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 § 112
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 9 and 13 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 9 requires “the workpiece has…” which is indefinite in the context of a device being claimed. The device does not “have” a workpiece—it is capable of being used on a workpiece, the statement “the workpiece has” is unclear in what structure of the device being claimed is being modified, and how is the device claim scope constrained?
Claim 13 requires that the elongate body “presses down across the top surface of the workpiece and secures the workpiece against the upper surface of the base from a first edge of the workpiece to a second edge of the workpiece” which are positive method steps. See MPEP 2173.05(p) II, in part: “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”). Here, it cannot be ascertained whether the preamble is wrong, or if the positive recitation of the step is wrong, and the inclusion of both method steps and device in a single claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burge (US 4,487,403).
Regarding claim 1, Burge discloses A clamp for securing a workpiece against an upper surface of a base for a saw to cut the workpiece while travelling in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the clamp (see figure 1 and 2), the clamp comprising: an elongate body (12) having a top surface, a bottom surface, a first end and a second end (as seen in figures 1 and 2), the elongate body being positioned above the workpiece (e.g. 19 figure 2) and below a motor of the saw (24 figure 2 or figure 1); a first connector configured to secure the first end of the elongate body to the base at a first side of the base (30, 13, 17 on the left, figure 2) ; and a second connector configured to secure the second end of the elongate body to the base at a second side of the base (30, 13, 18 on the right, figure 2); wherein the first connector and the second connector provide for the clamp to move between a raised position where the elongate body is coupled to the base and disengaged from a top surface of the workpiece (as by motion of the screw 13/14 discussed at col. 2 lines 35-50) and a lowered position where the elongate body is coupled to the base and presses down on the top surface of the workpiece and secures the workpiece against the upper surface of the base when the workpiece is positioned between the first connector and the second connector (As shown in the lowered position, figure 2).
Burge discloses carriage carrying the saw (the footplate of the saw is per se a ‘carriage’) in a direction parallel to a cut line (cut line 33 shown in figure 1) and parallel to a longitudinal axis of the clamp (33 is parallel to the length of the clamp in figure 1) to cut the workpiece along the cut line.
Regarding claim 2. Burge discloses the elongate body maintains a position above the workpiece and below the motor of the saw as the clamp moves between the raised and lowered positions (as the motor moves up and down in correspondence with the work that is being clamped at higher or lower positions on the elongate body).
Regarding claim 3, Burge further discloses wherein the first connector and the second connector provide for the elongate body of the clamp to remain parallel with the top surface of the base as the clamp moves between the raised position and the lowered position (this is because both sides may be uniformly actuated manually, which enables or permits parallelism with the base/ support; the breadth and nature of this claim term does not require a different structure than the two distinct screw adjustments at either end).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Burge discloses two actuators (14 and associated structures left, 14 and associated structures right), one actuator being positioned at each of the first end and the second end of the elongate body (See figure 1 or 2).
Regarding claim 7, Burge discloses guide 12 up and down relative to the base 10, as seen in the assembly pictured at figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Burge further discloses wherein the workpiece has a first edge positioned adjacent to the first side of the base and a second edge adjacent to the second side of the base and the elongate body presses down on the top surface of the workpiece and secures the workpiece against the upper surface of the base from the first edge of the workpiece to the second edge of the workpiece. As noted above, this claim is indefinite for imprecisely defining the device in terms of a workpiece that is not part of the device. Nonetheless, as best understood, the claim is anticipated by Burge, since the Burge clamp (elongate body) is capable of clamping and pressing a workpiece along its full length from one side to the other, which is believed to be the intended claim meaning here.
Regarding claim 10, Burge discloses comprising a guide configured to direct motion of a carriage carrying a saw (the foot/show of the saw is shown in figure 4, and is the lateral edge of the clamp elongate bar 12) for the saw to cut a workpiece while travelling in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the clamp (As discussed and shown in the cutline 33, inter alia, figure 1).
Regarding claim 13 Burge above anticipates claim 10, and discloses the elongate body presses down across the top surface of the workpiece and secures the workpiece against the upper surface of the base from a first edge of the workpiece to a second edge of the workpiece (As best understood this “presses….etc.” language is meant as intended use and not as a method step imported into an apparatus claim, which is noted as indefinite supra. Burge shows the capability of pressing along the length as here claimed, in e.g. figure 1 or 4 of Burge.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 11-14, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge (US 4,487,403) as set forth above, in view of Harter (US 5,582,088) and Logan (US 2003/0221530) and Findlay (US 5,165,317).
While claim 2 is apparently anticipated, supra, the nature of the claims breadth and the actual apparent intent of applicant will be addressed in further detail to ensure compactness of prosecution.
Regarding claim 2, Burge does not use the same style of carriage as applicant intends—and thus additional art is useful in demonstrating the unpatentability of the concepts presented.
Evidence of constrained Saw Guides
Findlay discloses a raising and lowering guide (31 inter alia) for a saw to make cuts (38 is a carriage for a machine tool such as a saw 40 figure 5) on a base (7/8 figure 4) supporting a workpiece (Column 2 line 55 “to support a workpiece), analogous to the present application and to Burge.
Burge is a clamp guide which does not constrain the saw, except that it provides a guide surface to press a saw against, in order to constrain and guide the cut line.
Findlay shows a more constrained saw arrangement, where the saw (40) is mounted in a carriage (See figure 6) which therefore is raised and lowered along with the rails that guide the saw.
Logan shows a similar constraint to a saw with a carriage held between and slidable along two rails above a workpiece, the difference being that the Logan device does not contemplate height adjustment of the blade relative to the work support surface.
Similarly, Harter shows a sheet good processing device, with saw held on a carriage mounted on rails / bars so the saw carriage can be positioned to make different angled cuts with respect to the workpiece, and the workpiece is held up semi-vertically at a slope relative to the ground (as seen in the several figures).
In the art of clamping and guiding saws for cutting work, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to replace the clamping bar of Burge with a more constrained saw guide structure—such as that of Findlay, Logan or Harter, since doing so will constrain the lateral movement of the saw from moving left or right relative to the intended path, and make the cuts more consistent due to the constraint imposed by using two rails and a carriage akin to any of Logan, Harter or Findlay.
Regarding claim 3, while Burge meets the clause “wherein the first connector and the second connector provide for the elongate body of the clamp to remain parallel with the top surface of the base as the clamp moves between the raised position and the lowered position.” As noted above, it is believed (consistent with claim 4) that applicant is getting at the idea of using a linkage (claim 4) to permit height adjustment of the saw guide/clamp.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Burge does not disclose wherein the first connector and the second connector each include a linkage member that is pivotally coupled to the base and pivotally coupled to the elongate body of the clamp.
Evidence regarding known saw guide adjustment
Findlay discloses a saw height adjustment support (31, 30, 32, 33) which raises and lowers the saw carriage (38) above a work support (8, 7, inter alia) and does so in parallelism with the support surface, by having each of the lateral connectors (33 and 32) be linkages which couple a lower element to a higher element being a rail for the saw to ride on, as shown in figure 4, 5, and 6. This is the same type of mechanism applicant has selected to raise and lower a guide bar above a work surface, and Findlay discloses that this is a known arrangement for the adjustment of a guide for a saw over a work support. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Burge to replace threaded left and right end connectors with parallel linkages, as taught by Findlay, in order to provide for height adjustment in a parallel manner—with a single crank adjustment mechanism such as 35/34 figures 4-6 of Findlay, since it reduces the work needed to adjust the height of a saw guide system and would work in the same way in a Burge type guide clamp and height adjustment rail combination.
Regarding claim 5, as noted immediately supra with respect to claims 3 and 4, the combination of Burge with details of the Findlay rails/ height adjustment would include from Findlay the first connector is a hinge (32, 54, figure 4) positioned at the first end of the elongate body (in Findlay the elongate body is e.g. 31) and the second connector (33) includes an actuator (34, 35 is a hand crank coupled to the second connector) positioned at the second end of the elongate body (the right in figure 4 of Findlay) and is configured to extend upwardly from the base (As seen in figure 4, above the respective base 8/7) to move the clamp (it moves the elongate member 31 of Findlay, which is capable of acting as a clamp—and when combined with Burge, which is a combination of clamp and guide structure, the elongate member combination would retain the combination of clamping and guidance) between the raised position and the lowered position (see the rotational screw of Findlay figures 4-6, which shows the raising and lowering).
Regarding claim 11., Burge above anticipates claim 10, but is not explicit that the guide is a rail forming the top surface of the elongate body, the rail being shaped to slidingly couple with the carriage to direct the motion of the carriage and the saw.
Regarding claim 12 Burge above anticipates claim claim 10, but is not explicit that the guide is a rail coupled to the elongate body, the rail being shaped to slidingly couple with the carriage to direct the motion of the carriage and the saw.
Regarding claim 14. Burge discloses A saw system for cutting a workpiece(e.g. figure 1 shows a saw with the guide, etc), the system comprising: a base (10) having an upper surface to support the workpiece thereon (as shown in figure 1, 4, inter alia), Burge discloses the clamp of claim 10 (See anticipation of claim 10, supra; alternatively, the rejections of claims 2-5 above include different guides, and therefore also read on the subject matter of claim 10 apparently).
Burge discloses a carriage, (the foot of the saw) but not that it is coupled to the clamp and configured to carry a saw along the guide of the clamp to cut the workpiece. The combination supra with Findlay, Harter and Logan show that the use of a carriage configured to carry a saw along a guide rail of the clamp is obvious and known in the art.
Burge does not disclose the upper surface of the base being sloped relative to the ground (assumed to mean sloped at a non- parallel amount—which is implied by the term sloped).
Evidence regarding sloped work support surfaces
Harter shows the use of a sloped base (20) relative to the ground surface in a sheet good cutting station, with the saw held on rails (38). Figure 3 best shows the slope of the base relative to the ground of the work and base elements with a saw 26a relatively slidable above the base on a carriage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Burge to be a panel saw arrangement akin to Harter, since that is a known attitude for cutting certain work-types (sheet goods)
Regarding claim 23, Burge as set forth above, in view of Harter (US 5,582,088) and Logan (US 2003/0221530) and Findlay (US 5,165,317) discloses a method of cutting a workpiece with a saw of a saw system, the method comprising: positioning the workpiece on an upper surface of a base of the saw system between a first connector and a second connector of a clamp of the saw system (This is shown in Burge, and therefore, in Burge as modified to include more comprehensive rails than Burge as discussed above ), the upper surface of the base being sloped relative to the ground As modified and known as taught by Harter—the attitude of the base is a matter of routine selection, and the angled base is a known technique to enable efficient cutting of sheet goods, selectable for that purpose); positioning the workpiece on the base so a desired cut line of the workpiece is aligned with a blade of the saw (as shown at 33 of Burge, and which is apparently the same desired result in each of Harter, Logan and Findlay—the point of each is to control the cutting line by rails, etc.); moving the clamp to a lowered position where an elongated body of the clamp presses down on the top surface of the workpiece (Shown in Burge, and which is the desired result thereof , shown in figure 4, inter alia) and secures the workpiece against the upper surface of the base (Burge figure 4); and while the clamp remains in the lowered position, directing a carriage parallel to the cut line and clamp to cut the work along the cut line—(*as shown and discussed in Burge, above, inter alia; note too that each of Harter Findlay and Logan show the movement of the saw along the rails in a line to cut a work—this is not inventive, it is the intended result and the desired objective of this whole class of cutters, as evidenced above).
Regarding claim 21, Burge, in view of each of Harter Findlay and Logan as addressed above does not particularly discuss comprising a cart for transporting the saw system, the cart having a tiltable frame that provides for the cart to move between a working position and a travel position, the cart having a smaller width when in the travel position than when in the working position., however, the references as cited do discuss this feature and the desirability and availability of incorporateing it into a saw system—specifically Findlay discloses a cart for transporting the saw system (4, 6, 2 figure 1), the cart having a tiltable frame (2, 7, etc. figure 4) that provides for the cart to move between a working position (assembled in figure 4-6) and a travel position (figure 1), the cart having a smaller width when in the travel position than when in the working position *(See figure 2, which shows the folding case which is thererfoe wider in figure 2’s open position than in figure 1’s travel position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to make the combined tooling of Burge, in view of each of Harter Findlay and Logan to be a travel saw assembly, since that is discussed and shown in Findlay as a possibility, and would provide the prima facie benefit of portability of the system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge as set forth above, in view of Harter (US 5,582,088) and Logan (US 2003/0221530) and Findlay (US 5,165,317) as applied to claims 2-5, 14, 23 above, and further in view of Rowlay (US 2014/0145389) .
Regarding claim 8, Burge does not disclose a ‘conformity mat’ covering at least a portion of the bottom surface of the elongate body.
In the art of clamping, it is known to add ‘confomrity mats’ to clamps, so the clamps have a grippier engagement surface with work. Rowlay (US 2014/0145389) discloses “[0031] In an embodiment, adjustable clamp head 14 includes an optional first workpiece engaging pad 16. Pad 16 provides a surface for engaging a workpiece. In one embodiment, pad 16 is removable and replaceable. In an exemplary non-limiting embodiment, the pad is formed from an elastomer or rubber material that is attached to a flange portion 19 of the adjustable clamp head 14. A surface of the pad can be formed from a resilient material that provides friction for griping a workpiece.”
Because Burge and applicant’s claim 8 are concerned with the nature of the clamp which is for gripping the work during a cutting,
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 and 22 are allowable, but objected to for their dependence on a rejected claim.
While the broader elements of claims presented, including claim 14, are known in the art of record, the specific modification to the best known art (cited supra) to demonstrate the specific requirement of one manual actuator for adjusting height of a clamp and a powered actuator for moving a carriage are not seen to be obvious in combination with the other claimed elements (claim 18). Similarly, the modification to the above combination based on Burge to incorporate the features thereof into wet-saw environment with the features of specific kinds of water mat and drainage features are likewise non-obvious in view of the closest art known.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights