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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
There are 18 figures have not been thoroughly checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. For examples,
the reference “196” (called “positive-locking geometries”), Figure 1, is unclear what it is pointing to; the references “84, 86, 198”, Figure 1 are pointing to the same part; the reference “616”, Figure 15 are pointing to many different parts; ….
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in these figures.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Therefore, “The disclosure relates” in line 1 and “According to the disclosure” in line 3 should be avoided.
The lengthy specification (88 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 4 “parting joint plane” should read --a parting joint plane--. Claim 9 has the same issue.
Claim 8, line 8 “a connecting plane or parting joint plane...” should read --the connecting plane or the parting joint plane...--. Claim 8, line 10 has the same issue.
Claim 10, line 5 “…support arm” should read--…a support arm--.
Claim 11, line 7 “ foot plate” should read –a foot plate--. Claim 12, line 4 should read-…the foot plate--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
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.
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:
The “…fastening element configured to fix a suction nozzle” in claims 2 and 15 invoke 112F because first, "element" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the " element " is modified by functional language including “configured to fix a suction nozzle …”; and third, the "element" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "fastening" preceding element describes the function, not the structure of the element.
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. 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 1-15 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.
The preamble of claim 1 “A jigsaw”; the invention is directed to a jigsaw including a housing unit and a base plate, but not including a jig saw blade and a driver (motor). Thus, it is unclear whether the invention of at least claim 1 is just a housing unit and a base plate for a jigsaw or for any tools (not need to be a jigsaw). Thus, it is unclear what scope to give this preamble since there is no saw blade and no driver (motor) included. What is a constitution of a “jigsaw”?
In claim 1, line 5 is the term “around”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “around 40-60%” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “around 40-60%”. For an example, can 20-30% be considered as “around” 40-60%? Claims 7-9 have the same issue of “around”.
Claim 2, line 3 the “mutually spaced connecting regions” and line 8 “the two mutually spaced connecting regions” are confusing. Are they the same as the two connecting regions in claim 1? If they are the same, applicant is requested to use the same terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 3, line 2 the “connecting regions” and line 8 “the two mutually spaced connecting regions” are confusing. Are they the same as the two connecting regions in claim 1? If they are the same, applicant is requested to use the same terminology throughout the claims.
Claim 4 recites “a center of gravity” of the jigsaw with or without a battery that is unclear. Examiner notes that to determine the center of gravity of a tool depends on a point at which the entire weight of a tool body may be considered as concentrated so that if supported at this point the body would remain in equilibrium in any position. However, see the discussion of the preamble of claim 1, there is no motor, blade, and or battery claimed. What is the cause the center of gravity being positioned within or between the reach-through opening and the longitudinal axis since the main features of the jigsaw (a motor and a saw blade) are not claimed?
If an art has a housing unit with a base plate to form a reach-through opening and a suction nozzle, it can be conclusion that the center of gravity is positioned within or between the reach-through opening, right?
Claim 5, lines 3 and 6 “a first of the two connecting regions…a second of the two connecting regions” are unclear whether the “first” and the “second” respectively refer each connecting region or portions or connecting points or locations or else. Claim 8 has the same issue “a first…” and claim 10 has the same issue “a second…”.
Claim 6, line 2 “a motor housing section” is unclear whether it refers to the “motor housing section” in claim 5 or an additional motor housing section.
In claim 6, the last line is the term “substantially thickened in square or rectangular form”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially thickened in square or rectangular form” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially thickened in square or rectangular form”. Is the “second” of the two connecting regions thickened in square or rectangular or what shape? The language of “substantially” is suggested to delete for avoiding confusing. Claim 9 has the same issue “substantially”.
Claim 8, the last sentence “the second connecting region” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new second connecting region or inherently refers to previously introduced one of the two connecting regions.
Claim 9, lines 3 and 8-9 “a connecting surface” is unclear whether it refers an additional connecting surface or the connecting surface in claim 8.
Claim 9, lines 4, 9-10 “a connecting plane or parting joint plane” is unclear whether it refers an additional connecting plane and an additional parting joint plane or the limitations in claim 8.
Claim 9, line 8, the "in particular…" is unclear whether the "in particular" limitation is optional or required.
Claim 9, the last line “a workpiece contact plane” is unclear whether it refers an additional workpiece contact plane or the workpiece contact plane in claim 8.
The scope of claim 9 “…the connecting plane or the parting joint plane of the first connecting region is around 18%” is confusing and conflicting with the scope of claim 8 since claim 8 requires to have around 30% and claim 9 requires 18%. Is the connecting plane adjustable?
Claim 10, the last paragraph is confusing since it uses the “and/or” many times which make the languages “has or is made of an aluminum alloy” in the 2nd last line is unclear whether it refers back to the support element, the load-bearing, or the rigid element or the support element integrally with the base plate.
Claim 11, line 3 “a support leg” is unclear whether it refers an additional support leg or the support leg in claim 10.
Claim 11, the last line “a support surface” is unclear whether it refers an additional support surface or the support surface in claim 10. Claim 12 has the same issue “a support surface”.
Claim 12, the last sentence “at least one oblique, offset and/or arcuate support leg or support arm” is unclear whether the “at least one oblique, offset and/or arcuate support leg or support arm” refers the support leg or the support arm in claim 10 or not.
Claim 13 “a longitudinal direction” is unclear what it refers to and is this direction the same as the longitudinal direction of claim 1?
Claim 15 “the sawing region” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a region of a saw blade or any region in the jigsaw.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting “all issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jerabek et al (US 2012/0192440) hereinafter Jerabek.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Jerabek shows a jigsaw (10, Figures 1-2, including at least a reciprocating saw blade 18 and a motor 38), having comprising:
a housing unit (14, Figure 1) and
a base plate (22, 350), wherein;
the housing unit is “around” 40-60% longer than the base plate in a longitudinal direction of the jigsaw (see the issue “around” above and as it is written, it is unclear whether the housing unit is “around” 40-60% longer than end to end of the base plate in a longitudinal direction or an end of the base plate to an end of a front recess of the base plate as seen the length illustrated in Figure 8 below, such that a length L2 of the housing is “around” 40-60% longer than the length L1 of the end of the base plate to the end of the front recess of the base plate and meets the limitation), and
the housing unit and the base plate are bracingly interconnected (Figures 1-2), in a rigid by two connecting regions (where the reference “294” and 386 in Figure 8 below) mutually spaced in the longitudinal direction of the jigsaw (10), comprising bearing and or fixing points (see a surface of an exhaust post 294 and see details of the locking mechanism 386, Para. 40 for bearing points while the housing 14 rotated and locked or fixed relative with the base 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
809
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the base plate (22, 350, Figure 2), the housing unit (14) and the connecting regions enclose a reach-through opening (see Figure 8 above, especially Figure 2 shows 2 halves of the housing 14 have recesses below a motor housing); and a fastening element (see the connection of passageway 282, Figure 8) for fixing configured to fix a suction nozzle (290, 298, Figure 8) is arranged at least partially between the two connecting regions (Figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the connecting regions have a distance of 25-75% of the length of the base plate (Figure 8 above, see the length L3 of reach-through opening that is greater at least 25% of the length of the base plate).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the two connecting regions comprise first and second connecting regions, the first connecting region (where it closes to the saw blade 18, Figure 8) is arranged in a region of a gearbox flange (Para. 20 “an outer ring gear 70, gears 82…transmission 62” and Figure 8 shows a flange or a head 34) connected to the base plate (22, 350, Figure 8), and
the second connecting region (opposite the first connecting region, Figure 8) is arranged in a the region of a motor housing section of the housing unit (12) of the jigsaw (see a housing portion 30, Figure 8 for housing a motor 38).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the housing unit (14) or the motor housing section (30, Figure 8) in the second connecting region has a larger circumference around the longitudinal axis (Figure 8) compared to a housing region surrounding the drive unit (the motor 8, Figure 8 shows an outer section 30 greater than an inner chamber or a housing region for around and receiving the motor 8).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Jerabek shows that a connecting surface delimited at least by the housing unit (14) in a parting joint plane of the first connecting region (where it directs to the saw blade 18, as seen L4 in Figure 8 below) is “around” 30% of the connecting surface which is delimited by a foot plate (350) fixed thereto in a workpiece contact plane of the foot plate (see the length L4, Figure 8 below compared to the length of the plate 350 about 30%).
PNG
media_image2.png
809
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Jerabek shows that a connecting surface delimited at least by the housing unit (14) from three sides, in the parting joint plane of the first connecting region is around 18% of the connecting surface which is delimited by the base plate fixed thereto in a workpiece contact plane (see the discussion in claim 8 above for 30%, however, since this claim has issue of “around”, the 30% can be meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the housing unit (14) and the base plate (22, 350) are connected via an exposed support element (a housing portion where the vents 322 are in Figures 8-9) which is exposed in the region of a support leg or a support arm (see the portion bears on the exhaust port 294, Figure 9), having a support surface (see the end surface of the portion of the housing unit 14 contacting against the exhaust port 294, Figure 9) constituting a second connecting region of the two connecting regions to the housing unit; and
the exposed support element is a load-bearing (see Figures 1, 8-9, the portion of the housing contacting against the exhaust port 294 is a load bearing as discussed in Para. 18 “a base 22 pivotably coupled to the housing 14 to permit adjustment of the cutting angle or the bevel angle of the saw blade 18 relative to the base 22”).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Jerabek shows that a support leg of the exposed support element (see the discussion in claim 10 above), in relation to the base plate (22, 350), forms an offset (Figure 9); and the support leg forms an angle of around 40-50° with a workpiece contact surface of the base plate (see the “around” issue above and see Figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
589
686
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the exposed support element (see the discussions in claims 10-11 above) forms a support surface (that contacts the exhaust post 294) for the housing unit, which is formed parallel to the workpiece contact surface of the base plate (the support surface is parallel to the sub-base 350, Figure 9) and has an axial and vertical offset with respect to the base plate and is connected to the base plate (see the support surface of the housing 14 rotated on the exhaust post 294 having a vertical offset relative with the base plate 22 and is connected to the base plate, Figure 1) by at least one oblique, offset and/or arcuate support leg (Figure 1 shows the portion of the housing unit slidable on the exhaust port 294 is oblique, offset and/or arcuate support leg “a concave surface on the exhaust port 294” that seen in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the exposed support element (see the discussions in claims 10-13 above) is designed such that it tapers concavely from the base plate towards the housing unit (see Figure 9 below) as to have a decreasing width (of the motor housing section 30, Figure 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
765
716
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the exposed support element (see the discussion in claims 10-14 above and Figure 9 above) protrudes axially beyond the base plate (Figure 8 shows an upper portion, where is the upper reference “322”, protrudes axially beyond the base plate) on a side of the base plate facing away from the sawing region (see Figure 8, the portion at the reference “322” is away from the saw blade 18).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerabek in view of Ni et al (US 2013/0145631).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Jerabek inherently shows a center of gravity of the jigsaw (10), with or without a battery applied to the jigsaw, however, it is unclear whether it is positioned between the reach-through opening and the longitudinal axis or not.
Ni shows a similar jigsaw (Figure 1) having a center of gravity (G2) of an electric tool is between a recess (8, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the jigsaw of Jerabek to have the center of gravity of the jigsaw closer or between the reach-through opening or recess, as taught by Ni, in order to allow a user to easily control the jigsaw (Para. 13, the last sentence of Ni).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerabek.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Jerabek shows that parting joints (a portion contacting the exhaust post 294 as seen Figure 8 and a locking mechanism 386 as discussed in Para. 40, Figure 8 below) of the two connecting regions, have a horizontal offset relative to each other (below Figure 8 shows an offset distance between two parting joints in the horizontal direction), however, it is unclear whether the horizontal offset is around 100 mm or not.
Examiner notes that the passageway (282) having an inner diameter sized to receive a standard 1 ¼ in (31mm) vacuum wand 298 as stated in Para. 32, the last few lines. Looking at Figure 8 below, the horizontal offset distance is about 5 times of the inner diameter (150mm).
Since Applicant had not pointed out or demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as the horizontal offset is around 100mm as set in the claim, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the horizontal offset to be claimed size (around 100mm), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955), this gives the manufacturers a choice to produce compact jigsaws.
PNG
media_image5.png
767
884
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerabek in view of Jensen et al (US 2021/0237178) hereinafter Jensen.
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Jerabek shows that the exposed support element (see the discussions in claims 10-12 above) and the housing unit (14) having an on-board power source (battery) to provide power to the motor as discussed in Para. 19, however, Jerabek silently discusses corresponding positive-locking geometries, which provide support a battery in at least two spatial directions extending perpendicularly or obliquely to a longitudinal axis direction (x) and a hoist axis direction (y) of the jigsaw.
Jensen shows a jigsaw (Figures 2-3) including corresponding positive-locking geometries (Figure 2 below), which provide support a battery (22) in at least two spatial directions extending perpendicularly or obliquely to a longitudinal axis direction (x) and a hoist axis direction (y) of the jigsaw (see the positive-locking geometries that extends into two X, Y directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the jigsaw of Jerabek to have a battery interface (positive-locking geometries), as taught by Jensen, in order to allow to firmly secure the battery to the jigsaw.
PNG
media_image6.png
608
766
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/22/2025