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 12 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 22-25 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 20 February 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 7 recites, “a third state wherein”. The clause following ‘wherein’ in this recitation is not describing the third state. Therefore, either punctuation (such as a comma) should be included between “a third state” and “wherein”, or punctuation and a line break should be included between “a third state” and “wherein”.
Claim 3 at line 3 recites, “a one of the positioning block blocks”. The use of “a” and “one” is redundant, as is the use of “block” and “blocks”. This recitation should read – one of the positioning blocks –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 cutting mechanism” as recited in claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for completing a cutting operation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism);
“a first locking mechanism” as recited in claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including locking and allowing rotation as described at lines 7-14 of claim 1; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – first, “locking” is a verb that describes a function; second, even though the locking mechanism includes the structure of the first operation member, the first operation member is insufficient structure for performing the recited functions);
“a first operation member” as recited in claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for placing the first locking mechanism into a first state, a second state, and a third state”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “operation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member); and
“a biasing element” as recited in claim 4 (first, “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “used for resetting the positioning pin”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” 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 § 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(s) 23-25 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 23 recites the limitation, “the second transmission portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 23 indefinite. Although claim 8 introduces “a second transmission portion”, claim 8 is not in the chain of dependency of claim 23. Does claim 23 include a dependency error? If so, is claim 23 intended to depend from claim 8 or claim 9, or does Applicant intend claim 10 (upon which claim 23 does depend) to depend from claim 9 in order for claim 8 to be in the chain of dependency of claim 23? Alternatively, does the Applicant intend claim 23 to introduce a new ‘second transmission portion’ despite the use of “the” to refer to the second transmission portion in claim 23? Since the intended remedy to the lack of antecedent basis for “the second transmission portion” in claim 23 is unclear, claim 23 is indefinite.
Claim 24 recites the limitation, “the third position” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 24 indefinite. Although claim 5 introduces “a third position”, claim 5 is not in the chain of dependency of claim 24. Does claim 24 include a dependency error? If so, is claim 24 intended to depend from claim 5, or some other claim, such as claim 12? Alternatively, does the Applicant intend claim 24 to introduce a new ‘third position’ despite the use of “the” to refer to the third position in claim 24? If so, does the Applicant also intend claim 24 to introduce first and second positions? Since the intended remedy to the lack of antecedent basis for “the third position” in claim 24 is unclear, claim 24 is indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation, “the operation handle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 25 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 25 intends to introduce a new structure (i.e., a new “operation handle”), or whether claim 25 has inadvertently referred to a previously introduced structure with a different name. As such, claim 25 is indefinite.
Claim 25 recites the limitation, “the first direction” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, rendering claim 25 indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether “the first direction” is permitted to be any direction, or whether “the first direction” must have some particular direction of extent. The fact that the direction is referred to as “the first direction” suggests that “the first direction” refers to some particular direction, rather than any direction. However, the particular direction referred to as “the first direction” is unclear, rendering claim 25 indefinite.
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 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 10,710,267 B2 to Sprague.
Regarding claim 1, Sprague discloses a miter saw 10 (see the miter saw 10 shown in Fig. 1, which can include the locking mechanism shown in Fig. 8), comprising:
a workbench 14 and 18 for placing a workpiece (see col. 3, line 16-17);
a cutting mechanism 22 used for completing a cutting operation on the workpiece (see col. 3, lines 13-20) and rotating relative to the workbench 14 and 18 about a first axis 28 (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 16-20);
a support base 36 connected to the cutting mechanism 22 and the workbench 14 and 18 (see Fig. 1; note that the support base 36 of Fig. 8 includes detent plate 150d per col. 8, lines 38-40); and
a first locking mechanism 34d (see the embodiment of the locking mechanism 34d shown in Fig. 8) comprising a first operation member 42d for placing the first locking mechanism 34d into a first state, a second state, and a third state (the states of the first locking mechanism 34d correspond to positions of the rod 62d; the first state being a locked state described at col. 8, lines 49-55, the second state being an override state described at col. 9, lines 1-9, and the third state being a state as described at col. 8, lines 56-62; note that one or both of the first state and the third state can include the positioning pin 126d being received in one of the recesses 122d or alternatively can include the positioning pin 126d not being received in one of the recesses 122d, such as if the first operation member 42d is moved to a position corresponding to the first state or the third state when the positioning pin 126d is positioned between two recesses 122d) wherein, when the first locking mechanism is in the first state, a rotation of the cutting mechanism 22 relative to the workbench 14 and 18 about the first axis 28 is locked by the first locking mechanism 34d (see col. 8, lines 49-55), when the first locking mechanism 34d is in the second state, the rotation of the cutting mechanism 22 relative to the workbench 14 and 18 about the first axis 28 is allowed by the first locking mechanism 34d (see col. 9, lines 1-9), and, when the first locking mechanism 34d is in the third state, the first locking mechanism 34d mates with the support base 36 (in particular, with the detent plate 150d of the support base 36) to set a positioning point for the rotation of the cutting mechanism 22 about the first axis 28 (e.g., when the third state includes the positioning pin 126d being engaged with the detent plate 150d at a location between two recesses 122d, the ‘positioning point for rotating of the cutting mechanism’ is a location of an adjacent recess 122d – i.e., the cutting mechanism 22 is rotatable until the positioning pin 126 is urged by spring 148d into one of the recesses 122d, and that particular recess 122d corresponds to the positioning point) and the cutting mechanism 22 is also rotatable relative to the support base 36 (the cutting mechanism 22 is rotatable relative to the support base 36 because the brake member 78d is disengaged from the friction plate 74d).
Regarding claim 2, Sprague discloses that the first locking mechanism 34d further comprises a positioning pin 126d moving between a positioning position (a position in which the positioning pin 126d engages an arcuate section of the detent plate 150d between recesses 122d) and a non-positioning position (a position in which the positioning pin 126d engages one of the recesses 122d) and, when the first locking mechanism 34d is in the third state, the positioning pin 126d is at the positioning position (the positioning pin 126d is in the positioning position when the locking mechanism 34d is in the third state, at least in a scenario where the positioning pin 126d in the first state is in the positioning position between recesses 122d).
Regarding claim 3, Sprague discloses that a plurality of positioning blocks are disposed on the support base 36 (see Fig. 8, where the positioning blocks are portions of the detent plate 150d located circumferentially between adjacent members of the recesses 122d), and, when the positioning pin 126d is at the positioning position (i.e., when the positioning pin 126 is located between recesses 122d), the positioning pin is limited by a one of the positioning block blocks (sic; radial movement of the positioning pin 126 is limited by one of the positioning blocks).
Regarding claim 13, Sprague discloses that an amount of the first operation member 42d is one (see Fig. 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-12 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 23-25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 requires, “wherein the first locking mechanism further comprises: a transmission wheel comprising a first transmission portion that protrudes; and a biasing element used for resetting the positioning pin from the non-positioning position to the positioning position, the positioning pin comprises a driven portion corresponding to a shape of the first transmission portion, and the first transmission portion acts on the driven portion so that the positioning pin arrives at the non-positioning position.” No known reference teaches or suggests this feature in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 4 (noting also that claim 4 requires the features of claims 1 and 2).
Regarding US Pat. No. 10,710,267 B2 to Sprague, claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, requires that, “when the first locking mechanism is in the third state, the first locking mechanism mates with the support base to set a positioning point for the rotation of the cutting mechanism about the first axis and the cutting mechanism is also rotatable relative to the support base”. Thus, the third state requires the cutting mechanism to be rotatable relative to the support base. As such, the ‘third state’ of Sprague cannot be a state where the positioning pin 126d is engaged with one of the recesses 122d, since engagement of the positioning pin 126 with one of the recesses 122d prevents rotation of the cutting mechanism 22 relative to the support base 14 and 18. Claim 2 also requires, “when the first locking mechanism is in the third state, the positioning pin is at the positioning position”. Thus, “the positioning position” of Sprague must be a position that allows rotation of the cutting mechanism relative to the support base in view of claim 1. As such, the “positioning position” of Sprague must be a position of the positioning pin 126d that is not engaged with one of the recesses 122d. However, claim 4 requires that the biasing mechanism resets the positioning pin “from the non-positioning position to the positioning position”. Sprague, though, teaches springs 90d and 148d that both urge the positioning pin 126d away from the positioning position – i.e., each of the springs 90d and 148d urges the positioning pin 126d into the position shown in Fig. 8. Moreover, it would be improper to consider the ‘third state’ of Sprague as encompassing two different positions of any component of the first locking mechanism (such as encompassing two different positions of the positioning pin), since two different positions of the first locking mechanism are two different states. That is, “a third state” must be a single position of the locking mechanism. As such, claim 4 distinguishes over Sprague.
Similarly, regarding US Pat. No. 10,882,123 B2 to Brewster et al., claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, requires that, “when the first locking mechanism is in the third state, the first locking mechanism mates with the support base to set a positioning point for the rotation of the cutting mechanism about the first axis and the cutting mechanism is also rotatable relative to the support base”. Thus, the third state requires the cutting mechanism to be rotatable relative to the support base. As such, the ‘third state’ of Brewster cannot be a state where the positioning pin 905 is engaged with one of the apertures 950, since engagement of the positioning pin 905 with one of the apertures 950 prevents rotation of the cutting mechanism relative to the support base. Claim 2 also requires, “when the first locking mechanism is in the third state, the positioning pin is at the positioning position”. Thus, “the positioning position” of Brewster must be a position of the positioning pin 905 that allows rotation of the cutting mechanism relative to the support base in view of claim 1. As such, the “positioning position” of Brewster must be a position of the positioning pin 905 that is not engaged with one of the apertures 950. However, claim 4 requires that the biasing mechanism resets the positioning pin “from the non-positioning position to the positioning position”. Brewster, though, teaches springs 910 and 915 that both urge the positioning pin 905 away from the positioning position – i.e., each of the springs 910 and 915 urges the positioning pin 905 toward engagement with one of the apertures 950. As such, claim 4 distinguishes over Sprague.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument at page 6 of the Remarks filed 12 May 2026 against Brewster anticipating claim 1 is persuasive, at least as Brewster was applied to claim 1 in the Non-Final Office action mailed 20 February 2026. The examiner agrees that the ‘third state’ of Brewster as applied to claim 1 in the Non-Final Office action mailed 20 February 2026 is a state in which the positioning pin 905 engages an aperture 950 to prohibit rotation. Since claim 1 requires that the cutting mechanism is rotatable relative to the support base in the ‘third state’, claim 1 as amended overcomes Brewster.
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
Prosecution Insights