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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-9 (now is claims 1, 7-9) in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged. The original Claims 1-9 are specifically to a saw apparatus, classified in U.S class 83 and CPC B23D47/045. However, newly submitted claims 25-28 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Claims 25-28 recite an apparatus (without any saw blade, a worktable, a vacuum motor within a cylindrical filter) which appears to be a vacuum apparatus, classified in U.S class 15 and CPC A47L9/20.
The previously examined claims, for example claim 1 shows structures of a saw apparatus, have two-way distinction and a search burden compared to new claims 25-28 (see two different search areas above).
Inventions claims 1, 7-9 and claims 25-28 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the saw apparatus requires to have a saw, a worktable, and a vacuum motor within the rotatably filter. The subcombination has separate utility such as a vacuum apparatus as discussed above.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented and elected invention, claims 25-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
There are 30 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures. For an example,
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 motorized drive gear (there is a gear with a motor of some sorts) in claims 1, 21 and 25 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 21-24 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.
Claim 1 recites “a motorized drive gear configured to rotate the cylindrical filter”
In which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the gear being driven (by a motor that is unclear) configured to rotate the cylindrical filter.
Reading at Applicant’s specification, Para. 52 states “filter 614 may further comprise a gear 670 on one end mating to a motorized drive gear which can spin the filter 614 automatically via logic circuitry 690 in accordance with a programmable set of parameters” and the drawing does not show the motorized drive gear (see the objection above). How is the gear being driven? Is it any motor connecting to the gear?
Applicant’s specification, Para. 53 states “the apparatus may also comprise a filter motor configured to power the rotation of the rotatable filter” which is unclear whether this filter motor connects to the motorized drive gear in para. 52 or not. If it does connect to the motorized drive gear, it is unclear how it connects to each other. Where is the filter motor located and where is the motorized drive gear located? Also, the language “may” is confusing whether the embodiment of para. 52 is discusses the same embodiment in para. 53 or not since it is a language “may” used.
There is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function of being able to position the motorized drive gear configured to rotate the cylindrical filter and the structure(s) responsible for the function. Claim 21 has the same issues.
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, 7-9, 21-24 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.
The scope of Claim 1 “a motorized drive gear configured to rotate the cylindrical filter, logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylinder filler” is unclear (see the written description issue above) and there is no drawing to show a motorized drive gear and its motor of some sorts.
Looking at Figure 14, the logic circuitry 690 is an empty box connecting to the cylindrical filter 614. Reading at Applicant’s specification, para. 52 recites “a gear 670 on one end mating to a motorized drive gear which can spin the filter 614 automatically via logic circuitry 690 in accordance with a programmable set of parameters” which means the motorized drive gear is a gear (that is driven by a motor of some sorts, but is unclear) and the logic circuitry is a controller. How does a controller physically drive the motorized drive gear as the claim is written? What does physical driver or structure rotate the filter, another word, how does the gear drive or rotate? Is there missing a driver or a motor in the claim, right? Claim 21 has the same issue.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 Guth (US 2019/0201991) in view of Omohundro (US 3217470) and Akira (JP2010051357 and Translation).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Guth shows a saw apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a vacuum source (212, Figure 11);
a filter (217, Figure 11 and Para. 44 “A vacuum source 212 attached to the rotatable filter 217”) coupled to the vacuum source; and
a worktable (220) comprising a center slot (226) axially aligned to a circular saw blade (230), wherein the vacuum source is configured to provide a negative pressure beneath the worktable at the center slot, and wherein the filter is configured to collect airborne dust drawn by the negative pressure from an area proximate to the center slot (see Figure 8 and Para. 44 “During use, as the worktable 220 slides over the housing 210, this air flow provides a negative pressure just below the center slot 226, wherein dust proximate to the center slot 226 is drawn through the louvers 224 towards the filters and subsequently collected into the dust container 213”),
wherein an outer portion of the cylindrical filter comprises pleated media (see Figure 7 where the reference “217” is) configured to make contact with an agitation flap (218), and wherein the agitation flap facilitates removing dust from the pleated media by manually rotating the filter cleaning knob (Para. 50).
However, it is unclear whether the vacuum source is powered by a vacuum motor or not and the vacuum motor is housed with the filter; Guth silently discusses a motorized drive gear configured to rotate the cylindrical filter; logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear; and a sensor component, wherein the logic circuitry is configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear in response to a trigger detected by the sensor component.
