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 .
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.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 5,207,007 to Cucinotta et al. in view of US Patent No. 5,402,581 to Hurd et al.
In re claim 1, Cucinotta teaches a gauge comprising:
a miter bar (4) comprising:
a first portion (as shown in at least Figure1) that has a fixed first width (as shown in at least Figure 1), the first portion being a first end of the miter bar such that the first end has the fixed first width; and
a second portion (as shown in at least Figure 1) having a width adjustment system (5,6) configured to adjust a second width of the second portion, the second portion including a first prong (as shown in at least Figure 1) and a second prong (as shown in at least Figure 1) separated longitudinally from one another by a longitudinal slot (5),
wherein the first portion includes a miter bar body from which the first and second prongs project longitudinally (see Annotated Figure 1, below), and
wherein the first and second prongs extend from a second end of the miter bar that is opposite the first end, and the first and second prongs terminate at a distance from the first end of the miter bar.
Note, it has been interpreted, the first end is fixed when a force is not being applied to the prongs.
PNG
media_image1.png
365
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 6, wherein the first prong (as shown in at least Figure 3) defines a first outer surface of the miter bar (4), and the second prong (as shown in at least Figure 4) defines a second opposite outer surface of the miter bar, said first and second outer surfaces configured to engage corresponding side surfaces of a T-shaped slot of a table saw (as shown in at least Figure 7, Col. 2, lines 43-57).
Note, the preamble is directed to a miter gauge, not the table saw; therefore, the first and second outer surfaces of the first and second prongs merely have to be capable or engaging a T-shaped slot of a table saw.
In re claim 7, wherein the longitudinal slot (5) extends substantially along a longitudinal center of the miter bar.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Cucinotta teaches a tool disposed on a miter bar, but does not explicitly teach the tool having a miter housing and a first portion of the miter bar attached to the housing at a first end of the miter bar (Claim 1) and the miter bar defining a pivot hole separating the first portion from the second portion, the miter housing being selectively pivotable about the pivot hole (Claim 8).
Hurd teaches in the art of miter gauges, a miter bar gauge (Fig. 3) having a miter bar (1) and a miter housing (8) attached to a first portion at a first end of the miter bar and wherein the miter bar defines a pivot hole (as shown in at least Figure 3) separating the first portion from the second portion, the miter housing (8) being selectively pivotable about the pivot hole.
Note, as shown in at least Figure 3, the miter housing has a slotted hole, a pointer, and indicia, providing sufficient support that the miter housing pivots.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building from the ground up) to fabricate the tool of Cucinotta as a miter gauge having a pivoting miter housing as taught by Hurd which is advantageous for permitting high-precision angle settings and repeatable angular cuts.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Cucinotta, which teaches using an adjustable width miter bar and recognized the miter bar of Cucinotta could have been combined with a pivoting miter housing of Hurd to provide a miter gauge which is advantageous for permitting high-precision angle settings and repeatable angular cuts.
In re claim 9, modified Cucinotta teaches wherein the second end portion includes the second end (as shown in at least Figure 1, Cucinotta).
In re claim 10, modified Cucinotta teaches wherein the longitudinal slot (5,Cucinotta) is defined in the miter bar extending from the pivot hole to the second end (Fig. 1, Hurd).
In re claim 2, wherein the width adjustment system (12) includes a width adjusting arrangement (as shown in at least Figure 3) spaced along a longitudinal direction of the second portion of the miter bar (as shown in at least Figure 3), the width adjusting arrangement (12) configured to locally adjust a width of the second portion.
Regarding claims 2, Cucinotta teaches a width adjustment system, but does not teach a plurality of width adjusting arrangements spaced apart along a longitudinal direction in which each of the plurality of adjusting arrangements is configured to locally adjust a width of the second portion.
Hurd teaches a miter bar having a plurality of width adjusting arrangements (5) spaced apart along a longitudinal direction in which each of the plurality of adjusting arrangements is configured to locally adjust a width of the second portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to size the miter bar of Cucinotta to have a desired length and extend the slot to accommodate a plurality of width adjustment arrangements as taught by Hurd in order to maintain proper adjustment of the bar in various width slots. Providing Cucinotta with a plurality of width adjusting arrangements is merely a duplication of working essential parts.
In re claim 3, modified Cucinotta teaches wherein each of the width adjusting arrangements (5, Cucinotta) includes a first adjusting member (8, Cucinotta) configured to exert a first force urging the first and second prongs away from one another, and a second adjusting member (5, Cucinotta) configured to exert a second force urging the first and second prongs toward one another, the first and second forces acting together to locally adjust the width of the second portion (Col. 2, lines 43-57, Cucinotta).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13-20 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 5 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.
Frolov teaches a miter gauge which in which the width is adjusted via a spring and fastener arrangement. The spring permits the miter bar to expand to a desired width when placed along a T-shape slot of a saw table and the fastener. Once the miter gauge is in a desired position the fasteners are rotated to positionally lock the adjusted portion of the miter bar relative to the main body (of the miter bar).
Hurd teaches a similar concept to that of Frolov. The miter gauge of Frolov has a plurality of width adjustment members along the length of the miter bar. A spring exerts an expanding pressure on the bar to position the bar in a desired location with respect to the slot of the table saw. A screw is then tightened to retain the miter bar in the desired position.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the first adjustment member being a set screw to exert a force on the first prong to urge the prongs away and the second adjustment member being a screw having a screw head to exert a force on the interior shoulder urging the second prong toward the first prong, in combination with the other claimed elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Cucinotta does not teach a miter bar having a first end that has a fixed first width. Applicant argues modifying Cucinotta with the miter housing of Hurd would place the miter housing at a portion of the bar carrying a slot (5) and a hole (8), which is width adjustable rather than of fixed width. Applicant argues attaching it instead at the fixed-width middle region identified in the Annotated Figure 1 would not place the first portion at a first end of the miter bar. Applicant argues the combination of the prior art would not have arrived at the claimed invention.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Cucinotta and Hurd, both teach adjustable width miter bars. The construction of the devices are different; however, the concept and functionality are the same (which is providing a bar to adjust to various size miter slots). Hurd further teaches an adjustable miter bar can have a pivoting miter housing to slide back and forth during use to cut various angles of the workpieces. Based on the teachings of Cucinotta and Hurd, one would have been prompted to build, from the ground up, an adjustable width miter bar having one end with an adjustable width and an opposite end with a pivoting miter housing. The person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. Factors that may be considered in determining the level of ordinary skill in the art may include: (1) "type of problems encountered in the art;" (2) "prior art solutions to those problems;" (3) "rapidity with which innovations are made;" (4) "sophistication of the technology; and" (5) "educational level of active workers in the field." In re GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "In a given case, every factor may not be present, and one or more factors may predominate." Id. See also Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indust., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 962, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696, 218 USPQ 865, 868 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Further, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141, Section II, Part C. In this particular instance, the problem to be solved was to provide a miter bar that could adjust to various width miter slots. One having ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of Hurd and Cucinotta to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applicant argues the proposed modification would work against the proposed use of Cucinotta and the motivation to provide high-precision angle settings and repeatable cuts are are already available in Cucinotta so one would not have looked to Hurd to make a modification.
The rejection is not making a modification, but rather relying on the teachings of Cucinotta in view of Hurd to build a device from the ground up. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141, Section II, Part C. In this instance, one would have relied on the references to fit together like a puzzle. Cucinotta teaches using a dial to produce repeatable cuts and Hurd teaches using a pivoting housing to produce repeatable angles, which is an obvious design choice, in order to achieve repeatable cuts. The proposed combination would not lead to Cucinotta being inoperable, since Cucinotta and Hurd, both teach adjustable width miter bars. The construction of the devices are different; however, the concept and functionality are the same (which is providing a bar to adjust to various size miter slots). After further consideration, the Office Action has been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
