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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 3/20/2026 in which claims 1, 3-12, 15 are pending, claims 1, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (U.S. Patent 9,956,626). In regards to claim 9, Wang discloses a vacuum source (extracting turbine 12); a circular saw blade (4); and a worktable (20) comprising a center slot (slot 2) axially aligned with the circular saw blade (4) and further comprising a negative pressure housing (blade housing 8) coupled to the vacuum source (12), the vacuum source configured to provide a plurality of negative pressure regions (lower pressure areas) beneath the worktable, wherein a first of the plurality of negative pressure regions is within the center slot (2), and wherein a second of the plurality of negative pressure regions is provided via an opening (see Fig. 7, either above or below 5) on an exterior side wall (7)of the negative pressure housing. The debris suction source draws air from within the housing (8) thereby creating a region of reduced pressure within the enclosure. This reduced pressure region extends to area adjacent the blade, including the region proximate element 5 such that debris is drawn toward the suction source (12).
In regards to claim 11, Wang discloses wherein the opening (area around 5; fig. 7) is substantially perpendicular to the center slot (2)
In regards to claim 12, Wang discloses wherein the negative pressure housing comprises a second opening (on opposite side of housing 8’ similar to the opening around 5; fig. 7) substantially perpendicular to the center slot (2), wherein a third of the plurality of negative pressure regions is outside of the center slot and proximate to the second opening on the second side wall.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Patent 9,956,626) in view of Bartho (DE102014211567).
In regards to claim 15, Wang discloses the claimed invention except for at least one negative pressure sensor configured to monitor a negative pressure level of at least one of the plurality of negative pressure regions. Bartho discloses a sheet metal working machine having a chip suction device and further teaches providing a negative pressure sensor (25) positioned between an exhaust fan and sieves (24) to detect a pressure drop across the sieves, thereby identifying blockage conditions. It is considered that as both Bartho and Wang are analogous art in that they are both concerned with the removal of debris from the working machine by a suction means. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide one or more pressure sensors as taught by Bartho within the air flow channels of Wang in order to monitor pressure conditions and detect blockage within the suction system. Such modification would have predictably enabled monitoring of airflow performance and improved debris removal efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a partition positioned within the center slot and proximate an anticipated point of contract between the circular saw blade and a workpiece, wherein the partition is configured to provide a first negative pressure region via a first air flow channel and a second negative pressure region via a second air flow channel on an opposite side of the partition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9-15 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.
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 LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights