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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-29-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 amended. New Claim 20 was presented. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a rotation element,” in Claim 1; “an elastic member,” in Claim 4; and “an elastic member,” in Claim 18. 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2588831A in view of US 2008/0014844 to Pontieri and US 2004/0069513 to Wolf.
In re Claim 1, GB 2588831A teaches a saw (Figs. 1-8c), comprising:
a main saw housing portion (see Figs. 1-8c, teaching housing that houses the trigger and motor), defining a housing longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, below showing an axis running lengthwise of the housing);
a support arm that extends from the main saw housing portion and defines a support arm axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, below) acutely angled relative to the housing longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, below);
an electric motor disposed in the saw main housing portion (see Fig. 8a, #62), the electric motor including an output shaft that is rotatable about an output shaft axis (see Fig. 8a, #64);
a blade drive assembly disposed in the support arm (see Fig. 1-10, drive shaft #70 and bevel gears #72), the blade drive assembly configured to detachably connect a cutting blade to a distal end of the support arm and transmit a rotational motion of the output shaft to the cutting blade when the cutting blade is connected to the saw (see Figs. 1-8c, blade #114 is removable),
the blade drive assembly including a spindle (see annotated Fig. 8a, below) that is connected to the output shaft and is rotatable about a spindle axis (see Fig. 8a, “X”), the spindle including a spindle first end (see Fig. 8a) that is supported for rotation by the support arm, and a spindle second end (see Fig. 8a, below) that protrudes outward from the support arm;
a transmission that connects the output shaft to the spindle (see Figs. 1-8, two bevel gears #72);
a blade connection subassembly disposed on the spindle second end (see annotated Fig. 8a, below), the blade connection subassembly configured to detachably secure a cutting blade to the spindle second end (see Figs. 1-8, the blade is detachable secured to the device);
a lock handle that overlies a planar portion of an outer surface of the support arm (see Fig. 8b, #74); and
a locking pin (see Fig. 8b, #76).
PNG
media_image1.png
414
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
GB 2588831A fails to teach:
a planar lock handle, and the planar lock handle comprising a handle first end, a handle second end opposite the handle first end, and a handle longitudinal axis that extends between the handle first end and the handle second end, the planar lock handle connected to the support arm via a pivot pin that is disposed closer to the handle second than the handle first end;
a pin first end that directly contacts the planar lock handle and a pin second end that faces a rotatable element of the transmission, wherein
the planer lock handle is rotatable about the pivot pin relative to the support arm between a first position and a second position,
when the lock planar handle is in the first position, the pin second end is spaced apart from the rotatable element of the transmission such that the rotatable element of the transmission is free to rotate, and
when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the pin second end engages with the rotatable element of the transmission such that the rotatable element of the transmission is prevented from rotating.
However, Pontieri teaches that it is known in the art of locking power tool spindles to provide a spindle lock with
a planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, #230/228 handle includes planar surfaces; see also Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0076), and the planar lock handle comprising a handle first end, a handle second end opposite the handle first end (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, #230/228 has two ends; see also Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0076), and a handle longitudinal axis that extends between the handle first end and the handle second end (see Pontieri, Fig. 10 and Figs. 1-5), the planar lock handle connected to the support arm via a pivot pin (see Pontieri, Fig. 10 #234 and Figs. 1-5, # 92/94) that is disposed closer to the handle second than the handle first end (see Pontieri, Figs. 1-4, showing #94 closer to the second end of pin #58 than end at #66 in Fig. 3; see also Fig. 10 and Para. 0076);
a pin first end that directly contacts the planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Figs. 1-5 portion of and a pin second end that faces a rotatable element of the transmission (see Pontieri, Figs. 1-4, portion of lock pin #58 that contacts the handle; see Fig. 10, portion of lock pin #162 that contacts the handle – see also Para. 0076), wherein
the planer lock handle is rotatable about the pivot pin relative to the support arm between a first position and a second position (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, #230/228 and #234; see also Figs. 1-5, #94 and Para. 0076),
when the lock planar handle is in the first position, the pin second end is spaced apart from the rotatable element of the transmission such that the rotatable element of the transmission is free to rotate (see Pontieri, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076), and
when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the pin second end engages with the rotatable element of the transmission such that the rotatable element of the transmission is prevented from rotating (see Pontieri, Fig. 4, #60’’ and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076).
In the same field of invention, locking mechanism for spindles in power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the locking mechanism of GB 2588831A with that of Pontieri. Doing so the substitution of one known locking mechanism for another known locking mechanism to lock the rotatable assembly and allow the blade to be replaced (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so alerts the user to when the locking mechanism is in the locked position (see Pontieri, Para. 0029).
As best understood, the transmission is comprised of the gear set #22 and the intermediate drive assemble #202. GB 2588831A does not teach the locking pin interacting with the transmission. However, Wolf teaches that it is known in the art of spindle locks for power tools, to cause the pin to be received in a beveled gear (see Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38). In the same field of invention, spindle locks for power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to cause the spindle lock pin to be received in a bevel gear, as taught by Wolf. Doing so is the substitution of one known locking pin arrangement for another known locking pin arrangement to achieve the locking of the rotating assembly of a power tool (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so provides a locking pin that is impervious and robust and a better safe guard against lubricating escaping from the housing as well as preventing dust contamination (see Wolf, Para. 0005-6).
In re Claim 2, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 1, teaches comprising a spring that surrounds the locking pin and biases the locking pin against the planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 2, #82).
In re Claim 3, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the planar lock handle second end defines a curved cam surface (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #108).
In re Claim 4, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the locking pin is biased against the planar lock handle via an elastic member (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #82) such that the pin first end directly contacts the cam surface (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #82 contacting #108).
In re Claim 5, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the cam surface is shaped so that when the lock handle is in the first position, the pin second end is spaced apart from the rotatable element of the transmission (see Pontieri, Fig. 2 showing the handle in the first position and space between #66 and #64), and when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the pin second end is engaged with the rotatable element of the transmission (see Pontieri, Fig. 4).
In re Claim 6, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the locking pin is movable along a locking pin axis that is perpendicular to a rotational axis of the pivot pin (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, showing pin #58 moving in a direction perpendicular to the rotational axis of pivot pin #94).
In re Claim 7, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a curved ridge protrudes from the outer surface of the support arm, the ridge extending around the lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 3, #104/106; see also Para. 0076 and Fig. 10; see also surfaces of #90 in Fig. 2 which protrude from an outer surface and extends around the arm).
In re Claim 9, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the spindle axis is perpendicular to the output shaft axis (see Figs. 8a, “X” and “Y”);
the transmission includes a gear set that connects the output shaft to the spindle (see Figs. 1-8c, bevel gears #72 are connected to the output shaft), the gear set including the rotatable element of the transmission in the form of driven gear that is fixed relative to the spindle (see Figs. 1-8c, the bevel gear #72 connected to the spindle) and is rotatable about the spindle axis (see Figs. 1-8c); the driven gear including a gear surface that is perpendicular to the spindle axis (the other bevel gear #72), the gear surface defines a recess (see Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38), and when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the pin second end is disposed in the recess such that the driven gear is prevented from rotating about the spindle axis (see Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38 in view of Pontieri, Figs. 2-4 ).
In re Claim 10, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the pivot pin extends in a direction that is perpendicular to the output shaft axis and the spindle axis (see Pontieri, Fig. 3-4, #94 in view of GB 2588831A Figs. 1-8 and Wolf, Fig. 2).
In re Claim 11, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main saw housing portion comprises: a main handle that protrudes from a rear end of the main saw housing portion (see GB 2488831A, Fig. 4, #16); and
an auxiliary handle (see GB 2488831A, Fig. 4, #58), the auxiliary handle including
an auxiliary handle first end that is joined to a first side of the main saw housing (see GB 2488831A, Figs. 1-4 showing handle #58 joined at a top side of the saw housing), an auxiliary handle second end that is joined to a second side of the main saw housing portion (see GB 2488831A, Figs. 1-4, showing handle #58 joined at a bottom side of the saw housing), and
an auxiliary handle midportion that is disposed between the auxiliary handle first end and the auxiliary handle second end, the auxiliary handle midportion overlying a third side of the main saw housing portion (see GB 2488831A, Figs. 1-4, showing handle #58 having a side portion that overlays a side portion of the housing).
In re Claim 13, GB 2488831A teaches a saw (see Figs. 1-8c) comprising:
a main saw housing defining a housing longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, above, showing an axis running lengthwise of the housing),
a support arm that extends from the front end main saw housing portion and defines (see Figs. 1-8c, housing surrounding #70; see also Fig. 8C showing arm removed from housing) a support arm axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, above), the support arm axis acutely angled relative to the housing longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b, above);
an electric motor disposed in the main saw housing portion (see Fig. 8a, #62), the electric motor including an output shaft (see Fig. 8a, #62) that extend along an axis that is parallel to the support arm axis (see annotated Fig. 8a, above); and
a blade drive assembly (see Fig. 1-10, drive shaft #70 and bevel gears #72) that is configured to detachably connect a cutting blade to the saw and transmit a rotational motion of the output shaft to the cutting blade when the cutting blade is connected to the saw (see Figs. 1-8c, blade #114), the blade drive assembly including
a spindle (see annotated Fig. 8a, above) that is driven to rotate about a spindle axis (see Fig. 8a, “X”) via a transmission that is connected to the output shaft, the spindle transmitting the rotation motion of the output shaft to the cutting blade when the cutting blade is connected to the saw (see Figs. 1-8, the blade is detachable secured to the device),
a lock handle that is disposed on a planar portion of the support arm in a first position (see Fig. 8b, #74), and
a locking pin (see Fig. 8b, #76).
