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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information
disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 tool fence set forth in claim 1; and a base edge set forth in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5)
because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “22,” “19,” and “3” on page 8 of the specification.
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 Objections
4. Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 9, “the two clamping mechanisms” should be –the two movable clamping mechanisms--, and “the clamping mechanisms” should be –the two movable clamping mechanisms--. In claim 10, “to secure it” should be –to secure the workpiece--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
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.
6. Claims 7-10 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 1, the original disclosure does not that the two-part base as being used against a “tool fence” as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the original disclosure does not disclose “an assembly operably securing the first base to the second base” set recited in claim 1. The specification does not disclose any assembly at all for securing the two parts of the base.
Regarding claim 8, the original disclosure does not disclose that the tracks are “integrated into the base.” The original disclosure is silent regarding whether the tracks are formed in, formed on, or otherwise integrated into the base.
7. Claims 7-10 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The
structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively
specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as
to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence
form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
8. Claims 7-10 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.
Regarding claim 7, “with one half for use against the tool fence” is unclear.
First, “one half” lacks antecedent basis because claim does not specify the base
includes a first half and a second half. Second, “the fence” lacks antecedent
Basis, as no fence is previously introduced in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, “a second half of the base that is pivotally movable
relative to the first half” is unclear. First, “a second half” lacks antecedent basis
because claim does not identify the base as having distinct first and second halves.
Merely reciting “a two-halves-base” does not provide antecedent basis for “a first
half” and “a second half.” Second, “the base that is pivotally movable” lacks
antecedent basis, as the claim does not set forth a pivotally movable base. Third,
“the first half” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding claim 7, “an assembly operatively securing the first base to the
second base at an angle” is unclear. It is not clear what structure constitutes the
“assembly,” and neither “the first base” nor “the second base” has antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the workpiece” lacks antecedent basis. Second, “the
clamping mechanism” lacks antecedent basis. It should be noted that the claim in
lines-1-2 calls for “two movable clamping mechanisms.” It is not clear whether the
claiming mechanism is one of the two movable clamping mechanisms or to the pair
collectively.
Regarding claim 9, “the base edge” lacks antecedent basis because no edge
of the base is previously introduced.
Regarding claim 9, “the ability to move with the workpiece both toward and
away from the base” does not structurally limit the claimed invention. In addition,
“the ability” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10; “with the assistance of pins inserted into the vertical face
of the workpiece at the top and bottom” is unclear. First, it is not clear whether “pins”
are the same pins recited in claim 9. Second, “the vertical face” lacks antecedent
basis. Third, “at the top and bottom” is unclear because claim does not specify the
top and bottom of which element.
Regarding claim 10, “thus allowing for workpiece to be cut to the full
capability of the tool” is unclear. First, the claims do not recite any cutter or cutting
mechanism for cutting the workpiece. Second, “to the full capability of the tool” is
unclear because no capability of the tool is previously described. It is also not clear
what is considered to be “the full capability of the tool.” Third, “the tool” lacks
antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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.
10. Claims 7-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being Duxbury (2023/0037039 A1). Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Duxbury teaches a taper jig 1, comprising: a two-part base (10B, 10A; Fig. 16C) designed with one half (10B) for use (or capable of being used) against the tool fence; a second half (10A) of the base that is pivotably moveable relative to the first half; and has an assembly 18 (Fig. (17) operably securing the first base (10A) to the second base (10B) at an angle (α). See Figs. 16B-18 in Duxbury.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Duxbury teaches everything noted above including that the second half (10A) of the base features two moveable clamping mechanisms (200; Fig. 17) to hold the workpiece longitudinally, and tracks (10; Fig. 17) integrated into the base to secure the clamping mechanism to the base half.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Duxbury teaches everything noted above including that the two clamping mechanisms include: clamp bases (defined by the portion of the clamps 200 that are inserted into the track for sliding within the track; Fig. 16D) that allow the clamping mechanisms to be positioned anywhere along the base edge in the tracks in the base; the ability to move with the workpiece both toward and away from the base; pins 280 (Fig. 16D) protruding from the clamping mechanism to engage and hold the workpiece (TS).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Duxbury teaches everything noted above including that the workpiece is held horizontally with the assistance of pins 280 inserted into the vertical face of the workpiece at the top and bottom, relying on longitudinal clamping forces along the workpiece to secure it, thus allowing for workpieces to be cut to the full capability of the tool.
It should be noted that for the pins to be inserted into the vertical face of the workpiece, the workpiece must have grooves or apertures for receiving the pins. However, because the workpiece is not part of the invention the taper jib itself, Duxbury’s pins 280 may be engaged or inserted in the grooves formed in an edge of the workpiece positioned against the second part (10A) of the base. In such a configuration, the pins 280 would be inserted into a vertical face of the grooves.
11. Claims 7-10, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being Newton et al. (6,857,829 B2), hereinafter Newton. Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Newton teaches a taper jig 102, comprising: a two-part base (106, 104) designed with one half 106 for use against (or capable of being positioned against) the tool fence; a second half 104 of the base that is pivotably (by pivot member 116; Fig. 5) moveable relative to the first half; and has an assembly (20; Fig. 1) operably securing the first base to the second base at an angle. Figs. 1-5 in Newton.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Newton teaches everything noted above including that the second half 104 of the base features two moveable clamping mechanisms 158 to hold the workpiece longitudinally, and tracks 152 integrated into the base 106 to secure the clamping mechanism (via the fence 150) to the base half 104.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Newton teaches everything noted above including that the two clamping mechanisms 158 include: clamp bases 164 that allow the clamping mechanisms to be positioned anywhere along the base edge in the tracks (via the fence 150) in the base; the ability to move with the workpiece both toward and away from the base; pins 166 protruding from the clamping mechanism to engage and hold the workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Newton teaches everything noted above including that the workpiece is held horizontally with the assistance of pins 166 inserted into the vertical face of the workpiece at the top and bottom, relying on longitudinal clamping forces along the workpiece to secure it, thus allowing for workpieces to be cut to the full capability of the tool.
It should be noted that for the pins to be inserted into the vertical face of the workpiece, the workpiece must have grooves or apertures for receiving the pins. However, because the workpiece is not part of the invention the taper jib itself, Newton’s pins 166 may be engaged or inserted in the grooves formed in a vertical edge of the workpiece.
12. Claim 7, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being Wang (2014/0208912 A1). Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Wang teaches a taper jig 10, comprising: a two-part base (14, 12) designed with one half 14 for use against (or capable of being positioned against) the tool fence; a second half 12 of the base that is pivotably (joined at pivot axis 16) moveable relative to the first half; and has an assembly (36; as a locking knob; Fig. 1) operably securing the first base to the second base at an angle. Figs. 1-11 in Wang.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant has not provided any arguments with respect to the prior art of the record, mainly Duxbury and Newton. As stated above, Duxbury and Newton read on the new claims 7-10.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 on (571) 272. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 November 23, 2025