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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 25 November 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-16 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5 August 2025, except for any objection(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The drawings fail to show “all operating positions” of the saw assembly as recited in claim 16. For example, although claim 16 expressly requiring pivoting of the slide and saw head relative to the base part, no different pivotal positions are illustrated (however, structure that allows for pivoting as explained at page 9, lines 3-5 of the specification is illustrated). Claim 16 requires that the saw head does not overlap the battery in a plan view “in all operating positions”. Because not all operating positions are illustrated, the feature of the saw head not overlapping the batteries “in all operating positions” as required by claim 16 is not illustrated. Therefore, the saw head not overlapping the batteries in all operating positions as required by claim 16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification should be amended to include an antecedent basis for “a vertical center line” of the coupling plane” as recited in claims 1 and 16, as well as for “a button” as recited in claims 13 and 14.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 includes multiple recitations to features already introduced in claim 1, including “a receiving channel”, “a corresponding battery” (although ‘corresponding’ is not recited in claim 1 and should therefore not be included in the name of the battery in claim 3), and “an extension direction”. Each feature recited in claim 3 that is already introduced in claim 1 should be referred to with either of the articles “the” and “said”. (Note that in view of the present specification, it is clear that claim 3 is not introducing additional receiving channels or additional extension directions.)
Claim 3 recites, “each receiving channel” multiple times. Each such recitation should be amended to refer to “the” or “said” receiving channels, such as by reciting – each of the receiving channels –.
Each recitation of “each extension direction” in another claim depending from claim 1 should likewise be amended. See, as one non-exhaustive example, claim 8 at lines 2-3.
Claim 3 at line 6 recites, “a coupling direction”. In view of the present specification, it is clear that each receiving channel has its own coupling direction, rather than a single coupling direction being shared by the receiving channels. Thus, the recitation of “a coupling direction” should reflect that there are plural coupling directions, rather than a single coupling direction.
Claim 3 at line 8 recites, “the closed end”. However, there are multiple closed ends previously introduced, since each receiving channel is required to have a respective closed end. Claim 3 at line 8 should clarify the particular closed end being referred to.
Claim 3 at line 9 recites, “a decoupling direction”. In view of the present specification, it is clear that each receiving channel has its own decoupling direction, rather than a single decoupling direction being shared by the receiving channels. Thus, the recitation of “a decoupling direction” should reflect that there are plural decoupling directions, rather than a single decoupling direction.
Claim 3 at the final paragraph recites, “the extension direction” and “the open end”. Once again, there are multiple extension directions and multiple open ends in the claim, so the claim should be amended to refer to a particular one of the extension directions and a particular one of the open ends.
The examiner suggests amended claim 1 to introduce, “a first interface having a first receiving channel, the first receiving channel extending in a first extension direction; a second interface having a second receiving channel, the second receiving channel extending in a second extension direction”. The examiner further suggests amending claim 3 to recite, “the first receiving channel has a first open end and a first closed end, and that the second receiving channel has a second open end and a second closed end”. These amendments would allow claim 3 to more clearly refer to a particular one of the receiving channels, a particular one of the extension directions, etc. For example, these amendments would allow claim 3 to recite, “the first receiving channel defines a first coupling direction extending in the first extension direction, and second receiving channel defines a second coupling direction extending in the second extension direction”.
Claim 8 at lines 5-6 recites, “the corresponding interface”. The term “corresponding” is not used in the name of the interfaces when introduces, and therefore should not be added to the name of the interfaces in claim 8. The examiner suggests the option above, where each interface is provided with a unique name, such that the interfaces can be referred to as “the first interface” and “the second interface”. Alternatively, the examiner suggesting reciting “a corresponding one of the interfaces” to avoid adding the new term “corresponding” into the name of the interfaces.
Claim 12 recites, “at least two batteries”. These batteries include the at least one battery already required by claim 11, as understood in view of the present specification. Claim 12 should make clear that the claim is not requiring two additional batteries. The examiner suggests amending claim 11 to require that the sawing device includes a first battery, and amending claim 12 to require that the sawing device further includes a second battery.
Claim 13 at lines 3 recites, “the corresponding interface”. The term “corresponding” is not used in the name of the interfaces when introduces, and therefore should not be added to the name of the interfaces in claim 13. See the examiner’s suggestions provided above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 14 recites, “each button”. This recitation should be amended to refer to “the” or “said” buttons, such as by reciting that “each of the buttons”. Similarly, “the other button” should be amended to read – the other of the buttons – (or, alternatively, to introduce a first battery having a first button and a second battery having a second button, such that claim 14 can be amended to recite that the first button is spaced apart from the second button by at least 12 mm).
Claim 15 at line 3 recites, “the vertical direction”. This recitation should read – a vertical direction – since no vertical direction is previously introduced.
Claim 16 at lines 4-5 recites, “and guide channel”. This recitation should read – and the guide channel –.
Claim 16 at line 11 recites, “each interface”. This recitation should refer to “the” or “said” interfaces, such as by reciting – each of the interfaces –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16 at the final paragraph recites, “wherein, in all operating positions, the saw head lies adjacent to but does not overlap the batteries in a plan view of the assembly”. This feature 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. First, this feature was not recited in the claims as originally filed. Second, this feature is not illustrated in the present drawings, since “all operating positions” are not illustrated in the present drawings. Without all operating positions being illustrated, the drawings cannot be relied upon to determine that the overlap never occurs. Note that the present specification discloses pivoting action of the slide and saw head, which pivoting action provides the potential for overlap to occur since the pivoting action is about an axis extending in a horizontal plane as disclosed. Finally, the present specification at page 11, lines 21-23 explains, “In relation to the saw head 26, the interfaces 32a, 32b are arranged such that, in one operating position of the sawing device 12 in a plan view in the vertical direction, the saw head 26 lies without overlap adjacent to the interfaces 32a, 32b.” (Emphasis added.) This passage only requires no overlap for “one operating position”, not all operating positions. Page 7 at lines 27-30 includes the same defect, due to only describing “one operating position”. Further still, regarding the slide and saw head together pivoting as required by claim 16, the present specification at lines 3-5 of page 9 explains that the saw head rotates about the guide rod due to the guide channel in the slide and the guide rod each having a circular profile. The present application discloses no limitation on the degree of rotation of the slide and saw head relative to the guide rod. However, as is apparent from Fig. 2 of the present drawings, upon rotation of the slide and saw head relative to the guide rod to some degree, such as when performing a miter cut, the batteries attached to the slide and the saw head will overlap in a plan view. The performance of a miter cut is “an operating position”, and thus appears encompassed by “all operating positions”. Thus, because the present application discloses rotation of the saw head and the slide about the guide rod when performing a miter cut, and because in view of Fig. 2 of the present drawings the batteries do overlap with the saw head in a plan view upon rotation of the slide and saw head to some degree, and also because there is no express limitation on the amount of rotation of the slide and saw head relative to the guide rod, the present application does not demonstrate possession of the combination of features required by claim 16.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-8, and 10-16 is/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.
Claim 1 at the penultimate paragraph recites, “a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane”. The term “substantially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a clear standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear whether “substantially parallel” encompasses the common coupling plane being angled at an angle of greater than 10 degrees with respect to the saw blade plane. Page 6 at the paragraph at lines 20-27 states:
In one embodiment, the coupling plane is inclined by 10° or less with respect to the saw blade plane. This applies if the saw blade plane is oriented perpendicularly to the support surface. In other words, in one operating position of the sawing device, the coupling plane is inclined by 10° or less with respect to a vertical plane. In one example, in the operating position of the sawing device, the coupling plane is vertical or in parallel with the saw blade plane. In another example, the coupling plane is inclined slightly, i.e. by a maximum of 10 degrees, about a horizontal axis with respect to the saw blade plane and/or with respect to the vertical plane.
Therefore, good accessibility to the coupling plane is ensured.
This passage does not explicitly define “substantially parallel” as being at an angle of less than 10 degrees with respect to the saw blade plane. However, since this is the most detailed passage discussing the angled between the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane, it can be argued that this passage implicitly provides a standard for determining the scope of “substantially parallel”. Still, claim 10 should be interpreted as narrowing claim 1, since each dependent claim is required to narrow the claim upon which it depends. (A non-narrowing dependent claim would be rejected under 35 USC 112(d).)
Claim 10 recites that the common coupling plane extends “substantially parallel” to the saw blade plane, and explicitly permits an inclination angle of “10° or less”. Thus, assuming that claim 10 further narrows claim 1, claim 1 must encompass angles between the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane of greater than 10 degrees. As such, claim 1 is indefinite. Does the passage quoted above provide a standard for determining what angles are encompassed by “substantially parallel”? If so, should claim 10 be interpreted as failing to further narrow claim 1? Alternatively, if the passage above does not provide a standard for determining what angles are encompassed by “substantially parallel”, then there is no standard provided. Instead, claim 1 would encompass angles beyond the most detailed discussion of permissible angles in the present specification. Thus, the phrase “substantially parallel” is indefinite in view of the present specification and in view of claim 10.
Claim 5 at line 4 recites, “the closed ends”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim, rendering claim 5 indefinite. For example, claim 5 depends from claim 1, although claim 3 introduces, “a closed end” of each receiving channel. Does claim 5 include a dependency error, where the Applicant intends claim 5 to depend from claim 3, which introduces closed ends? Or, does claim 5 intend to introduce new closed ends despite the use of “the” to refer to the closed ends?
Claim 13 at line 3 recites, “the coupling”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this recitation in the claim, rendering claim 13 indefinite. For example, although claim 12 recites that the batteries are “coupled”, no ‘coupling’ is previously introduced. It is unclear whether claim 13 encompasses there being multiple couplings between each of the batteries and a respective one of the interfaces. For example, consider a situation where a battery is coupled to an interface by a rail on the battery engaging a track on the interface, and also a button-biased detent on the battery engaging a receptacle on the interface. In this case, it is unclear which of these two couplings would be referred to by “the coupling” in claim 13. For example, must the button release all couplings between the battery and the interface? Or, does claim 13 implicitly limit there to being a single coupling between the battery and interface, such that there is an inherent antecedent basis for the coupling? In this interpretation, claim 13 would not encompass there being two couplings between the battery and interface. As such, the lack of antecedent basis for “the coupling” renders claim 13 indefinite.
Claim 15 recites, “the batteries”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims, rendering claim 15 indefinite. Claim 11, upon which claim 15 depends, introduces “at least one battery”. It is unclear whether claim 15 is satisfied by a single battery, as is the case with claim 11, or whether claim 15 requires more than one battery. Alternatively, it is unclear whether claim 15 includes a dependency error, where claim 15 is intended to depend from claim 12 rather than claim 11, noting that claim 12 does introduce “at least two batteries”.
Claim 16 at line 13 recites, “a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane”. The term “substantially” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. The phrase “substantially parallel” is interpreted the same in claim 16 as in claim 1, and is therefore indefinite for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10-13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-205183934-U to Chen et al. in view of in view of WO-2014119132-A1 to Kani et al.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a sawing device 100’ (see Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a base part 10’ and 20’ for supporting the sawing device on a base surface (see Figs. 4-6; the base part 10’ and 20’ is ‘for supporting the sawing device on a base surface’ due at least to the base part 10’ and 20’ defining a lower-most portion of the sawing device 100’),
a slide 50’ which is mounted on the base part 10’ and 20’ (see Figs. 4-6; ‘mounted on’ encompasses an indirect mounting via intermediary parts, consistent with the present application, such that ‘mounted on’ does not require direct contact between the slide and the base part) so as to be displaceable in a translational manner via a linear guide 61’ (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen),
wherein the linear guide 61’ is arranged above the base part 10’ and 20’ (see Figs. 4-6), and
a saw head which is mounted on the slide 50’ (in a first interpretation, element 30’ comprises the saw head – see the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen disclosing the ‘mounting on the slide feature; in a second interpretation, the saw head is limited to a portion of element 30’ as indicated in the annotated Fig. 5 below, and in the second interpretation the saw head is the portion in which drive motor 32’ is mounted, such that the various handles are attached to, but not members of, the saw head, and also an arm extends from the saw head to the axis M to permit pivoting action, and the arm is attached to, but not a member of, the saw head),
wherein the slide 50’ together with the saw head is pivotably mounted relative to the base part 10’ and 20’ (see pivoting of bracket 40’ about axis L in Fig. 4 per the paragraph beginning ‘Similarly, the cutting tool 100’ can be a miter saw’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen; this feature is satisfied for both options of the ‘saw head’ set forth above),
wherein a drive unit 32’ for rotationally driving a saw blade 31’ in a saw blade plane is arranged on the saw head (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘the same with the embodiment of FIG. 1 to Fig. 3’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen; this feature is satisfied for both options of the ‘saw head’ set forth above), and
wherein an interface 71’ for selectively coupling a battery 200’ is arranged on the slide 50’ (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen) and is electrically connected to the drive unit 32’ (see the paragraph beginning ‘the same with the embodiment of FIG. 1 to Fig. 3’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen, where the battery providing energy to the cutting tool includes the battery being electrically connected to the drive unit, since the battery powering the drive unit requires an electrical connection; furthermore, see the modification of Chen below).
PNG
media_image1.png
569
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses that in an operating position of the sawing device (see Fig. 5, as one option for ‘an operating position’) and when viewed in an extension direction of a receiving channel of the interface 71’ toward a closed end (see Fig. 6, where the receiving channel receives the rightward protruding portion of the battery 200’, such that the ‘extension direction’ extends from left-to-right relative to Fig. 6; the interface 71’ has a closed end in view of the receiving channel not passing entirely through the interface 71’ to a right side of the interface 71’ relative to Fig. 6), the saw head lies without overlap adjacent to the interface 71’ irrespective of a relative position of the saw head with respect to the slide 50’ (see Figs. 4-6, where this feature is satisfied for the second interpretation of ‘saw head’ in claim 1 above, where the saw head is a subset of the entire element 30’; in the annotated Fig. provided above, it is apparent that the saw head does not overlap the interface along the extension direction, where the extension direction is visible in Fig. 6; furthermore, this feature is further satisfied upon replacement of the interface of Chen in view of the teachings of Kani with respect to claim 8 below).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses at least one battery 200’ that is coupled to the sawing device 100’ via the interface 71’ (see Figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses that in an operating position of the sawing device in a plan view in the vertical direction (i.e., viewing the sawing device from above relative to Fig. 5; claim 15 is only required to be satisfied for some individual operating position in view of the recitation “an operating position”), the saw head lies without overlap adjacent the batteries (see battery 200’; note that claim 11 only requires at least one battery, so claim 15 as best understood also requires only a single battery satisfy the ‘without overlap’ requirement; this feature is satisfied for both interpretations of the saw head set forth in claim 1) irrespective of a position of the saw head 200’ with respect to the slide 50’ (see Fig. 5, showing an operating position where having a position of the saw head 200’ with respect to the slide 50’ that satisfies the requirements of claim 15; note that claim 15 is only required to be satisfied for ‘an operating position’, and an operating position of the sawing device includes the position shown in Fig. 5). As a claim interpretation note, claim 15 is only required to be satisfied for “an operating position”, so the limitation “irrespective of a relative position of the saw head with respect to the slide” is not interpreted as requiring that the ‘without overlap’ feature has to be satisfied for all conceivable positions of the saw head with respect to the slide, since such an interpretation is contrary to the “an operating position” recitation.
Chen further discloses that by providing the battery on the slide, the battery will not rotate with the cutting head so as to reduce the weight of the cutting head, thus reducing vibrations of the cutting tool and improving stability (see page 3 of the English language translation of Chen at the paragraph beginning ‘the battery pack is set on the bracket assembly’, which is the third to last paragraph on page 3).
However, Chen only discloses a single interface for coupling a single battery on the slide. As such, Chen fails to disclose: at least two interfaces for coupling respective batteries are arranged on the slide, wherein the at least two interfaces are arranged on a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane, and wherein receiving channels of the at least two interfaces have extension directions that run away from one another relative to a vertical center line of the coupling plane as required by claim 1. Chen also fails to disclose: that each of the interfaces includes a receiving channel for receiving a coupling piece of a corresponding battery, wherein each receiving channel has an open end and a closed end, wherein a coupling direction of each receiving channel extends in an extension direction toward the closed end, and wherein a decoupling direction of each receiving channel extends in the extension direction toward the open end, as required by claim 3; that the saw head lies without overlap adjacent to each of the interfaces when viewed in the extension directions of the receiving channels as required by claim 8 (i.e., since Chen only discloses a single interface, Chen only satisfies this feature for a single interface); that the common coupling plane extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane with an inclination angle between the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane of 10 degrees or less as required by claim 10; that there are plural interfaces as required by claim 11; that the sawing device comprises at least two batteries that are each coupled to a respective one of the interfaces of the sawing device as required by claim 12; and that each of the batteries includes a button on an upper interior side thereof configured to release the coupling of the battery from the corresponding interface, and wherein the button of one of the batteries faces the button of the other battery as required by claim 13.
Kani, at the embodiment of Figs. 7-8, teaches providing a sawing device C2 with two interfaces 32 for coupling respective batteries 31 (see Figs. 7-8), wherein the two interfaces 32 are arranged on a common coupling plane (the coupling plane extends in the directions indicated by the two arrows adjacent the batteries 31 in Fig. 8) that extends substantially perpendicular to a saw blade plane (i.e., a plane of blade 12) of the sawing device C2 (compare Figs. 7 and 8 – the common coupling plane extends and the saw blade plane are both parallel to the plane of the page relative to Fig. 8), and wherein receiving channels of the interfaces 32 (the receiving channels being the portions of the interfaces into which the batteries 31 are slid; the batteries 31 of Figs. 7-8 have the same configuration as illustrated in Fig. 4, and the rails receiving portions 31a engage receiving channels of the interfaces 32) have extension directions that run away from one another relative to a vertical center line of the coupling plane (see Fig. 8 – the extension directions run in the directions of the indicated arrows adjacent the batteries 31, and the arrows run away from one another). The interfaces are electrically connected to a drive unit of the sawing device C2 (see page 4 of the English language translation of Kani at the paragraph beginning, “When the two 18V batteries …”). [Claim 1]
Kani also teaches that each of the interfaces 32 includes a receiving channel for receiving a coupling piece 31 of a corresponding battery 31 (see the channels into which the batteries 31 are received in Fig. 3, where a coupling piece 31 of each battery 31 is illustrated in Fig. 4), wherein each receiving channel has an open end and a closed end (see Fig. 8, where each ‘open end’ is the end first contacted by the respective battery 31 when the respective battery 31 is installed in the direction of the respective arrow, and where the closed end is an opposing end of the channel from the open end), wherein a coupling direction of each receiving channel extends in an extension direction toward the closed end (see Fig. 8, where the coupling directions are indicated by the two arrows), and wherein a decoupling direction of each receiving channel extends in the extension direction toward the open end (see Fig. 8, where the decoupling directions oppose the arrows) [claim 3]. Kani teaches that in an operating position of the sawing device (e.g., if the sawing assembly is moved so that the blade in Fig. 8 contacts the workpiece W), and when viewing in an extension direction of the receiving channels of the interfaces 32 toward the respective closed ends (i.e., when viewed along each of the arrows in Fig. 8, which arrows correspond to the extension directions toward the closed ends), the saw head lies without overlap adjacent to the corresponding interface 32 (see the annotated Fig. 8 below, noting that this interpretation of saw head is consistent with the second interpretation of a saw head as set forth in the discussion of claim 1 with respect to Chen’s teachings above). [Claim 8] Kani teaches that the common coupling plane extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane with an inclination angle between the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane of 10 degrees or less (compare Figs. 7 and 8 – both the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane are along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 8). [Claim 10] Kani teaches that there are plural interfaces 32 (in particular, two interfaces; see Figs. 7 and 8). [Claim 11]Kani teaches that the sawing device C2 comprises at least two batteries 31 that are each coupled to a respective one of the interfaces 32 of the sawing device C2 (see Figs. 7 and 8). [Claim 12] Kani teaches that each of the batteries 31 includes a button 31f on an upper interior side thereof (see Figs. 4-6) configured to release the coupling of the battery 31 from the corresponding interface (see the English translation of Kani at the final paragraph of page 3 of extending into page 4 ), and wherein the button 31f of one of the batteries 31 faces the button 31f of the other battery 31 (see Kani at Fig. 8; each button 31f is positioned on a side of the respective battery 31 facing the lead line for the reference character 40 as is evident from comparing Figs. 4 and 8, such that the buttons 31f on the batteries 31 in Fig. 8 face each other). [Claim 13]
PNG
media_image2.png
741
949
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kani teaches that common power tools such as screw tighteners and cutting tools have been made cordless via battery power, and these types of tools typically have an 18V battery when the tools are constructed as hand tools (see the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani). However, Kani teaches that larger, higher output tools require higher output, typically 36V output (see the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani). Kani teaches that providing a sawing device with two battery interfaces is advantageous because two interfaces allow for the use of two 18V batteries, which are common to hand-held power tools, to achieve a 36V power source, which allows for powering a larger, higher output power tool such as a miter saw (see the Abstract and the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani).
Therefore, noting that Chen desires mounting the battery on the slide as explained above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the slide of Chen with two interfaces having the structure taught by Kani for coupling respective batteries, wherein the at least two interfaces are arranged on a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane, and wherein receiving channels of the at least two interfaces have extension directions that run away from one another relative to a vertical center line of the coupling plane, and wherein the two interfaces are electrically connected to the drive unit, in view of the teachings of Kani. This modification is advantageous because it allows for the use of two common 18V batteries to power a larger output device such as the miter saw of Chen, such that users that already own multiple 18V batteries need not invest in additional 36V batteries to power the battery powered miter saw of Chen. Thus, the versatility of the batteries is enhanced because the same 18V batteries used individually to power hand-held tools can also be used in pairs to power the higher output miter saw of Chen. Moreover, providing both battery interfaces as taught by Kani on the slide of Chen is obvious in view of Chen mounting a battery to the slide so that the battery need not rotate with the cutting head – when providing a second battery, the same advantage is applicable such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the combined teachings of Chen and Kani to provide the slide of Chen with both interfaces. This modification includes providing the two interfaces of Kani in place of (rather than in addition to) the existing interface of Chen.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as modified by Kani as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0203462 A1 to Haneda et al., as evidenced by JP 2017105206 A1 to Haneda et al. (hereinafter JP 206 to avoid confusion with the other reference to Haneda).
Regarding claim 5, Chen, as modified, discloses that open ends of the receiving channels of the interfaces are oriented in a same direction (see the modification of Chen relying on the receiving channels of the interfaces 32 shown in Fig. 8 of Kani – the receiving channels of these interfaces have open ends that are both oriented right-ward relative to Fig. 8, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright; being oriented in a same direction does not require being parallel consistent with the present disclosure).
Regarding claim 7, Chen, as modified, discloses that the extension directions of the receiving channels of the interfaces form a V-shape (see the modification of Chen relying on the receiving channels of the interfaces 32 shown in Fig. 8 of Kani – the receiving channels of these interfaces have extension directions that form a V-shape as evidenced by the V shaped defined between the two arrows in Fig. 8 of Kani).
Chen, as modified, fails to disclose that a spacing between the open ends of the receiving channels is greater than a spacing between the closed ends of the receiving channels as required by claim 5; that the spacing between the open ends of the receiving channels of the interfaces is 30 mm to 70 mm as required by claim 6; that the V shape is with an angle of 10 degrees to 30 degrees as required by claim 7; and that each button is spaced apart from the other button by at least 12 mm as required by claim 14.
Haneda is in the field of endeavor of sawing devices (since Haneda discloses a type of sawing device), and Haneda is also pertinent to the problem of providing more than one battery to a sawing device. Regarding claimed features, Haneda teaches that open ends of the receiving channels (i.e., upper ends relative to Fig. 8) are oriented in a same direction (each open end is oriented upward, which is the same direction; consistent with the present specification the open ends need not be parallel), and a spacing between the open ends of the receiving channels is larger than a spacing between closed ends of the receiving channels (see Fig. 8 and paragraph 50 – the two batteries 31 being angled toward one another near their bottom ends indicates that open ends are further apart than the closed ends, since the interfaces determine the orientations of the batteries 31 ) [claim 5]. Further, it is known in the art to configure open ends of receiving channels to be spaced apart in order to allow a user to more easily grasp the storage devices (see JP 206 at the paragraphs under ‘Modification 3’ on page 6), and the configuration of Fig. 8 of Haneda spaces the upper, grasped ends of the storage devices further apart than the embodiment of Fig. 4 of Haneda. For example, in Fig. 8 of Haneda, there is additional space on the inside of each storage device 31 to facilitate grasping, compared to Fig. 4 of Haneda. Moreover, each of Kani and Haneda teaches that interfaces for receiving two batteries can be provided a variety of configurations (see Figs. 1, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of Kani showing five different arrangements of respective pairs of interfaces; see Figs. 4, 8, 14, 16, 17, and 18 of Haneda showing six different arrangements of respective pairs of interfaces). Thus, Kani and Haneda disclose that a pair of interfaces for a battery can be provided in a wide range of configurations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to re-arrange the interfaces of Chen, as modified, so that the interfaces are angled relative to one another in a manner similar to that illustrated in Fig. 8 of Haneda (this modification can include, as one option, re-orienting the upper interface 32 relative to Fig. 8 of Kani by rotating the interface counter-clockwise relative to Fig. 8 of Kani so that the insertion direction is closer to, but slightly angled relative to, the insertion direction of the lower interface 32 of Fig. 8 of Kani, in a similar manner that the insertion directions of the batteries 31 shown in Fig. 8 of Haneda are slightly angled relative to one another). This modification is obvious because it is a mere rearrangement of parts, and it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). Moreover, in this case Kani and Haneda provide evidence that a pair of interfaces can be provided in a wide range of relative positions and orientations, such that the particular positions and orientations of the interfaces is merely a design choice (as noted above, the two references disclose multiple, interchangeable interface positions – Kani and Haneda teach a host of examples of re-arranged interfaces for receiving batteries). Moreover, an advantage of re-arranging the interfaces of Chen, as modified, so that the two interfaces have closer-to-parallel insertion directions in the manner explained above is that both batteries can be inserted or removed at the same time. That is, considering Fig. 8 of Kani, the paths of the batteries intersect one another, such that if the upper battery 31 in Fig. 8 of Kani is being removed, the lower battery 31 cannot be accessed. However, as is evident from Fig. 8 of Haneda, there is no such interference between the two batteries 31, such that both can be inserted or removed simultaneously. As such, this modification is advantageous to avoid battery interference during insertion or removal, making the sawing device more user friendly.
Regarding the features of claim 6, 7, and 14, it is known in the art to be advantageous to space apart the grasped ends of two storage devices in order to facilitate grasping the storage devices (see JP 206 at the paragraphs under ‘Modification 3’ on page 6). Therefore, a spacing between open ends of two receiving channels constitutes a result effective variable, with JP 206 teaching setting the spacing to be “15 mm or more” (see JP 206 at the paragraphs under ‘Modification 3’ on page 6). The greater the spacing, the more room a user’s hand has to grasp one of the two batteries; however, the greater the spacing, the larger the ‘footprint’ of space occupied by the batteries. In view of this tradeoff, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the spaced interval between the open ends of the receiving channels to be 30 mm to 70 mm [claim 6], as such a spacing provides room for a user to grasp one of the storage devices while still avoiding too large of a footprint produced by the storage devices. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to provide a sufficiently large spacing to permit user grasping, while still keeping the storage devices somewhat close to keep the footprint of the storage devices small. Moreover, the angle of the extension directions of the receiving channels is merely a function of the spacing of the open ends – the greater the spacing between the open ends, the greater the angle. Therefore, selecting an angle of between 10 and 30 degrees [claim 7] is obvious for the same reasons set forth above. Finally, the spacing between the at least one actuating element of the storage device and the respective other storage device is merely a function of the spacing of the open ends – the greater the spacing between the open ends of the receiving channels, the greater the spacing between the at least one actuating element and the other storage device. Therefore, selecting the at least one actuating element to be spaced at an interval of at least 12 mm from the other storage device [claim 14] is obvious for the same reasons explained above – this spacing depends on the selected spacing of the open ends.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN-205183934-U to Chen et al. in view of in view of WO-2014119132-A1 to Kani et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0023962 A1 to Menze et al.
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses a saw assembly 100’ (see Figs. 4-6) comprising:
a base part 10’ and 20’;
a guide rod 61’ coupled to the base part 10’ and 20’ (see Figs. 4-6; ‘coupled to’ encompasses an indirect attachment);
a slide 50’ having a guide channel in which the guide rod 61’ is received (see Fig. 5, where the guide channel is an opening in slide 50’ in which rod 61’ is received; see also the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen), the guide rod 61’ and guide channel each having a circular cross-section (see Fig. 5) such that the slide 50’ is movable translationally along the guide rod 61’ (see the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen), wherein the guide rod 61’ is arranged above the base part 10’ and 20’;
a saw head 30’ mounted on the slide 50’ (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen), the saw head 30’ including a drive unit 32’ for rotationally driving a saw blade 31’ in a saw blade plane (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘the same with the embodiment of FIG. 1 to Fig. 3’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen), wherein the slide 50’ together with the saw head 30’ is pivotably mounted relative to the base part 10’ and 20’ (see pivoting of bracket 40’ about axis L in Fig. 4 per the paragraph beginning ‘Similarly, the cutting tool 100’ can be a miter saw’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen);
an interface 71’ arranged on the slide 50’ to a side of the saw head 30’ with respect to the saw blade plane (see Fig. 5; the interface 71’ is to the side of the saw head 30’ at the position of pivot axis M, measured along the direction of the pivot axis M, which is with respect to the saw blade plane);
wherein the saw head 30’ and the battery 200’ mounted on the slide 50’ move together as a unit relative to the base part 10’ and 20’ in translation along the guide rod 61’ (see Figs. 4-6 and the paragraph beginning ‘difference between this embodiment’ at page 5 of the English translation of Chen), and
wherein, in all operating positions (see the position of the saw head 30’ in Fig. 5; ‘operating positions’ are positions where the saw blade is positioned to be able to cut a workpiece on the base part 10’ and 20’, such that ‘operating positions’ are distinguished from non-operating positions because in non-operating positions, the saw head 30’ is pivoted upwards relative to its position in Fig. 5; there are multiple ‘operating positions’ of the saw head 30’ due to the saw head 30’ being slidable along the guide rod 61’), the saw head lies 30’ adjacent to but does not overlap the battery 200’ in a plan view of the assembly (see Fig. 5).
Chen only discloses a single interface on the slide. As a result, Chen fails to disclose two interfaces arranged on the slide, each interface having a receiving channel with an open end and a closed end, the receiving channels extending away from one another in a V-shape relative to a vertical center line of a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane, each interface including electrical contacts for connection to corresponding contacts of respective batteries; and a cable extending along the slide and electrically connecting the interfaces to the drive unit, where plural batteries are mounted on the slide, and that in the plan view the saw head lies adjacent to but does not overlap the batteries, as required by claim 16.
Kani, at the embodiment of Figs. 7-8, teaches providing a saw assembly C2 with two interfaces 32 for coupling respective batteries 31 (see Figs. 7-8), each interface 32 having a receiving channel with an open end and a closed end (the receiving channels being the portions of the interfaces 32 into which the batteries 31 are slid; the batteries 31 of Figs. 7-8 have the same configuration as illustrated in Fig. 4, and the rails receiving portions 31a engage receiving channels of the interfaces 32; the open ends of the channels are adjacent the arrows indication indicating the insertion directions of the batteries 31 in Fig. 8, whereas the closed ends are opposite the open ends), the receiving channels extending away from one another in a V-shape (see Fig. 8, where the V-shape is defined by the extension directions of the two arrows adjacent the interfaces 32) relative to a vertical center line of a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to a saw blade plane (see Figs. 7 and 8; in Fig. 8, the common coupling plane and the saw blade plane are both parallel to the plane of the page), each interface 32 including electrical contacts 32b and 32c for connection to corresponding contacts of respective batteries 31 (see page 4 of the English language translation of Kani at the paragraph beginning ‘As shown in Fig. 3, the battery mounting portions 32 and 32 …’, noting that Figs. 7 and 8 use the same reference character ‘32’ for the interface indicating that the interface 32 of Figs. 7 and 8 also has the contacts 32b and 32c shown in Fig. 3; indeed, the purpose of the interface 32 in Figs. 7 and 8 is to connect batteries 31 to provide power, which requires electrical contacts). [Claim 16] Kani teaches that common power tools such as screw tighteners and cutting tools have been made cordless via battery power, and these types of tools typically have an 18V battery when the tools are constructed as hand tools (see the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani). However, Kani teaches that larger, higher output tools require higher output, typically 36V output (see the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani). Kani teaches that providing a sawing device with two battery interfaces is advantageous because two interfaces allow for the use of two 18V batteries, which are common to hand-held power tools, to achieve a 36V power source, which allows for powering a larger, higher output power tool such as a miter saw (see the Abstract and the second paragraph at page 2 of the English language translation of Kani).
Therefore, noting that Chen desires mounting the battery on the slide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the slide of Chen with two interfaces having the structure taught by Kani for coupling respective batteries, where each interface has a receiving channel with an open end and a closed end, the receiving channels extending away from one another in a V-shape relative to a vertical center line of a common coupling plane that extends substantially parallel to the saw blade plane, and where each interface including electrical contacts for connection to corresponding contacts of respective batteries, in view of the teachings of Kani. This modification is advantageous because it allows for the use of two common 18V batteries to power a larger output device such as the miter saw of Chen, such that users that already own multiple 18V batteries need not invest in additional 36V batteries to power the battery powered miter saw of Chen. Thus, the versatility of the batteries is enhanced because the same 18V batteries used individually to power hand-held tools can also be used in pairs to power the higher output miter saw of Chen. Moreover, providing both battery interfaces as taught by Kani on the slide of Chen is obvious in view of Chen mounting a battery to the slide so that the battery need not rotate with the cutting head – when providing a second battery, the same advantage is applicable such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by the combined teachings of Chen and Kani to provide the slide of Chen with both interfaces. This modification includes providing the two interfaces of Kani in place of (rather than in addition to) the existing interface of Chen. Finally, since Chen teaches that its battery does not overlap the saw head in the plan view, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to retain this feature when providing two batteries. For example, Chen provides space atop and behind element 70’ to receive two battery interfaces upon modification in view of Kani, and these positions are advantages so as not to interfere with the pivoting action of the saw head 30’ of Chen about axis M. That is, the combined teaches of the references render the ‘not overlapping’ feature obvious.
Menze teaches a saw assembly 10 (see Fig. 1) including a cable extending between interfaces 20 and 22 for receiving batteries and a drive unit 14 (see paragraph 29). Menze teaches that the cable is advantageous for supply energy to the drive unit from batteries connected to the interfaces (see paragraph 29).
Therefore, in view of Chen being silent regarding how power is transmitted from its interface to the drive unit, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Chen with a cable extending from the interface to the drive unit in order to supply power from a battery connected to the interface to the drive unit. Chen, as modified, discloses that the cable extends along the slide, since a cable extending from the interface to the drive unit of Chen extends in a left-right direction along the plane of the page relative to Fig. 4 of Chen, which is a direction ‘along the slide’.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks filed 25 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 9,827,622 B2 to Kani et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1. Kani fails to disclose that the linear guide is arranged above the base part as now required by claim 1. Of claim 1 as being anticipated by Kani has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the references set forth above, which new ground(s) is/are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724