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 7 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-11 and 22-28 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 16 October 2025.
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 explicit state that the ‘rolling element’ as recited in claim 26 corresponds to the roller as described in paragraph 90. Presently, the specification makes no mention of any ‘rolling element’. Since ‘rolling element’ is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as noted below, the specification should explicitly state that the roller disclosed in the present application as originally filed is the structure that corresponds to the ‘rolling element’.
The present specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for the first and second portions of the guide track as recited in claims 27 and 28. The particular portions of the originally disclosed guide track as described in claims 27 and 28 are unclear.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a rolling element” as recited in claim 26 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “that rolls along the guide track”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “rolling” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the element).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP S62-162003 to Akiba Seiji (hereinafter “Seiji”).
Regarding claim 1, Seiji discloses a circular saw (see in particular the embodiment of Fig. 5) comprising:
an upper blade housing 4;
a lower blade guard 6 coupled to the upper blade housing 4 (see Fig. 5) and that rotates about an axis (a same axis as that about which the blade 2 rotates; see annotated Fig. 5 below and the first paragraph of page 8 of the English language translation of Seiji) and includes a guide track 6a, and
a lever 8 & 9 having a guide track engaging end and a user engaging end (see the annotated Fig. 5 below), the lever 8 & 9 coupled to the upper blade housing 4 at a lever pivot point positioned between the guide track engaging end and the user engaging end (see the annotated Fig. 5 below, noting that ‘coupled to’ does not require a direct connection to the upper blade housing consistent with the present specification), wherein the guide track engaging end is moveably coupled to the guide track 6a to rotate the lower blade guard 6 by pulling up on and moving along a length of the guide track 6a (see Fig. 5 and the first paragraph of page 6 of the English language translation of Seiji – as the user engaging end of the lever 8 & 9 is rotated counter-clockwise relative to Fig. 5, the guide track engaging end of the lever 8 & 9 rotates counterclockwise such that the guide track engaging end moves in an upward-and-rightward arc relative to Fig. 5 to push up on the track 6a).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Seiji discloses that the guide track engaging end applies an outward force to the guide track 6a (see Fig. 5, where the force includes an upward component that is ‘outward’ relative to the lower blade guard 6, since the force is directed away from the lower blade guard 6).
Regarding claim 4, Seiji discloses that the guide track engaging end engages the guide track 6a at a trailing horizontal side of the axis (i.e., a left side of the axis relative to Fig. 5) opposite a cutting horizontal size of the axis (i.e., a right side of the axis relative to Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Seiji a lever spring 7 (note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘lever spring’ includes any spring that acts, even indirectly, on the lever 8 & 9; there is no requirement in the claim that the lever spring directly contacts or directly urges the lever) is positioned between the upper blade housing 4 and the lever pivot point (relative to Fig. 5, a horizontal line can be drawn starting at the lever pivot point, extending rightward to pass through the lever spring, and then continuing rightward to pass through the upper blade housing 4 on a right side of the blade 2, such that the lever spring 7 is ‘between’ a portion of the upper blade housing and the lever pivot point), the lever spring 7 biased to restore the lever 8 & 9 to a resting position (the lever spring 7 urges the lower blade guard 6 to a position covering the blade 2 per the final sentence of page 8 into the first sentence of page 9 of the English language translation of Seiji, and movement of the lower blade guard 6 produces movement of the lever 8 & 9 due to engagement between the guide track engaging end and the guide track 6a, such that the lever spring 7 restores the lever 8 & 9 by acting on the lower blade guard 6).
Regarding claim 10, Seiji discloses a lower guard spring 7 that is positioned between the upper blade housing 4 and the lower blade guard 6 adjacent to the axis (see the annotated Fig. 5 above, the spring 7 is below a top portion of the upper blade housing 4 and is above the guide track 6a of the lower blade guard 6).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of GB 2339404 A to Robert Bosch GmbH (hereinafter ‘Bosch’).
At least for purposes of this rejection, Seiji is considered as failing to disclose that the user engaging end is positioned exterior to the upper blade housing as required by claim 2. (In Fig. 5, the user engage end appears overlapping with the upper blade housing. While one explanation for this illustration is that the user engaging end is behind and outside of the upper blade housing, at least for purposes of this rejection Seiji is not relied upon for teaching the user engaging end being exterior of the upper blade housing.)
Bosch teaches a user engaging end (an exposed end of lever 23 in Fig. 1) that is positioned exterior to an upper blade housing 13 (see Fig. 1). Bosch teaches that a user is able to exert a force on onto the user engaging end to cause movement of the lower blade guard (see page 6 at the final paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the user engaging end of the lever of Seiji at an exposed position exterior of the upper blade housing so that a user is able to actuate the lever via the exposed user engaging end in order to selectively produce movement of the lower blade guard in view of the teachings of Bosch.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of GB 2339404 A to Bosch and GB 2600961 A to Donson et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Seiji discloses that the lower blade guard 6 is configured such that an average rotation per thumb force applied to the user engaging end of the lever 8 & 9 to achieve a full retraction of the lower blade guard 6 is some undisclosed value over a full course of retraction of the lower blade guard 6 (regarding of the exact magnitude of force required by the lower blade guard 6 of Seiji, the force does have some average value over the full rotation of the lower blade guard 6).
Regarding claim 7, Seiji discloses that the lower blade guard 6 is configured to rotate through a range of motion by applying force to the user engaging end of the lever 8 & 9 with a difference of some undisclosed value between a highest minimum force and a lowest minimum force needed to rotate the lower blade guard 6 (a ‘highest minimum force’ and ‘lower minimum force’ refer to forces at various rotational positions of the blade guard 6, where at each rotational position of the blade guard 6 there is some respective ‘minimum force’ that will produce further rotation of the blade guard 6 for that particular rotational position of the blade guard 6, hence the ability for there to be multiple ‘minimum forces’; as disclosed by Seiji, each position of the blade guard 6 has some minimum force that is required to be applied to the lever 8 & 9 to overcome forces such as friction as resistance from spring 7 to produce additional rotational movement of the blade guard 6).
Seiji fails to explicitly disclose the particular magnitude of thumb force required to operate the lever 8 & 9 to open the lower blade guard 6. As a result, Seiji fails to disclose that the average rotation per thumb force is at least 1.8 degrees per Newton over the full course of retraction as required by claim 5; that the average rotation per thumb force is at least 3.5 degrees per Newton over the course of the full course of retraction as required by claim 6; and that the difference between the highest minimum force and the lowest minimum force is no more than 20 newtons as required by claim 7.
Bosch, however, teaches that the magnitude of thumb force applied to a lever 23 to open a lower blade guard 15 is selected to be a low value that increases only moderately through the range of rotation of the lower blade guard 15 in order to provide safe and ergonomically optimized swiveling of the guard (see page 2 at the first partial paragraph). Further, Damon teaches configuring a lever 52 whose actuation opens a lower blade guard 36 so that the lever provides a mechanical advantage so that the user’s leverage and control are improved (see page 13, lines 5-8). Damon also teaches that a shape of a guide track on the lower blade guard 36 can be selected to achieve different degrees angular rotation profiles (see page 13, lines 24-31) – the angular rotation profile determines an amount of force required for each degree of rotation of the lower blade guard (e.g., if a small amount of lever movement is required to produce a large rotation of the lower blade guard, the input force to the lever is greater than if a large degree of lever movement is required to produce a small rotation of the lower blade guard).
Therefore, since it is known in the art to be desirable to select a magnitude of force applied to a lever to open a lower blade guard to be low value that increases only moderately through a range of rotation of the lower blade guard in order to provide a safe and ergonomic optimized swiveling of the lower blade guard, since it is known in the art to configure a lever whose actuation opens a lower blade guard to provide a mechanical advantage so that the user’s leverage and control are improved, and finally since it is known in the art to select a ramp profile on a lower blade guard to achieve a desired angular rotation profile of the lower blade guard, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select the average rotation per thumb force to be at least 3.5 degrees per Newton over the full course of retraction, and to select the difference between the highest and lowest minimum forces to be no more than 20 Newtons, because discovering an optimum thumb force at each pivot location of the lower guard would have been a mere design consideration based on ensuring safe and ergonomic swiveling of the guard. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s), especially in view of the fact that Bosch provides a motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a low rotational force, and in view of the fact that Damon teaches configuring a lever to provide a mechanical advantage and also configuring a ramp profile to achieve a desired rotation profile. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (here, the result effective variable being a force required to pivot the lower blade guard at each point of rotation of the guard, which also determines the difference in minimum and maximum force) involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art, being a mechanical engineer, is able to optimize a lever system to reduce the amount of force required to pivot the lower blade guard.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of GB 2600961 A to Donson et al.
Seiji fails to disclose that the lever includes a roller wheel coupled to the guide track engaging end that rolls along the guide track as required by claim 8.
Donson teaches a lever 52 that includes a roller wheel 64 coupled to a guide track engaging end of the lever 52 (a lower, left end of the lever 52 relative to Fig. 10) that rolls along a guide track 70 (see Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guide track engaging end of the lever of Seiji with a roller wheel that rolls along the guide track in view of the teachings of Donson. This modification is advantageous because it reduces friction in the movement of the lower blade guard, reducing the amount of force that a user must provide and also providing a smoother lower blade guard movement action. Alternatively, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Seiji differs from the claimed device by substitution of a roller wheel in place of the guide track contacting element of the lever of Seiji. Donson teaches a roller wheel that applies a force to a guide track of a lower blade guard of a circular saw to move the lower blade guard to an open position. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the roller wheel of Donson for the element at the guide track engaging end of the lever of Seiji because both structures perform the exact same function of moving along a guide track to produce rotation of a lower blade guard (even if the roller wheel of Donson does so with less friction).
Claim(s) 9 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of US Pat. No. 11,364,652 B2 to Kani et al.
Although claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 102 as explained above, this alternative rejection is provided in the event that it is determined that Seiji fails to disclose a lever spring positioned between the upper blade housing and the lever pivot point, the lever spring biased to restore the lever to a resting position as required by claim 9.
Kani teaches that a lever spring 95 is positioned between the upper blade housing 50 and the lever pivot point 70a (see Fig. 6; the lever spring 95 is positioned between, e.g., wall 51 of the housing 50 shown in Fig. 3 and the lever pivot point 70a measured in vertical direction parallel to the plane of the page, i.e., measured in a direction parallel to the plane of the saw blade), the lever spring 95 biased to restore the lever 70 & 90 to a resting position (see Fig. 2 and 6 and col. 6, lines 30-34). Kani teaches that the lever spring is advantageous to urge the lever back to an initial position when the lever is no longer operated (see col. 6, lines 35-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Seiji with a lever spring as taught by Kani in order to aid in returning the lever to an initial position when no force is applied to the lever.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of GB 2339404 A to Bosch.
Seiji fails to disclose that the lever includes an aperture positioned at the lever pivot point, and the lever is coupled to the upper blade housing via a bushing positioned in the aperture as required by claim 11.
Bosch, at the embodiment of Figs. 7-8, discloses that the lever 26’ includes an aperture positioned at a lever pivot point 27 (see Figs. 7-8), and the lever 26’ is coupled to an upper blade housing 13 via a bushing 401 positioned in the aperture (see Figs. 7 and 8). Bosch teaches that the bushing is advantageous because the bushing allows the lever to rotate freely while being axially restrained (see Bosch at the final sentence of page 7 though the first sentence of page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the lever of Seiji with an aperture at the lever pivot point, and to couple the lever the upper blade housing via a bushing positioned in the aperture, in view of the teachings of Bosch. This modification is advantageous because it provides a connection for the lever at the lever pivot point that allows the lever to rotate freely (which in turn is advantageous to reduce the amount of force a user must apply to the lever to move the lower blade guard, since frictional resistance to lever pivoting is reduced) and also because it restrains the lever in the axial direction (which reduces ‘slop’ in the lever and a results in a higher-quality feel to the circular saw). This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Seiji and Bosch, taken together, teach each element required by claim 11. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, in particular by pivotally coupling the lever of Seiji to the upper blade housing using the method of Bosch. In combination, each element performs the same function as it did separate -- Seiji already discloses a lever pivotally coupled to an upper blade housing, where rotation of the lever drives motion of a lower blade guard, and Bosch teaches a particular structure for pivotally coupling a lever to an upper blade housing where rotation of the lever also drives motion of a lower blade guard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination were predictable because Seiji’s function is not modified in any way, and instead this modification merely provides some particular pivotal coupling between the lever and upper blade housing.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al.
Regarding claim 22, Seiji discloses that the guide track 6a is located in an interior portion of the lower blade guard 6 that is spaced from an outer periphery of the lower blade guard 6 (see Fig. 5 – the guide track 6a extends substantially radially with respect to the rotational axis of the lower blade guard 6, and at least a right portion of the guide track 6a is on an interior portion of the lower blade guard 6, where the interior portion is spaced from the outer periphery of the lower blade guard 6, since the outer periphery is at a circumferential position of the lower blade guard 6 and since the interior portion is spaced radially inward from the circumference of the lower blade guard 6).
