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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 5-8-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 7-8, 14, 16, 17, 20 were amended. Claims 4-5, 11 were cancelled. New Claims 21-22 were presented. Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 12-22 are pending and examined in this action.
Applicant’s arguments re Claim 9 were persuasive. As such the drawing objection was withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments have rendered the drawing objections and the 35 USC 112(a) rejections to Claim 16 moot.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of US 2011/0083540 to Xing.
In re Claim 16, Stoffel teaches a power tool guide assembly comprising:
a power tool guide (see Fig. 1-5) having:
an elongate body having a workpiece side configured to engage a workpiece and a power tool side configured to engage a power tool (see Figs. 1-5, #100A having a bottom side and a top side); and
at least one elongate rail (see Figs. 1-5, #102) mounted on the power tool side, the at least one elongate rail configured to engage a reciprocal channel in the power tool (see Figs. 1-5, groove #22 which cooperates with #102) and limit lateral movement of the power tool in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the elongate body (see Para. 0003 and 0005);
an edge protector (see Figs. 1-5, #100 A/B – a second structure assembled between two of the same structures – the examiner notes that the limitations edge protector was understood to be a structure that covers an edge. The terms edge protector and tool guide are not mutually exclusive. Any difference between these terms is not inherent in the terms. A guide can protect an edge and an edge protector can guide a tool. If applicant wants these terms to include additional limitations then these limitations should be in the claims.) connected to an end of the elongate body, wherein the edge protector includes a first side, a second side opposite the first side, (the middle structure of an assembly of three #100A/B structures includes first and second sides) and a connector that extends from the first side and is inserted in a reciprocal recess in the elongate body (see e.g., #110A), the edge protector including at least one rail profile portion that aligns with the at least one elongate rail and the second at least one elongate rail (see Figs. 1-5, #102); and
at least one connecting rod (see Figs. 1-5, #110A) mounted within the first connecting rod channel of the power tool guide, and a second connecting rod channel of the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector (see Figs. 1-5, #110A in channel #104),
wherein the second connecting rod channel extends through the length of the edge protector such that the at least one connecting rod can be inserted through the second connecting rod channel and into the first connecting rod channel when the edge protector is connected to the power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5, each of the structures as a connecting rod channel extending such that the connecting rod can be inserted through the second channel into the first channel when the two structures are adjacent to each other).
Stoffel does not teach wherein the length of the edge protector between the first side and the second side is less than a width of the edge protector. However, Xing teaches that guides can have different lengths (see Xing, Para. 0005). In the same field of invention, saw guides it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make a structure #100 of Stoffel a “small” length including a length of less than the width. Doing so provides a small length structure to extend the track of the saw a small length. In other words, the system of Stoffel is meant to cut workpieces of various lengths. Providing a small length workpiece would allow for adding a structure that does not overhang the workpiece during cutting. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view US 2011/0083540 to Xing, and further in view of Bosch FSN.
In re Claim 20, Stoffel does not teach wherein the at least one connecting rod comprises at least one alignment indication that includes a straight line formed in a surface of, and extending across a width of, the at least one connecting rod, the straight line configured to be aligned with an edge of a longitudinal end of the power tool guide.
However, Bosch FSN teaches the at least one connecting rod comprises at least one alignment indication that includes a straight line formed in a surface of, and extending across a width of, the at least one connecting rod, the straight line configured to be aligned with an edge of a longitudinal end of the power tool guide (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1094
1518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, securing cutting tracks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide alignment marks to the device of modified Stoffel, as taught by Bosch FSN. Doing so ensures that the user has the connecting structures in the proper position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 2, 21, 22 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art is:
US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel;
CN 214417823 U;
US 8,356,446 to Takeda; and
Bosch FSN Professional Guide.
In re Claim 1, “wherein the at least one protruding lip defines a first surface that is flat and that faces away from the workpiece side and that is configured to engage the shoulder portion, wherein the first surface is transverse to and intersects the inclined surface,” in combination with the remaining limitations, and in view of Applicant’s Fig. 9a, was not found in the references listed above. Dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 2, 21, 22 were allowed by virtue of their dependence to Claim 1.
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.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16 and 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.
Applicant argues that Stoffel does not teach a track that is shorter than it is wide. However, Xing teaches that it is known in the art of saw guides to provide guides of different lengths. IT would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a “short” length guide such that it is winder than it is long, in order to fit into small areas or to extend to the edge of a workpiece that is slightly larger than one second of the track in Stoffel. See Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
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 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