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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 12/26/2026 in which claims 1, 2, 5-19 are pending, claims 15-19 are new and claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13 are currently amended.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, “of bridge portion” should be – of a bridge portion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 1 recites, “wherein one of the first fence member and the second fence member has a projection that projects perpendicular to a length thereof in the longitudinal direction. It unclear what is meant by “a length thereof” and therefore unclear what the projection is perpendicular to.
Claim 10 recites, “wherein the rail assembly comprises a plurality of parallelly arranged rails having different cross sections.” However, claim 7, from which claim 10 depends, recites that “the rail assembly comprises at least one rail that is integrally formed with the frame assembly”. It is unclear whether “the at least one rail” recited in claim 10 is a separate and additional rail distinct from the plurality. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed rail assembly are ambiguous.
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.
Claims 7,10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Perilloux (U.S. Patent 4,549,455).
In regards to claim 7, Perilloux discloses a saw assembly comprising a base (legs 11); a frame assembly (frame structure 5 ) disposed on the base(11); a rail system (track assembly 4) disposed on the frame assembly (5), the rail system (4) extending in a longitudinal direction; a support assembly (frame 13) disposed on at least one of the base (11) and the frame assembly (5) and comprising a motor (76), and a blade (saw 2) driven by the motor (76); a table assembly slidingly disposed on the rail system, the table assembly (table top 6) having a having a table body (e.g. 120/121), the table body including an upper surface and a gap (channel 7) therethrough, parallel to the longitudinal direction of the rail system (4); wherein the rail assembly comprises at least one rail (34/35 or 26/26) that is integrally formed with the frame assembly (5).
In regards to claim 10, Perilloux discloses, wherein the rail assembly comprises a plurality of parallelly arranged rails having different cross-sections (L-shaped rails 34/35 have a different cross section than track side bars 26/26).
In regards to claim 12, Perilloux discloses a saw assembly comprising a base (legs 11); a frame assembly (5) disposed on the base(11); a rail system (track assembly 4) disposed on the frame assembly (5), the rail system (4) extending in a longitudinal direction; a support assembly (frame 13) disposed on at least one of the base (11) and the frame assembly (5) and comprising a motor (76), and a blade (saw 2) driven by the motor (76; fig. 8); a table assembly (table top 6) slidingly disposed on the rail system (4), the table assembly (e.g. 120-121) having a having a table body, the table body including an upper surface and a gap (channel 7) therethrough that extends an entire length of the table body, parallel to the longitudinal direction of the rail system (4); and at least one fence member (fence 125; fig 10) disposed at a longitudinal end of the table assembly, the at least one fence member (125) having a portion pivotable about an axis (136) perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
In regards to claim 18, Perilloux discloses wherein the at least one fence member (125) is pivotable to an upright position above the table assembly (face of 125 is perpendicular to the table assembly surface).
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 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perilloux (U.S. Patent 4,549,455) in view of Sergyeyenko et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/073824), herein referred to as Sergyeyenko
In regards to claims 8 and 9, Perilloux sets forth the claimed invention except that that the saw assembly comprises a battery. Attention is first directed to the Sergyeyenko tile saw which also utilizes a movable tray 40 to bring the workpiece towards the rotating saw blade. Sergyeyenko discloses that the blade can be powered through a power cord 140 or alternatively with a power tool battery pack (see paragraph [0083]). The battery pack allowing the saw tool to be utilized in remote areas where a wall outlet was not available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Perilloux power supply to have incorporated a battery as demonstrated by Sergyeyenko for the same remote useability capabilities, as both batteries and power cords are known for providing the needed power to the saw blade.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perilloux, Jr. (U.S. Patent 4,549,455), herein referred to as Perilloux in view of Costanzo (U.S. Patent 11,958,213)
In regards to claim 19, Perilloux discloses a saw assembly with a fence member, but does not disclose that the fence member is pivotable to a position coplanar with the table upper surface. Costanzo sets forth a tile saw having an adjustable fence that is movable between an operating position and an unfolded position in which the fence lies in a plane parallel with the support surface of the table, thereby allowing the fence to be selectively deployed or moved out of the way to provide an extended support surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fence member (Fig. 1) of Perilloux fence in view of Costanzo to be pivotable between an upright operating position and a lowered position coplanar with the table surface, in order to allow the fence to be selectively repositioned, thereby increasing the usable work surface and improving operational flexibility.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau (U.S. Patent 5,743,161) in view of Sergyeyenko et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/073824), herein referred to as Sergyeyenko and in further view of Perilloux, Jr. (U.S. Patent 4,549,455), herein referred to as Perilloux.
In regards to claim 1, Boudreau discloses a saw assembly comprising: a base (e.g. table legs of 60); a frame assembly disposed on the base (e.g. 60 and the structure supporting the saw blade); a rail system (62a/62b) disposed on the frame assembly (60), the rail system extending in a longitudinal direction; a power source (power cord 92), the support assembly including a motor (not shown) driven by the power source and a blade (64) driven by the motor; and a table assembly (12) slidingingly disposed on the rail system (64a/64b), the table assembly (12) including a table body having a first table portion (16) and an adjacent second table portion (18) separated by a gap (slot between 16 and 18) that extends an entire length of the table body parallel to the longitudinal direction of the rails system, a first fence member (guide rail 21) connecting the first table portion (16) and the second table portion (18) at one end of the table body; a second fence member (shield 34) connecting the first table portion (16) and the second table portion (18) at an opposite end of the table body, wherein one of the first fence member (22) and the second fence member (34) has a projection (work advancing abutment 22/ shield attaching wall 36) that projects perpendicular to a length thereof in the longitudinal direction and defines a blade channel (23 or 37) to accommodate an edge of the blade beyond an end surface of the table body.
Boudreau sets forth the claimed invention except that the gap extends an entire length of the table body, and that the saw assembly comprises a power source. Rather Boudreau discloses that the gap extends through the majority of the table body and that the saw utilizes a power cord to obtain power from an external source.
Attention is first directed to the Sergyeyenko tile saw which also utilizes a movable tray 40 to bring the workpiece towards the rotating saw blade. Sergyeyenko discloses that the blade can be powered through a power cord 140 or alternatively with a power tool battery pack (see paragraph [0083]). The battery pack allowing the saw tool to be utilized in remote areas where a wall outlet was not available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the power cord of Boudreau for a battery as demonstrated by Sergyeyenko for the same remote useability capabilities, as both batteries and power cords are known for providing the needed power to the saw blade.
The modified device of Boudreau fails to disclose that the gap extends through an entire length of the table body, as the slot terminates prior to reaching opposing ends of the table body. Perrilloux, discloses a table saw including a table body having a gap/ slot (7) extending through an entire length of the table body, as the slot extends continuously from a first edge of the table to an opposing edge. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the slot of Boudreau to extend through the entire length of the table body as taught by Perrilloux in order to allow unobstructed traversal across the work surface and to accommodate full travel of a cutting element and/or workpiece.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Boudreau discloses wherein the blade (64) is partially disposed within the gap (fig. 1).
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Boudreau discloses wherein the other of the first fence member and the second fence member includes a projection in the form of a bridge portion that projects outwardly and above the table assembly (the other of the work advancing abutment 22/ shield attaching wall 36).
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Boudreau discloses wherein the power source comprises a battery (as modified by Sergyeyenko).
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Boudreau discloses wherein the first fence member (21) and the second fence member (34) connect the first table portion and the second table portion in a lateral direction (across the gap)
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boudreau (U.S. Patent 5,743,161) in view of Sergyeyenko et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/073824), herein referred to as Sergyeyenko and in further view of Perilloux, Jr. (U.S. Patent 4,549,455), herein referred to as Perilloux and in further view of Chen (U.S. Publication 2015/0013659). In regards to claim 13, Boudreau discloses wherein the table body includes a recess in an upper surface thereof (for the saw blade to extend through) but is silent as to a bevel plate being supported in the recess. Attention is directed to the Chen tile saw, that also incorporates a sliding plate to move the workpiece relative to the saw blade. Chen discloses incorporating a bevel table 43 into the working surface that can be elevated to position the workpiece at an angle relative to the saw blade. This allows for angled cutting of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the table body of Li as taught by Chen to have included a pivoting bevel table to provide the same angle cutting benefits to the workpiece. In regards to claim 14, the modified deice of Li discloses wherein the bevel plate is pivotable to a plurality of angles with respect to the upper surface of the table body (see Chen paragraph [0027]).
Claims 1, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent 6,508,244) in view of Boudreau (U.S. Patent 5,743,161).
In regards to claim 1, Lee discloses a saw assembly comprising: a base (e.g. tank/basin 14); a frame assembly (support frame 11) disposed on the base (14); a rail system (111) disposed on the frame assembly (11), the rail system extending in a longitudinal direction; a power source (for the electric motor), the support assembly including a motor (electric motor) driven by the power source and a blade (32) driven by the motor; and a table assembly (cutting table 20) slidingingly disposed on the rail system (111), the table assembly (20) including a table body having a first table portion (left side) and an adjacent second table portion (right side) separated by a gap (center slot 21) that extends an entire length of the table body parallel to the longitudinal direction of the rails system (fig. 3), a first fence member (23) connecting the first table portion (left side of 20) and the second table portion (right side of 20) at one end of the table body; a second fence member connecting the first table portion and the second table portion at an opposite end of the table body, wherein one of the first fence member and the second fence member has a projection (232) that projects perpendicular (front-back) to a length thereof (of 23) in the longitudinal direction and defines a blade channel (233) to accommodate an edge of the blade beyond an end surface of the table body.
Lee does not disclose a power source included with the tile saw. Attention is first directed to the Sergyeyenko tile saw which also utilizes a movable tray 40 to bring the workpiece towards the rotating saw blade. Sergyeyenko discloses that the blade can be powered through a power cord 140 or alternatively with a power tool battery pack (see paragraph [0083]). The battery pack allowing the saw tool to be utilized in remote areas where a wall outlet was not available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the power cord of Lee for a battery as demonstrated by Sergyeyenko for the same remote useability capabilities, as both batteries and power cords are known for providing the needed power to the saw blade.
Lee also does not set forth a second fence member connecting the first and second table portion at an opposite end of the table body. Boudreau discloses an a transparent shield 44 mounted across the blade slot and extending upward from the table surface across the blade jig slot. The shield defines a planar barrier adjacent the cutting region and is positioned to engage or limit movement of a workpiece during cutting. Accordingly, the shield 44 of Boudreau constatives a second fence member. It would have been obvious to incorporate the shield of Boudreau into the device of Lee in order to both improve operator safety and provide an additional guiding boundary for positioning the workpiece relative to the cutting blade.
In regards to claim 16, the modified device of Lee discloses wherein the table body (20) has a support surface that includes a plurality of raised portions (between guide grooves 202) separated by channels (guide grooves 202), said channels sloping toward a center of the table body.
In regards to claim 17, the modified device of Lee discloses wherein the raised portions and channels extend in the longitudinal direction (front to back of the cutting table 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-19 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.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
