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 .
Drawings
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “the base box mounted to the seat and the band saw machine, or the base box connected to an underside of the seat, wherein the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging, or the base box is connected to the underside of the seat as a stand to increase the height of operation of the band saw machine.”
Claim 1 thereby recites two “or” statements in conjunction. The first “or” statement (A1): the base box mounted to the seat and the band saw machine. The second statement being (A2): the base box connected to an underside of the seat. The second “or” statement is composed of the first option (B1): wherein the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging and the second option (B2): the base box is connected to the underside of the seat as a stand to increase the height of operation of the band saw machine. These “or” statements allow for 4 possible permutations. A1, B1; A1B2; A2B1 and A2B2. While the Applicant has support for three of the permutations, there is no support for A2B1. The base box can be connected to an underside of the seat. Machine as per in Figure 4, but in this orientation, it does not appear that the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging
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.
Claims 1-8 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 1 thereby recites two “or” statements in conjunction. The first “or” statement (A1): the base box mounted to the seat and the band saw machine. The second statement being (A2): the base box connected to an underside of the seat. The second “or” statement is composed of the first option (B1): wherein the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging and the second option (B2): the base box is connected to the underside of the seat as a stand to increase the height of operation of the band saw machine. These “or” statements allow for 4 possible permutations. A1, B1; A1B2; A2B1 and A2B2. While the Applicant has support for three of the permutations, there is no support for A2B1. The base box can be connected to an underside of the seat. Machine as per in Figure 4, but in this orientation, it does not appear that the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the base box is mounted to the seat to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging.” It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the limitations “to avoid collisions” and “to facilitate packaging” impart to the structure of the base box. Does that mean that the base box surrounds the band saw machine? Does that mean that the base box aids in the attachment of the bandsaw to another packaging system, or something else entirely?
Claim 3, line 3 recites, “wherein the seat includes multiple second connecting holes located corresponding to the first connecting holes of the base box for mutual screw fixing.” It is not clear what are the metes and bounds for the limitation “for mutual screw fixing”. It is not clear what structure is being imparted to this limitation. Does the Applicant mean that there is a bolt or screw that passes through both holes in the seat and base box to attach the seat and box together? Does the Applicant mean that the two holes are threaded or that they thread together? Does the Applicant mean another interpretation?
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 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 1-2, 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silva (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) in view of Fernandes et al. (U.S. Publication 2005/0280228).
In regards to claim 1, Silva discloses a band saw machine base structure comprising: a base box (84) having a receiving space (i, and a seat (support base 12) connected to an underside of a band saw machine (20; not positively claimed), the base box (84) mounted to the seat (12) and the band saw machine (20), or the base box connected to an underside of the seat, wherein the base box (84) is mounted to the seat (12) to protect the band saw machine to avoid collisions during transportation and facilitate packaging, or the base box (84) is connected to the underside of the seat (12) as a stand to increase the height of operation of the band saw machine (per Fig. 3).
It cannot be ascertained if the Applicant is claiming the band saw machine within as part of the band saw machine base structure. To the extent that it can be argued that the band saw machine is being claimed. Then the miter saw of Silva is not a band saw. Attention is further directed to the Fernandes industrial cart. Fernandes discloses that the cart can be utilized with miter saws (Fig. 1) or bandsaws mounted on a miter saw base (B; fig. 28a/b; paragraph [0202]). As Fernandes demonstrates that the substitution for a circular saw for a bandsaw on a miter base is known in conjunction with their use on a cart, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have substituted the miter saw of Silva for a bandsaw as demonstrated by Fernandes as an alternative cutting tool to be utilized with a portable worktable.
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Silva discloses wherein two lifting portions (transport handles 57) are formed to a top of two sides of the base box (84), multiple first connecting holes are formed in the top of the base box.
In regards to claim 5, the modified device of Silva discloses wherein a caster set (wheels 18) is connected to one end of the underside of the seat (support base 12).
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Silva discloses wherein a gripping portion (clip 49) is formed to one end of the seat (12), a handling portion (slots 34/44) are formed to each of two sides of the underside of the seat.
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Silva discloses wherein the seat (12) includes a chip outlet (e.g. one of the slots 34/44) and a recessed area (e.g. one of the cavities 81), and the chip outlet (e.g. one of the slots 34/44) is connected to the recessed area (e.g. one of the cavities 81; fig. 4).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silva (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) in view of Fernandes et al. (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) and in further view of Brown et al. (CN101376246), herein referred to as Brown.
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Silva discloses the claimed invention except wherein the seat includes multiple second connecting holes located corresponding to the first connecting holes of the base box for mutual screw fixing. Instead, Silva discloses the use of straps 56 that engage clips 49 for securing the cover 11 to the base 12. However, bolts/screws and mating holes are well known in the art as an easy means of removably securing two objections. Attention is further directed to the Brown foot rest for a table saw, wherein mounting holes 19 are provided within the foot rest to allow bolts 18 to penetrate both the foot rest and the saw to secure the saw to the foot rest. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have replaced the straps and clips of Sliva with holes and screws/bolts for securing the seat to the cover as an alternative, easily manufacturable and replaceable means of reliably securing the seat to the cover.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silva (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) in view of Fernandes et al. (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) and in further view of Firth et al. (U.S. Patent 10,421,183), herein referred to as Firth.
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Silva discloses the claimed invention except wherein a wheel set is connected to one end of an underside of the base box, multiple fasteners are connected to a lower edge of the base box. Attention is further directed to the Firth power tool. Firth discloses a frame for supporting a table saw, a circular saw, or a band saw per Figure 6e. The frame is provided with a set of wheels 16 to allow the saw and frame to be moved within a compact position such as shown in Figure 3a/3b. The legs 4/10 that attach to the frame can be telescoped with the frame and extended from the frame to provide for an increased height of the tool. Firth discloses that the legs can also be provided with wheels (col. 4, lines 48-57) instead of feet to allow the location of the apparatus to be adjusted when the legs are in the extended position. As Silva discloses that the support base 12 can roll on rubber wheels when it is supporting the saw and cover 11 and that the cover has legs 15 to support the base and saw when in an elevated position, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided wheels, attached with fasteners (pins, shafts, rivets, bolts/nuts, etc.) on the cover in addition to or in replacement of the legs 15 to also provided for movement of the apparatus when in the elevated position as demonstrated by Firth.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Silva (U.S. Patent 9,403,224) in view of Fernandes et al. (U.S. Patent 9,403,224).
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Silva discloses wherein the seat includes a collection box (one of the cavities 81 formed by rectilinear portions 35,45, 50,51), the collection box is disposed in the recessed area of the seat, the collection box includes a handle (any of the portions 35,45,50,51 can be construed a handle) but does not disclose that the handle (one of the portions 35,45,50,51) is at a center thereof. The difference between Silva and the claimed invention involving another rectilinear portion in the middle of 35,45,50 and 51 that added additional support. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have duplicated one of the rectilinear portions in the center of the box area to add further stability to the support base 12 for supporting the bandsaw and workpiece during cutting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724