DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wherein the contact portion extends to a position more rearward than a blade in a front-rear direction” of claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
-Examiner notes that while the specification provides Figures 10A and 10B with a different embodiment, the head (210) is not shown in a position related to the blade in a front-rear direction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 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 11 and 21-24 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.
-Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein the contact portion extends to a position more rearward than a blade in a front-rear direction” is unclear. It is unclear if the contact portion manually extends, of if merely a dimension of the contact portion is to be “more rearward” than a blade. As currently claimed, it is also unclear as to what “a blade” refers to, as “a blade” does not relate to the jigsaw. For the purposes of examination, the jigsaw will be treated as having a body with a blade, and the contact portion has a dimension that extends rearward from the blade of the jigsaw housing.
-Regarding claim 21, the phrase “cover plate configured to cover a lower portion of the base unit” is unclear. Examiner notes claim 1 requires the base unit to be in contact the workpiece. How can the base unit provide a cover, while also allowing for the base unit to contact the workpiece? As shown in Figure 8 of the application, the limitation will be treated as an extension of the base unit, and the combination of the base unit and cover allow for contact with the workpiece.
-Regarding claims 21-24 the preamble of the claims (The auxiliary base) is unclear in light of the amendments made to claims 1 an 8. The limitations will be treated as “The jigsaw” of the related claims, in light of amendments made to all other currently amended claims.
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 1-14, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0362365) in view of Hampton (U.S. Patent 6,757,981).
Regarding claim 1, Aoyama teaches a portable machining apparatus (1) (Paragraph 0097; notes the portable machine apparatus may be a jigsaw) comprising;
a base unit (2) to be in contact with a workpiece, and a body (10) tiltable relative to the base unit (Paragraph 0060) in a lateral direction, and an auxiliary base (30) comprising attachable to the base unit (Figures 7-8), the auxiliary base including:
a head including a contact portion (31) configured to be in contact with the workpiece,
a leg (32) extending in the lateral direction and being attachable to the base unit,
wherein the auxiliary base is attachable with an auxiliary width from the contact portion to a middle of the base unit in the lateral direction of the body being greater than a width of the base unit in the lateral direction (Figures 7-8);
Aoyama does not provide wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface of the contact portion is positioned along a same axis with the lower surface of the base unit, and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit.
Hampton teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools to provide a handheld cutting tool (13) with a removable auxiliary base (11)(Col. 2, Lines 23-35), the auxiliary base attachable to the base unit (Figures 1-3), the auxiliary base including:
a head (39) including a contact portion configured to be in contact with the workpiece (Figure 1, lower surface of element 39 contacting the workpiece W),
a leg (37) extending in the lateral direction and being attachable to the base unit (Figure 1 via screws 45),
wherein the auxiliary base is attachable with an auxiliary width from the contact portion to a middle of the base unit in the lateral direction of the body being greater than a width of the base unit in the lateral direction (Figures 1-3);
wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface (S2) of a contact portion (39) is positioned along a same axis (A1) with a lower surface (S1) of a base unit (25), and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit (Figures 1-3; See annotated Figure 3 below; Examiner notes element 53 is moveable left and right (See Figure 1 noting abutment directly onto the workpiece W) such that the lower surface S2 of element 39 provides for the claimed limitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
241
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Aoyama to incorporate the teachings of Hampton to provide an auxiliary base wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface of the contact portion is positioned along a same axis with the lower surface of the base unit, and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit. In doing so, it allows for the auxiliary attachment to be both above the workpiece, and beside the workpiece to provide proper guidance during cutting.
Regarding claim 2, Aoyama teaches the auxiliary base according to claim 1, but does not provide wherein the contact portion is at a position farther in a direction in which the body is tilted than a center of gravity of the jigsaw having the body tilted at an angle of 45° in the lateral direction of the body.
Regarding claim 2: Aoyama discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Aoyama further discloses the saw has the ability to tilt to some degree.
However, Aoyama does not expressly disclose wherein the contact portion is at a position farther in a direction in which the body is tilted than a center of gravity of the jigsaw having the body tilted at an angle of 45° in the lateral direction of the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Aoyama to have “the contact portion is at a position farther in a direction in which the body is tilted than a center of gravity of the jigsaw having the body tilted at an angle of 45° in the lateral direction of the body” since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Aoyama. would not operate differently with the claimed contact portion positioning and tilt angle and since the contact portion is intended to extend beyond the saw during use when tilted the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance and tilt angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0006, 0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Aoyama teaches a portable machining apparatus (1) (Paragraph 0097; notes the portable machine apparatus may be a jigsaw) comprising;
a base unit (2) to be in contact with a workpiece;
a body (10) tiltable relative to the base unit (Paragraph 0060) in a lateral direction;
an auxiliary base (30) comprising attachable to the base unit (Figures 7-8), the auxiliary base including:
a head including a contact portion (31) configured to be in contact with the workpiece,
wherein the auxiliary base is attachable with an auxiliary width from the contact portion to a middle of the base unit in the lateral direction of the body being greater than a width of the base unit in the lateral direction (Figures 7-8).
Aoyama further discloses the saw has the ability to tilt to some degree.
However, Aoyama does not expressly disclose wherein the contact portion is at a position farther in a direction in which the body is tilted than a center of gravity of the jigsaw having the body tilted at an angle of 45° in the lateral direction of the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Aoyama to have “the contact portion is at a position farther in a direction in which the body is tilted than a center of gravity of the jigsaw having the body tilted at an angle of 45° in the lateral direction of the body” since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984).
In the instant case, the device of Aoyama. would not operate differently with the claimed contact portion positioning and tilt angle and since the contact portion is intended to extend beyond the saw during use when tilted the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance and tilt angle. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [0006, 0059]).
Aoyama does not provide wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface of the contact portion is positioned along a same axis with the lower surface of the base unit, and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit.
Hampton teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools to provide a handheld cutting tool (13) with a removable auxiliary base (11)(Col. 2, Lines 23-35), the auxiliary base attachable to the base unit (Figures 1-3), the auxiliary base including:
a head (39) including a contact portion configured to be in contact with the workpiece (Figure 1, lower surface of element 39 contacting the workpiece W),
a leg (37) extending in the lateral direction and being attachable to the base unit (Figure 1 via screws 45),
wherein the auxiliary base is attachable with an auxiliary width from the contact portion to a middle of the base unit in the lateral direction of the body being greater than a width of the base unit in the lateral direction (Figures 1-3);
wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface (S2) of a contact portion (39) is positioned along a same axis (A1) with a lower surface (S1) of a base unit (25), and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit (Figures 1-3; See annotated Figure 3 below; Examiner notes element 53 is moveable left and right (See Figure 1 noting abutment directly onto the workpiece W) such that the lower surface S2 of element 39 provides for the claimed limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Aoyama to incorporate the teachings of Hampton to provide an auxiliary base wherein when viewed from a front of the saw, a lower surface of the contact portion is positioned along a same axis with the lower surface of the base unit, and the axis is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the base unit. In doing so, it allows for the auxiliary attachment to be both above the workpiece, and beside the workpiece to provide proper guidance during cutting.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the jigsaw includes a battery and a battery mount (Aoyama Paragraph 0048-0049, 0097).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary base is at a position capable of adjustment relative to the base unit (2) in the lateral direction (Aoyama Paragraph 0063-0064; Figures 7-8 and Hampton Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary base is capable of being selectively attachable to and detachable from one of two ends of the base unit in the lateral direction (Aoyama Figures 7-8 and Hampton Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the contact portion is capable of selectively supporting one of two ends of the base unit in the lateral direction (Aoyama Figures 7-8 and Hampton Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, further comprising: wherein the head (39) is connected to the leg (37) with a first distance from an upper surface of the head to the leg in a vertical direction perpendicular to the horizontal direction being different from a second distance from a lower surface of the head to the leg in the vertical direction (Hampton Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the base unit (2) includes a ruler mount (35), and the auxiliary base is attachable to the ruler mount (Aoyama Paragraph 0063-0064 and Figure 7).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the body includes a blade, and the auxiliary base is located frontward from the blade in a front-rear direction perpendicular to the lateral direction (Aoyama Figures 3 and 7 and Hampton Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 1, wherein the contact portion extends to a position more rearward than a blade in a front-rear direction (Hampton Figures 1 and 2 noting positioning of leg 37 and head with contact portion extending further rearward past the sawblade tip).
Regarding claim 12, Aoyama teaches the auxiliary base according to claim 1, wherein the head (39) includes a recess-protrusion portion (47) (Hampton Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Aoyama teaches the auxiliary base according to claim 12, further comprising: a protrusion (65,57b,57a) having a height greater than or equal to a height of the recess-protrusion portion and surrounding the recess-protrusion portion (Hampton Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Aoyama teaches the auxiliary base according to claim 12, wherein the auxiliary base includes a plurality of the protrusions (65,57b,57a) with different shapes (Hampton Figure 3).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 2, and wherein the jigsaw includes a battery and a battery mount (Aoyama Paragraph 0048-0049, 0097).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 3, and a battery and a battery mount (Aoyama Paragraph 0048-0049, 0097).
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoyama (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0362365) in view of Hampton (U.S. Patent 6,757,981) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Naughton (U.S. Patent NO. 10,413,980).
Regarding claim 21, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 8, but does not provide further comprising a cover plate configured to cover a lower portion of the base unit.
Naughton teaches it is known in the art of jigsaws to provide a cover plate (110) configured to cover a lower portion of a base unit (106,108)(Figure 12 and Col. 4, Lines 51-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Aoyama to incorporate the teachings of Naughton to provide the base unit with a cover. In doing so, it allows for a protective removable cover to the base unit.
Regarding claim 22, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 21, wherein when the cover plate is attached to the base unit, the head is connected to the leg with a first distance from the upper surface of the head to the leg in the vertical direction being smaller than a second distance from the lower surface of the head to the leg in the vertical direction (Hampton Figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 22, wherein the cover plate has a thickness equal to a difference between the first distance and the second distance.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make have the cover plate having a thickness equal to a difference between the first distance and the second distance because discovering a workable cover plate with the specific thickness dimensions would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired cut to be made. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Aoyama, Hampton and Naughton have set forth it is known to have different shaped and sized base plates working with auxiliary components to cooperate with a workpiece. Also, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, the modified device of Aoyama teaches the jigsaw according to claim 21, but does not provide wherein the cover plate is formed from plastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Aoyama to incorporate the cover plate as plastic. In doing so, it allows for a cheap and easily replaceable cover plate. Also, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 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.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited.
- "892 cited references A-F on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of saws, saw guards and saw base/base accessories.
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 RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 12/18/2025Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724