GB 2588831A does not teach the lock handle as planar and pivotable relative to the support arm between a first position and a second position;
a locking pin in direct contact with the planar lock handle; wherein:
the planar lock handle is oriented substantially parallel to the planar portion of the support arm, and
the locking pin is disengaged from the transmission whereby the blade drive assembly is configured to permit the spindle to freely rotate about the spindle axis, and when the planar lock handle is in the second position,
the planar lock handle is oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar portion of the support arm whereby the planar lock handle serves as a manual grip that permits a user to stabilize the saw while attaching and detaching a cutting blade, and
the locking pin is engaged with the transmission whereby the blade drive assembly is configured to prevent rotation of the spindle about the spindle axis.
However, Pontieri teaches that it is known in the art of locking power tool spindles to provide a spindle lock wherein:
a lock handle is planar and pivotable relative to the support arm between a first position and a second position (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, #230/228 handle includes planar surfaces; see also Fig. 1-5 and Para. 0076; (see Pontieri, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076 and Pontieri, Fig. 4, #60’’ and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076),
a locking pin in direct contact with the planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 10 #234 and Figs. 1-5, # 92/94); wherein:
the locking pin is disengaged from the transmission whereby the blade drive assembly is configured to permit the spindle to freely rotate about the spindle axis (see Pontieri, Fig. 1 and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076), and
when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the planar lock handle is oriented substantially perpendicular to the planar portion of the support arm whereby the planar lock handle serves as a manual grip that permits a user to stabilize the saw while attaching and detaching a cutting blade (see Pontieri, Fig. 4, #60’’ and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076), and the locking pin is engaged with the transmission whereby the blade drive assembly is configured to prevent rotation of the spindle about the spindle axis (see Pontieri, Fig. 4, #60’’ and Fig. 10 in view of Para. 0076).
In the same field of invention, locking mechanism for spindles in power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the locking mechanism of GB 2588831A with that of Pontieri. Doing so the substitution of one known locking mechanism for another known locking mechanism to lock the rotatable assembly and allow the blade to be replaced (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so alerts the user to when the locking mechanism is in the locked position (see Pontieri, Para. 0029).
Such a combination would provide for the planar lock handle is oriented substantially parallel to the planar portion of the support arm (see GB 2588831A, Figs. 8A-C in view of Pontieri, Fig. 10).
As best understood, the transmission is comprised of the gear set #22 and the intermediate drive assemble #202. GB 2588831A does not teach the locking pin interacting with the transmission. However, Wolf teaches that it is known in the art of spindle locks for power tools, to cause the pin to be received in a beveled gear (see Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38). In the same field of invention, spindle locks for power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to cause the spindle lock pin to be received in a bevel gear, as taught by Wolf. Doing so is the substitution of one known locking pin arrangement for another known locking pin arrangement to achieve the locking of the rotating assembly of a power tool (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so provides a locking pin that is impervious and robust and a better safe guard against lubricating escaping from the housing as well as preventing dust contamination (see Wolf, Para. 0005-6)
In re Claim 14, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein when the planar lock handle is in the first position, a ridge that protrudes from an outer surface of the support arm extends around the planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 3, #104/106; see also surfaces of #90 in Fig. 2 which protrude from an outer surface and extends around the arm).
In re Claim 16, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, teaches comprising a spring that surrounds the locking pin and biases the locking pin against the planar lock handle (see Pontieri, Fig. 2, #82; see also Fig. 10 and Para. 0076).
In re Claim 17, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the planar lock handle defines a curved cam surface (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #108; see also Fig. 10 and Para. 0076).
In re Claim 18, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the locking pin is biased against the planar lock handle via an elastic member (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #82) such that the locking pin directly contacts the cam surface (see Pontieri, Figs. 2-4, #82 contacting #108; see also Fig. 10 and Para. 0076).
In re Claim 19, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, teaches wherein the cam surface is shaped and dimensioned so that when the planar lock handle is in the first position, the locking pin is spaced apart from the transmission (see Pontieri, Fig. 2 showing the handle in the first position and space between #66 and #64; Fig. 10 and Para. 0076; see also Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38), and when the planar lock handle is in the second position, the locking pin is engaged with a recess of the transmission gear (see Pontieri, Fig. 4 and 10 and Para. 0076; see also Wolf, Fig. 2, #32/38).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2588831A in view of US 2008/0014844 to Pontieri and US 2004/0069513 to Wolf, and further in view of US 3,899852 to Batson.
In re Claim 8, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein when the planar lock handle is in the first position, the planar lock handle is recessed relative to the ridge.
However, Batson teaches that it is known in the art of spindle locks, to provide the lock handle/lever is in the first position, the planar lock handle is recessed relative to the ridge (see Fig. 3, #120 below outer housing #20). In the same field of invention, structures for locking spindles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to recess the lever of modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, as taught by Batson. Doing so is the substitution of one known spindle lock arrangement for another known spindle lock arraignment to lock a beveled gear in a handheld power tool. Placing the spindle lock below the profile of the housing prevents the user from inadvertently activating the spindle lock during use, as a user grips a hand tool in various positions and locations depending on what and where he or she needs to cut.
In re Claim 15, modified GB 2588831A, in re Claim 13, does not teach wherein when the planar lock handle is in the first position, the planar lock handle is recessed with respect to the ridge.
However, Batson teaches that it is known in the art of spindle locks, to provide the lock handle/lever is in the first position, the planar lock handle is recessed with respect to the ridge (see Fig. 3, #120 below outer housing #20). In the same field of invention, structures for locking spindles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to recess the lever of modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, as taught by Batson. Doing so is the substitution of one known spindle lock arrangement for another known spindle lock arraignment to lock a beveled gear in a handheld power tool. Placing the spindle lock below the profile of the housing prevents the user from inadvertently activating the spindle lock during use, as a user grips a hand tool in various positions and locations depending on what and where he or she needs to cut.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2588831A in view of US 2008/0014844 to Pontieri and US 2004/0069513 to Wolf and further in view of US 1,133,443 to Martin.
In re Claim 12, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the transmission comprises an intermediate shaft that is disposed in the support arm connecting the output shaft to the gear set (see GB 2488831A, Figs. 1-8, #70), but GB 2488831A does not teach the intermediate shaft being rotatable about the output shaft axis as there is a gear set between the output shaft of the motor and shaft #70.
However, Martin teaches you can eliminate the gear set between the output of the motor and shaft #70 in GB 2488831A such that the intermediate shaft is rotatable about the output shaft axis (see Margin Figs. 1-2, #12/17).
In the same field of invention, electrical motors and the transmission of rotational energy in saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to element the gear set at the output of the electrical motor of GB 2488831A such that the intermediate shaft and the output shaft are connected and rotate about the same axis, as taught by Martin. Doing so is the substation of one known electrical motor/shaft arrangement for another known electrical motor /shaft arrangement in order to transmit rotational motion to drive a saw blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so elements the gear reduction gears and both saves cost and provides a direct drive from the motor for providing a smaller housing.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2588831A in view of US 2008/0014844 to Pontieri and US 2004/0069513 to Wolf and further in view of CN 12639912A.
In re Claim 20 modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein: the planar lock handle defines a first plane when the lock handle is in the first position (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, showing a handle with a first plane); however, modified GB 2488831A, in re Claim 1 does not teach the planar portion of the outer surface of the support arm defines a second plane; and the first plane and the second plane are orthogonal to the spindle axis.
However, CN 1239912A teaches that it is known in the art of spindle locks to secure the lock on the “side” of the bevel gear (see CN 1233312A, Fig. 2-3, #28/29/32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to lock the bevel gear on the side of the gear, as taught by CN 1239912A. Doing so is the substitution of one known locking position/arrangement for another known locking position/arrangement to secure the gear assembly to change the blade. See MPEP 2143, I, B. Placing the contact surfaces on the side of the gear prevents any interaction with the locking surface and the gear surfaces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that that the references do not teach a planar lock handle. The Examiner disagrees. As noted above, in re Claims 1 and 13, US 2008/0014844 to Pontieri Fig. 10 teaches a lock handle with a plane (see Pontieri, Fig. 10, #230; see also para. 0076 which states: With the exception of the mechanical detents illustrated in FIG. 10, the spindle lock mechanism 220 operates substantially as does the spindle lock mechanism 50 described in connection with FIGS. 1-5.). As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation Pontieri teaches a lock handle with a plane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights