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 Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 33 should recite “wherein the at least two corrugations together with the at least one other corrugation .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 18-21, and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 7,137,877 to Uhl et al.
In re claim 16, Uhl teaches a profile structure for a component of a power tool, the profile structure comprising:
a front side (26) and a rear side (as indicated by the arrow below), at least two corrugations on the front side and at least one other corrugation of the other of the front and rear sides (as shown in at least Figure 4, the other corrugation extends on the rear face), the at least two corrugations extending and open in a first in a longitudinal direction of the component (the corrugations have a component which extends in the longitudinal direction) and being in a vertical plane (the at least two corrugations are in a vertical plane which is perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction) perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction in an alternating pattern, the at least one other corrugation extending and being open in a second direction (the at least one other corrugation has a component extending in the direction as the double arrow which is opposite to the first longitudinal direction) opposite the first longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim18, wherein the corrugations (26) are (capable of being) arranged substantially symmetrically about a virtual central axis of the component of the power tool.
The term “virtual” does not raise a 112 in this instance, the term is replete throughout the specification and in direct relation to the central axis of the component. Further, the preamble is directed to the profile structure, not the power tool.
In re claim 19, wherein the corrugations (26) number n corrugations on the front side and (n-1) corrugations on the rear side (as shown in at least Figure 4).
In re claim 20, comprising reinforcement ribs (see Annotated Figure 1, above).
In re claim 21, wherein the reinforcement ribs (see Annotated Figure 1, above) are arranged in the corrugations.
In re claim 25, Uhl teaches a power tool (1) comprising a component (7) including the profile structure as recited in claim 16.
In re claim 26, a corrugation region (26) arranged between a transmission cylinder (12) and a tool cylinder (8) of the component.
In re claim 27, wherein the component (7) is a cutting arm for a power tool.
In re claim 28, wherein the power tool (1) is a cutting device (Abstract, Col. 2, lines 11-30).
In re claim 29, Uhl teaches a cutting arm for a power tool, the cutting arm comprising the profile structure (26) as recited in claim 16.
In re claim 30, wherein the cutting arm (7) is formed in one piece (Col. 3, lines 14-33).
Claims 16, 18-21, 25, 27-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP3338974 to Geromiller.
In re claim 16, Geromiller teaches a profile structure for a component of a power tool, the profile structure comprising:
a front side (see Annotated Figure 2, below) and a rear side (see Annotated Figure 2, below), at least two corrugations on the front side and at least one other corrugation of the other of the front and rear sides (as shown in at least Figure 1), the at least two corrugations extending and open in a first in a longitudinal direction of the component (the corrugations have a component which extends in the longitudinal direction) and being in a vertical plane (the at least two corrugations are in a vertical plane which is perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction) perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction in an alternating pattern, the at least one other corrugation extending and being open in a second direction (the at least one other corrugation has a component extending in the direction as the double arrow which is opposite to the first longitudinal direction) opposite the first longitudinal direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
509
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 18, wherein the corrugations (see Annotated Figure 2, above) are (capable of being) arranged substantially symmetrically about a virtual central axis of the component of the power tool.
The term “virtual” does not raise a 112 in this instance, the term is replete throughout the specification and in direct relation to the central axis of the component. Further, the preamble is directed to the profile structure, not the power tool.
In re claim 19, wherein the corrugations (see Annotated Figure 2, above) number n corrugations on the front side and (n-1) corrugations on the rear side (see Annotated Figure 2, above).
In re claim 20, comprising reinforcement ribs (62b).
In re claim 21, wherein the reinforcement ribs (62b) are arranged in the corrugations.
In re claim 25, Geromiller teaches a power tool (1) comprising a component (27) including the profile structure as recited in claim 16.
In re claim 27, wherein the component (27) is a cutting arm for a power tool.
In re claim 28, wherein the power tool (1) is a cutting device (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 29, Geromiller teaches a cutting arm (27) for a power tool, the cutting arm comprising the profile structure (as shown in at least Figure 12) as recited in claim 16.
In re claim 33, wherein the at least two corrugations together with the at least one other corrugation number exactly five corrugations (as shown in at least Figure 12).
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl.
In re claim 22, Uhl teaches wherein the reinforcement ribs (26) enclose various angles with respect to a virtual central axis. The reinforcement ribs appear to lie at various angles less than 90 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to angle the reinforcement ribs of Uhl at various angles in order to maintain increased rigidity of the component (Col. 3, lines 14-25). A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. MPEP 2143, Section I, Part E. The modification of Uhl would have been obvious to try for the reasons set forth below:
(1) A finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem.
The Examiner recognized there was a recognized problem in the art to provide structural rigidity to bracket in parting-off grinders. Uhl provides a teaching of solving this problem by providing a plurality of reinforcement ribs angled within a recess extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bracket. Based on the teachings provided by Uhl, the Examiner concluded reinforcement ribs art can be disposed as various angles which aids in maintaining the desired rigidity of the bracket.
(2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem.
The Examiner recognized Uhl teaches the bracket has a recessed area extending parallel to the axis of the bracket and disposed in the recess are a plurality of reinforcement ribs at angles less than 90 degrees to the axis of the bracket. Uhl provided a teaching of angling reinforcement ribs less than 90 degrees to the axis of the bracket. Based on the teachings of Uhl, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found that there are a finite number of angles (between 1 and 90 degrees) with respect to the axis of the bracket values that could be implemented to maintain rigidity of the bracket. The value of 1 to 90 degrees as taught by Uhl, would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a baseline value to being experimentation. In other words, one would have been prompted to try various angles between 1 and 90 degrees, based on the angular arrangement of the reinforcement ribs of Uhl before arriving at the angular range which allows the integrity of the bracket to be retained.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner determined that based on the teachings of Uhl, that the modified bracket could have reinforcement ribs at various angles that would not jeopardize the rigidity of the bracket. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been knowledgeable that the expectation of success, of providing the bracket with reinforcement ribs at an angle between 30 and 60 degrees with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bracket would still permit the bracket to maintain the desired rigidity.
(4) 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 Uhl teaches angling reinforcement ribs between 1 and 90 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis of the bracket, 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 try various angular orientations of the reinforcement ribs between 1 and 90 degrees as taught by Uhl to find the angular orientation that did not jeopardize the integrity of the bracket.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of EP3670077 to Specht et al.
In re claim 24, Uhl teaches the profile structure is manufactured from a material, but does not teach wherein the profile structure is manufactured from more than one material, wherein a basic structure of the profile structure includes a metal or reinforcement ribs include a plastic.
Specht teaches a support arm (17) is cast from a light weight metal which permit forces to be transmitted to the arm without damage (Pg. 2, lines 30-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to manufacture the bracket of Uhl of a light weight metal as taught by Specht to permit forces to be transmitted to the arm without damage (Pg. 2, lines 30-35) during use of the device. Uhl teaches the bracket is a one-piece monolith design which results in both high rigidity and high strength; therefore, fabricating the bracket of Uhl would (subsequently) lead to the profile structure including a metal. The limitations of claim 24 are product by process. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20180141139 to Geromiller.
In re claim 34, Uhl teaches the arm structure having a thickness (in a front and rear direction as set forth by the double arrow in at least Annotated Figure 1), but does not teach the profile thickness in a range of 2 to 3 mm.
Geromiller teaches an arm structure (25) having a thickness measured between the inner side and outer side of the base blade (19), in which the wall thickness is less than 0.5 cm (which includes values anywhere between greater than 0cm and 0.49cm (which is greater than 0 mm and less than 4.9 cm, which includes the range of 2 to 3 cm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dimension the arm structure of Uhl to have a thickness as taught by Geromiller to maintain increased durability and structural rigidity for the device. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the thickness of the arm structure of Uhl correlates to the thickness of the profile, since as shown in at least Figure 4 of Uhl the profile extends in a front and rear direction for the same distance as the thickness of the arm structure.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uhl in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20120151783 to Marshall or US Patent No. 12,605,708 Conway et al.
In re claim 35, Uhl teaches corrugations, but does not teach the corrugations are composed of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic, the reinforcement ribs being composed of aluminum.
Marshall teaches the saw frame can be fabricated from metals as an aluminum and carbon-fiber (Para 0023).
Conway teaches the cutting apparatus can be formed of aluminum, plastics, carbon fibre, and or any other suitable material (Col. 24, lines 54-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to fabricate the corrugations and ribs from carbon-fiber and aluminum as taught by Marshall or Conway which are advantageous for providing a lightweight device with structural liability. It is further advantageous to use aluminum in areas where weight is less of a concern.
Response to Arguments
The 112, second paragraph rejections in the Office Action mailed April 29, 2026 have been overcome by the amendments filed July 28, 2026.
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Uhl teaches a longitudinal direction (24) and reinforcing struts (26) are not in a vertical plane perpendicular to the first longitudinal direction in an alternating pattern, the at least corrugations extending and open in a first longitudinal direction or the at least one other corrugation extending and being open in a second direction opposite the first longitudinal direction.
Uhl teaches at least two corrugations in a vertical plane, which is defined perpendicular to the first longitudinal axis/direction, in an alternating pattern. This is shown in at least Annotated Figure 1 and disclosed in various figures of Uhl. As set forth in the above rejection, there is a directional component of the corrugations that extends and is open in a first longitudinal direction and the other corrugation has a directional component which extends and is open in a second direction, opposite to the first longitudinal direction. The directions of each component of Uhl are set forth and annotated in the above rejection.
Examiner’s note, the profile is defined in [Para 0019], Page 7. Specifically, “A vertical section plane can extend substantially perpendicular to the first virtual axis. If the cutting arm is sectioned along the vertical section plane and the resulting illustration depicted, this yields such as Figure 1-3. The profile is not “structure” per say, but merely a sectional view of corrugations along the cutting arm. What is the inventive concept of the instant application and how would the profile of the instant application differ from a profile taken from Zimmerman et al. (US 20180369939)?
Conclusion
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