DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-6, 8, 9, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 20220234123 to Zhou et al. in view of US Patent No. 3,770,236 to Marsh et al.
In re claim 1, Zhou teaches a shoe positioning system for use with a power tool that operates on a work piece, the shoe positioning system comprising:
a shoe (143) configured to abut the work piece;
an indexing member (140) movably engaged with the shoe, wherein the indexing member includes a plurality of elevated portions (see Annotated Figure 1) separating a plurality of index openings (1412);
an index plunger (145) coupled to the shoe, wherein the index plunger is configured to receive an engagement force to move the index plunger in a first direction inwardly along its axial axis, and wherein the index plunger includes an engagement portion (Para 0042); and
wherein:
when the engagement force is not received by the index plunger, the engagement portion is configured to be disposed in a first position (Para 0042);
when the engagement force is received by the index plunger, the engagement portion is configured to move to a second position (Para 0042);
when the index plunger is in the first position, the engagement portion of the index plunger is received by at least one of the index openings, thereby preventing the shoe from substantially moving along a longitudinal dimension with respect to the indexing member (Para 0042); and
when the index plunger is in the second position, the engagement portion of the index plunger is moved inwardly along the first direction and is outside of the index openings, thereby permitting the shoe to move along the longitudinal dimension with respect to the plurality of elevated portions and plurality of index openings (Para 0042).
PNG
media_image1.png
447
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, further comprising a spring (1453) configured to bias the index plunger in a second direction opposite the first direction along the axial axis of the index plunger.
In re claim 4, wherein:
the spring (1453) is configured to maintain the index plunger in the first position when the engagement force is not received by the index plunger (Para 0042); and
the spring is configured to return the index plunger to the first position when the index plunger is in the second position and the engagement force is removed from the index plunger (Para 0042).
In re claim 5, wherein the axial axis (103) of the index plunger and the longitudinal dimension are substantially orthogonal (as shown in at least Figure 11).
In re claim 6, wherein two of the index openings (1412) are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal dimension.
In re claim 8, wherein the indexing member (140) is configured to be mounted to the power tool (as shown in at least Figure 22).
In re claim 9, wherein the indexing member (140) further comprises at least one feature configured to constrain a range of movement of the shoe along the longitudinal dimension (see at least Figure 11).
In re claim 11, a shoe positioning system for use with a power tool that operates on a work piece, the shoe positioning system comprising:
a shoe (143) configured to abut the work piece;
an indexing member (140) including a base region and a plurality of elevated portions (see Annotated Figure 11, above) extending upwardly to a maximum elevation above the base region, wherein the plurality of elevated portions are separated by a plurality of index openings (1412) that do not extend upwardly to the maximum elevation above the base region;
an index plunger (145) coupled to the shoe, wherein the index plunger includes a transverse portion (as shown in at least Figure 11) having a lowest elevation that is maintained at an elevation above the elevated portions of the indexing member, and wherein the index plunger includes an engagement portion (1452) extending downwardly from the transverse portion towards the base region of the indexing member; and
wherein:
the shoe is configured to move along a longitudinal dimension with respect to the indexing member (Para 0042);
the index plunger is configured to move along its axial axis, wherein the index plunger is movable to a first position and a second position with respect to the indexing member (Para 0042);
when the index plunger is in the first position, at least a portion of the engagement portion is positioned in one of the index openings of the indexing member, thereby preventing substantial movement of the shoe along its longitudinal dimension with respect to the indexing member (Para 0042);
and when the index plunger is in the second position, the at least a portion of the engagement portion is positioned outside the index openings of the indexing member, thereby permitting movement of the shoe with respect to the indexing member along its longitudinal dimension, such that at least a portion of at least one elevated portion passes under the transverse portion of the index plunger as the shoe moves.
In re claim 12, further comprising a spring (1453) configured to bias the index plunger towards the first position.
In re claim 14, wherein:
the spring (1453) is configured to maintain the index plunger (145) in the first position when the engagement force is not received by the index plunger; and
the spring (1453) is configured to return the index plunger (145) to the first position when the index plunger is in the second position and the engagement force is removed from the index plunger.
In re claim 15, wherein the axial axis (103) of the index plunger and the longitudinal dimension are substantially orthogonal (as shown in at least Figure 11).
In re claim 16, wherein two of the index openings (1412) are spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal dimension.
In re claim 17, the shoe (143) includes a slot (as shown in at least Figure 11, the shoe is recessed relative to the side ridges, creating a slot which receives the indexing member) configured to receive the indexing member.
In re claim 18, wherein the indexing member (140) is configured to be mounted to the power tool (as shown in at least Figure 22).
In re claim 19, wherein the indexing member (140) further comprises at least one feature configured to constrain a range of movement of the shoe along the longitudinal dimension.
Per the disclosure the at least one feature is a ridge. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “ridge” per Merriam Webster Dictionary, defined as an elevated body part or structure has been applied to the pending application.
In re claim 20, the indexing member further comprises at least one feature (see Annotated Figure 11, above) configured to constrain a range of movement of the index plunger (145) along its axial axis (see Annotated Figure 2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
515
660
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Zhou teaches a plunger which moves inwardly about axis (103) to move between index openings which permit and/or prohibit movement of the plunger in a longitudinal direction, but does not teach permitting the index plunger to move along the longitudinal dimension with respect to the plurality of elevated portions and the plurality of index openings.
The concept of a spring located rod is known across various arts to permit and/or inhibit motion as a corresponding structure slides in a vertical direction. Marsh teaches in the art of vertically adjustable structures, a positioning system having an index plunger (44) configured to receive an engagement force to move the plunger in a first direction inwardly along its axial axis (as shown in at Figure 1), and wherein the plunger includes an engagement portion (50),
wherein:
when the engagement force is not received by the index plunger, the engagement portion is configured to be disposed in a first position (Col. 2, lines 47-67, Col. 3, lines 1-11);
when the engagement force is received by the index plunger, the engagement portion is configured to move to a second position (Col. 2, lines 47-67, Col. 3, lines 1-11);
when the index plunger is in the first position, the engagement portion of the index plunger is received by at least one of the index openings, thereby preventing the shoe from substantially moving along a longitudinal dimension with respect to the indexing member (Col. 2, lines 47-67, Col. 3, lines 1-11); and
when the index plunger is in the second position, the engagement portion of the index plunger is moved inwardly along the first direction and is outside of the index openings, thereby permitting the shoe to move along the longitudinal dimension with respect to the indexing member (Col. 2, lines 47-67, Col. 3, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building from the ground up) to modify the plunger arrangement Zhou to move along a linear axis with respect to the longitudinal dimension (of the plunger) as taught by Marsh which is an obvious design locking arrangement variant to prevent unwanted movement of the plunger which leads to the reduction in user injury. Known work in one field of endeavor may have prompted variations of it for use in either the same of a different on based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one skill in the art. The modification of Zhou in view of Marsh would have been obvious for the following reasons:
A finding that the scope and content of the prior art, whether in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention or a different field of endeavor, included a similar or analogous device (method, or product).
The Examiner recognized that vertical slides with corresponding a lock are found in various fields of endeavors. Zhou is in the sawing field of endeavor, while Marsh is in the field of endeavor of adjusting an elongated tubular member of a chair or stool, which is a different field of endeavor; however, both Zhou and Marsh include similar devices. The scope of Marsh is to vertically adjust corresponding tubular rods and secure the adjusted rods via a locking pin and spring arrangement to maintain the tube in an adjusted position. This is done by the locking pin sliding through the desired opening to secure the corresponding tubes. The Examiner concluded that based on the teachings of Marsh, the device of Zhou could have been modified using a locking pin and spring arrangement, in which the locking pin moves along axial direction.
A finding that there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product).
The Examiner recognized there was a design need to lock the device of Zhou with a locking pin and spring arrangement as taught by Marsh to prevent unwanted movement of the shoe positioning system during sawing. This reduces user injury. Based on the teachings of Marsh, the Examiner concluded the modification would have lead to the advantages set forth above.
A finding that the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art.
The Examiner recognized that differences between the claimed invention were disclosed in the prior art to both Zhou and Marsh. Marsh encompasses known variations, for instance, a locking pin which biased and moved along an axis of the pin to permit locking of two corresponding parts relative to one another. Zhou teaches the same concept; however, the locking pin pivots about an axis. The concept of modifying Zhou to have a locking arrangement as taught by Marsh would still permit proper locking to prevent unwanted movement and reduce the risk for user injury.
(4) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of March, that the shoe positioning system of Zhou could have a locking pin and spring arrangement as taught by Zhou, since it would not jeopardize the intended locking purpose of the shoe. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the shoe positioning system with a locking pin moving in the axial direction would still permit the shoe to perform the intended operation.
(5) Whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner recognized that Marsh teaches a locking pin and spring arrangement that moves along the axis of the locking pin to lock two corresponding structures, which is in view of the facts of the case under consideration. Therefore, based on the facts of the case, one would have been prompted to look to known work in one field of endeavor to prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different field based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In other words, one would have looked to the locking pin and spring arrangement of Marsh to modify Zhou to lock the positioning member, since the modification would not jeopardize the integrity of the positioning member.
In re claim 3, modified Zhou teaches wherein the spring (58, Marsh) substantially surrounds an axial portion of the index plunger (44, Marsh).
In re claim 13, modified Zhou teaches wherein the spring (58, Marsh) substantially surrounds a portion of the index plunger (44, Marsh).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches an indexing member, but does not teach further comprise at least one feature configured to constrain a range of the movement of the index plunger along its axial axis.
Marsh teaches in the art of vertically adjustable structures, a positioning system having an index plunger (44) configured to receive an engagement force to move the plunger in a first direction inwardly along its axial axis (as shown in at Figure 1), and wherein the plunger includes an engagement portion (50), and a notch (70) which receives a corresponding flange (34) of the respective hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the opening of Zhou with a flange to receive the plunger as taught by Marsh to prevent the pin for withdrawing due to inadvertent action of the lever (Col. 3, lines 37-51).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Marsh et al., as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 9,701,035 to Bertsch et al.
In re claim 7, Zhou teaches the indexing member (140) having a slot sliding along a rail of the shoe (143) and does not teach the shoe include a slot configured to receive the indexing member.
Bertsch teaches a shoe (100) includes a slot (172) configured to receive the indexing member (104).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art (when building from the ground up) before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the shoe arrangement of Zhou with a slot for receiving the indexing member as taught by Bertsch which is merely an obvious design variant of mechanical slides to maintain linear motion while preventing unwanted lateral movement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights