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 .
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naughton et al. (2013/0019483) in view of Roberts (2006/0168824) further in view of Saegesser et al. (6,877,234).
With regards to claims 1, 2, 10, and 12, Naughton et al. disclose the invention including a jigsaw (20) having a housing (22), a drive assembly disposed in the housing (24) and selectively driven by a power source (26), an output spindle to which a blade is attachable and driven in a reciprocating manner by the drive assembly (64), a foot plate coupled to the housing and configured to support the housing relative to a work piece during a cutting operation (106, 108), a shoe removably coupled to the foot plate and configured to contact the work piece during a cutting operation (110), the shoe includes a bottom surface configured to face the workpiece (Figs. 11 and 12) and a top surface opposite the bottom surface (Figs. 11 and 12), the shoe has at least one projection that is capable of deflecting relative to the shoe upon contacting the foot plate and rebounding to engage the foot plate thereby coupling the shoe to the foot plate (134), the shoe is an anti-marring shoe (110), and a plurality of ribs extending upward from the top surface to abut the foot plate defining an abutment plane (Fig. 11).
With regards to claims 13 and 20, Naughton et al. disclose the invention including a shoe (110) having a bottom surface configured to face and abut the workpiece (Figs. 11 and 12), a top surface opposite the bottom surface (Figs. 11 and 12), a rear wall (in Fig. 12, wall of 110 with 134), a front wall (in Fig. 12, wall of 110 to receive 124 and 118), the front and rear walls extend upward from the top surface to encase a portion of the foot plate (Fig. 11), first and second side walls both extending between the rear and front walls (Fig. 12) and a plurality of ribs extending upward from the top surface to abut the foot plate defining an abutment plane (Fig. 11).
However, with regards to claims 1, 3-7, 12-17 and 20, Naughton et al. fail to disclose the shoe includes a blade accommodating region within which at least one replacement saw blade is received for storage, the blade accommodating region including a first blade receptacle that includes a channel that accommodates the replacement saw blade, the blade accommodating region is on the top surface, a replacement saw blade is disposed between the top surface and the foot plate when the shoe is coupled to the foot plate, the blade accommodating region has a second blade receptacle in which corresponding replacement blades are receivable, the first blade receptacle defines a first longitudinal axis and the second blade receptacle defines a second longitudinal axis that is parallel to the first longitudinal axis, the receptacles are disposed along opposite sides respectively adjacent to the first side wall and the second side wall of the shoe, and when received in the blade accommodating region, the replacement blade is sub-flush from the plane.
Roberts teaches it is known in the art of replacement blade storage in the shoe of a saw to incorporate a blade accommodating region (32, 34) within which at least one replacement saw blade is received for storage (38), the blade accommodating region has a first blade receptacle that includes a channel (32) that accommodates the replacement saw blade (Fig. 2) and a second blade receptacle that includes a channel (34) that accommodates the replacement saw blade (Fig. 2), the first blade receptacle defines a first longitudinal axis (32) and the second blade receptacle defines a second longitudinal axis (34) that is parallel to the first longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), and the receptacles are disposed along opposite sides respectively adjacent to the first side wall and the second side wall of the shoe (Fig. 2). While Roberts teaches for the blade accommodating channels to be through the bottom of the shoe, it would have been obvious to have utilized any reasonable portion of shoe 110 in Naughton et al. to define the blade accommodating region including both of the opposite sides of the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al. Using Naughton et al.’s Figures 11 and 12, there is a gap between the top surface of 110 and the bottom surface of 126 and, in light of shoe 110 being removable, it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized the opposite sides of the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al. as the blade accommodating region because the shoe 110 would act as a removable cover in relation to the foot plate giving the user access to the replacement blades. With the blade accommodating channels in the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al., the replacement saw blade is disposed between the top surface (top of 110) and the foot plate when the shoe is coupled to the foot plate (106, 108) and when received in the blade accommodating region, the replacement blade is sub-flush from the plane (one skilled in the art would understand that adding the blade accommodating region to the top surface would need to allow for the replacement blade to sit below the top of the ribs so as to not interfere with interacting structures of the foot plate and the shoe upon assembly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Naughton et al. with the blade accommodating region channels, as taught by Roberts, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
However, with regards to claims 1, 8, 13, and 18 Naughton et al. in view of Roberts fail to disclose the first receptacle channel and the second receptacle channel has a neck that extends inward from the channel to couple to a tang of the blades.
Saegesser et al. teach it is known in the art of saw blade storage receptacle channels for jigsaws to incorporate a neck that extends inward from the channel to couple to a tang of the blades (40, Fig. 4). Such a modification allows for less movement of the bade while being stored (Column 3 lines 17-24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Naughton et al. in view of Roberts with the receptacle channel neck, as taught by Saegesser et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claim 11, Naughton et al. in view of Roberts further in view of Saegesser et al. fail to disclose the shoe is composed of a non-metal and low-friction material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the shoe from any reasonable material including a non-metal and low-friction material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of Naughton et al. in view of Roberts further in view of Saegesser et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naughton et al. (2013/0019483) in view of Roberts (2006/0168824) further in view of Saegesser et al. (6,877,234) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 and 13, 14 and 18 above, and further in view of Van Wambeke et al. (10,029,322).
Naughton et al. in view of Roberts further in view of Saegesser et al. fail to disclose each of the receptacles has a shelf located opposite from the neck and is spaced away from the blades.
Van Wambeke et al. teach it is known in the art of saw blade storage receptacles for jigsaws to incorporate a shelf located opposite from the neck and is spaced away from the blades (652, Fig. 10). Such a modification allows for easier retrieval of the stored blade. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made the shelf in any reasonable position in the receptacles including a location opposite to the neck. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Naughton et al. in view of Roberts further in view of Saegesser et al. with the shelf, as taught by Van Wambeke et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-4-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that the previous Office action featured a typo. The 103 rejection did not list claim 20 as one of the claims rejected in the heading but claim 20 was clearly listed in the body of the rejection and, therefore, considered part of the original 103 rejection. The heading for the 103 now includes claim 20.
With regards to the 103 rejection, Roberts teaches it is known to utilize channels in the shoe of a jigsaw to accommodate replacement blades. While Roberts teaches for the blade accommodating region to be through the bottom of the shoe, it would have been obvious to have utilized any reasonable portion of shoe 110 in Naughton et al. to define the blade accommodating region including both of the opposite sides of the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al. Using Naughton et al.’s Figures 11 and 12, there is a gap between the top surface of 110 and the bottom surface of 126 and, in light of shoe 110 being removable, it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized the opposite sides of the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al. as the blade accommodating region because the shoe 110 would act as a removable cover in relation to the foot plate 106/108 giving the user access to the replacement blades. With the blade accommodating region in the top surface of 110 in Naughton et al., the replacement saw blade is disposed between the top surface (top of 110) and the foot plate when the shoe is coupled to the foot plate (106, 108) in a way that does not change the functions of Naughton et al.
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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
26 March 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights