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
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification should provide an antecedent basis for “a third biasing member” as recited in claim 19, noting that such an antecedent basis would likely resolve the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 112(b) as discussed below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 includes paragraphs ending with each of semi-colons (see lines 2 and 9) and commas (see lines 3 and 4). The claim should be amended to use consistent punctuation, such as by amending each of lines 3 and 4 to end with a semi-colon.
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 biasing member” as recited in claim 7 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to bias the blade guide towards the inboard position”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member);
“a first biasing member” as recited in claim 16 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to bias the blade guard towards the retracted position”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member);
“a second biasing member” as recited in claim 16 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to bias the blade guide towards the inboard position”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member); and
“a third biasing member” as recited in claim 19 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to bias the saw unit towards the home position”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member).
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) 3, 16, and 19 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 3 recites, “wherein in the inboard position, a second gap is formed between the outboard side of the blade guide and an interaction line which represents a threshold for which the blade guide must extend beyond for an end surface of the blade guide to be operable to interact with the blade guard”. This recitation is indefinite because it relies on reference to an object that is variable, in particular to a geometry of an unclaimed saw unit. (See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II).) The location of “an interaction line which represents a threshold for which the blade guide must extend beyond for an end surface of the blade guide to be operable to interact with the blade guard” depends on the geometry of the saw unit and the geometry of the blade guard of the saw unit, and the saw unit and blade guard are not part of the claimed structure. Various saw units have different widths, resulting in different positions of blade guards of the respect saw units. Considering some particular track having all the structural features required by claim 3, whether or not the end surface of the blade guide is operable to interact with the blade guard in the inboard position depends on the particular saw unit with which the claimed track is used. As such, whether or not the blade guide of the claimed track is positioned to be “operable to interact with the blade guard” depends on the geometry of the unclaimed saw unit, rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 recites, “a first biasing member configured to bias the blade guard towards the retracted position”. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitation includes a typographical error, in particular whether the recitation should be interpreted as requiring that the first biasing member is configured to bias the blade guard towards the covering, rather than the retracted, position. Claim 13 explains that the blade guard is movable between a covering position in which the blade is covered and a retracted position in which the blade is exposed, and paragraph 27 of the present specification states, “The track saw 100 includes a spring 124 biasing the blade guard 108 to the covering position.” The spring 124 corresponds to the ‘first biasing member’ as recited in claim 16. Conventionally in the art, a blade guard of a circular saw is biased to a covering position in order to cover a blade of the saw when the saw is not in use, consistent with paragraph 27 of the present specification. However, claim 16 describes an opposite situation, where the blade guard is biased towards the retracted position. Since this limitation is contrary to the present specification and to conventional blade guards in the art, claim 16 appears to include a typographical error. As such, claim 16 is indefinite because it is unclear whether “the retracted position” should read – the covering position –. If not, additional issues under 35 USC 112(a) and/or 112(b) may result because the structure corresponding to the ‘first biasing member’ (which limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as noted above) is unclear.
Claim 19 recites, “a third biasing member configured to bias the saw unit towards the home position”. The limitation “a third biasing member” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. That is, while paragraph 25 of the present specification discloses a return mechanism “26” that includes a tensioning member “30”, a sled “34”, and a plurality of pulleys “38”, the present specification fails to clearly link any particular one or more of these structures to the claimed “third biasing member”. For example, it is unclear whether the entirety of the return mechanism “26” corresponds to the third biasing member, or whether only the tensioning member “30” corresponds to the third biasing member. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. (Note that no rejection related to this issue is provided under 35 USC 112(a) because paragraph 25 of the present specification does disclose a corresponding structure of the third biasing member, but it is unclear what particular structure(s) correspond to the third biasing member.)
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0 523 530 A1 to Kuhn et al. in view of US Pub. No. 2009/0049972 A1 to Thomas et al. and JP 2005067108 A to Onda Mitsuo.
Regarding claim 1, Kuhn discloses a track 1 configured for use with a saw 2 having a blade 3 (see Figs. 1 and 2, showing the track 1 being used with the saw 2 having the blade 3, such that the track 1 is necessarily ‘configured for use’ with the saw having the blade), the track 1 comprising:
a track body 9 having a side surface (the side surface being a right-facing surface of the track body 9 relative to each of Figs. 1 and 2; i.e., the side surface of the track body 9 is the surface facing the blade guide 6); and
a blade guide 6 (the guide 6 includes a rib 4 that guides the saw 2, thus guiding the blade 3 of the saw 2) having an inboard side (a left side of the blade guide 6 relative to Figs. 1 and 2; i.e., the inboard side of the blade guide 6 is the side facing the side surface of the track body 9) and an opposite outboard side (a right side of the blade guide 6 relative to Figs. 1 and 2), the blade guide 6 being movable relative to the side surface between an inboard position in which the inboard side of the blade guide is adjacent to the side surface (the inboard position being a position in which the blade guide 6 is nearest to the track body 9 due to rotation of the links 13 and 14; see the rotation arrows on the links 13 and 14 in Fig. 1, where rotation of the links 13 and 14 produces lateral translation of the blade guide 6) and an outboard position in which a gap is formed between the inboard side of the blade guide 6 and the side surface (the outboard position being a position in which the blade guide 6 is furthest from the track body 9 due to rotation of the links 13 and 14; see the rotation arrows on the links 13 and 14 in Fig. 1, where rotation of the links 13 and 14 produces lateral translation of the blade guide 6; Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the gap between the inboard side of the blade guide 6 and the side surface, where the gap underlies the links 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 2, Kuhn discloses that the blade guide 6 is coupled to the track body 9 such that the blade guide 6 remains parallel relative to the side surface in the inboard position, the outboard position, and during a transition between the inboard position and the outboard position (see Fig. 1, where the rotation of the links 13 and 14 indicated by the arc-shaped double-headed arrows leads to translation of the blade guide 6 as indicated by the linear double-headed arrow; consistent with the present disclosure, the four-bar linkage formed by the blade guide 6, the track body 9, and the two parallel links 13 and 14 results in the blade guide 6 and track body 9 remaining parallel).
Regarding claim 3, Kuhn discloses that the track 1 is configured to support a saw unit including a blade and a blade guard which is movable between a covering position in which the blade is covered and a retracted position in which the blade is exposed (this feature is evident from Figs. 1-2, where the illustrated saw 2 is replaceable with a saw unit having a blade and a blade guard that is movable between covering and retracted positions; the track 1 of Kuhn is configured to receive a saw unit having a blade and a blade guard, noting that claim 3 is directed only to the track and that claim 3 does not require any saw unit), and wherein the gap is a first gap formed between the inboard side of the blade guide 6 and the side surface (see Figs. 1 and 2, where the gap previously identified can be considered as a ‘first gap’), and wherein in the inboard position (i.e., when the blade guide 6 is moved as far to the left as permitted relative to Figs. 1 and 2), a second gap is formed between the outboard side of the blade guide 6 and an interaction line which represents a threshold for which the blade guide must extend beyond for an end surface of the blade guide 6 to be operable to interact with the blade guard (see Figs. 1 and 2; this feature depends on the geometry of the unclaimed saw unit, where the spacing between the guide groove 7 and the blade guard determines the presence of the second gap; Kuhn discloses that the track 1 is configured to provide a second gap when the track 1 is used with a saw unit having a sufficiently wide dimension between the guide groove of the saw unit and the blade guard of the saw unit).
Regarding claim 5, Kuhn discloses at least one link 13 and 14 pivotably coupling the blade guide 6 to the track body 9 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, Kuhn discloses that a transition between the inboard position and the outboard position (i.e., as the blade guide 6 moves from nearest to the track body 9 to further from the track body 9), the blade guide 6 is configured to translate along an arcuate path relative to the track body 9 (see Fig. 1, where the arcuate path is produced by rotation of the links 13 and 14, as is evident from the rotational arrows illustrated on the links 13 and 14, respectively, in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Kuhn discloses a biasing member 20 configured to bias the blade guide 6 towards the inboard position (see Fig. 1 and the final paragraph before the ‘Claims’ section of the English language translation of Kuhn, noting that a tension spring produces a retracted force when elongated, and that the biasing members 20 of Kuhn are elongated when the blade guide 6 is moved away from the inboard position, thus producing retraction forces acting on the blade guide 6 in a direction towards the inboard position).
Regarding claim 8, Kuhn discloses a track 1 configured for use with a saw 2 having a blade 3 (see Figs. 1 and 2, showing the track 1 being used with the saw 2 having the blade 3, such that the track 1 is necessarily ‘configured for use’ with the saw having the blade), the track 1 comprising:
a track body 9 having a side surface (the side surface being a right-facing surface of the track body 9 relative to each of Figs. 1 and 2; i.e., the side surface of the track body 9 is the surface facing the blade guide 6); and
a first link 13 pivotably coupled to the track body 9 (see the rotation arrow on the link 13 in Fig. 1 indicating the pivoting),
a second link 14 pivotably coupled to the track body 9 and oriented parallel with the first link 13 (see the rotation arrow on the link 14 in Fig. 1 indicating the pivoting; see Fig. 1 and page 2 of the English translation of Kuhn at the paragraph beginning ‘In the holding bar 9, two parallel tabs 13 and 14 are pivotally mounted’ disclosing the ‘parallel with the first link’ feature), and
a blade guide 6 (the guide 6 includes a rib 4 that guides the saw 2, thus guiding the blade 3 of the saw 2) pivotably coupled to the first link 13 and the second link 14 (see Fig. 1, noting that the guide 6 translates laterally as indicated by the linear double-headed arrow in response to rotation of the links 13 and 14), the blade guide 6 having an inboard side (a left side of the blade guide 6 relative to Figs. 1 and 2; i.e., the inboard side of the blade guide 6 is the side facing the side surface of the track body 9) and an opposite outboard side (a right side of the blade guide 6 relative to Figs. 1 and 2), the blade guide 6 being movable relative to the side surface between an inboard position, in which the inboard side of the blade guide 6 is adjacent to the side surface (the inboard position being a position in which the blade guide 6 is nearest to the track body 9 due to rotation of the links 13 and 14; see the rotation arrows on the links 13 and 14 in Fig. 1, where rotation of the links 13 and 14 produces lateral movement of the blade guide 6), and an outboard position, in which a gap is formed between the inboard side of the blade guide 6 and the side surface (the outboard position being a position in which the blade guide 6 is furthest from the track body 9 due to rotation of the links 13 and 14; see the rotation arrows on the links 13 and 14 in Fig. 1, where rotation of the links 13 and 14 produces lateral movement of the blade guide 6; Figs. 1 and 2 illustrate the gap between the inboard side of the blade guide 6 and the side surface, where the gap underlies the links 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 9, Kuhn discloses that the track body 9, the first link 13, the second link 14, and the blade guide 6 together function as a four-bar linkage (see Fig. 1) such that the blade guide 6 remains parallel relative to the side surface in the inboard position, the outboard position, and during a transition between the inboard position and the outboard position (see Fig. 1, where the rotation of the links 13 and 14 indicated by the arc-shaped double-headed arrows leads to translation of the blade guide 6 as indicated by the linear double-headed arrow; consistent with the present disclosure, the four-bar linkage formed by the blade guide 6, the track body 9, and the two parallel links 13 and 14 results in the blade guide 6 and track body 9 remaining parallel).
Regarding claim 10, Kuhn discloses a retainer (including elements 17 and 18) configured to inhibit over-pivoting of the second link 14 beyond a desired angle (see Fig. 1 – the retainer connects the links 13 and 14 and limits an amount of rotation permitted).
Kuhn fails to disclose a splinter strip coupled to the outboard side of the blade guide, the splinter strip being configured to contact the blade to inhibit splintering of a workpiece while being cut by the blade and the saw is moved along the track body, and also fails to explicitly disclose that the inboard side of the blade guide abuts the side surface in the inboard position, as required by each of claims 1 and 8.
