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 .
Response to Amendment
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 3-3-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1 and 9 were amended. Claims 1-9 are pending and examined in this action.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2,101,362 to Davidson.
In re Claim 1, Davidson teaches a modified bow saw comprising:
a bow saw frame (see Fig. 1, #10) comprising two ends (see Fig. 1, #11/12);
two spring holders (see Figs. 1-4, #22/37), with one attached to each end of the bow saw frame (see Figs. 1-2);
the two spring holders each comprising a spring (see Figs. 1-4, springs #47/48; The Examiner notes that the text of Davidson appears to reference spring #47 and #41));
a saw blade comprising two ends (see Figs. 1-2, #15 has two ends);
each end of the saw blade attached to one of the springs (see Figs. 1-4, #showing one end of blade #15 attached to each of assemblies which includes either spring #47 or spring #48 – attached was interpreted as connected in assembly, the Examiner notes that the claims do not require the springs be directly attached to the blade and nor do Applicant’s figures illustrate this );
wherein each spring is disposed inside one spring holder (see Figs. 2-4, spring #47 is located within bore #21 of head #22 and spring #48 is located within bore #50 of #37), and both springs in combination are configured to move the saw blade back and forth in a sawing motion along the direction of the blade independently of the spring holders and the bow (see Col. 2, ll. 27-34 teaching that relative longitudinal movement is permitted along slot #24);
a reciprocating saw attachment adapter configured to attach to a reciprocating mechanism of an electrically powered reciprocating saw (the handle is capable of being attached to an electrically power reciprocating saw).
In re Claim 4, Davidson teaches further comprising one or more braces connecting the frame and the spring holder (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,101,362 to Davidson in view of US 1,051,193 to Burge.
In re Claim 2, Davidson, does not teach wherein the frame includes an adjustable depth bar guide.
However, Burge teaches that it is known in the sawing art to provide an adjustable depth bar guide (see Burge, Figs. 1-3, #2 and 20-22 and 24-26). In the same field of invention, hand held saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide an adjustable depth bar guide (see Burge, Figs. 1-3, #23/19 and 20-22 and 24-26). Doing so provides a means for adjustment to locate the saw nearer or farther from the body of the frame to cut larger workpieces (see Burge, Col 1, ll. 31-40).
Claim 3, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,101,362 to Davidson in view of US 5,313,709 to Pabon-Delgado.
In re Claim 3, Davidson, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the frame comprises one or more ergonomic handles.
However, Pabon-Delgado teaches wherein the frame comprises one or more ergonomic handles (see Pabon-Delgado, Figs. 1-2, #88).
In the same field of invention, hack saws, it would have been obvious to add two handles to the frame of the saw of Davidson. Doing so provides additional handles to assist the user is using the saw, for example if the saw gets “stuck” in the workpiece the handles on the frame allow the user to pull the saw from the workpiece above the blade where the saw is stuck.
In re Claim 5, Davidson, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the reciprocating saw attachment adapter connects to a plate (see Pabon-Delgado, Figs. 1-2, #18) on the spring holder.
However, Pabon-Delgado teaches that it is known to connect a hack saw structure to a hacksaw frame (see Pabon- Delgado, Fig. 1), wherein the reciprocating saw attachment adapter connects to a plate (see Pabon- Delgado, Figs. 1-2, #18).
In the same field of invention, hacksaws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the power driven hack saw structure of Pabon- Delgado with the hacksaw of Davidson. Doing so would provide a power driven hacksaw. Doing so provides a hacksaw that is power driven and not requiring manual effort, thus allowing more people to use the saw and cutting things.
In re Claim 9, Davidson in re Claim 1, is silent as to: attaching a modified bow saw of claim 1 to an electrically powered reciprocating saw via a reciprocating saw attachment adapter; electrically powering the reciprocating saw; and sawing a material with the modified bow saw.
However, Pabon-Delgado teaches attaching a hack saw structure to an electrically power driven saw structure (see Pabon-Delgado, Figs.1-2; see also abstract and Col. 1, ll. 12-56) saw of claim 1 to a reciprocating saw (see Pabon-Delgado, the structure that moves #20 is considered a reciprocating saw) via a reciprocating saw attachment adapter (The structure that attaches to #20 is considered a reciprocating saw adapter); electrically powering the reciprocating saw (see Pabon-Delgato, Figs. 1-2, #11); and sawing a material with the modified bow saw (the structure of Pabon-Delgato is a saw for sawing material).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,101,362 to Davidson, and further in view of US 1,852,616 to Kittle.
In re Claim 6, Davidson, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein the saw blade comprises steel or a carbide. However, Kittle teaches that it is known in the saw art that comprises steel (see Kittle, Pg. 1, 73-82, teaching a blade made of hardened steel). In the same field of invention, hand held saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the blade out of hardened steel. Doing so would allow the user to cut metal (see Kittle, Pg. 1, ll. 73-82).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,101,362 to Davidson, and further in view of US 66,690 to Elmer.
In re Claim 7, Davison, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the frame comprises steel. However, Elmer teaches that it is known to make the frame of a saw from steel (see Elmer Fig. 1, “H,” Pg. 1, which states “I make the bow H in any of the known forms, of iron or steel or other suitable material.”). In the same field of invention, hand held saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the frame from steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Here, making the frame from steel would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,101,362 to Davidson, and further in view of US 843,827 to Knudsen.
In re Claim 8, Davidson, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the spring comprises steel.
However, Knudsen teaches that it is known in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the spring from steel, as taught by Knudsen. In the same field of invention, coil springs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the spring from steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Also see MPEP 2144.07. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. states "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.). Here, making the spring from steel would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
US 2,101,362 to Davison teaches the structure of a hack saw with two springs/two spring holders and a blade that is capable of longitudinal movement.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724