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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0306849 to Hansen.
In re Claim 1, Hansen teaches a circular saw assembly (see Fig. 2A-B) comprising:
a tool body;
an arbor mount for receiving a circular saw blade, the arbor mount extending outwardly from the tool body, the circular saw blade configured to connect to the arbor mount and rotate in a plane defined perpendicularly to the outward extension of the arbor mount;
a blade guard fixedly connected to the tool body for at least partially enclosing the circular saw blade, the blade guard having a side that extends at least substantially parallel to the plane of rotation of the circular saw blade;
a support base connected to the tool body for supporting the circular saw assembly on a support surface, the support base extending along a plane defined at least substantially perpendicularly to the plane of rotation of the circular saw blade, the circular saw blade configured to extend radially from the arbor mount past the plane of extension of the support base; and
a dust collection attachment (see Figs. 3-4 in view of Para. 0046) positioned between the side of the blade guard and the support base for coupling with a vacuum source to remove debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see Figs. 3-4 in view of Figs. 2A-C), the dust collection attachment including
an elongated front face for filling space between the side of the blade guard (see Figs. 3-4, #42 in view of Figs. 2A-C) and the support base, the elongated front face having
a top edge configured to extend along the side of the blade guard (see Figs. 3-4, edge on which the top retaining tab #130 is located),
a bottom edge configured to extend along the support base (see Fig. 3-4, edge on which the bottom tab #130 is located), and
defining an opening for receiving the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see Figs. 3-4, opening #42), the opening having a first cross-sectional area (see the rectangular cross sectional area of #42 in Figs. 3-4),
an extension of the elongated front face away from the circular saw blade, a connection opposite the opening (see Figs. 3-4, #34), the connection configured for connecting to the vacuum source (see Figs. 3-4, #34), the connection having a second cross-sectional area (see Fig. 3 showing #34 having a round cross-sectional area), and a passageway defined through the dust collection attachment from the opening at the elongated front face to the connection opposite the opening (see Figs. 1-4, and Para. 0045), the first cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the second cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection configured to permit the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment to pass directly through the passageway without obstruction(see Figs. 1-4 and Para. 0045).
In re Claim 3, Hansen teaches wherein the elongated front face of the dust collection attachment is angled from the support base to the side of the blade guard (see Fig. 4, retaining tabs #130 include angled surfaces relative to the support base and the blade guard – see also Para. 0055).
In re Claim 6, Hansen wherein passageway smoothly transitions between the opening of the passageway and the connection to the passageway opposite the opening (see Fig. 4, #42 to #34 is a smooth transition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
In re Claim 7, Hansen teaches wherein the opening of the passageway is generally rectangular shaped (see Fig. 4, opening #42 is rectangular shaped) and the connection to the passageway opposite the opening is generally circular shaped (see Hansen, Fig. 4, opening #34 is circular shaped).
In re Claim 8, Hansen teaches wherein the dust collection attachment comprises tabs (see Fig. 4, #130/#130) for receiving mounting hardware to connect the dust collection attachment to the tool body (see Para. 0055 teaching tabs #130 engage corresponding shaped and positioned recesses/openings).
In re Claim 9 Hansen teaches wherein the connection is configured for connecting to a tube of the vacuum source (see Fig. 4, #34 and Para. 0054 teaching #34 connects to a hose of a vacuum – see also Para. 0044)
In re Claim 10, Hansen teaches a dust collection attachment (see Figs. 3-4, #14, et al.) to be positioned between a side of a blade guard for a circular saw blade (see Fig. 2B, #98) and a support base (see Fig. 2B, #86)of a circular saw assembly (see Figs. 3-4 in view of Figs. 1-2A-C), the dust collection attachment for coupling with a vacuum source to remove debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see Para. 0044 in view of Figs. 3-4, #34), the dust collection attachment comprising:
an elongated front face for filling space between the side of the blade guard and the support base (see Figs. 3-4 in view of Fig. 2A-C, showing #14 et al. between #98 and #86), the elongated front face angled from the support base to the side of the blade guard (see tabs #130 in Fig. 4, which includes angle surfaces), the elongated front face having a top edge configured to extend along the side of the blade guard (see top edge adjacent to the upper #130 in Fig. 4), a bottom edge configured to extend along the support base (see bottom edge adjacent to lower #130 in Fig. 4), and defining an opening for receiving the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see opening #42 in Fig. 4), the opening having a first cross-sectional area (see Fig. 4, cross-section of opening #42), an extension of the elongated front face away from the circular saw blade, a connection opposite the opening (see Fig. 4, #34), the connection configured for connecting to the vacuum source (see Fig. 4, #34 in view of Para. 0044-45), the connection having a second cross-sectional area (see Fig. 4, #34 having a second-cross-sectional area), and a passageway defined through the dust collection attachment from the opening at the elongated front face to the connection opposite the opening (see Par. 0045-46), the first cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the second cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection configured to permit the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment to pass directly through the passageway without obstruction (see Par. 0045-46).
In re Claim 13, Hanson teaches wherein passageway smoothly transitions between the opening of the passageway and the connection to the passageway opposite the opening (see Fig. 4, #42 to #34 is a smooth transition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation).
In re Claim 14, Hanson teaches wherein the opening of the passageway is generally rectangular shaped (see Fig. 4, #42 which is generally rectangular shaped) and the connection to the passageway opposite the opening is generally circular shaped (see Fig. 4, #34, which is generally circular shaped).
In re Claim 15, Hanson teaches wherein the dust collection attachment comprises tabs (see Fig. 4, #130/#130) for receiving mounting hardware to connect the dust collection attachment to a tool body of the circular saw assembly (see Para. 0055 teaching tabs #130 engage corresponding shaped and positioned recesses/openings).
In re Claim 16, Hanson teaches wherein the connection is configured for connecting to a tube of the vacuum source (see Fig. 4, #34 in view of Para. 0045-46).
In re Claim 17, Hanson teaches a dust collection attachment (see Figs. 3-4, #14, et al.) to be positioned between a side of a blade guard for a circular saw blade (see Fig. 2B, #98) and a support base (see Fig. 2b, #86) of a circular saw assembly, the dust collection attachment for coupling with a vacuum source to remove debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see Para. 0044-46, in view of Fig. 4, #34) the dust collection attachment comprising:
an elongated front face for filling space between the side of the blade guard and the support base (see Figs. 3-4 in view of Fig. 2A-C, showing #14 et al. between #98 and #86), the elongated front face angled from the support base to the side of the blade guard (see tabs #130 in Fig. 4, which includes angle surfaces), the elongated front face having a top edge configured to extend along the side of the blade guard (see top edge adjacent to the upper #130 in Fig. 4), a bottom edge configured to extend along the support base (see bottom edge adjacent to the bottom #130 in Fig. 4), and defining an opening for receiving the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment (see opening #42 in Fig. 4), the opening being generally rectangular shaped and having a first cross-sectional area (see Fig. 4, generally rectangular opening #42), an extension of the elongated front face away from the circular saw blade (see Figs. 2A-C in view of Figs. 3-4), a connection opposite the opening (see Fig. 4, #34), the connection configured for connecting to the vacuum source (see Fig. 4, #34 in view of Para. 0044-46), the connection being generally circular shaped and having a second cross-sectional area (see Fig. 4, #34), and a passageway defined through the dust collection attachment from the opening at the elongated front face to the connection opposite the opening (see Para. 0044-46), the first cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the second cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection configured to permit the debris drawn into the dust collection attachment to pass directly through the passageway without obstruction (see Para. 0044-46).
In re Claim 20, Hanson teaches wherein passageway smoothly transitions between the opening of the passageway and the connection to the passageway opposite the opening (see Fig. 4, #42 to #34 is a smooth transition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation)
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0306849 to Hansen in view of US 2018/0169885 to Okouchi.
In re Claim 2, Hansen is silent as to wherein the support base is rotationally connected to the tool body. However, Okouchi teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to provide a support base rotationally connected to the tool body (see Okouchi, Figs. 2/3). 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 provide the plate of Hansen with a pivot (see Okouchi, Figs. 2-3, pivotal support shaft #15) with depth guide (see Okouchi, Figs. 2-3, depth guide #71). Doing so would allow the user to adjust the depth of the saw blade cut to cut different depths of cut in a workpiece (see Okouchi, Para. 0055-56).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0306849 to Hansen in view of US 7,465,328 to Trautner.
In re Claim 4, Hansen is silent as to wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening is greater than the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection.
However, Trautner teaches that it is known in the art of vacuum saw attachments to provide a larger opening at the connection to the tool structure (see Trautner, Fig. 3, showing a larger opening attached to the shoe #30 verse the smaller opening that attaches to a vacuum hose). 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 opening adjacent the saw blade larger than the connection opening, as illustrated in Trautner. Doing provides the vacuum suction over a larger area to capture more debris.
In re Claim 11, Hansen is silent as to wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening is greater than the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection.
However, Trautner teaches that it is known in the art of vacuum saw attachments to provide a larger opening at the connection to the tool structure (see Trautner, Fig. 3, showing a larger opening attached to the shoe #30 verse the smaller opening that attaches to a vacuum hose). 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 opening adjacent the saw blade larger than the connection opening, as illustrated in Trautner. Doing provides the vacuum suction over a larger area to capture more debris.
In re Claim 18, Hansen is silent as to wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening is greater than the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection.
However, Trautner teaches that it is known in the art of vacuum saw attachments to provide a larger opening at the connection to the tool structure (see Trautner, Fig. 3, showing a larger opening attached to the shoe #30 verse the smaller opening that attaches to a vacuum hose). 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 opening adjacent the saw blade larger than the connection opening, as illustrated in Trautner. Doing provides the vacuum suction over a larger area to capture more debris.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0306849 to Hansen in view of US 6,557,261 to Buser.
In re Claim 5, Hansen does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection are within 20% of one another. However, Buser teaches that it is known in the art of saw attachments to have the same cross sections at the hose and at the collection opening (see Buser, Fig. 1, #16-18, showing the same cross-section at each opening). 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 openings within 20 percent of each other (which was interpreted as a range of 0 to 20 percent, and includes the same cross-sectional area at each end). Doing so maintains the pressure of the vacuum created by the vacuum.
The Examiner notes that only three options are available to one of ordinary skill in the art. The opening and connection areas are the same size, the opening is larger than the connection or the connection is larger than the opening. All are within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Having both openings the same size would provide the same vacuum pressure, having an larger opening at the saw blade area would lower the pressure but provide that pressure over a larger area, thus providing a larger area to capture the debris. Having the opening smaller would provide for a larger vacuum pressure but over a smaller area, possible capturing less debris but able to such out larger debris. In other words, the size of the hose opening changes the function of the tool and depending on the design, one of ordinary skill in the art would change the opening obtain the desired result.
In re Claim 12, Hansen does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection are within 20% of one another. However, Buser teaches that it is known in the art of saw attachments to have the same cross sections at the hose and at the collection opening (see Buser, Fig. 1, #16-18, showing the same diameter at each opening). 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 openings within 20 percent of each other (which was interpreted as a range of 0 to 20 percent, and includes the same cross-sectional area at each end). Doing so maintains the pressure of the vacuum created by the vacuum.
The Examiner notes that only three options are available to one of ordinary skill in the art. The opening and connection areas are the same size, the opening is larger than the connection or the connection is larger than the opening. All are within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Having both openings the same size would provide the same vacuum pressure, having an larger opening at the saw blade area would lower the pressure but provide that pressure over a larger area, thus providing a larger area to capture the debris. Having the opening smaller would provide for a larger vacuum pressure but over a smaller area, possible capturing less debris but able to such out larger debris. In other words, the size of the hose opening changes the function of the tool and depending on the design, one of ordinary skill in the art would change the opening obtain the desired result.
In re Claim 19, Hansen does not teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the opening and the cross-sectional area of the passageway at the connection are within 20% of one another. However, Buser teaches that it is known in the art of saw attachments to have the same cross sections at the hose and at the collection opening (see Buser, Fig. 1, #16-18, showing the same diameter at each opening). 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 openings within 20 percent of each other (which was interpreted as a range of 0 to 20 percent, and includes the same cross-sectional area at each end). Doing so maintains the pressure of the vacuum created by the vacuum.
The Examiner notes that only three options are available to one of ordinary skill in the art. The opening and connection areas are the same size, the opening is larger than the connection or the connection is larger than the opening. All are within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Having both openings the same size would provide the same vacuum pressure, having an larger opening at the saw blade area would lower the pressure but provide that pressure over a larger area, thus providing a larger area to capture the debris. Having the opening smaller would provide for a larger vacuum pressure but over a smaller area, possible capturing less debris but able to such out larger debris. In other words, the size of the hose opening changes the function of the tool and depending on the design, one of ordinary skill in the art would change the opening obtain the desired result.
Conclusion
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, 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724