At least for purposes of this rejection, Seiji is considered as failing to explicitly disclose any particular location on the lower blade guard from which the guide track projects. As such, for purposes of this rejection, Seiji is considered as failing to disclose that the guide track projects from an inner side wall of the lower blade guard as required by claim 22.
Mortaro, though, teaches a guide track 344 that projects from an inner side wall 342 of a lower blade guard 308 (see Fig. 4; also, compare Figs. 1-2 and 4 as evidence that the side wall 342 is an ‘inner’ side wall). Providing the guide track projecting from an inner side wall of the lower blade guard is advantageous because the guide track is positioned exterior of a cutting area within the lower blade guard, such that the guide track is blocked from debris, such as dust, produced during cutting by the lower blade guard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guide track of Seiji at a position where the guide track projects from an inner side wall of the lower blade guard in view of the teachings of Mortaro. This modification is advantageous because the modification positions the guide track at a location shielded from debris such as dust produced during cutting. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the guide track of Seiji at a position projecting from the inner side wall of the lower blade guard, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, in view of ambiguity in the disclosure of Seiji regarding the particular side of the inner blade guard from which the guide track projects, one of ordinary skill is motivated by the teachings of Mortaro to select the inner side wall of the lower blade guard as the side from which the guide track projects, since this modification is merely the section of some particular side of the inner blade guard to place the guide track and since the inner side wall is taught by Mortaro as a suitable location.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al. and GB 2339404 A to Bosch.
Regarding claim 23, Seiji discloses a circular saw (see in particular the embodiment of Fig. 5) comprising:
a shoe 3 that includes a longitudinal axis that extends from a front end of the shoe 3 to a rear end of the shoe 3 (see Fig. 5, where the longitudinal axis extends in a left-to-right direction along the plane of the page);
an output spindle (see the spindle located at the center of the blade 2; see also page 6 at the final sentence) that rotates about a rotational axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the shoe 3 (see Fig. 2, where the rotational axis extends in a direction into and out of the page, which is perpendicular to the plane of the page along which the longitudinal axis extends);
an upper blade housing 4;
a lower blade guard 6 rotatably coupled to the upper blade housing 4 (see Fig. 5 and the first paragraph of page 8 of the English language translation of Seiji), the lower blade guard 6 including a guide track 6a formed on the lower blade guard 6 ; and
a lever 8 & 9 coupled to the upper blade housing 4 at a pivot point (see the annotated Fig. 5 provided above in the rejection of claim 1 indicating the pivot point, noting that ‘coupled to’ does not require a direct connection to the upper blade housing consistent with the present specification), the lever 8 & 9 including:
a second arm 8 that extends from the pivot point (see Fig. 5), the second arm including a guide track engaging portion (a portion at a bottom end of the arm 8) that engages and moves along the guide track 6a to move the lower blade guard 6 between an extended position and a retracted position (see Fig. 5 showing the extended position; see also the first paragraph of page 6 of the English language translation of Seiji; as a first arm 9 is pivoted counter-clockwise relative to Fig. 5 by a user, the second arm 8 pivots about the pivot point also in a counter-clockwise direction, which urges the guide track engaging portion upward to rotate the lower blade guard 6 clockwise due to engagement between the guide track engaging portion and the guide track 6a – this action moves the lower blade guard from the extended position to the retracted position);
wherein the guide track engaging portion is located between the output spindle and the rear end of the shoe 3 (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 25, Seiji discloses that when the lower blade guard 6 is in the extended position (as shown in Fig. 5), the guide track engaging portion (at the bottom of the lever 8 & 9) is located between the shoe 3 and a plane that is parallel to the shoe 3 and that extends through the rotational axis of the output spindle (see Fig. 5 – the shoe 3 is underneath the guide track engaging portion and the plane is above the guide track engaging portion).
Seiji fails to explicitly disclose the particular wall of the lower blade guard from which the guide track extends, and thus Seiji fails to disclose that the guide track is formed on an inner side wall of the lower blade guard as required by claim 23. Seiji also fails to disclose that the pivot point is located between the output spindle and the front end of the shoe, also as required by claim 23.
First, Mortaro teaches a guide track 344 that projects from an inner side wall 342 of a lower blade guard 308 (see Fig. 4; also, compare Figs. 1-2 and 4 as evidence that the side wall 342 is an ‘inner’ side wall). Providing the guide track projecting from an inner side wall of the lower blade guard is advantageous because the guide track is positioned exterior of a cutting area within the lower blade guard, such that the guide track is blocked from debris, such as dust, produced during cutting by the lower blade guard.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guide track of Seiji at a position where the guide track projects from an inner side wall of the lower blade guard in view of the teachings of Mortaro. This modification is advantageous because the modification positions the guide track at a location shielded from debris such as dust produced during cutting. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the guide track of Seiji at a position projecting from the inner side wall of the lower blade guard, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, in view of ambiguity in the disclosure of Seiji regarding the particular side of the inner blade guard from which the guide track projects, one of ordinary skill is motivated by the teachings of Mortaro to select the inner side wall of the lower blade guard as the side from which the guide track projects, since this modification is merely the section of some particular side of the inner blade guard to place the guide track and since the inner side wall is taught by Mortaro as a suitable location.
Second, Bosch teaches a lever 26 that is actuated to move a lower blade guard 15 (see Fig. 3), where a pivot point 27 for the lever 26 is located between an output spindle 10 and a front end of a shoe 18 (compare Figs. 2 and 3 to see that the pivot point 27 is between the output shaft and the front end of the shoe 18). Bosch teaches that the configuration of its lever, including having the pivot point between the output spindle and the front end of the shoe, allows a user engaging end of the lever to project forward from a front end of the housing of the circular saw (see Fig. 2).
Seiji teaches that the position of its lever with the user engaging end of the lever at the rear end of the circular saw is problematic due to spacing constraints (see page 6 of the English language translation of Seiji at the paragraph preceding the ‘Effects of the Invention’ header). Bosch teaches a lever configuration where the user engaging end of the lever extends out of the front end of the circular saw, thus remedying the issues related to the space constraints acknowledged by Seiji. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure the lever of Seiji by moving the pivot point to a position between the output spindle and the front end of the shoe, with the user engaging end of the lever projecting forward from a front end of the housing, in view of the teachings of Bosch. This modification is advantageous because it provides the user engaging end of the lever at a more accessible position of the circular saw than that of Seiji, thus overcoming issues with spacing constraints as acknowledged by Seiji. Moreover, this modification is further advantageous because it lengthens the length of the lever between the pivot point and the guide track engaging portion, such that for a same amount of pivoting of the lever, a greater magnitude of rotation of the lower blade guard is achieved. As a result, this modification lessens the ‘throw’ of the user engaging end of the lever required to achieve a same amount of rotation of the lower blade guard, which enhances ergonomics by requiring less movement of the user engagement end of the lever by the user.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji as modified by US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al. and GB 2339404 A to Bosch as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of GB 2600961 A to Donson et al.
Regarding claim 24, Seiji, as modified, discloses that the lever includes a first arm that extends from the pivot point (see first arm 9 of Seiji in Fig. 5) and includes a user engaging end portion exterior to the upper blade housing (see the discussion of claim 23 above, where the pivot point of the lever of Seiji is moved so that the user engaging end portion extends exterior to the upper blade housing at a front end of the circular saw as can be seen for first arm 23 of the lever in Fig. 2 of Bosch).
Seiji, as modified, fails to disclose that the second arm includes curved portion that extends around the output spindle as required by claim 24. Note, however, as is evident from Fig. 3 of Bosch, the second arm of the lever of Seiji (i.e., the end of the lever rearward of the pivot point) extends across the output spindle when extending from the pivot point to the guide track engaging portion of the lever.
Donson teaches a circular saw having a lever 52 for moving a lower blade guard 36. Donson teaches that when providing the lever 52 to engages a guide track 68 on the lower blade guard 36, where the lever 52 has a user engaging end 60 forward of an output spindle 28 and a guide track engaging portion 64 rearward of the output spindle 28 (see Figs. 9 and 10), the lever 52 includes a curved portion that extends around the output spindle 28 (see Figs. 9 and 10). As can be seen in Figs. 9 and 10 of Donson, providing the lever with the curved portion allows the lever to extend around, and thus not interfere with, the hub of the lower blade guard and the output spindle.
Therefore, in view of the second arm of the lever of Seiji, as modified, extending from the pivot point to the guide track engaging portion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the second arm of Seiji, as modified, with a curved portion that extends around the output spindle in view of the teachings of Donson. This modification is advantageous to allow the lever to extend from a front end of the circular saw toward a rear end of the circular saw so that the pivot point can be positioned in front of the output spindle with the guide track engaging portion being rearward of the output spindle, without the lever interfering with the output spindle or the hub of the lower blade guard as the lever extends across the output spindle and hub. Moreover, this modification is merely a change in the shape of the lever, and a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Since Donson teaches a lever that is curved to extend around an output shaft, there is presently no showing of unexpected results.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji as modified by US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al. and GB 2339404 A to Bosch as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of GB 2600961 A to Donson et al.
Seiji, as modified, fails to disclose that the guide track engaging portion includes a rolling element that rolls along the guide track as required by claim 26.
Donson teaches a lever 52 whose guide tracking engaging portion includes a rolling element 64 that rolls along a guide track 70 (see Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guide track engaging portion of the lever of Seiji with a rolling element that rolls along the guide track in view of the teachings of Donson. This modification is advantageous because it reduces friction in the movement of the lower blade guard, reducing the amount of force that a user must provide and also providing a smoother lower blade guard movement action. Alternatively, this modification is obvious under KSR Rationale B – simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. Seiji, as modified, differs from the claimed device by substitution of a roller wheel in place of the guide track contacting element of the lever of Seiji, as modified. Donson teaches a roller wheel that applies a force to a guide track of a lower blade guard of a circular saw to move the lower blade guard to an open position. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the roller wheel of Donson for the element at the guide track engaging end of the lever of Seiji, as modified, because both structures perform the exact same function of moving along a guide track to produce rotation of a lower blade guard (even if the roller wheel of Donson does so with less friction).
Claim(s) 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP S62-162003 to Seiji as modified by US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al. and GB 2339404 A to Bosch as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2017/0136652 A1 to Mortaro et al., as evidenced by GB 2600961 A to Donson.
Seiji, as modified, discloses a linear guide track 6a (see Fig. 5 of Seiji). As such, Seiji, as modified, fails to disclose that: the guide track includes a first portion that is curved, wherein the guide track engaging portion moves along the first portion when the lower blade guard is moved between the extended position and the retracted position as required by claim 27; and that the guide track includes a second portion that is transverse to the first portion and extends between the first portion and the output spindle as required by claim 28.
Mortaro, though, teaches a guide track 344 that includes a first portion that is curved (see the annotated Fig. 4 below; note that the first portion being curved requires that a section, rather than the entirety, of the first portion is curved), wherein a guide track engaging portion 340 moves along the first portion when a lower blade guard 308 is moved between an extended position and a retracted position (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 31). [Claim 27] Mortaro further teaches that the guide track 344 includes a second portion (see the annotated Fig. 4 below; the second portion begins where the width of the guide track 344 narrows) that is transverse to the first portion (the circumferentially outer surface of the second portion is transverse to the first portion, since this surface extends at an angle to the first portion) and that extends between the first portion and the output spindle (see Fig. 4, where the second portion extends between the first portion and the output spindle in an approximately vertical direction along the plane of the page). [Claim 28] Moreover, it is known in the art that the shape of a guide track can be selected by a designer to achieve a desired angular rotation profile to the movable lower guard in response to a rotation of the lever (see Donson at page 13, lines 24-31).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the guide track of Seiji, as modified, with a first portion that is curved, wherein the guide track engaging portion moves along the first portion when the lower blade guard is moved between the extended position and the retracted position, and wherein the guide track includes a second portion that is transverse to the first portion and extends between the first portion and the output spindle in view of the teachings of Mortaro. This modification is obvious because the shape of the guide track is known to be a result effective variable, where a designer can select a guide track shape in order to achieve a desired angular rotation profile of the lower blade guard. It is known in the art that the shape of the guide track determines the amount of movement of the lever required for some desired amount of rotation of the lower blade guard. Since a person of ordinary skill in the art is a mechanical engineer, and since a mechanical engineer has training to select cam configurations that produce a designed rotational response from a lever rotational input, one of ordinary skill in the art is able to select a guide track shape, inclusive of a shape as taught by Mortaro, to achieve a desired relationship between lever rotation and lower blade guard rotation. There is a tradeoff between a small amount of lever rotation produce a large amount of lower blade guard rotation (in which case the force applied to the lever is relatively high, but a movement amount of the lever is relatively low) with a large amount of lever rotation being required to produce the same amount of lower blade guard rotation (in which case the force input is relatively low, but the amount of movement of the lever is higher). One of ordinary skill in the art can balance the ergonomic considerations of lever ‘throw’ magnitude vs lever input force to select a desired cam profile for the guide track.
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