First regarding the splinter strip, Thomas teaches a splinter strip 38 coupled to an outboard side of a blade guide 11 (see Fig. 2, where the ‘outboard side’ of the blade guide 11 is the side along which the blade 12 of the saw 10 is moved), the splinter strip 38 being configured to contact a blade 12 of a saw 10 (see paragraph 36) to inhibit splintering of a workpiece while being cut by the blade 12 and the saw 11 is moved (see paragraph 38). Thomas teaches that providing the splinter strip to the outboard side of the blade guide is advantageous to counteract any tendency of the upward sweep of the blade 12, which is rotating, to splinter the upper surface of the workpiece, leading to a must cleaner cut in the workpiece (see paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the outboard side of the blade guide of Kuhn with a splinter strip as taught by Thomas. This modification is advantageous to counteract any tendency of the upward sweep of the rotating blade of Kuhn to splinter the upper surface of the workpiece, leading to a must cleaner cut in the workpiece. Further, Kuhn, as modified by Thomas, discloses that the saw ‘is moved along the track body’ as required by claims 1 and 8 at least because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “along” includes in a line matching the length or direction of, and moving the saw 2 of Kuhn vertically along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 1 of Kuhn is a direction that is in a line matching the direction of the track body of Kuhn, such that the movement of the saw 2 is “along” the track body per the broadest reasonable interpretation of “along”.
Next, Ondo Mitsuo teaches a blade guide 2 that is movable relative to a track body 1 between an inboard position (see Fig. 4) and an outboard position (see Fig. 3), where the blade guide 2 has an inboard side (i.e., a left side of the blade guide 2 relative to Fig. 3) that abuts a side surface of the track body 1 in the inboard position of the blade guide 2. Configured the blade guide to be movable to abut the side surface of the track body increases the amount of lateral movement of the blade guide compared to a structure where the blade guide is not movable sufficiently far to abut the track body.
Therefore, in view of Kuhn desiring lateral adjustment of its blade guide (see Kuhn at the paragraph beginning “While the guide plate 6 …” of the English language translation of Kuhn), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the inboard position of the blade guide of Kuhn to be a position at which the blade guide abuts the side surface of the track body in view of the teachings of Ondo Mitsuo. This modification is advantageous because it increases the range of lateral adjustment of the blade guide of Kuhn, at least as compared to a configuration where the blade guide is separated from the track body in the inboard position. Thus, this modification offers an increased range of guiding options for guiding the saw, thus enhancing versatility of the track (e.g., if a user desires to cut a narrow strip from a workpiece by performing two cuts, this modification allows for further movement of the blade guide in a direction toward the track body compared to a configuration where the blade guide is unable to move sufficiently far to abut the track body – as such, a user may not need to reposition the entire track when performing subsequent cuts).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn as modified by Thomas and Onda Mitsuo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 8,881,416 B2 to Menendez.
Kuhn, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the structures that couple the first link to the track body and to the blade guide, although as can be seen in Fig. 1 of Kuhn the first link 13 is pivotably coupled to both the track body 9 and the blade guide 6. As such, Kuhn, as modified, fails to disclose a first pin that couples the first link to the track body and a second pin that couples the first link to the blade guide as required by claim 11.
Still, Menendez teaches a track 100 (see Figs. 1 and 2), where pins 110 couple a first link 104A to two bodies 102A and 102B (see Figs. 1 and 2 and col. 4, lines 29-33 and col. 5, lines 7-10). Menendez teaches that various structures including a pin and hole, a bolt, and a rivet are usable to rotatable couple a link to a body (see col. 4, lines 29-33).
It would have been obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to provide Kuhn, as modified, with a first pin coupling the first link to the track body and a second pin coupling the first link to the blade guide in view of the teachings of Menendez. First, the prior art teaches each claimed element, with Kuhn, as modified, teaching the first link being coupled to the track body and to the blade guide, but failing to explicitly disclose what particular structure performs each coupling. Menendez teaches that first and second pins are suitable structures for rotationally coupling a first link to two bodies. One of ordinary skill in the art could have provided Kuhn, as modified, with first and second pins as the structures that rotationally couple the first link to the track body and to the blade guide by known methods (i.e., the method of Menendez) and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separate (no function of Kuhn, as modified, is changed, and the pins continue to pivotably couple a first link to two bodies). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable because no function of Kuhn, as modified, is changed, and Kuhn, as modified, is merely provided with pins that are already known to pivotably couple a link to two bodies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are allowed, and claims 16 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter regarding claims 4 and 12:
Claim 4 requires, “a pin coupled to the blade guide, wherein the blade guide is movable from the inboard position towards the outboard position upon abutment of the pin with an edge of a workpiece upon which the track rests and in response to relative movement between the track body and the workpiece.” No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this feature, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 4. EP 0 523 530 A1 to Kuhn et al. does not disclose such pin, and Kuhn would not be improved upon the addition of such a pin. In Kuhn, if a pin were provided that would abut an edge of a workpiece upon which the track of Kuhn rests, then lateral movement of the blade guide ‘6’ would be inhibited by contact between the pin and the edge of the workpiece. Thus, there is no motivation to provide Kuhn with a pin as required by claim 4. Moreover, even if Kuhn were provided with a pin coupled to the blade guide, where the pin is able to abut an edge of a workpiece upon which the track rests, even such a modification would not result in a track as required by claim 4 because Kuhn, even if provided with such a pin, would not result in the blade guide being movable from the inboard position towards the output position “upon abutment of the pin with an edge of the workpiece” because in Kuhn the elements 17, 18, and 19 control movement of the blade guide from the inboard to towards the output position. That is, even if Kuhn were provided with the pin on the blade guide, the pin abutting the edge of the workpiece would not produce movement of the blade guide from the inboard position towards the outboard position. As such, claim 4 is distinguishable over Kuhn, even if hypothetically modified to include a pin.
Further regarding claim 4, JP 2005067108 A to Onda Mitsuo fails to disclose a splinter strip as required by claim 1, and there is no motivation to provide Onda Mitsuo with a splinter strip as required by claim 1 because Onda Mitsuo teaches that its track is used in a cutting operation where the blade guide ‘2’ is moved prior to cutting to a position that abuts pins ‘6’ along a cutting line (see Fig. 4), and then the blade guide ‘2’ is retracted to an inboard position when cutting takes place (see Fig. 5). The splinter strip of claim 1 is required to contact the blade while the workpiece is being cut, whereas Onda Mitsuo teaches retracting the blade guide ‘2’ from the cutting line during cutting. Since Onda Mitsuo does not teach a track as required by claim 1 (and since there is no motivation to modify Onda Mitsuo to include a splinter strip as required by claim 1), Onda Mitsuo cannot render claim 4 anticipated or obvious.
Finally regarding claim 4, GB 1210111 to Bell discloses a track body 2 and a blade guide 1. However, Bell does not disclose a pin having the features required by claim 4, and Bell would not be improved upon the addition of such a pin. In Bell, if a pin were provided that would abut an edge of a workpiece upon which the track of Bell rests, then lateral movement of the blade guide ‘1’ would be inhibited by contact between the pin and the edge of the workpiece. Thus, there is no motivation to provide Bell with a pin as required by claim 1. As such, at least for these reasons, claim 4 is distinguishable over Bell.
Claim 12 requires, “wherein the second pin [which couples the first link to the blade guide per claim 11] extends downward from the blade guide in a vertical direction and is configured to abut an edge of a workpiece to transition the blade guide between the inboard position and the outboard position”. No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this feature, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 12. EP 0 523 530 A1 to Kuhn et al. does not disclose such a second pin, and the operation of the track of Kuhn would be hindered by the provision of such a pin. In Kuhn, the blade guide 6 rests on an upper surface of a workpiece being cut (see Figs. 1 and 2). If either of the links 13 and 14 were provided with a pin that extends downward from the blade guide in a vertical direction, then the blade guide 6 would be unable to rest flatly on the workpiece being cut. As such, not only does Kuhn fail to disclose a second pin as required by claim 12, but the operation of the track of Kuhn would be hindered by the provision of such a pin. Not only that, but even if Kuhn were somehow provided with a second pin that extends downward from the blade guide, the second pin would still not be configured to transition the blade guide between the inboard position and the output position because Kuhn requires operation of elements 17, 18, and 19 to transition the blade guide between the inboard and output positions – abutment of a second pin extending downward from the blade guide of Kuhn with an edge of a workpiece would thus not provide the transitioning of the blade guide as required by claim 12. As such, claim 12 is distinguishable over Kuhn.
Neither of JP 2005067108 A to Onda Mitsuo and GB 1210111 to Bell discloses a second pin, which couples the first link to the blade guide, that extends downward from the blade guide in a vertical direction and is configured to abut an edge of a workpiece to transition the blade guide. Moreover, neither of Onda Mitsuo and Bell desires such a second pin, since the addition of a second pin that extends downward from the blade guide in the vertical direction and is configured to abut an edge of a workpiece would prevent the respective tracks of Onda Mitsuo and Bell from resting flatly on a workpiece.
Since claims 4 and 12 are distinguishable over the best known prior art, claims 4 and 12 recite allowable subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 recites, “wherein, with the saw unit in the advanced position or the intermediate position, and in response to the track body being moved away from the workpiece, the blade guide is configured to be retracted to the inboard position, and as a result, the blade guard is returned to the covering position.” No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests this feature, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 13. EP 0 523 530 A1 to Kuhn et al. discloses a blade guide 6 that is retractable to an inboard position. However, The blade guide 6 of Kuhn is not retractable to the inboard position in response to the track body 1 being moved away from the workpiece. Instead, as disclosed by Kuhn, elements 17, 18, and 19 control retraction of the blade guide 6 to the inboard position. The track of Kuhn can be lifted away from the workpiece, and the blade guide 6 of Kuhn remains in a same position as prior to lifting of the track from the workpiece due to elements 17, 18, and 19. Further, there is no motivation to modify Kuhn to remove elements 17, 18, and 19 of Kuhn, since these elements retain the blade guide 6 at a desired position. Therefore, at least for these reasons, claim 13 is distinguishable over Kuhn.
GB 1210111 to Bell discloses a blade guide 1 that is retractable to an inboard position (via rotation of links 3). However, The blade guide 1 of Bell is not retractable to the inboard position in response to the track body 2 being moved away from the workpiece. Instead, as disclosed by Bell, elements 4, 5, and 6 control retraction of the blade guide 1 to the inboard position. The track of Bell can be lifted away from the workpiece, and the blade guide 1 of Bell remains in a same position as prior to lifting of the track from the workpiece due to elements 4, 5, and 6. Moreover, Bell does not include any spring or similar structure configured to move the blade guide 1 toward the retractable position, so even if the elements 4, 5, and 6 were removed for some reason, that removable of elements 4, 5, and 6 would regardless be insufficient to cause the blade guide 1 to be retracted to the inboard position in response to the track body being moved away from the workpiece. Therefore, at least for these reasons, claim 13 is distinguishable over Bell.
JP 2005067108 A to Onda Mitsuo discloses a blade guide 2 that is retractable to an inboard position (via rotation of links 3). However, The blade guide 2 of Onda Mitsuo is not retractable to the inboard position in response to the track body 1 being moved away from the workpiece. First, Onda teaches that when the blade guide 2 is in the outboard position, a pin 6 is inserted into hole 1c to fix the blade guide 2 in position. As such, lifting the track of Onda Mitsuo from the workpiece does not produce any movement of the blade guide 2, since the blade guide 2 is fixed in position by the pin 6. Further, Onda Mitsuo does not include any spring or similar structure configured to move the blade guide 2 toward the retractable position, so even in a state where the pin 6 is not in the hole 1c such that the blade guide 2 is not fixed in position, it remains the case that lifting the track of Onda Mitsuo from the workpiece does not produce any movement of the blade guide 2 toward the inboard position. Therefore, at least for these reasons, claim 13 is distinguishable over Onda Mitsuo.
Additional references that disclose relevant tracks, but fail to anticipate or render obvious any of claims 4, 12, and 13 include:
GB 2441749 A to Grigg
US Pat. No. 3,738,211 to Carter, Sr.
US Pat. No. 4,392,307 to Wightman, Jr.
US Pat. No. 4,751,865 to Buckalew
US Pat. No. 4,770,216 to Ruscak
US Pat. No. 4,986,156 to McGinnis
US Pat. No. 5,205,045 to Liu
US Pat. No. 6,176,281 B1 to Newman
US Pat. No. 7,774,947 B1 to Russo
US Pub. No. 2003/0221329 A1 to Gompper et al.
US Pub. No. 2007/0144319 A1 to Jones
US Pub. No. 2007/0277389 A1 to Baida
US Pub. No. 2008/0034596 A1 to Barnes
US Pub. No. 2009/0165623 A1 to Wheby
US Pub. No. 2011/0083540 A1 to Xing et al.
US Pub. No. 2014/0026725 A1 to Makropoulos
US Pub. No. 2015/0047484 A1 to Lane
US Pub. No. 2016/0075049 A1 to Lilholt
US Pub. No. 2020/0215713 A1 to Friedebach et al.
US Pub. No. 2023/0226656 A1 to Scherraus
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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, 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