Omohundro discusses a vacuum source (see Figure 1 and see Col. 2, lines 23-48 for removing dirt particles) is powered by a vacuum motor (a motor 26, Figure 1) and wherein the vacuum motor is housed with a cylinder filter (32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum source of Guth to have a vacuum motor being housed with a cylinder filter, as taught by Omohundro, it is essential that the device have a convenient shape to fit within a desired space (compact construction) and accomplish the desired function as discussed in Col. 1, lines 18-25 of Omohundro.
Akira shows a vacuum source (Figure 1) having a motorized drive gear (62) of a motor (63, Figure 4) configured to rotate a cylindrical filter (a pleated filter body 52, Figure 6, via a gear 61); logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear; and a sensor component (see the detection means in Para. 26), wherein the logic circuitry (see the control device 64) is configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear in response to a trigger detected by the sensor component (Para. 26 “the drive motor 63 are controlled based on the detection signal of the micro switch S1 that detects and controls the rotation of the body 52”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum source of Guth to have motorized drive gear (62) of a motor (63, Figure 4), a control device, and a sensor (detection means), as taught by Akira, in order to allow the filter to be automatically rotated.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a motor, gears, a sensor, a controller, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. In order to improve rotating or speedy rotating of the rotatably filter.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guth (US 2019/0201991) in view of Akira (JP2010051357 and Translation).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Guth shows a saw apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a vacuum source (212, Figure 11);
a filter (217, Figure 11 and Para. 44 “A vacuum source 212 attached to the rotatable filter 217”) coupled to the vacuum source; and
a worktable (220) comprising a center slot (226) axially aligned to a circular saw blade (230), wherein the vacuum source is configured to provide a negative pressure beneath the worktable at the center slot, and wherein the filter is configured to collect airborne dust drawn by the negative pressure from an area proximate to the center slot (see Figure 8 and Para. 44 “During use, as the worktable 220 slides over the housing 210, this air flow provides a negative pressure just below the center slot 226, wherein dust proximate to the center slot 226 is drawn through the louvers 224 towards the filters and subsequently collected into the dust container 213”),
wherein an outer portion of the cylindrical filter comprises pleated media (see Figure 7 where the reference “217” is) configured to make contact with an agitation flap (218), and wherein the agitation flap facilitates removing dust from the pleated media by manually rotating the filter cleaning knob (Para. 50).
However, Guth silently discusses a motorized drive gear configured to rotate the cylindrical filter; logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear; and a sensor component, wherein the logic circuitry is configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear in response to a trigger detected by the sensor component.
Akira shows a vacuum source (Figure 1) having a motorized drive gear (62) of a motor (63, Figure 4) configured to rotate a cylindrical filter (a pleated filter body 52, Figure 6, via a gear 61); logic circuitry configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear; and a sensor component (see the detection means in Para. 26), wherein the logic circuitry (see the control device 64) is configured to auto-rotate the cylindrical filter via the motorized drive gear in response to a trigger detected by the sensor component (Para. 26 “the drive motor 63 are controlled based on the detection signal of the micro switch S1 that detects and controls the rotation of the body 52”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum source of Guth to have motorized drive gear (62) of a motor (63, Figure 4), a control device, and a sensor (detection means), as taught by Akira, in order to allow the filter to be automatically rotated.
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have a motor, gears, a sensor, a controller, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. In order to improve rotating or speedy rotating of the rotatably filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 22-24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter because claims 7-9, 22-24 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of the trigger being a threshold number of uses, amount of use time, or negative pressure level in a negative pressure region within the saw apparatus.
There are many arts, vacuums having thresholds number of usages, amount of use time, or negative pressure level, for examples:
NO (US 2021/0169290) shows a threshold of a vacuum cleaner that is a usage time (Paras. 17-18).
Chao (US 2023/0320549) shows a threshold of a vacuum cleaner that is a pressure threshold (Para. 82).
However, none of these references discusses a combination of a vacuum with a saw apparatus. There appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned art, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention. Thus, these claims could not be considered an obvious expedient of the combination, the claimed instant invention requires these limitations for reason purposes of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 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. See the rejections above for the 112a, 112b, and the art rejections by the art.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
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 NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 6/8/2026
Prosecution Insights