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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1-6-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, and 18 were amended. Claims 2 and 19 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-21 are examined in this action.
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 1-6 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of US 3,218,097 to Bowers.
In re Claim 1, Stoffel teaches a power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5, #10) comprising: an elongate body (see Figs. 1-5, guide rails #100A/100b) having a workpiece side configured to engage a workpiece (see Figs. 1-5, side of #100a/100b opposite the saw engaging side and a power tool side (see Fig. 4, side that engages the circular saw) configured to engage a power tool (see Fig. 4);
at least one elongate rail mounted on the power tool side (see Figs. 1-5, #102/104; see also Para. 0027), the at least one elongate rail configured to engage a reciprocal channel (see Fig. 4, #136) in the power tool and limit lateral movement of the power tool in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the elongate body (see Para. 0031);
Stoffel fails to teach:
wherein the at least one elongate rail comprises a width reduction that includes a first external width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail and a second external width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a second longitudinal position spaced along the longitudinal axis from the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail, wherein the second external width is greater than the first external width.
However, Bowers teaches that it is known in the art of connections means to provide a tapered protrusion and a corresponding tapered receiving hole (see Figs. 4-5 and Figs. 6-7; see also Col. 1, ll. 28-36). In the same field of invention, inserting rod type structures into holes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide a taper on the “male” structure and an opposite taper on the “female” structure. Doing so provides a wider opening for inserting the “male” portion into the female portion at the entrance, thus making it easier to align and insert the male portion. Additionally, the tapered structures allows for the structures to be centered and snug when fully inserted.
Adding tapered surfaces to the apertures and rod of Stoffel would provide for:
wherein the at least one elongate rail comprises a width reduction that includes a first external width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a first longitudinal end (see e.g., Bowers, Fig. 5, aperture in which #15 enters at reference number #1) of the at least one elongate rail and a second external width in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis at a second longitudinal position spaced along the longitudinal axis from the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail (see e.g., Bowers, Fig. 5, aperture in which #15 enters adjacent to reference number 13’), wherein the second external width is greater than the first external width (the aperture of Fig. 5 of Bowers, is winder at the “mouth” than farther in to the aperture).
In re Claim 3, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein the at least one elongate rail varies in width from the first longitudinal position to the second longitudinal position (see Bowers Figs. 4-7 in view of Stoffel Fig. 2).
In re Claim 4, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1 teaches wherein the at least one elongate rail comprises chamfered walls between the first longitudinal position and the second longitudinal position (see Bowers Figs. 4-7 in view of Stoffel Fig. 2, showing angled or chamfered walls between the first and second positions).
In re Claim 5, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first external width and the second external width are smaller than a third width of the reciprocal channel (see Bowers Figs. 4-7 in view of Stoffel Fig. 2, the third width is the external opening adjacent to reference number #12).
In re Claim 6, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the at least one elongate rail comprises the first external width at a third longitudinal position at a second longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail and the second external width at a fourth longitudinal position remote from the at least one elongate rail. However, if one were to add three guide rails together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the structure of Bowers to the “other” end of the elongate body, and to additional elongate bodies. Doing so would allow the user to add a third guide rail to the system. This would allow the user to cut larger workpieces. Such an assembly would read on Claim 6.
In re Claim 10, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein at least one elongate sliding surface is mounted on the power tool side and remote from the at least one elongate rail (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, surface that #101 is pointing to).
In re Claim 11, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the at least one elongate sliding surface comprises a first elongate sliding surface (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, surface that #101 is pointing to) and a second elongate sliding surface (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, surface that #100A is pointing to).
In re Claim 12, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the at least one elongate rail is between the first elongate sliding surface and the second elongate sliding surface (see Stoffel showing the rail between surface that #101 is pointing to and surface that #100A is pointing to).
In re Claim 13, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first elongate sliding surface and the second elongate sliding surface are closer to a periphery of the elongate body than the at least one elongate rail (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, showing that surface that #101 is pointing to is closer to the “right side” of Fig. 3 and that surface that #100A is pointing to is closer to the “left side” of Fig. 3).
In re Claim 14, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the at least one elongate rail is mounted along a center axis of the elongate body (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, showing the rail at the center axis).
In re Claim 15, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches the power tool guide assembly comprising: a power tool guide of claim 1; and a power tool mounted on the power tool guide (see Fig. 4, #10 and the circular saw).
In re Claim 16, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail is substantially aligned with a first longitudinal end of the elongate body (see Fig. 2 of Stoffel showing the rail axially aligned with the axial direction of the elongate body).
In re Claim 17, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail is substantially flat (see Fig. 2 of Stoffel showing the end of the rail #102/104 is flat).
In re Claim 18, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the chamfered walls are substantially straight between the first longitudinal position and the second longitudinal position (see Bowers Figs. 4-5, showing angled chamfered walls with a straight portion).
Claims 7-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of US 3,218,097 to Bowers, and further in view of US 2015/0283679 to Ursell.
In re Claim 7, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the power tool guide comprises an edge protector removably connectable to the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail. However, Ursell teaches that it is known to provide edge connectors (see Ursell, Fig. 1/5, #16/#18/#19) removably connectable to structures with circular saws (see Para. 0004).
In the same field of invention, structures used with circular saw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the end stop/edge protector of Ursell to the device of modified Stoffel. Doing so provides a plane 90 degrees from the track of the saw to ensure perpendicularity to an edge of a workpiece.
In re Claim 8, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the edge protector comprises at least one rail profile portion configured to align with the at least one elongate rail. The Examiner notes that in order to add the end stop/edge protector to modified Stoffel, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide a profile configured to align and enter the rail of modified Stoffel (see e.g., Baker Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 5 of Ursell).
In re Claim 9, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 8, teaches wherein the at least one rail profile portion comprises a width equal to or less than the first width of the at least one elongate rail (see e.g., Baker Fig. 4 in view of Fig. 5 of Ursell).
In re Claim 20, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 8, teaches wherein an end of the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector has a shape that is complementary to a shape of the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail (see Baker Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 5 of Fig. 5 of Ursell) and the end of the at least one rail profile portion abuts the first longitudinal end of the at least one elongate rail (see Stoffel, Fig. 2, in view of Fig. 3 of Baker and Fig. 5 of Ursell).
In re Claim 21, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 20, teaches wherein the end of the at least one rail profile portion is flat (see Stoffel, Fig. 2, #104/102 having a flat end).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Cancelling Claim 19 has obviated the prior 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant argues that Stoffel does not teach a with reduction at a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as required by the claims. However, as noted above, Bowers teaches that it is known to provide tapered surfaces. Doing so allows an ease of insertion while still centering the structures when the “male” portion is fully inserted.
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