DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 “single-stage slide assembly consist of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections (Claim 11, line 9-10)” 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.
Specification
The amendment filed November 26, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Regarding claim 11 (lines 9-10), the phrase “wherein the single-stage slide assembly consists of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections” is new matter. Para [0068] in the disclosure sets forth a slide assembly including a track (61) and a sliding sleeve (62) and Para [0078] discloses “multiple slide assemblies 6 are disposed, multiple tracks 61 are arranged in parallel…In this example, two tracks are disposed on the box 2…” There is no mention to the term “single-stage” and there are no details to what permits the multiple tracks to operate or be disposed in a “single stage.” There are further no details to “one pair of rails with no intermediate sections.” The specification has not set forth the term “rails” and “track” are interchangeable. For discussion purposes, the term “rail” has been interpreted to mean “track.” What are the intermediate sections? Are the intermediate sections disclosed on the track? If not, at least Figure 5, discloses at least the saw assembly is disposed between the two tracks. Is the saw assembly an intermediate structure?
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 11-14 and 17-19 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. Regarding claim 11 (lines 9-10), the phrase “wherein the single-stage slide assembly consists of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the invention had possession of the invention at the time of filing and is new matter. Para [0068] in the disclosure sets forth a slide assembly including a track (61) and a sliding sleeve (62) and Para [0078] discloses “multiple slide assemblies 6 are disposed, multiple tracks 61 are arranged in parallel…In this example, two tracks are disposed on the box 2…” There is no mention to the term “single-stage” and there are no details to what permits the multiple tracks to operate or be disposed in a “single stage.” There are further no details to “one pair of rails with no intermediate sections.” The specification has not set forth the term “rails” and “track” are interchangeable. For discussion purposes, the term “rail” has been interpreted to mean “track.” What are the intermediate sections? Are the intermediate sections disclosed on the track? If not, at least Figure 5, discloses at least the saw assembly is disposed between the two tracks. Is the saw assembly an intermediate structure?
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 11-14 and 17-19 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. Regarding claim 11, the phrase “a single-stage slide consists of one pair of rails” is indefinite. It is unclear what structure if any is imparted to the phrase “single-stage.” Per Merriam Webster Dictionary, the term single is defined as “consisting of or having only have one part, feature, or portion.” Per the claim limitation the slide has one pair of rails, which means two rails. Two rails do not quantify as a “single-stage” leading to ambiguity of the claimed language.
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.
Claim 11 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN208758715 to Chen.
In re claim 11, Chen teaches a cutting system, comprising:
a box (13);
a workbench (11) disposed on the box, the workbench comprising a platen (112,113) for supporting a workpiece, the platen having a first cutting slot (Pg. 4, lines 13-19);
a cutting assembly (14) disposed on the box; and
a single-stage slide assembly (114) that slidably connects to the platen (112,113) to the box;
wherein the single-stage slide assembly consists of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections, the cutting assembly (is capable of) penetrates through the first cutting slot so that the cutting assembly cuts the workpiece on the platen when the platen slides towards the cutting assembly, and a slide stroke of the platen is greater than a cutting stroke of the workpiece.
Examiner note’s, Chen teaches the slide assembly has consists of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections in as much as Applicant’s device.
In re claim 17, further comprising a main fence (16) detachably connected to the platen (112,113), wherein the workpiece abuts against a first side of the main fence.
In re claim 18, wherein a plurality of mounting positions (Pg. 7, lines 21-31) are provided on the platen, when the main fence is separately mounted at the plurality of mounting positions (Pg. 7, lines 21-31), the first side of the main fence and the first direction are at different angles (as shown in at least Figure 1), and the main fence is capable of being selectively mounted at one of the plurality of mounting positions (Pg. 7, lines 21-31).
In re claim 19, wherein the first side of the main fence is recessed towards a second side of the main fence to form a second cutting slot (as shown in at least Figure 1), and the second cutting slot communicates with the first cutting slot when the first side of the main fence is perpendicular to the first cutting slot (as shown in at least Figure 1).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,508,281 to Wang.
In re claim 21, Wang teaches a cutting system, comprising:
a box (see Annotated Figure 2, below);
a workbench (11) disposed on the box, the workbench comprising a platen (30) for supporting a workpiece;
a cutting assembly (Col. 2, lines 34-37) disposed on the box; and
a slide assembly (as shown in at least Figure 3) disposed between the platen and box, the platen (30) being slidably connected to the box along a first direction, the slide assembly comprising a track (20) and a sliding sleeve (40) movable on the track, the sliding sleeve (40) comprising a bearing (45) nested in the sliding sleeve, and the cross-section of the bearing along the first direction being approximately C-shaped (see Annotated Figure 3, below).
Note, a vertical plane extending in the first direction through the bearing (45) would provide a cross-section being approximately C-shaped.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
592
438
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 1, 2, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN208758715 to Chen in view of US Patent No. 6,508,281 to Wang.
In re claim 1, Chen teaches a cutting system, comprising:
a box (13);
a workbench (11) disposed on the box, the workbench comprising a platen (112,113) for supporting a workpiece; and
a cutting assembly (14) disposed on the box; and a slide assembly (114) for making the platen slide relative to the box, the slide assembly comprising a track (114).
In re claim 2, wherein a slide stroke of the platen (12, 113) is (capable of being) greater than a length of the track.
In re claim 9, wherein a guide rail assembly (114) is provided between the workbench (11) and the box (13), the guide rail assembly comprises a first guide rail (114) disposed on the workbench and a second guide rail (114) disposed on the box, and the first guide rail and the second guide rail (are capable of) mate with each other and move relatively.
Note, the guide rails are each disposed on the workbench and the box.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches the slide assembly comprises a track, but does not teach the slide assembly comprises a sliding sleeve moving on the track, wherein the sliding sleeve is connected to the workbench, the track having a connection portion that is fixedly connected to the box, and the sliding sleeve having a motion slot that allows the sliding sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out an end of the track.
Wang teaches a slide assembly having a track (20) comprising a sliding sleeve (40) moving on the track (Fig. 3), wherein the sliding is connected to the workbench (11), the track having a connection portion (see Annotated Figure 1, below) that is fixedly connected to the box (70), and the sliding sleeve (40) having a motion slot (41) that allows the sliding sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve (40) is slidable out an end of the track.
PNG
media_image3.png
635
807
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cutting device of Chen with a track and sliding sleeve arrangement as taught by Wang to maintain a workbench which is slidable and extendable relative to the box to provide adequate support various size workpieces. Providing Chen with a track and sleeve arrangement as taught by Wang is an obvious design variant (as there are various implementable track combinations which permit sliding of one structure relative to another).
In re claim 5, modified Chen teaches wherein the sliding sleeve (40, Wang) is sleeved on the track and slidably connected to the track.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN208758715 to Chen in view of US Patent No. 9,212,695 to Ng.
In re claim 1, Chen teaches a cutting system, comprising:
a box (13);
a workbench (11) disposed on the box, the workbench comprising a platen (112,113) for supporting a workpiece; and
a cutting assembly (14) disposed on the box; and a slide assembly (114) for making the platen slide relative to the box, the slide assembly comprising a track (114).
In re claim 2, wherein a slide stroke of the platen (12, 113) is (capable of being) greater than a length of the track.
In re claim 9, wherein a guide rail assembly (114) is provided between the workbench (11) and the box (13), the guide rail assembly comprises a first guide rail (114) disposed on the workbench and a second guide rail (114) disposed on the box, and the first guide rail and the second guide rail (are capable of) mate with each other and move relatively.
Note, the guide rails are each disposed on the workbench and the box.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches the slide assembly comprises a track, but does not teach the slide assembly comprises a sliding sleeve moving on the track, wherein the sliding sleeve is connected to the workbench, the track having a connection portion that is fixedly connected to the box, and the sliding sleeve having a motion slot that allows the sliding sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out an end of the track.
Ng teaches in the art of linear slides, a slide assembly comprising a track (70) and a sliding sleeve (40), the track has a connection portion (as shown in at least Figure 5), the sliding sleeve having a motion slot (as shown in at least Figure 4) that allows the sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out an end of the track.
Examiner’s note, the track has a portion which is a connecting portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting device of Chen with a track and sliding sleeve arrangement as taught by Ng since linear motion bearings are advantageous in reducing friction, providing long service life with low maintenance, and smooth and precise movements. The modification would lead to the connection portion (of Ng) of the track being fixedly connected to the box (of Chen) and the sliding sleeve being connected to the workbench.
In re claim 5, modified Chen teaches wherein the sliding sleeve (40, Ng) is sleeved on the track and slidably connected to the track.
In re claim 6, modified Chen teaches wherein the sliding sleeve (40, Ng) comprises a bearing (48,50) nested in the sliding sleeve, the bearing has a bearing slot (as shown in at least Figure 1) and the motion includes the bearing slot (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 7, modified Chen teaches wherein an inner wall (56, Ng) has a shape of an outer wall of the track (the track is received within the bearing, as shown in at least Figure 5), the inner wall of the bearing is provided with a plurality of mounting slots (as shown in at least Figure 2, Ng), and a plurality of lines of balls (46, Ng) mounted in each of the plurality of mounting slots (as shown in at least Figure 2, Ng).
In re claim 8, modified Chen teaches wherein the sliding sleeve (40, Ng) further comprises a housing (1, 2 Ng) with a second slot, the housing (1,2, Ng) is sleeved on an outer circumference of the bearing, the second slot forms part of the motion slot, and the housing is connected to the workbench (11, Chen).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN208758715 to Chen (Chen ‘715) in view of US Patent No. 6,494,198 to Chen (hereinafter Chen ‘198).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Chen ‘715 teaches a cutting device, but does not teach a power supply assembly, a power supply assembly having a first projection, and a second projection on the working plane, and the second projection is at least partially within the first projection.
PNG
media_image4.png
291
963
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Chen ‘198 teaches a cutting device having a power supply assembly (104) having a second projection on the working plane, and the second projection is at least partially within the first projection.
Note, the power supply assembly has a surface which projects on the working blade and due to the positioning of the second projections it is disposed partially within the first projection due to the overhanging surface of the platen as shown in Chen ‘198.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Chen ‘715 with a power assembly having a second projection partially within the first projection on the working plane as taught by Chen ‘198 which is advantageous for controlling and safely operating the cutting device.
In re claim 14, modified Chen ‘198 teaches further comprising the drive assembly (Pg. 1, lines 17-21) and a switch (104) which are disposed on the box, wherein the switch is used for controlling the drive assembly and disposed outside the box.
It has been interpreted that the switch (104) is also the power supply assembly.
Response to Arguments
The drawing objection in the Office Action mailed August 27, 2025 has been obviated by the amendments filed November 26, 2025.
The 112, second paragraph rejections in the Office Action mailed August 27, 2025 have been overcome by the amendments filed November 26, 2025.
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Chen does not teach the added subject matter to claim 11 to “wherein the single-stage assembly consist of one pair of rails with no intermediate sections, the cutting assembly penetrates through the first cutting slot so that the cutting assembly cuts the workpiece on the platen when the platen slides toward the cutting assembly, and a slide stroke of the platen is greater than a cutting stroke of the workpiece.”
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Applicant merely states the subject matter is not taught.
Applicant argues pins (22) of Wang prevent the blocks from sliding out of the rail; therefore, Wang does not teach the sliding sleeve having a motion slot that allows the sliding sleeve to slide pas the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out of an end of the track.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The pins (22) limit the motion of the sliding sleeves, but do not prohibit motion of the sliding sleeve. At least Figure 3 and Col. 3, lines 2-6 disclose the pins are secured to the track. Stops 18 and 19, which work in conjunction with pins (22) are also secured to the workbench of Wang. One having ordinary skill would understand these structures are removable and depending on the size of the workpiece that needs supporting, one would have been prompted to remove the pins and remove and reposition the stops providing for greater extension of the workpiece. The claimed limitation recites “the sliding sleeve having a motion slot” which is a positive limitation. The claim further recites “that allows the sliding sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out of an end of the track” which is an intended use limitation. Therefore, the sliding sleeve of Wang merely has to be capable of performing the intended function, in which it is.
Applicant argues the inner radial bearing surface does not have a lateral opening and because the surface (94) prevents the bearing block from passing the connection portion the slide stroke is limited to less than the full length of the rail.
Ng teaches a linear bearing having a generally cylindrical housing designed to move relative to the shaft. The term “connection portion” is broad and merely requires the shaft to have a portion, in which it does, to connect to the box (the modification of Chen in view of Ng arrives as this). Providing Chen a bearing and track arrangement as taught by Ng would lead to the sliding sleeve having the capabilities of sliding past the connection portion out of the end of the track. The claimed limitation recites “the sliding sleeve having a motion slot” which is a positive limitation. The claim further recites “that allows the sliding sleeve to slide past the connecting portion so that the sliding sleeve is slidable out of an end of the track” which is an intended use limitation. Therefore, the sliding sleeve of Ng merely has to be capable of performing the intended function, in which it is.
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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724