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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 8-20-2025 Amendments were received. Claims 1 and 4 were amended. Claims 1-8 are pending and examined in this action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:” a circular saw blade mounted in a machine chassis” should be “a circular saw blade mounted in the machine chassis.” 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,844,415 to Taylor in view of US 1,050,989 to Niuffer with evidence from US 4,255,995 to Connor, and further in view of US 2019/0240750 to YU.
In re Claim 1, Taylor teaches a sawdust discharge guiding device of a carpenter circular saw machine (see Figs. 1-2, 4, 5A-C) including a platform (#102) mounted atop a machine chasses (#104) and a circular saw blade (see Fig. 1, #120) mounted in a chassis in a manner of being tiltable between a vertical position (see Fig. 5A) and a tilted position relative to the plate form (see Fig. 5B/C), the sawdust discharge guiding device comprising:
a dust shielding cover (see Figs. 5A-C, #124/126), which is mounted to the machine chassis and comprises a fixed cover body (#124/126), a movable shield plate(#142), a pivot assembly(#160/166/165),
wherein the fixed cover body comprises a first end wall (see Fig. 2, end wall of #124), a first lateral wall (see Fig. 2, lateral wall of #124) having one side perpendicularly connected to one side of the first end wall (see Fig. 2), a second lateral wall (see Fig. 2, lateral wall of #126) having one side connected to an opposite side of the first end wall (see Figs. 1 and 5A-C), a second end wall (see Fig. 2, end wall of #26) connected between an opposite side of the first lateral wall and an opposite side of the second lateral wall (see Figs. 1-2 and 5A-C), the second end wall having a height lower than a height of the first end wall (see Fig. 2, showing the height of #126 lower than the height of #124), and
a dust discharge portion (see Fig. 2, #132) connected among bottoms of the first end wall, the first lateral wall, the second lateral wall and the second end wall,
the dust discharge portion and the fixed cover body defining therebetween an angle, which is an obtuse angle (see annotated Fig. below),
PNG
media_image1.png
553
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the dust discharge portion comprises a dust discharge opening communicating between inside and outside (see Fig. 2, outlet #132 is connected to suction which is considered communication between inside, the chamber created by #124/126 and the outside, the suction device),
a top portions of the first end wall, the first lateral wall, the second lateral wall, and the second end wall defining and delimiting an opening adapted to receive the circular saw blade therein with the first lateral wall located adjacent a near saw point of the circular saw blade (see Figs. 1-2, 4, #126/124 create the first and second lateral walls and the first and second end walls and the saw is located therein);
the movable shield plate comprises a pivot through-hole (see Figs. 5A-C, showing slot #166); the pivot assembly penetrates through and pivotally connects between the pivot aperture and the pivot through-hole of the movable shield plate (see Figs. 5A-C, #116/142/166/165), so that the movable shield plate is rotatable about an axis defined by the pivot assembly (see Fig. 5A-C showing #142 pivoting about an axis);
wherein the axis of the pivot assembly about which the movable shield plate is rotatable is perpendicular to a rotation axis of circular saw blade (see Figs. 1-5A-C, showing the pivot axis of #142 perpendicular to the blade axis of rotation).
Taylor does not teach a pivoting structure at the “end” of the dust shield cover, and as such, does not teach: a torsion spring; the torsion spring comprises a middle portion through which the pivot assembly penetrates and has one end supported on the first lateral wall of the fixed cover body and an opposite end supported on the movable shield plate, wherein the torsion spring provides a preloading spring force to the movable shield plate for upward rotation; and a pivot aperture being formed in a top of the first end wall; and
wherein the preloading spring force provided by the torsion spring to the movable shield plate for upward movement biases an upper side of the movable shield plate into contact engagement with an undersurface of the platform when the circular saw blade is moved from the vertical position and the tilted position.
However, Connor teaches that it is known in the art to provide an adjustable structure that contacts the bottom of the table saw at the “end” of the dust shield (see Connor Fig. 2, #42).
Additionally, Niuffer teaches that it is known in the suction art to provide a pivot at the end of a pivoting suction system (see Niuffer Fig. 1-6, #7/8). In the same field of invention, suction systems, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an axis and a structure that pivots about a pivot aperture being formed in a top of the first end wall to ensure that the suction system to maintain “operative engagement” with a flat surface (see Niuffer, Col. 1, ll. 20-26). Doing so provides an suction system that is efficient in use and capable of operating in different positions (see Niuffer, Col. 1, ll. 9-26).
Modified Taylor fails to teach the particular torsion spring. As such, modified Taylor fails to teach the torsion spring comprises a middle portion through which the pivot assembly penetrates and has one end supported on the first lateral wall of the fixed cover body and an opposite end supported on the movable shield plate, wherein the torsion spring provides a preloading spring force to the movable shield plate for upward rotation.
However, YU teaches that it is known in the art of shields for saws to provide a torsion spring (see YU, Figs. 1-2, #2) that comprises a middle portion through which the pivot assembly penetrates (see YU, Fig. 1, #21) and has one end supported on the first lateral wall of the fixed cover body and an opposite end supported on the movable shield plate (in YU, one end of the torsion spring contacts the movable part and the other end of the torsion spring contacts the static part), such that the torsion spring provides a preloading spring force to the movable shield plate for upward rotation (the torsion spring biases the movable shield).
In the same field of invention, pivoting structure/assemblies for shields for saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the spring type of Connor with the pivoting structure of modified Taylor. Doing so biases the pivoting structure to the flat surface to ensure the blade is covered and the suction system is as efficient as possible.
In re Claim 4, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the top side of the movable shield plate is protruded to form a contact flange, and the torsion spring is supported on the contact flange to bias the contact flange against the undersurface of the platform (see Fig. 2, 125 of Taylor in view of Niuffer Fig. 1-6, #7/8) and #2/#5 of YU teaching a protrusion surrounding the holes of the shields).
In re Claim 6, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, teaches further comprising a dust discharge tube (see Taylor, Fig. 4, tubular portion of #132), which has one end connected to the dust discharge portion of the fixed cover body of the dust shielding cover (see Taylor Figs. 1-4, inner portion of #126 adjacent to #132), so that the dust discharge tube is in communication with an interior of the dust shielding cover.
Taylor does not teach the dust discharge tube is twistable for deformation as being acted upon by a force (see Connor, Col. 3, ll. 43-55, teaching a flexible hose as #27).
However, Conner teaches that it is known in the art of suction equipment for saws to provide a flexible hose (see Connor, Col. 3, ll. 43-55, teaching a flexible hose as #27) connected to the end of the discharge tube. In the same field of invention, suction equipment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the flexible hose to the end of #132 in Taylor. Doing so provides a flexible connection to a vacuum that allows the device to move as well as using “off the shelf” known suction devices (i.e. flexible vacuum hoses).
In re Claim 7, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a circular saw blade avoiding notch is formed in a middle top of the second end wall to extend downward therefrom (see Taylor, Fig. 4, #126a/126b, showing protruding surfaces or a notch that avoids the circular blade).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,844,415 to Taylor in view of US 1,050,989 to Niuffer with evidence from US 4,255,995 to Connor, and further in view of US 2019/0240750 to YU, and further in view of US 6,283,002 to Chiang.
In re Claim 2, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the first end wall is provided, on the top thereof, with a lug at a location adjacent to the first lateral wall, and the pivot aperture is formed in the lug.
However, Chiang teaches that it is known in the art of pivoting structures in saws to utilize a lug (see Chiang, Fig. 2, #222). In the same field of invention, saw structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a lug structure to pivot about, as taught by Chiang. Doing so is the use of a known structure to improve a similar device (see MPEP 2143, I, C).
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,844,415 to Taylor in view of US 1,050,989 to Niuffer with evidence from US 4,255,995 to Connor, and further in view of US 2019/0240750 to YU, and further in view of US 4,385,539 to Meyerhoefer.
In re Claim 3, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the movable shield plate comprises a triangular plate, and the pivot through-hole is formed in one of corners of the movable shield plate.
However, Meyerhoefer taches that it is known in the art of saw structures to provide a movable shield in a triangular plate (se Meyerhoefer, Fig. 3, #21) with a pivot through-hole formed in one of the corners (see Fig. 3). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the shield any reasonable shape, including a triangular shape with the pivot through-hole in one of the corners. Doing so is a change of shape that performs the same function (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
In re Claim 8, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the movable shield plate comprises a triangle plate having a corner that is protruded to form a contact block.
However, Meyerhoefer taches that it is known in the art of saw structures to provide a movable shield in a triangular plate (se Meyerhoefer, Fig. 9, #21a) with a pivot corner that is protruded (see Figs. 9-10, #31). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the shield any reasonable shape, including a triangular shape with the pivot through-hole in one of the corners. Doing so clears an obstruction within the saw housing, yet still maintain the member substantially flush against the opening 17 in the front panel of the saw housing (see Col. 4, ll. 53-60). In other words, a change of shape that performs the same function (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,844,415 to Taylor in view of US 1,050,989 to Niuffer with evidence from US 4,255,995 to Connor, and further in view of US 2019/0240750 to YU., and further in view of WO 2006112982 A1.
In re Claim 5, modified Taylor, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the pivot assembly comprises a bolt, a washer, and a nut, the bolt penetrating through the pivot aperture of the fixed cover body, the pivot through-hole of the movable shield plate, and the washer, and the nut and the bolt are screwed to each other.
However, WO 2006112982 A1 teaches that it is known in the art of saws to utilize bolts, washer, and nuts (see WO 2006112982 A1, Fig. 2, #50/60/16) in pivoting structure of the saw. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize bolts, washer and nuts in the pivot structure of modified Connor. Doing so allows the user to utilize “off-the-shelf” components without the need to design new assembly fasteners that allow pivoting. Doing so saves time and money in a design process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending 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.
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 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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