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 .
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.
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 6 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 6, it appears that “blade-driving motor” is a further limitation of “a second motor” in claim 5. The Applicant should re-word claim 6 to further limit the limitation of the second motor.
Regarding claim 20, the term “on which is mounted the turntable” is confusing.
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, 2, 5, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hart (2018/0029146).
Regarding claim 1, Romo teaches a pivotable log saw movable between an operating position and a maintenance position (shifting the blade from a current cutting position to a new position for cleaning up), the pivotable log saw comprising:
a frame 30;
a turntable 35 pivotably mounted to the frame around a first axis;
a motorized saw arm 265 mounted to the turntable movable between an idle position and a cutting position;
a motorized saw blade 185 mounted to the saw arm; and
a releasable locking mechanism (at front left end of element 35) that, when locked, locks the turntable in the operating position, and, when unlocked, allows rotation of the turntable over at least 30 degree around the first axis to adopt the maintenance position.
See Fig. 1.
Regarding the terms “motorized saw arm” and “motorized saw blade”, a motor for the blade is mounted on the saw arm. Therefore, the saw arm is considered a motorized saw arm.
Regarding claim 2, Hart teaches the saw arm pivotally mounted to the turn table in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, a second motor 195 is best seen in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 6, a pivot 180 is best seen in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 20, a shaft driving motor of the blade indirectly mounted on the turntable via the saw arm is best seen in Fig. 1.
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romo (2003/0200852).
Regarding claim 1, Romo teaches a pivotable log saw movable between an operating position and a maintenance position (shifting the blade from a current cutting position to a new position for cleaning up), the pivotable log saw comprising:
a frame 200;
a turntable 30 pivotably mounted to the frame around a first axis;
a motorized saw arm mounted to the turntable movable between an idle position and a cutting position (not shown but is known in the miter/bevel saw art or see Hart above);
a motorized saw blade mounted to the saw arm(not shown but is known in the miter/bevel saw art or see Hart above); and
a releasable locking mechanism (115, 150, 95) that, when locked, locks the turntable in the operating position, and, when unlocked, allows rotation of the turntable over at least 30 degree around the first axis to adopt the maintenance position.
See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, a first opening 120 in the turntable 30, a second opening 95, and a key 115 are best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, a lever 20 is best seen in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 13, a wedge-locking mechanism 115 is best seen in Fig. 1.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harden (5,365,812).
Regarding claim 1, Harden teaches a pivotable log saw movable between an operating position and a maintenance position (shifting the blade from a current cutting position to a new position for cleaning up), the pivotable log saw comprising:
a frame 54;
a turntable (horizontal element adjacent to the gear 50) pivotably mounted to the frame around a first axis;
a motorized saw arm 38 mounted to the turntable (via element 46) movable between an idle position and a cutting position (not shown but is known in the miter/bevel saw art or see Hart above);
a motorized saw blade 40 mounted to the saw arm; and
a releasable locking mechanism 56 (the motor 56 can stop the rotation of the saw mounting structure 36 at any position) that, when locked, locks the turntable in the operating position, and, when unlocked, allows rotation of the turntable over at least 30 degree around the first axis to adopt the maintenance position.
See Figs. 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 20, a shaft driving motor 56 is best seen in Fig. 1.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harden (5,365,812) in view of Boseman et al. (2015/0000493), hereinafter Boseman.
Harden teaches a pneumatically articulated arm 84 . However, Boseman does not teach the articulated arm run by a first motor.
Boseman teaches an articular arm 522 run by a motor 516.
To use a pneumatical cylinder or a motor to actuate an articulated arm is art equivalent known in the art
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a motor to actuate the articulated arm in Harden since it has been held that substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious to one skilled in the art. See MPEP. 2144.06.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo (2003/0200852) in view of Tate (5,442,984).
Regarding claim 7, Romo teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the log saw having a roller assembly coupled to the frame.
Tate teaches a roller assembly 40 for moving a saw assembly along a workpiece support for cutting a workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to mount the saw assembly in Romo on the roller assembly in Tate for moving a saw assembly along a workpiece support for cutting a workpiece.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romo (2003/0200852) in view of Tate (5,442,984) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Gorder (6,170,478).
The modified saw assembly of Romo teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for a gear-racked beam and a gear-driving motor.
Gorder teaches a roller assembly for a saw assembly comprising a gear-racked beam 19 and a gear-driving motor 20 for driving the saw assembly. See Fig. 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the roller assembly in the modified saw assembly of Romo a gear-racked beam and a gear-driving motor as taught by Gorder for helping an operator using less manual force for advancing the modified saw assembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Claim 12 is allowable for setting forth a third opening aligning with the first opening and the second opening.
Claim 14 is allowable for setting forth the wedge-locking mechanism mounted on a shaft of a turntable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Saw assemblies of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724