being disposed along the first direction as required by claim 20 because Yamamura fails to disclose that the controller 141 includes or is mounted on a circuit board.
However, Yamamura in the embodiment of Figs. 39-41 discloses configuring a controller as a circuit board having mounted thereon a control circuit having a microprocessor that transmits a control signal, a driving circuit having a switching FET that controls current for the motor, and an auto-stop circuit that interrupts a power supply to the motor so as to avoid an over-discharge state and an over current state (see paragraph 169).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the controller of the embodiment of Fig. 1 of Yamamura as a circuit board having a processor, a driving circuit, and an auto-stop circuit mounted thereon as taught by the embodiment of Figs. 39-41 of Yamamura. This modification is advantageous because configuring the controller as a circuit board allows the circuit board to interface with various other electrical components of the cutting device, such as the driving circuit and auto-stop circuit. That is, configuring the controller as a circuit board allows for design flexibility in the electrical ability of the cutting device because various electronic components can be mounted to the circuit board. Since the position and orientation of the controller is not changed as a result of this modification, Yamamura, as modified, discloses the circuit board being disposed along the first direction.
Alternatively, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Yamamura, in the first relied upon embodiment, disclose a cutting device which differs from the claimed cutting device by substitution of a circuit board-based controller in place of the generic controller of the first relied upon embodiment of Yamamura. However, Yamamura at the embodiment of Figs. 39-41 teaches a circuit board-based controller for use in the same type of cutting device. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the circuit board-based controller of the embodiment of Figs. 39-41 of Yamamura in place of the generic controller of the first relied upon embodiment of Yamamura and the results of this substitution would have been predictable because both controllers perform the same function of controlling a motor of a cutting device.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the reference cited below discloses a relevant cutting device:
US Pub. No. 2021/0237177 A1 to Kumakura et al.
US Pub. No. 2018/0126593 A1 to Chen et al.
US Pub. No. 2018/0369939 A1 to Zimmerman et al.
US Pub. No. 2003/0163924 A1 to Hempe et al.
US Pub. No. 2018/0071843 A1 to Yoshinari et al.
US Pub. No. 2019/0273421 A1 to Velderman et al.
US Pub. No. 2019/0143555 A1 to Nakshima
US Pub. No. 2018/0133817 A1 to Yamamura
US Pub. No. 2019/0388983 A1 to Numata
US Pub. No. 2020/0130077 A1 to Yoshida et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached on (571) 270-3818. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724