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
Applicant’s 1-2-2026 Amendment was received. Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-4 are pending and examined in this action.
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.
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 belt transmission mechanism of Claim 1; a brake mechanism of Claim 1; a detection mechanism of Claim 3, a tightening mechanism of Claim 3.
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.
In re Claim 1, a belt transmission mechanism was interpret as a belt. A break mechanism was interpreted as a belt surrounding a rotating assembly. In re Claim 3 a detection mechanism was interpreted as a pivoting arm type structure. In re Claim 4, a tightening mechanism was interpreted as a pivoting structure with a belt.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0260241 to Steingruber in view of US 3,469,313 to Martin.
In re Claim 1, Steingruber teaches a power cutting machine comprising:
a main body (see Fig. 1, body of cutoff grinder #10) including a motor (see Fig. 1, #17);
an arm (see Fig. 1, #18, arm) having a base end connected to the main body (see end connected to main body #16, etc.) and a head end (see Fig. 1, arm #18 at #15) including a belt transmission mechanism (see Fig. 1, belt #19) configured to transmit drive power of the motor; and
a working device connected to the head end of the arm (see Fig. 1, #12 #21/#38/41) and including a cutting blade (see Fig. 1, #12) configured to be rotated by power transmitted via the belt transmission mechanism (see Para. 0018 and Para. 0022),
wherein the belt transmission mechanism includes a drive pulley connected to an output shaft of the motor (see Fig. 1-2, #38) with or without a clutch interposed therebetween (see Fig. 2, clutch #33), a driven pulley (see Figs. 1-2, #41) provided in the head end of the arm and connected to a rotating shaft (see Figs. 1-2, #21) of the cutting blade (see Para. 0018-0019), and an endless belt wound around the drive pulley and the driven pulley (see Figs. 1-2, #39), and
wherein the working device includes a brake mechanism (see Fig. 1, #11) configured to be actuated when the cutting blade is subject to overload due to the cutting blade being caught in a cut (see Para. 0007), and to apply a brake to stop rotation of or reduce a speed of the cutting brake.
Steingruber teaches the brake on the drive pully and not on the driven pulley and therefore, does not teach applying a brake to the driven pully to stop rotation of or reduce a speed of the cutting blade.
However, Martin teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to provide a brake in a driven gear (see Fig. 1,#57,60-64, etc., and Fig. 4 and 4a and Col. 4, ll. 27-65).
In the same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide the brake of Steingruber on the driven gear of Steingruber, as taught by Martin. Doing so is the substation of one known brake location for another known brake location to achieve the result of breaking the saw (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner notes that a pulley brake must be located at a pully, and in a system of two pulleys there are only two positions. Steingruber teaches placing the brake at one pulley, and Martin teaches placing the brake at the other pulley. Either are within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Claim 2, modified Steingruber, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the main body includes a handle to be held for performing work (see Fig. 1, #24).
In re Claim 3, modified Steingruber, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the brake mechanism includes:
a detection mechanism (see Steingruber, Fig. 2,, #54/53/45) configured to detect the working device bouncing up (in Steingruber, structure #54/53/45, teaches a pivoting arm which is the same structure disclosed by applicant as a detection mechanism); and
a tightening mechanism configured to be actuated upon detection of the detection mechanism to tighten a tightening belt wound around a driven pulley of the belt transmission mechanism (see Steingruber, Fig. 2, #44/49/51/52, which is a spring mechanism that tightens a tightening belt #44 wound around a driven pulley #38/43) of the belt transmission mechanism.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0260241 to Steingruber US 3,469,313 to Martin, and further in view of US 2,952,146 to Bruck.
In re Claim 4, modified Steingruber, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the brake mechanism includes a torque limiter provided between a rotating shaft of the cutting blade and a transmission shaft of the driven pulley.
However, Bruck teaches that it is known in the circular saw blade art to provide a torque limiter (see Fig. 1, #29) providing between a rotating shaft of the cutting blade and the transmission structure of the saw (see Bruck, Col. 2, ll. 56 – Col. 3, ll. 47).
In the same field of invention, saws with circular blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a clutch to the device of modified Steingruber, as taught by Bruck. Doing so provides a slip clutch that can stop and start successively, a large number of times without seizing and causing the motor to burn up and without excessively slipping and causing undue loss of power from the motor to the sawing blade (see Bruck, Col. 1, ll. 56 – Col. 2, ll. 10).
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