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 1-06-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1-2, 9 and 16 were amended. Claims 4-5, 11 were cancelled. New Claims 18-20 were presented. Claims 1-3, 6-10, 10 and 12-20 are pending and examined in this action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “wherein a length of the at least one locking screw is less than a height of the at least one connecting rod and an end of the at least one locking screw is recessed within the at least one connecting rod when the at least one locking screw engages the first surface if the connecting rod channel,” of Claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “an edge protector positioned between the first power tool guide and the second power tool guide and connected to an end of the first elongate body,” of Claim 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “at least one connecting rod mounted within a first connecting rod channel of the first power tool guide, a second connecting rod channel of the second power tool guide, and a third connecting rod channel of the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector,” of Claim 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re Claim 16, “an edge protector positioned between the first power tool guide and the second power tool guide and connected to an end of the first elongate body,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification fails to teach the edge protector “between” two power tool guides. Additionally, Applicant’s figures fail to illustrate an edge protector “between” two power tool guides. As such, Applicant’s specification does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art, that placing the edge protector between two power guides was part of Applicant’s invention. The examiner notes that edge protectors with connectors (Applicant’s #600,602,604,606,608,610) are not shown on both sides in the figures, nor is such an embodiment discussed in the text of the specification.
In re Claim 16, “at least one connecting rod mounted within a first connecting rod channel of the first power tool guide, a second connecting rod channel of the second power tool guide, and a third connecting rod channel of the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector,” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification fails to teach a connecting rod mounting in the three structures of a first power tool guide, a second power tool guide and an edge protector at the same time. Additionally, Applicant’s figures fail to illustrate a connecting rod mounting in the three structures of a first power tool guide, a second power tool guide and an edge protector at the same time. As such, Applicant’s specification does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art, a connecting rode mounted within a first power tool guide, a second power tool guide and an edge protector at the same time.
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, 3, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of CN 214417823 U.
In re Claim 1, Stoffel teaches power tool guide assembly (see Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5) having:
an elongate body (see Figs. 1-5, #100A/#100B) having a workpiece side configured to engage a workpiece (see Fig. 4, “bottom side”) and a power tool side (see Fig. 4, side that connects to the circular saw) configured to engage a power tool;
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 – the examiner notes that power tool was interpreted to include an assembly of a tool and a carriage) 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); and
at least one connecting rod (see Figs. 1-5, #110A/#110B) mountable within a connecting rod channel of the power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5, channel that receives #110A/110B).
Stoffel does not teach wherein the connecting rod channel comprises at least one protruding lip configured to engage a shoulder portion on the at least one connecting rod; .
wherein the at least one protruding lip comprises an inclined surface with respect to a plane of the elongate body that intersects the workpiece side of the elongate body, the inclined surface configured to engage a reciprocal inclined surface on the at least one connecting rod.
However, CN 214417823 U teaches that it is known to provide a connecting rod channel that comprises at least one protruding lip (see annotated Fig. 5, below) configured to engage a shoulder portion on the at least one connecting rod; .
wherein the at least one protruding lip comprises an inclined surface with respect to a plane of the elongate body that intersects the workpiece side of the elongate body, the inclined surface configured to engage a reciprocal inclined surface on the at least one connecting rod (see annotated Figs. 5-6, below, showing the protruding lip with an inclined surface that corresponds wo the reciprocal inclined surface on the rod).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of invention, track saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the cross section of the bar and the connecting rod channel with the known cross-section taught by CN 214417823 U. Doing so is the substation of one known cross-section for another known cross-section to locate the bar in the connecting rod channel (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Providing the trapezoidal structure on the rod and the dovetail groove on the rod cannel ensures that the connection does not come apart (see CN 214417823 U, translation, under “Example 1”).
In re Claim 3, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the connecting rod channel comprises a C-shaped cross-sectional profile (see Stoffel, Fig. 3, channel in view of CN 214417823 U, Fig. 5 – as best understood, this is a “c-shaped” cross-section profile).
In re Claim 6, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the at least one protruding lip comprises a first protruding lip and a second protruding lip, that extend toward each other (see annotated Fig. 5, above).
In re Claim 7, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the elongate body comprises at least one locking screw (see Stoffel, Figs. 1-5, and Para. 0030, screws 120 are received in through-holes #112) configured to fix the at least one connecting rod with respect to the elongate body (see Stoffel, Para. 0030).
In re Claim 8, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the connecting rod channel comprises a threaded hole configured to receive the at least one locking screw (see Stoffel, Figs. 1-5, and Para. 0030, screws 120 are received in through-holes #112).
In re Claim 10, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the connecting rod channel comprises an elongate opening and the at least one locking screw is accessible via the elongate opening (see Stoffel, Fig. 5)
In re Claim 12, 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, Figs. 1-5, showing the elongate rail mounted in the center of the body).
In re Claim 13, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the connecting rod channel is located within the at least one elongate rail (see Stoffel, Figs. 1-5, the at least one elongate rail #102 comprises the connecting rod channel – see e.g., Fig. 5).
In re Claim 18, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the inclined surface of the at least one connecting rod is a first inclined surface (see annotated Fig. 6, above, one of the inclined surfaces), the at least one connecting rod further including a second inclined surface (see annotated Fig. 6, above, the other of the inclined surfaces) and a third surface that extends between and intersects the first inclined surface and the second inclined surface (see annotated Fig. 6, above), wherein the third surface is parallel to the shoulder portion and a width of the third surface is greater than a width of the shoulder portion (see annotated Fig. 6).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of CN 214417823 U, and further in view of US 8,356,446 to Takeda.
In re Claim 9, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the at least one locking screw is configured to engage a first surface of the connecting rod channel (see Stoffel, annotated Fig. 5, above) and urge the at least one connecting rod against a second surface of the connecting rod channel (see Stoffel, annotated Fig. 5, above).
Modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a length of the at least one locking screw is less than a height of the at least one connecting rod and an end of the at least one locking screw is recessed within the at least one connecting rod when the at least one locking screw engages the first surface if the connecting rod channel.
However, Takeda teaches that it is known in the art of fasteners to provide a fastener (see Takeda, Fig. 8, #85/80) wherein a length of the at least one locking screw (see Takeda, Fig. 8, #85) is less than a height of the at least one connecting rod (see Fig. 8, #82) and an end of the at least one locking screw is recessed within the at least one connecting rod (see Fig. 8) when the at least one locking screw engages the first surface if the connecting rod channel (see Fig. 8).
In the same field of invention, threaded fasteners for securing assemblies together, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize any type of fastener including a fastener that is recessed into the rod, as taught by Takeda. Doing so is the substation of one known threaded fastener for another known threaded fastener to secure the assembly (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claims 19 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of CN 214417823 U, and further in view of Bosch FSN Professional Guide.
In re Claim 19, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 1, 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 to indicate a position of the at least one connecting rod with respect to the power tool guide when mounted within the connecting rod channel.
However, Bosch FSN teaches that it is known in the art of connecting cutting system rails to provide 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 to indicate a position of the at least one connecting rod with respect to the power tool guide when mounted within the connecting rod channel (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
1094
1518
media_image3.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.
In re Claim 2, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 19, teaches wherein the at least one alignment indication is located at a center point of the at least one connecting rod (Bosch FSN above).
Claims 14-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel in view of CN 214417823 U, and further in view of US 7,165,334 to Ben-Gigi.
In re Claim 14, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 14, does not teach wherein the power tool guide comprises an edge protector connectable to an end of the elongate body.
However, Ben-Gigi teaches that it is known in the art to provide an edge protector connectable to an end of the elongate body (see Ben-Gigi, Fig. 1, #20).
In the same field of invention, guides for circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add an edge protector to the end of the elongate body. Doing so would provide a handle/hanging hole the user can grip to facilitate moving the device in an easy manner or hanging the device on a wall (see Ben-Gigi, Col 2, ll. 1-2). The Examiner notes that to secure the cover member to the end of the elongate body of Stoffel, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize the same connection method as taught in Stoffel to connect the guides to each other.
In re Claim 15, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 14, teaches wherein the profile of the at least one removeable edge protector is the same as or smaller than the cross sectional profile of the power tool guide (see Ben-Gigi, Fig. 2C, showing the cross-sectional with of the edge protector is smaller than the cross-sectional width of the guide).
In re Claim 17, modified Stoffel, in re Claim 15, teaches wherein:
the connecting rod channel is a first connecting rod channel (see Stoffel, Figs. 1-5, channel that receives #110A/110B);
the edge protector comprises at least one rail profile portion that aligns with the at least one elongate rail (see Ben-Gigi, Figs. 1 and 2C having a profile portion that aligns with the end of the rail);
the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector defines a second connecting rod channel that aligns with the first connecting rod channel; and the at least one connecting rod is configured to be mounted in the first connecting rod channel and the second connecting rod channel when the edge protector is coupled to the power tool guide (see Stoffel, Fig. 1-2, #110A in one channel and #110B in a second channel; see also Ben-Gigi, Figs. 1 and 2c).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0247738 to Stoffel.
In re Claim 16, Stoffel teaches a power tool guide assembly comprising:
a first power tool guide (see Fig. 1-5) having:
a first 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
a first at least one elongate rail (see Figs. 1-5, #102) mounted on the power tool side, the first 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 first elongate body (see Para. 0003 and 0005);
a second power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5, #100B) having:
a second elongate body (see Figs. 1-5, #100B) having a workpiece side configured to engage a workpiece and a power tool side configured to engage the power tool (see Figs. 1-5, #100B having a bottom side and a top side); and
a second at least one elongate rail (see Figs. 1-5, #102) mounted on the power tool side, the second 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); and
an edge protector (see Figs. 1-5, #100 A/B – a third 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. ) positioned between the first power tool guide and the second power tool guide and connected to an end of the first 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 first elongate body (see e.g., #110A), the edge protector including at least one rail profile portion that aligns with the first 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 first power tool guide, a second connecting rod channel of the second power tool guide (see Figs. 1-5, #110A in channel #104), and a third connecting rod channel of the at least one rail profile portion of the edge protector (The claim was interpreted as a connecting rod mounted in the first connected rod channel and the second power tool guide having a second connecting rod channel and the third structure having a third connecting rod channel – the claims were interpreted as best understood).
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 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 interface between an edge of a longitudinal end of the first power tool guide and an edge of a longitudinal end of the second power tool guide to indicate a position of the at least one connecting rod with respect to the first power tool guide and the second power tool guide when mounted in the first connecting rod channel and the second connecting rod channel.
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 interface between an edge of a longitudinal end of the first power tool guide and an edge of a longitudinal end of the second power tool guide to indicate a position of the at least one connecting rod with respect to the first power tool guide and the second power tool guide when mounted in the first connecting rod channel and the second connecting rod channel (see annotated Fig. under the rejection to Claim 19 and 2).
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.
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.
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