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 4-30-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 6, and 9 were amended. Claim 4 was cancelled. New Claim 21 was presented. Claims 6-20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5, and 21 are examined in this action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a working assembly in Claim 1; a transmission mechanism in Claim 1; and a guard adjustment mechanism in Claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-2 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A and US 5,924,208 to Saeki.
In re Claim 1, Tokunaga teaches a power tool (see Figs. 2 and 4-5), comprising:
a housing (see Figs. 4-5, #31/40);
a motor mounted in the housing (see Figs. 4-5, #34), the motor having a motor shaft (see Fig. 5, #34a);
a power supply (see Fig. 4, #38), configured to provide energy for the motor (see para. 0081, teaching the motor is started with the battery);
a working assembly (see Figs. 4-5, #37), configured to rotate about a rotating axis (see Fig. 5, axis, J2); and
a transmission mechanism (see Fig. 5, #35a), having a transmission shaft (see Fig. 5, output shaft #8), the transmission shaft being connected with the motor shaft (see Fig. 5, #8 is connected to #34a), to transmit power from the motor to the working assembly (see Par. 0082),
and an axis of the rotating axis of the working assembly intersects an axis of the transmission shaft (the axis of J2 and the axis of the transmission shaft #8 intersect – see Fig. 5);
wherein a shaft shoulder is formed on an end portion of the rotating axis (see Fig. 5, #36 showing a shoulder adjacent to number #36).
Tokunaga does not teach wherein the motor is an outer rotor motor or
the working assembly is clamped between a first fixing plate and a second fixing plate disposed on opposite side of working assembly along rotating axis, the first fixing plate being positioned between the shaft shoulder and the working assembly,
wherein a bolt is threadedly engaged with a threaded hole formed in an end surface of the rotating axis, and
wherein the bolt is configured to apply an axial compressive force to the second fixing plate such that the second fixing plate, the working assembly, and the first fixing plate are simultaneously pressed against the shaft shoulder along the rotating axis to thereby secure the working assembly to the rotating axis.
However, CN 103402682 A teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to use an outer rotor motor (see CN 103402682 A, Para. 0003-0005 and 0009-00012). In the same field of invention, electrical power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the inner rotator motor of Tokunaga with an outer rotator motor, as taught by CN 103402682 A. Doing so provides a motor that provides a higher torque and lower vibration (see CN 103402682 A, Para. 0009-0012).
Saeki teaches a working assembly is clamped between a first fixing plate (see Fig. 2-5, #3) and a second fixing plate (see Figs. 2-5, #4) disposed on opposite side of working assembly along rotating axis,
wherein a bolt is threadedly engaged with a threaded hole formed in an end surface of the rotating axis (see Fig. 2-5, #23, which is threaded into the rotating axis), and
wherein the bolt is configured to apply an axial compressive force to the second fixing plate such that the second fixing plate, the working assembly, and the first fixing plate are simultaneously pressed (see Col. 4, ll. 10-15, teaching the screw “tightened” which applies axial compressive force to #4, the cutting blade #11, and #3).
In the same field of invention, connections for rotating cutting blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the connection structure of modified Tokunaga with that of Saeki. Doing so is the substation of one known blade connecting structure for another known blade connecting structure to attach a rotating blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The structure of Saeki allows the user to have different sized blades used on the tool without the loss parts (see Saeki, Fig. 1, Col. 44 – 68).
Such a combination would provide for the first fixing plate being positioned between the shaft shoulder and the working assembly (see Saeki, Fig. 3, #3 in view of Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #36) wherein the bolt is configured to apply an axial compressive force to the second fixing plate such that the second fixing plate, the working assembly, and the first fixing plate are simultaneously pressed against the shaft shoulder along the rotating axis to thereby secure the working assembly to the rotating axis (see Saeki, Figs. 2-5, #3/4/11 in view of Tokunaga Fig. 5, #36)
In re Claim 2, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, teaches the power tool according to claim 1, wherein the transmission shaft and the motor shaft are on a same axis and are connected by a coupling (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #8 and #34A are aligned in the same axis and are coupled together, this connection, under the broadest reasonable interpretation is a coupling);
a bevel gear assembly (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #35a/35b) is arranged between the transmission shaft and the rotating axis (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, showing #35a/35b between #8 and #36/J2), the bevel gear assembly comprises a driving bevel gear (Tokunaga, #35a) and a driven bevel gear (Tokunaga, #34b), the driving bevel gear is arranged on the transmission shaft (Tokunaga, #35 is on #8), and the driven bevel gear is arranged on the rotating axis (Tokunaga, #34a is on #J2/36).
In re Claim 21, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein circumferential edges of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate bear against the working assembly (see Saeki, Fig. 2-5, each of #3 and #4 have “cutout” middle portions which do not contact a straight surface of the blade), and middle parts of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate do not contact the working assembly (see Saeki, Figs. 2-5, #3/4, each having a “cutout” middle portion which does not contact the straight side surface of the blade).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A and US 5,924,208 to Saeki, and further in view of US 2008/0153404 to Schmidberger-Brinek.
In re Claim 3, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a cover (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #33), wherein the cover is provided on an outer side of the transmission shaft (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #33), the working assembly is a cutter (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #37 which is a cutter), and a blade guard (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, #39) mounted on an outer side of the cutter, and the blade guard is fixedly connected to the cover through a mounting base (see Tokunaga, Fig. 5, structure “below” #33 in which #39 is connected);
Modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, does not teach the power tool further comprises a guard adjustment mechanism, and the guard adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust an angle of the blade guard.
However, Schmidberger-Brinek teaches that it is known in the art to provide a guard adjustment mechanism, and the guard adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust an angle of the blade guard (see Figs. 1-4, teaching structure for rotationally locking the guard; see also Para. 0008; 0010; 0029; and 0039).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the rotation structure of Schmidberger-Brinek to the device of modified Tokunaga. Doing so allows the user to rotate the guard depending on the type of cut thereby protecting the operator of the tool (see Schmidberger-Brinek, Para. 0037).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A and US 5,924,208 to Saeki, US 2008/0153404 to Schmidberger-Brinek, and further in view of US 6,277,013 to Sasaki 013 and CN 102029562 A.
In re Claim 5, modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 3, does not teach further comprising a cutter limiting device, wherein the cutter limiting device comprises a limiting button, a limiting column and a spring, the limiting button is mounted on the housing, one end of the limiting column is connected with the limiting button, and the other end of the limiting column is provided with a gasket, and the spring sleeves the limiting column and is arranged between the gasket and the limiting button; a plurality of limiting holes matched with the limiting column are arranged on the driven bevel gear, and when the limiting column extend into one of plurality of the limiting holes, the driven bevel gears are locked, so that the cutters are locked.
However, Sasaki 013 teaches a cutter limiting device (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #125, 126, 127, 128), wherein the cutter limiting device comprises a limiting button (see Sasaki 013, top of #126), a limiting column (see Sasaki 013, shaft of #127 below #126 in Fig. 3) and a spring (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #127), the limiting button is mounted on the housing (s see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #127 is located in the housing), one end of the limiting column is connected with the limiting button (see Sasaki 013, end of #125 is a button for the user to depress), and the spring sleeves the limiting column (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #127 surrounding #125); a plurality of limiting holes (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #128) matched with the limiting column are arranged on the driven bevel gear (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, #128 in gear #119), and when the limiting column extend into one of plurality of the limiting holes (see Sasaki 013, Fig. 3, the end of #125 enters into #128), the driven bevel gears are locked, so that the cutters are locked (see Sasaki, Col. 5, ll. 60 - Col. 6, ll. 5).
In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the locking assembly of Sasaki 013. Doing so allows the user to replace the blade by securing the spindle and unscrewing the nut (see Sasaki013, Col. 5, ll. 60 – Col. 6, ll. 5)
Additionally, CN 102029562 A teaches that it is known in the art of power tools to provide at the other end of the limiting column is provided with a gasket (see Fig. 1, O-ring, #10). In the same field of invention, power tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add an O-ring to the locking mechanism of modified Tokunaga. Doing so avoids external impurities entering, the lubricate leaking, there by service life and durability of the gear are improvise (see CN 102029562 A, 1abstract)
Such a combination would provide for the spring and is arranged between the gasket and the limiting button.
Claim 21 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A and US 5,924,208 to Saeki, and further in view of US 2,167,744 to Cosby.
If it is argued that modified Tokunaga, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein circumferential edges of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate bear against the working assembly, and middle parts of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate do not contact the working assembly.
Cosby teaches that it is known in the art of attaching circular blades wherein circumferential edges of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate bear against the working assembly (see Cosby, Fig. 2, #19/17/15), and middle parts of the first fixing plate and the second fixing plate do not contact the working assembly (see Cosby, Fig. 2, #19/17/15; see also Col. 2, ll. 37-49). In the same field of invention, connections for circular blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the convex washer or disks taught by Cosby. Doing so is the substation of one known blade attachment structure for another known blade attachment structure to attach a blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
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 any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In re Claim 1, Applicant argues that US 2012/0165152 to Tokunaga in view of CN 103402682 A does not teach new limitations “wherein a shaft shoulder is formed on an end portion of the rotating axis and the working assembly is clamped between a first fixing plate and a second fixing plate disposed on opposite side of working assembly along rotating axis, the first fixing plate being positioned between the shaft shoulder and the working assembly, wherein a bolt is threadedly engaged with a threaded hole formed in an end surface of the rotating axis, and wherein the bolt is configured to apply an axial compressive force to the second fixing plate such that the second fixing plate, the working assembly, and the first fixing plate are simultaneously pressed against the shaft shoulder along the rotating axis to thereby secure the working assembly to the rotating axis.” The Examiner agrees. However, as noted above US 5,924,208 to Saeki teaches these limitations in a blade attachment structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights