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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification (26 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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, the “straight line” in claims 16, 18 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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24, “the locked cutting position” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new position or an inherently position .
Claim 28 “a guide rail” is unclear. Since this invention is directly to a hand-held power tool as a hand-held circular saw (as discussed in Para. 2 of Applicant’s specification); however, adding or combining a guide rail is confusing and unclear whether the guide rail is positively claimed or not (since the preamble is clearly the “hand-held power tool”). If Claim 28 positively includes the guide rail, the preamble should be amended to a saw system or a combination of a hand-held power tool and a guide rail. Thus, it is indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15-18, 22-27, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mok (US 2007/0107235).
Regarding claim 15, Mok shows a hand-held power tool (Figures 1-2), comprising:
a guide plate (12) including a bearing surface (a bottom surface for contacting the workpiece) for indirect or direct support on a workpiece to be cut, the guide plate further including a top face (where the reference “12” in Figure 2);
a drive assembly including a drive motor (abstract “a motor”) supported above the top face of the guide plate (Figure 2);
a cutting too (a saw blade 14, Para. 12) configured to be driven by the drive motor;
an illumination arrangement (250, Figure 8) configured to emit a light cone onto the cutting tool in a direction of travel of the power tool (Figure 8. Please note that this is a portable tool; it can be traveled many directions); and
wherein when the cutting tool is in a cutting position in which the cutting tool projects beyond the bearing surface (see Figures 1-2 and 8), the cutting tool is disposed in a light path of the light cone to generate a cast shadow of the cutting tool on an end face of the workpiece to be cut (as the preamble is written, it is directly to the hand-held power tool, therefore, the tool of Figure 8 can be performed this limitation that depends on a workpiece to be cut; see an example, a workpiece in Figure 8 below), which an end face faces the cutting tool and is oriented transversely to the bearing surface of the guide plate (see an example, a workpiece in Figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
580
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Mok shows that the cutting tool in the cutting position is guided through a support plane formed by the bearing surface (see the discussion above, Paras . 40-42 and Figures 1-2, 8), wherein a front cutting edge of the cutting tool in the direction of travel intersects the support plane at a cutting site, and a straight line of sight is formed between the cutting site and the illumination arrangement in the cutting position (see the example of a workpiece in Figure 8 below).
Regarding claims 17-18, Mok shows that the light cone extends in the direction of travel across both sides of the cutting tool in the cutting position (see the light at the front and behind of the saw blade, Figure 8) and the straight line of sight extends across one or both sides of the cutting tool in the direction of travel (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 22, Mok shows that the cutting tool in the cutting position is disposed in the light path of the light cone so as to project a cutting path shadow of the cutting tool extending in the direction of travel onto a top face of the workpiece (see the discussion in claim 15 above and Figure 8 above and Paras. 40-42).
Regarding claim 23, Mok shows that a further illumination arrangement (as discussed in Para. 42 “the light source may emit a first portion of its light beam into a first mirror that reflects the light to provide a linear optical alignment marker in front of the circular saw and emits a second portion of its light beam into a second mirror that reflects the light to provide a linear optical alignment marker behind the circular saw”) disposed above the top face of the guide plate and configured to project a cutting path shadow of the cutting tool extending in the direction of travel onto a top face of the workpiece (both first and second mirror images above the top face of the guide bar 12).
Regarding claim 24, Mok shows that the hand-held power tool is a hand-held circular saw (see the discussion in claim 1 above), the cutting tool is the saw blade, the saw blade (14, Figure 1) being centrally connected to the drive assembly by a fastening element (Figure 1); and
in an aligned position of the hand held power tool in which the cutting tool is in the
Regarding claim 25, Mok shows that the cutting position is a setting position at which the cutting tool protrudes to a maximum cutting depth beyond the bearing surface of the guide plate (as this is written, it is unclear what the maximum cutting depth is, therefore, see Figures 1 and 2, 8 the blade is in a maximum cutting depth. Please note that “The amount of protrusion of the circular saw blade 14 can be fixed by tightening the regulator” as discussed in Para. 29; therefore, the maximum amount of protrusion of the circular saw blade 14 is a maximum cutting depth).
Regarding claim 26, Mok shows that a miter bearing (Figure 1 shows a plate 24, plate 12 and a connection to a fixed guard) providing a swivel connection of the drive assembly to the guide plate (Figure 1), the miter bearing including a bearing piece (the connection piece behinds the plate 24, Figure 1) and a swivel piece swivel (the reference “24”, Figure 1) connected to the bearing piece, wherein the bearing piece is coupled to the guide plate (Figure 1) and the swivel piece is coupled to the drive assembly (Figure 1), and wherein the illumination arrangement is fastened indirectly to the swivel piece (because there are many parts connecting therebetween, Figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 27, Mok shows that the hand-held power tool is a hand-held circular saw (see the discussion in claim 15 above);
the cutting tool is a saw blade (14) of the hand-held circular saw; and
the power tool further includes a protective cover (18, Figure 3) adjustable between a protective position and a release position, wherein in the protective position the protective cover at least partially covers the saw blade below the bearing surface (Figures 1-3), and wherein the protective cover includes an aperture through which the light cone of the illumination arrangement is at least partially guided when the protective cover is in the protective position (Para. 41 “ the lower blade guard 18 forms a slot to allow the light beam to escape the lower blade guard”).
Regarding claim 29, Mok teaches a method of cutting workpiece (Figures 1-3 and 8) comprising:
providing a hand-held power tool (see discussions in claim 15 above), including:
“a guide plate having a bearing surface for indirect or direct support on the workpiece to be cut, the guide plate further including a top face;
a drive assembly including a drive motor supported above the top face of the guide plate;
a cutting tool driven by the drive motor; and
an illumination arrangement configured to emit a light cone onto the cutting tool in a direction of travel of the power tool;
placing the cutting tool is in a cutting position in which the cutting tool projects beyond the bearing surface, the cutting tool being disposed in a light path of the light cone (see the discussion in claim 15 above);
generating a cast shadow of the cutting tool on an end face of the workpiece to be cut, which end face faces the cutting tool and is oriented transversely to the bearing surface of the guide plate (see the example of Figure 8 above); and
making a separating cut in the workpiece with the cutting tool” as discussion in claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 30, Mok shows a hand-held circular saw (Figures 1-3 and 8), comprising:
“a guide plate including a bearing surface for indirect or direct support on a workpiece to be cut, the guide plate further including a top face;
a drive assembly including a drive motor supported above the top face of the guide plate;
a circular saw blade configured to be driven by the drive motor so that the circular saw blade has an axis of rotation” (see all limitations as stated in claim 15 above);
an illumination (250, Figure 8) arrangement located behind the axis of rotation of the circular saw blade relative to a direction of travel of the circular saw and configured to emit a light cone onto the circular saw blade and projecting forward past the axis of rotation in the direction of travel of the circular saw (Figure 8 shows the light source 250 behind the axis of rotation of the circular saw blade relative to a direction of travel of the circular saw because this circular saw is a portable tool; it can be travelled in many directions including a direction such that the light source 250 behinds the rotation axis); and wherein when the circular saw blade is in a cutting position in which the circular saw blade projects beyond the bearing surface (Figure 8), the circular saw blade is disposed in a light path of the light cone to generate a cast shadow of the circular saw blade on an end face of the workpiece to be cut (see the example in Figure 8 above), which end face faces the circular saw blade and is oriented transversely to the bearing surface of the guide plate (see the example in Figure 8 above).
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 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok.
Regarding claims 19-20, Mok shows all of the limitations as stated above including the guide plate includes an aperture through which at least part of the light cone is guided from the top face to the bearing surface of the guide plate (Figures 1-2 and 8 and Para. 40 “the orientation of the linear optical alignment marker that is shined on the workpiece”), however, it is unclear whether the cast shadow of the cutting tool in the cutting position is guided up to a top shadow point at most 10% of a maximum cutting depth of the cutting tool below the bearing surface or not (another word, Mok Not discusses it).
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the light cone guided from the top face to the bearing surface of the guide plate to have a top shadow point at most 10% of a maximum cutting depth of the cutting tool because discovering an optimum value (10%) would have been a mere design consideration based on characteristics of capacity of an illuminating device to generate the light cone on sizes/shapes of the workpiece to be cut. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the characteristics of capacity of an illuminating device to generate the light cone on sizes/shapes of the workpiece to be cut. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp.
Regarding claim 21, Mok shows that the shadow reaches upward at least to the bearing surface (as this is written, it is unclear what it actually being claimed or new, the cone light or shadow can be reflexed, for an example…reflexing from a surface of the workpiece, upward to the bearing surface of the circular saw).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mok in view of Hansen (US 2012/0079931).
Regarding claim 28, as best understood, Mok shows a system that includes the hand-held power tool of claim 15 except a guide rail including a support surface and at least one guide extending upward from the support surface, the guide rail including opposite from the support surface an underside configured to be supported by a top face of the workpiece.
However, Hansen shows a system including a circular saw (62, Figure 1) and a guide rail (12) for cutting a workpiece. Wherein a support surface and at least one guide extending upward from the support surface (see Figure 1, there are two rails on the track 12), the guide rail including opposite from the support surface an underside configured to be supported by a top face of the workpiece (Figure 3).
wherein a bearing surface (82) of a guide plate (14, Figures 2-3) is seated on the support surface of the guide rail, and the guide plate includes at least one guide mount formed in the bearing surface (see 70, 72, Figure 3), the at least one guide of the guide rail being received in the at least one guide mount to form a longitudinal guide (Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a guide rail, as taught by Hansen, in order to allow the circular saw to be guided to cut a straight line or longitudinal cut.
Doing so, it allows that the light cone is guided at least partially past or through the guide rail to generate the cast shadow on the end face of the workpiece (depending on positions of the workpiece and sizes and shapes of the workpiece).
Response to Arguments
Claims 15 and 27 have been amended to different scope of the invention; claim 27 is withdrawn an allowable subject matter because the new art reads on it.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections above.
Regarding the argument 1 in the remarks, page 9, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive because this invention is a portable circular saw and it can be travelled in many directions (depend on the user’s cutting operations, .e.g., a depth cut, a bevel cut, a cross cut…), therefore, the functional claimed languages or performed can be done in many different ways, it is not necessarily only way in the current claimed invention or the remarks as shown “AR” direction in Figure 1.
Regarding the argument 2 in the remarks, page 9, the argument is acknowledged, but it is persuasive. See the explanation in the rejections above.
Setting aside the above issues, Examiner notes that Applicant’s apparatus (as disclosed) is significantly different than the combination set forth by the Examiner above. The applicant’s device (as disclosed) having the illumination arrangement 40 directly mounts in a swivel piece 26.2, as seen in Figure 7, is different than the art (the light source 250 mounts in the fixed upper guard 230, Figure 8). Currently, the claim language is broad, therefore, the art are still read on the claimed invention. However, it should be to amend the claims to distinguish over the art above. Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner any time to float ideas on how to amend the claims.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 2/4/2026