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 .
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:
moving mechanism in claim 1.
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 § 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, 2, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR100750309 to Yoo et al.
In re claim 1, Yoo teaches a power tool system, comprising:
a base (see Annotated Figure 1, below) having a top surface (see Annotated Figure 1, below), a bottom surface (see Annotated Figure 1, below), and an opening (see Annotated Figure 1, there is an opening between the top and bottom surface divided by a linear surface) between the top surface and the bottom surface;
a support structure (34) passing through the opening in the base, the support structure having a first end (see Annotated Figure 1, the first end of the support structure is opposite to the second end) and a second end (see Annotated Figure 1);
a power-driven tool (100) positioned above the top surface of the base and mounted to the first end of the support structure; and
a moving mechanism (20,35) disposed below the top surface of the base and coupled to the second end of the support structure.
In re claim 2, wherein the power-driven tool and the support structure are movable along the opening (see Annotated Figure 1) in the base to engage a workpiece positioned on the top surface of the base.
In re claim 4, wherein the moving mechanism comprises:
a rail system (20) fixed to the base below the top surface; and
a carrier (22) having an opening (as shown in at least Figure 2b, there is an opening (screw hole) to receive and secure the second end of the support structure (via screws), the carrier (22) movable along the rail system.
In re claim 6, wherein the power-driven tool comprises a saw configured to rotatably drive a blade (120).
In re claim 7, wherein the blade (120) is coplanar with the support structure (34).
Examiner’s note, the blade is coplanar with the support structure in a horizontal plane (which extends in and out of the paper as shown in at least Figures 1 and 2b). A portion of the blade is also coplanar with the support structure as shown in at least Annotated Figure 2, below.
In re claim 8, wherein:
the saw comprises a handle (see Annotated Figure 2); and
a center plane of the handle is coplanar with the blade and the support structure (34).
PNG
media_image1.png
902
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 8,302,518 to Rybka et al.
In re claim 1, Rybka teaches a power tool system, comprising:
a base (see Annotated Figure 3, below) having a top surface (see Annotated Figure 3, below), a bottom surface (see Annotated Figure 3, below), and an opening (the opening is the area defined between the top and bottom surfaces of the base) between the top surface and the bottom surface;
a support structure (Fig. 13. 226) passing through the opening in the base, the support structure having a first end (as shown in Figure 13) and a second end (as shown in at least Figure 13);
a power-driven tool (108) positioned above the top surface of the base and mounted to the first end of the support structure; and
a moving mechanism (188,190,232) disposed below the top surface of the base and coupled to the second end of the support structure.
PNG
media_image2.png
531
724
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, wherein the power-driven tool (108) and the support structure (Fig. 13, 226) are movable along the opening (see Annotated Figure 1) in the base to engage a workpiece positioned on the top surface of the base.
In re claim 3, a support structure (Fig. 13, 226) comprising a riving knife (256,258).
Note, the support structure is coupled to and therefore comprises a riving knife.
In re claim 6, wherein the power-driven tool comprises a saw configured to rotatably drive a blade (Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. in view of US Patent No. 8,302,518 to Rybka et al.
In re claim 3, Yoo teaches a support structure, but does not teach the support structure comprising a riving knife.
Rybka teaches a support structure (224) comprising a riving knife (256,258).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the support structure of Yoo with a riving knife as taught by Rybka so as the workpiece passes the saw blade, the riving knife spreads the cut portions of the workpiece to prevents binding of the saw blade by the workpiece (Col. 6, lines 50-54).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. in view of US Patent No. 11,628,587 to Kinnison et al.
In re claim 5, Yoo teaches wherein:
the rail system comprises a first rail (20, Yoo) and a second rail (20, Yoo), but does not teach the carrier comprises at least one roller to roll along the first rail and at least one roller to roll along the second rail.
Kinnison teaches a carrier (160) comprising rollers to roll along the guide (152) to facilitate translation of the saw unit (Col. 3, lines 33-35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Yoo with a first and second roller to engage the guide rails as taught by Kinnison which is an obvious (mechanical) design choice to maintain facilitation of translation of linear movement of the saw unit (Col. 3, lines 33-35). Maintaining translation is advantageous for moving the saw to perform cutting to obtain the desired finished work product. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize there are various mechanical structures, which are obvious variants, permitting translation of the saw unit.
Claims 9, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rybka et al. in view of US Patent No. 8,424,213 to Fukinuki.
In re claim 9, Rybka teaches wherein the support structure (Fig. 13, 226) defines a longitudinal plane (as shown in at least Figure 13).
In re claim 10, wherein the power-driven tool (108) comprises a saw having a handle (238), the aw configured to drive a blade (Col. 5, lines 1-2).
In re claim 15, Rybka teaches a power tool system, comprising:
a base having a top surface (see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 7, above), a bottom surface ((see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 7, above), and an opening (the opening is the area defined between the top and bottom surfaces of the base) between the top surface and the bottom surface;
a support structure (Fig. 13. 226) passing through the opening in the base, the support structure having a first end (as shown in Figure 13) and a second end (as shown in at least Figure 13);
a power-driven tool (108) positioned above the top surface of the base and mounted to the first end of the support structure, the power-driven tool including a blade (Col. 5, lines 1-2) aligned along a plane defined by the support structure; and
a moving mechanism (188,190,232) disposed below the top surface of the base and coupled to the second end of the support structure.
In re claim 18, wherein the power-driven tool includes a saw (Col. 5, lines 1-2).
Regarding claims 9, 10, 15-17, Rybka teaches a circular saw, but does not teach a center of gravity of the power-driven saw is aligned along the longitudinal plane, the center of gravity is aligned along a center plane of the handle, and the center of gravity is located in an approximate middle of the power-driven tool.
Fukinuki teaches in the art of circular saws, a saw having a motor (12) being distributed on both sides of the blade. Fukinuki teaches laterally adjusting the position of the motor with respect to the blade of the plane to allow the user to position the center of gravity of the motor as close as possible to the plane of the circular saw blade. Fukinuki further teaches aligning the handle with the circular saw blade and distributing the motor on both sides of the blade improves balance of the saw and operability during the cutting operation is improved (Col. 3, lines 36-63).
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building the circular saw of Rybka from the ground up) to position the motor of Rybka on both sides of the blade and align the handle with the blade as taught by Fukinuki to position the center of gravity with respect to the plane of the circular saw blade which is advantageous for improving balance of the saw and operability during the cutting operation (Col. 3, lines 36-63). The modification would lead to the center of gravity being aligned along the longitudinal plane of the support structure, the center of gravity of the saw being aligned along a center plane of the handle (as shown in at least Figure 1 of Fukinuki), and the center of gravity being located in an approximate middle of the power-driven tool (as shown in at least Figure 1 of Fukinuki).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rybka et al. in view of US Patent No. 5,090,283 to Nobel.
In re claim 11, Rybka teaches wherein the base comprises:
a first fence (106) that is parallel to the opening in the base (as shown in at least Figure 16); but does not teach a second fence having a first position that is parallel to the opening in the base and a second position that is perpendicular to the opening in the base.
Nobel teaches a miter fence (80) having a first position that is parallel to the base (as shown in at least Figure 7) and a second position (as shown in Figure 8) that is perpendicular to the base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the base of Rybka with a second (miter) fence rotatable between a first position and a second position (which is 90 degrees relative to the first position) as taught by Nobel which is advantageous to provide accurate and repeatable angle to accomplish high precision cuts.
In re claim 12, modified Rybka teaches wherein: the first fence (106, Rybka) is movable across the top surface of the base in a position parallel to the opening in the base (Col. 4, lines 24-26); and
the second fence pivots (via 94, Nobel) about a point from the first position to the second position.
In re claim 13, modified Rybka teaches, wherein: an end of the base includes a cavity (112) between the top surface and the bottom surface, the cavity is sized to receive the second fence (94, Novel); and
the second fence (94, Nobel) is (capable of being) rotatable and movable from the top surface of the base into the cavity (112) between the top surface and the bottom surface.
In re claim 14, modified Rybka teaches, wherein: the top surface of the base includes a cavity (112), wherein the cavity is sized to receive the second fence (34, Nobel); and
the second fence is rotatable and movable into the cavity (34, Nobel).
Examiner’s note, for the sake of claim 14, it has been interpreted, the “top surface” of Rybka as shown in Annotated Figure 3 on Page 7 above can be interchangeable with the “bottom surface.” Based on this interpretation, the cavity would be disposed in the “top surface” and the cavity is capable of being size to receive the second fence (94, Nobel).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rybka et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20080127795 to Fukinuki (hereinafter Fukinuki ‘795).
In re claim 19, Rybka teaches a power tool system, comprising:
a base having a top surface (see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 7, above), a bottom surface ((see Annotated Figure 3, Pg. 7, above), and an opening (the opening is the area defined between the top and bottom surfaces of the base) between the top surface and the bottom surface;
a support structure (Fig. 13. 226) passing through the opening in the base, the support structure having a first end (as shown in Figure 13) and a second end (as shown in at least Figure 13);
a power-driven tool (108) positioned above the top surface of the base and mounted to the first end of the support structure, the power-driven tool including a motor housing (220);
a motor drive unit disposed in the motor housing to drive the power-driven tool’ and
a moving mechanism (188,190,232) disposed below the top surface of the base and coupled to the second end of the support structure.
In re claim 20, wherein the power-driven tool (108) comprises a saw (Col. 5, lines 1-2) configured to rotatably drive a blade using the motor drive unit.
In re claim 21, wherein the blade (Col. 5, lines 1-2) is coplanar with the support structure.
Regarding claims 19-21, Rybka teaches a power tool having a motor drive unit, but does not teach a multi-motor drive unit.
Fukinuki ‘795 teaches a power tool having a multi-motor drive unit (13, 13a). The dual motors reduces size of the motor in the radial direction which provides a more compact tool and more comfortable to handle (Para 0008).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Rybka with a multi-motor drive unit as taught by Fukinuki ‘795 to reduce size of the motor in the radial direction which provides a more compact tool and more comfortable to handle (Para 0008). Fukinuki ‘795 provides a teaching that the driving power would be satisfied as long as the sum of the output power of the multiple motors is equal to the desired output power (Para 0008). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.044, Section VI, Part B.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Rybka et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 20080127795 to Fukinuki (hereinafter Fukinuki ‘795) and in further view of 8,424,213 to Fukinuki (hereinafter Fukinuki ‘213).
In re claim 22, modified Rybka teaches wherein: the saw comprises a handle (238) and a center plane of the handle (238) is coplanar with the blade and the support structure (Fig. 13, 226), but does not teach a center of gravity of the saw aligned with the center plane of the handle, the blade, and the support structure, and wherein the center of gravity is located in an approximate middle of the saw.
Fukinuki ‘213 teaches in the art of circular saws, a saw having a motor (12) being distributed on both sides of the blade. Fukinuki ‘213 teaches laterally adjusting the position of the motor with respect to the blade of the plane to allow the user to position the center of gravity of the motor as close as possible to the plane of the circular saw blade. Fukinuki ‘213 further teaches aligning the handle with the circular saw blade and distributing the motor on both sides of the blade improves balance of the saw and operability during the cutting operation is improved (Col. 3, lines 36-63).
It would have been obvious to having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (when building the circular saw of Rybka from the ground up) to position the motors of Rybka on both sides of the blade and align the handle with the blade as taught by Fukinuki ‘213 to position the center of gravity with respect to the plane of the circular saw blade which is advantageous for improving balance of the saw and operability during the cutting operation (Col. 3, lines 36-63). The modification would lead to the center of gravity being aligned along the longitudinal plane of the support structure, the center of gravity of the saw being aligned along a center plane of the handle (as shown in at least Figure 1 of Fukinuki ‘213), and the center of gravity being located in an approximate middle of the power-driven tool (as shown in at least Figure 1 of Fukinuki ‘213).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE10305035 teaches a circular saw having a handle plane between the plane of rotation and the center of gravity. WO9825723 teaches orienting the handle and center of gravity of the circular saw proximate the plane of the circular saw blade.US Patent No. 2601878 teaches a saw table with rotatable fences.
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