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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-16 and 19-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
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:
locking assembly for releasably locking in claim 2
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.
Claims 12-13 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 13, the phrase “at least two holes spaced to allow for balanced distribution of weight of the apparatus when moved by the support structure(s) passed through the at least two holes” is indefinite. It is unclear how spaced holes in the main frame permit balance distribution of weight of the apparatus. In other words, how are the forces distributed amongst the holes? Is there a center of gravity of the saw and saw frame assembly which permits balanced distribution of weight? What is the structural relationship between the structures of the apparatus and the holes to permit balanced distribution of weight?
Claim 12 recites the limitation "support structure(s)" in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the support structure(s) in claim 12 are the same or different than the first support structure and the second support structure of claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,705,192 to Logan.
In re claim 1, Logan teaches an apparatus for supporting a saw assembly for cutting a workpiece, the apparatus comprising:
a main frame (22,24) supporting a translatable frame (98) such that the translatable frame is translatable longitudinally (as shown in at least Figures 13 and 14) along the main frame, the translatable frame (98) for releasably supporting (Col. 4, lines 19-22) the saw assembly such that at least a portion of a saw (B) of the saw assembly extends below the translatable frame (98) and into an interior space of the main frame such that the saw assembly supported by the translatable frame is translatable longitudinally over the interior space with a cutting plane of the saw generally parallel to a longitudinal axis of the apparatus;
a first support (68, left, as shown in at least Figure 1) extending longitudinally and positioned for supporting at least a portion of a first edge of the workpiece;
a longitudinally extending second support (68, right, as shown in at least Figure 1) generally parallel to the first support (as shown in at least figure 1) for supporting at least a portion of a second edge of the workpiece and moveable laterally between (i) a retracted position (as shown in at least Figure 2) at which the second support is farthest from the first support, and (ii) a plurality of extended positions (as shown in at least Figure 1), each extended position between the retracted position and the first support;
wherein the saw when (capable of being) activated and translated longitudinally over the interior space cuts the workpiece while the at least the portion of the first edge and the at least the portion of the second edge of the workpiece are at rest upon the first support and the second support.
Note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus “for supporting a saw assembly.” As recited, the saw assembly is merely intended use and the limitations to the saw assembly and the saw (in the body of the claim) have not been positively recited.
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 2-5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20020092397 to Liu.
In re claim 2, Logan teaches an apparatus for supporting a saw assembly for cutting a workpiece, the apparatus comprising:
a main frame (22,24,28,30) supporting a first track (78, left) and a second track (78, right), the first track and the second track spaced apart from one another;
a first support (68, left) extending adjacent at least a portion of a length of the first track, at least a portion of the first support projecting into an interior space of the main frame for supporting at least a portion of a first edge of the workpiece, the first support adjacent and at least partially below an interior edge of the main frame (as shown in at least Figure 1, see Annotated Figure 1, below);
a second support (68, right) generally parallel to the first support and extending adjacent at least a portion of a length of the second track, the second support for supporting at least a portion of a second edge of the workpiece and moveable laterally between (i) a retracted position at which the second support is farthest from the first support (as shown in at least Figure 2), and (ii) a plurality of extended positions, each extended position between the retracted position and the first support (as shown in at least Figure 1).
a translatable frame (98) for releasably supporting the saw assembly such that at least a portion of a saw of the saw assembly extends below the translatable frame and into the interior space, the translatable frame (98) translatably engaged with the first track and the second track such that the saw assembly supported by the translatable frame is translatable longitudinally over the interior space;
wherein the saw when (capable of being) activated and translated longitudinally over the interior space cuts the workpiece while the at least the portion of the first edge and the at least the portion of the second edge of the workpiece are at rest upon the first support and the second support.
Note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus “for supporting a saw assembly.” As recited, the saw assembly is merely intended use and the limitations to the saw assembly and the saw (in the body of the claim) have not been positively recited.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 3, wherein the workpiece is (capable of being) an ICF (insulating concrete form) block.
Note, the preamble is directed to an apparatus and the workpiece has not been positively recited.
In re claim 4, further comprising a saw assembly frame (80,82) for releasably securing the saw assembly to the translatable frame.
In re claim 5, wherein a lateral position of the saw assembly frame (80,82) is adjustable (as shown in at least Figures 1, 11, 13, and 14, the saw assembly frame is adjustable into various positions) to adjust a lateral position of the saw assembly over the interior space when the saw assembly is releasably secured to the saw assembly frame.
In re claim 8, wherein the first support (68, left) comprises a support beam (76) that is (capable of being) formed from a material that is cuttable by the saw.
In re claim 9, wherein the support beam is (capable of being) replaceable.
In re claim 12, further comprising one or more holes (38) formed in the main frame for use in moving the apparatus by support structure(s) passed through the one or more holes.
In re claim 13, as best understood, comprising at least two of the one or more holes, the at least two of the one or more holes spaced to allow for a balanced distribution of weight of the apparatus when moved by the support structure(s) passed through the at least two of the one or more holes (as shown in at least Figure 1).
In re claim 17, further comprising a stopper (144) at one longitudinal end of the second support (68, right) for preventing longitudinal movement of the workpiece over the first support and the second support beyond the stopper (Col. 6, lines 18-20).
It has been interpreted, the end of 30 or 136 is adjacent to an end of the second support 68, left); therefore, the stopper is at the end second support.
In re claim 18, wherein the stopper (144) is (capable of being) moveable between (i) a stopping position at which the stopper prevents the longitudinal movement of the workpiece over the first support and the second support beyond the stopper, and (ii) an open position at which the stopper does not prevent longitudinal movement of the workpiece over the first support and the second support beyond the stopper.
It has been interpreted the stopper can be insert to stop movement of the workpiece and removed (or in an open position) which does not prevent movement of the workpiece over the first and second supports.
Regarding claim 2, Logan teaches a second support movable between an extended and retracted position, but does not teach a locking assembly for releasably locking the second support in either the retracted position or any of the plurality of extended positions.
Liu teaches an apparatus having a first support (33) and a second support (33) having a sliding rail arrangement supported in a seat (31). Each seat (31) has an element (313) with a threaded hole (314) for receiving a locking bolt (34). The locking bolt aids to lock the sliding rail in place (Para 0030,0033).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the sliding rail arrangement of Logan with a seat, threaded hole, and locking bolt arrangement as taught by Liu to lock the rails to prevent unwanted movement in order to provide stability and increased safety of the device. Locking the rails at a desired location aids in supporting various length workpieces, while reducing user injury.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan in view of Liu, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent No. 7,191,692 to Huang.
In re claim 6, modified Logan teaches the translatable frame (98) and that a ruler may be attached to the material guide or rail for further assistance during cutting (Col. 6, lines 15-17), but does not teach the translatable frame includes one or more measure(s) to indicate to a user the lateral position of the saw with respect to the workpiece (Claim 6) and wherein the saw assembly frame comprises one or more lateral position indicator(s), each said one or more lateral position indicator(s) attached to the saw assembly frame such that lateral movement of the saw assembly frame similarly laterally moves the attached one or more lateral position indicator(s), each said one or more lateral position indicator(s) at least partially extending over a respective one of said one or more measure(s) to indicate to the user the lateral position of the lateral position indicator(s) with respect to the respective one or more measure(s) (Claim 7).
Huang teaches an apparatus having a translatable frame (30) includes one or more measure(s) (52) to indicate to a user the lateral position of the saw with respect to the workpiece and wherein the saw assembly frame comprises one or more lateral position indicator(s) (54), each said one or more lateral position indicator(s) attached to the saw assembly frame such that lateral movement of the saw assembly frame similarly laterally moves the attached one or more lateral position indicator(s), each said one or more lateral position indicator(s) at least partially extending over a respective one of said one or more measure(s) to indicate to the user the lateral position of the lateral position indicator(s) with respect to the respective one or more measure(s) (as shown in at least Figure 11).
Note, the saw assembly frame has not been positively recited, therefore, the apparatus merely has to be capable of having a saw assembly frame comprising one or more lateral position indicators.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the translatable table of modified Logan with one or more measures to corresponding to indicators as taught by Huang to aid in properly positioning the table with respect to the workpiece to maintain accurate and clean cuts.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Logan in view of Liu, as applied to the above claims, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20200180181 to Stawasz et al.
In re claim 10, modified Logan teaches a main frame, but does not teach wherein the main frame further comprises fork pockets spaced for receipt of forks of a forklift therethrough.
Stawasz teaches a main frame having a cross bar (36) with a pocket for receiving forks of a forklift (Para 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the main frame of modified Logan with a cross-bar(s) with a pocket for receiving forks of a forklift as taught by Stawasz which permits easy of loading and moving the devices without manual lifting (Para 0027), which reduces user injury.
In re claim 11, modified Logan teaches an apparatus, but does not teach further comprising a braking assembly attached to the main frame and moveable between a braking position for substantially preventing the apparatus from moving over a surface during a cutting operation, and a non-braking position for allowing the apparatus to be moved over the surface.
Stawasz teaches a braking assembly (Para 0019, lockable casters) attached to the main frame (as shown in at least Figure 2) and moveable between a braking position for substantially preventing the apparatus from moving over a surface during a cutting operation, and a non-braking position for allowing the apparatus to be moved over the surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provided modified Logan with a braking assembly as taught by Stawasz to provide for ease of transportation or positioning of the device (Para 0019).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN107096959 and GB2463505 teach a main frame having pockets for receiving forks of a forklift. US Patent No. 3807095 teaches a measure on a translatable frame. US 5651298 and 5526856 teach a first and second support which can be expanded and retracted.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER S MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)270-5843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8am-4pm.
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.
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights