CTNF 18/199,448 CTNF 91645 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Response to Amendment The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 22 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 5-10 and newly added claims 21-28 are pending. Specification 07-44 AIA 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 be amended to use the terminology “first biasing member” and “second biasing member” as recited in claim 24 and “third biasing member” as recited in claim 27 in order to make explicit which of the disclosed biasing members corresponds to each of the first, second, and third biasing members as claimed . The disclosure is objected to because paragraph 36 recites, “the spring 22”. This recitation should read – the spring 22 2 –. Appropriate correction is required . 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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 . 07-30-05 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 24 (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 covering 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 24 (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 tensioning member” as recited in claim 27 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “tensioning” – i.e., “a tensioning member” is interpreted synonymously with ‘a member for tensioning’; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed 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 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claim(s) 7, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 7 and 24, claim limitation “a biasing member” as recited in claim 7 and claim limitations “a first biasing member” and “a second biasing member” both as recited in claim 24 are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as explained above and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for failing 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 as explained below. Per MPEP 2181(IV), a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description. In particular, claims 7 and 24 fail to disclose the corresponding structures that are encompassed by the corresponding structure being “other types of biasing members” for the biasing member of claim 7 and the second biasing member of claim 24, and the corresponding structure being “other biasing members” for the first biasing member of claim 24. The corresponding structure for each biasing member of claims 7 and 24 includes “etc.” as set forth in paragraphs 36 and 27 of the present specification. The Applicant has not demonstrated position of whatever types of biasing members are encompassed by “etc”. Therefore, claims 7 and 24 lacks adequate written description. The examiner’s suggestion for overcoming the rejections of claims 7 and 24 under 35 USC 112(b) below is likewise applicable to overcome this rejection. 07-34-01 Claims 7, 24, and 27 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 limitation “a biasing member” as recited in claim 7 and claim limitations “a first biasing member” and “a second biasing member” both as recited in claim 24 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as explained 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. In this case, the written description fails to clearly link all options for structures that performing the recited functions because the present specification leaves open-ended the options for the corresponding structures. Paragraph 36 of the present specification is pertinent to the ‘biasing member’ of claim 7 and the ‘second biasing member’ of claim 24. Paragraph 36 states, “The track saw assembly 9 further includes a spring 222 that biases the entire linkage 200 toward the inboard position (FIG. 5). The spring 222 is illustrated as a compression spring. However, other types of biasing members (e.g., torsion springs, elastic members, resilient members, etc.) may replace the spring 22 and bias the linkage 200 toward the inboard position (FIG. 5).” Paragraph 36 thus permits the biasing member of claim 7 and the second biasing member of claim 24 to be “other types of biasing members” including members encompassed by “etc.” Similarly, paragraph 27 of the present specification is pertinent to the ‘first biasing member’ of claim 24. 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 illustrated spring 124 is a compression spring. However, other biasing members such as torsion springs, elastic members, resilient members, etc. may replace the spring 124 to bias the blade guard 108 to the covering position.” Paragraph 27 thus permits the first biasing member of claim 24 to be “other biasing members” including members encompassed by “etc.” It is unclear whether the disclosure of ‘other types of biasing members’ and ‘other biasing members’ is intended to encompass only equivalents to the disclosed compression springs, or whether the disclosure of ‘other types of biasing members’ and ‘other biasing members’ is intended to be considered as a disclosure of corresponding structures of the biasing members. To the extent that the latter is intended, the disclosure of ‘other types of biasing members’ and ‘other biasing members’ that include non-explicitly listed types of biasing member (i.e., those encompassed by ‘etc.’) renders claims 7 and 24 indefinite. The specification fails to explicitly disclose what other biasing members can be provided, in particular with respect to those biasing members encompassed by ‘etc’. Since the present specification does not identify which types of biasing members are encompassed by ‘other types of biasing members’ and ‘other biasing members’, the present specification fails to clearly link the claimed biasing members to the corresponding structure encompassed by ‘other types of biasing members’ and ‘other biasing members’, rendering claims 7 and 24 are indefinite. Alternatively, claims 7 and 24 are indefinite because it is unclear whether ‘other biasing members’ is merely intended to encompass equivalents to the disclosed. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests amending this specification to list as corresponding structures for the biasing members only explicitly listed types of biasing members, and avoiding leaving open-ended the corresponding structures for the biasing members (e.g., avoiding reciting “other types of biasing members” in an open-ended manner, such as via the use of “etc.”). 07-34-23 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. 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 27 is indefinite due to the run-on nature of the claim. To provide a first example of indefiniteness, the claim recites, “a third biasing member including a return mechanism with a tensioning member and a sled”. It is unclear what structure is being described as including the sled. The claim can be interpreted as any of: (1) the track saw assembly further comprising a third biasing mechanism and a sled, such that the sled is part of the track saw assembly; (2) the third biasing mechanism including a return mechanism and a sled, such that sled is a part of the third biasing mechanism; and (3) the return mechanism including a tensioning member and a sled, such that the sled is part of the return mechanism. Since it is unclear what structure is required to include the sled, the claim is indefinite. As a second example of indefiniteness resulting from the run-on nature of the recitation, claim 27 recites, “configured to bias the saw unit towards the home position”. It is unclear what structure is being described by this recitation. Is the third biasing mechanism the structure that is configured to bias the saw unit toward the home position? Is the return mechanism the structure that is configured to bias the saw unit toward the home position? Is the sled the structure that is configured to bias the saw unit toward the home position? The examiner suggests amending the claim in a manner such as: -- further comprising a third biasing mechanism [and a sled, if the track saw assembly includes the sled], the third biasing mechanism including a return mechanism [and a sled, if the third biasing mechanism includes the sled], the return mechanism including a tensioning member [and a sled, if return mechanism includes the sled], the [insert structure name] configured to bias the saw unit towards the home position –. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 21-23, 25-26, and 28 are allowed. 07-43-01 Claims 7, 24, and 27 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. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Therefore, the explanation of claim 4 being allowable as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 28 January 2026 is now applicable to claim 1, and likewise the explanation of claim 12 being allowable as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 28 January 2026 is now applicable to claim 8. Moreover, claim 21 as newly present is identical to claim 13 as examined in the Non-Final Office action mailed 28 January 2026, such that the explanation of claim 13 being allowable as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 28 January 2026 is now applicable to claim 21 . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 2 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 3 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 4 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 5 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 6 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 7 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 8 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 9 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 10 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 11 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/199,448 Page 12 Art Unit: 3724
Prosecution Insights