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 because In Claim 2, placement groove #201, appears to be pointing to the blade, and not the placement groove. 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 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 driving mechanism in claim 2; a transmission mechanism in claim 2; air draft assembly in Claim 2.
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 § 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 1-10 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.
In re Claim 1, “a first bolt is movably connected to each of two sides of the outer wall of the clamp holder main body, the pin-free saw blade is disposed between two first bolts,” is indefinite. It is unclear if applicant is claiming “a first bolt” or “two first bolts.” The claims were interpreted as “two first bolts are moveably connected…” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, “second bolts” is indefinite. Claim 1 introduces “a second bolt.” Claim 10 requires uses the plural “second bolts.” It is unclear of claim 10 requires more than one “second bolt.” Claim 10 was interpreted as “second bolt.” The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, under “S1,” “the frosted finish of the abrasive belt,” “the back of the serrated face of the pin-free saw blade,” “the function of clamping,” lack antecedent basis. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, Applicant’ uses the term “its” twice in “S2.” It is unclear what “it” is referring to. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, under “S2,” the following lack antecedent basis: “the base plate at the bottom of the rack is placed against the outer wall of the workpiece,” “ the working housing connected to it on the outside to move up and down,” “the moving gear,” “
the rack,” “the rotating shaft,” “the rotating rod,” “the synchronizing wheel,” “the belt,” “
the driving bevel gear,” “the driven bevel gear,” “the air draft assembly,” “the collecting housing,” and “the collecting housing.” The Examiner notes that Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 and anything not introduced in Claim 1 must be introduced in Claim 10. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, under “S3,” the following lack antecedent basis: “the arc-shaped,” “the flow guide,” “the cambered surface,” “the middle,” “the chambers,” “the baffle.” The Examiner notes that Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 and anything not introduced in Claim 1 must be introduced in Claim 10. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 10, under “S4,” the following lack antecedent basis: “the elastic telescopic rod,” “the inner tube,” “the outer tube,” “the piston,” “the air,” “the air cylinder,” “the branch air tube,” “the main air tube,” and “the outlet holes.” The Examiner notes that Claim 10 depends from Claim 1 and anything not introduced in Claim 1 must be introduced in Claim 10. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,854,373 to Barkhurst in view of US 3,914,906 to Barns.
In re Claim 1, Barkhurst teaches an abrasive belt clamp holder used with scroll saw (see Fig. 1), comprising
a pin-free saw blade (see Figs. 1-4, #38), wherein a clamp holder main body (see Figs. 2-4, #18/74) is connected to each of two ends of the pin-free saw blade (see Fig. 2, showing blade #38 connected at both #18s),
a placement groove matching the pin-free saw blade is provided in an outer wall of the clamp holder main body (see Fig. 3, groove #82 which receives blade #38),
a first bolt is movably connected to each of two sides of the outer wall of the clamp holder main body (see Fig. 3, #71/71), the pin-free saw blade is disposed between two first bolts (see Fig. 3, showing blade #38 between #71/71), a clamping plate (see Fig. 3, #70) is detachably connected to the top of the clamp holder main body, a second bolt is movably connected between the clamping plate and the clamp holder main body (see Fig. 3-4, #90).
Barkhurst does not teach an abrasive belt is connected between the clamping plate and the clamp holder main body.
However, Barns teaches that it is known in the reciprocating saw art to provide an abrasive belt (see Barns, Figs. 1-6, showing saw blades with both abrasive sheet material #27, an abrasive belt, and a band saw steel and are connected in the manner as they normally retain the saw blade – see Col. 1, ll. 57-65; Col. 3, ll. 35 – Col. 4, ll. 9).
In the same field of invention, scroll saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the blade of Barkhurst with the metal and abrasive blade of Barns. Doing so allows the user to sand workpieces in hard to reach places (see Barns, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 was interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). None of the cited prior art teach a scroll saw blade clamp with the following structure: with a driving mechanism (see Applicant’s Para. 0044-0045), transmission mechanism (see Applicant’s Para. 0043), in combination with the collecting housing, and air draft assembly, a rack, a moving gear, a rotating shaft, a base plate, and elastic telescopic rod, a rotating rod, matching synchronizing wheels and a belt, as disclosed by Applicant.
Dependent claims 2-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence to claim 1.
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 was interpreted as requiring the following structure to perform the claimed method: “the base plate at the bottom of the rack is placed against the outer wall of the workpiece,” “ the working housing connected to it on the outside to move up and down,” “the moving gear,” “the rack,” “the rotating shaft,” “the rotating rod,” “the synchronizing wheel,” “the belt,” “the driving bevel gear,” “the driven bevel gear,” “the air draft assembly,” “the collecting housing,” and “the collecting housing,” “the arc-shaped,” “the flow guide,” “the cambered surface,” “the middle,” “the chambers,” “the baffle,” “the elastic telescopic rod,” “the inner tube,” “the outer tube,” “the piston,” “the air,” “the air cylinder,” “the branch air tube,” “the main air tube.” None of the cited prior art teach this structure and a method performed on this structure. As such, Claim 10 would be allowed if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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