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: “means for moving the at least one of the two elongated a legs” in Claim 2; and “means for moving the at least one of the two elongated legs,” in Claim 17.
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
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, 8-9, 11-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,499,674 to Holba.
In re Claim 1, Holba teaches a saw accessory for an oscillating multi-tool, comprising:
an attachment base having a front face and an opposing back face (see Figs. 7-9, #44 in view of Figs 3-5, and Col. 3, ll. 10-15 which states : “The spring component 44 of the yoke accessory tool is mounted to the tool holder 16 of an oscillating tool 10 using a clamping screw 34 or similar type of structure”), a mounting opening passing through the attachment base between the front face and the back face (#44 has an opening that receives the connecting portion of the tool – see Figs. 1-2F);
two spaced apart elongated legs each having a proximal end mounted to the attachment base (see Figs. 3-5, #38/40) and an opposing distal end (see Figs. 3-5, #52/54), at least one of the elongated legs being movably mounted to the attachment base (see Fig. 11 and Col. 4, ll. 23-34); and
a saw blade extending between and being removably coupled to the distal ends of the two spaced apart elongated legs (see Figs. 1-5, #26 and Col. 4, ll. 23-34).
In re Claim 2, Holba teaches further comprising means for moving the at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the base so as to adjust a distance between the distal ends of the elongated legs (see Fig. 11 in view of Fig. 10, the structure of #44 etc., is equivalent to the structure disclose by applicant in that it preforms the same function, of adjusting the distance between the legs, is not excluded by Applicant’s disclosure, and is an equivalent – see MPEP 2183).
In re Claim 8, Holba teaches further comprising: each of the two elongated legs having an inside face and an opposing outside face each extending to a distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, #38 has an inner surface, and outer surface and a distal surface, #40 has an inner surface, an outer surface and a distal surface) a first slot recessed into the distal terminal end face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face (see Figs. 1-5, slots #56/58 which extend from the inner surface and outer surface on each elongated leg); and the saw blade being disposed within the first slot of each of the two elongated legs (see Figs. 1-5, showing #26 disposed in the two slots #56/58).
In re Claim 9, Holba teaches further comprising: each of the two elongated legs having an inside face and an opposing outside face each extending to a distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, #38 has an inner surface, and outer surface and a distal surface, #40 has an inner surface, an outer surface and a distal surface), a side face extending between the inside face and the outside face (each of #38/40 has a side face perpendicular to the outside/inside faces); a second slot recessed into the side face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face (see Figs. 1-5, slots #56/58 which extend from the inner surface and outer surface on each elongated leg – the examiner notes that that this claim depends from Claim 1 and only one slot, in each arm, is required), the second slot being spaced apart from the distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, there is material between each slot #56/58 and the end of the arms); and the saw blade being disposed within the second slot of each of the two elongated legs (see Figs. 1-5, showing #26 disposed in the two slots #56/58).
In re Claim 11, Holba teaches wherein the saw blade comprises: a blade body having a first side face and an opposing second side face that extend between a first end and an opposing second end (see Fig. 13 in view of Fig. 1, #26 has two side faces opposite from one another that extend the length of the blade); a first pin outwardly projecting from the first side face of the blade body at the first end (see Fig. 13, pin #63) ; and a second pin outwardly projecting from the second side face of the blade body at the first end (Holba teaches the pin #63 extending “through” the end segments, #60/62, of the blade – see Col. 3, ll. 58-Col. 4, ll. 8).
In re Claim 12, Holba teaches wherein the saw blade comprises a coping saw blade (the blade disclosed in Holba is capable of performing a “coping” cut, and is therefore, a “coping saw blade,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Applicant has not provide a “special definition” for the term coping saw blade.).
In re Claim 13, Holba teaches wherein an opening is directly bounded between the two spaced apart legs and is directly bounded by the saw blade (see Fig. 1, and opening is created between #40/#38 and #26).
In re Claim 14, Holba teaches oscillating power tool comprising: a body housing a motor (see Fig. 1, #18 and Col. 1, ll. 10-23); and a rotor projecting from the body (tool holder #16; see also drive structure #20 of Figs. 2A-F), the rotor being coupled with the motor so that when the motor is activated, the rotor repeatedly oscillates about an axis of rotation over a defined angle (see Col. 3, ll. 1-46 in view of Fig. 1); and the saw accessory as recited in claim 1 removably secured to the rotor (see above).
In re Claim 15, Holba teaches a saw accessory for an oscillating multi-tool (see Figs. 1-14), comprising:
an attachment base having a front face and an opposing back face (see Figs. 7-9, #44 in view of Figs 3-5, and Col. 3, ll. 10-15 which states : “The spring component 44 of the yoke accessory tool is mounted to the tool holder 16 of an oscillating tool 10 using a clamping screw 34 or similar type of structure”), a mounting opening passing through the attachment base between the front face and the back face (see Figs. 1-9, teaching the mounting structure #44, etc., having an opening);
two spaced apart elongated legs each having a proximal end mounted to the attachment base (see Figs. 3-5, #38/40) and an opposing distal end (see Figs. 3-5, #52/54), each of the two elongated legs having an inside face and an opposing outside face each extending to a distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, #38 has an inner surface, and outer surface and a distal surface, #40 has an inner surface, an outer surface and a distal surface), a side face extending between the inside face and the outside face (see Figs. 1-5, #38/40 have side face surfaces); a first slot recessed into the distal terminal end face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face (see Figs. 1-5, slots #56/58 which extend from the inner surface and outer surface on each elongated leg); and
a saw blade being removably disposed within the first slot of each of the two elongated legs (see Figs. 1-5, showing #26 disposed in the two slots #56/58).
In re Claim 17, Holba teaches further comprising means for moving the at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the base so as to adjust a distance between the distal ends of the elongated legs (see Fig. 11 in view of Fig. 10, the structure of #44 etc., is equivalent to the structure disclose by applicant in that it preforms the same function, of adjusting the distance between the legs, is not excluded by Applicant’s disclosure, and is an equivalent – see MPEP 2183).
In re Claim 18, Holba teaches a method for operating an oscillating multi-tool, the method comprising:
securing the saw accessory as recited in claim 1 to an oscillating multi-tool (see Holba discussion above in re Claim 1 in view of Fig. 1) comprising:
a body housing a motor (see Fig. 1, #18 and Col. 1, ll. 10-23); and
a rotor projecting from the body (tool holder #16; see also drive structure #20 of Figs. 2A-F), the rotor being coupled with the motor so that when the motor is activated, the rotor repeatedly oscillates about an axis of rotation over a defined angle (see Col. 3, ll. 1-46 in view of Fig. 1), the attachment base of the saw accessory being secured to the rotor (see Fig. 1); and activating the motor of the oscillating multi-tool so that both the rotor and the saw accessory repeatedly oscillate about the axis of rotation (see Col. 3, ll. 1-46 in view of Fig. 1).
In re Claim 19, Holba teaches a method for mounting a saw blade on a saw accessory for an oscillating multi-tool (see Figs. 1-14), the saw accessory comprising:
an attachment base having a front face and an opposing back face (see Figs. 7-9, #44 in view of Figs 3-5, and Col. 3, ll. 10-15 which states : “The spring component 44 of the yoke accessory tool is mounted to the tool holder 16 of an oscillating tool 10 using a clamping screw 34 or similar type of structure”), a mounting opening passing through the attachment base between the front face and the back face (#44 has an opening that receives the connecting portion of the tool – see Figs. 1-2F); and
two spaced apart elongated legs each having a proximal end mounted to the attachment base and an opposing distal end (see Figs. 3-5, #38/40);
the method comprising: pivoting at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the attachment base in a first direction so as to move the distal ends of the two elongated legs closer together (see Fig. 11); removably securing a saw blade to the distal end of each of the two elongated legs (see Col. 5, ll. 26-44, teaching: “the spring component 44 skews the pivot axes P, Q toward each other in the direction E which in turn brings the holding structures 56, 58 closer together for removing and/or attaching a workpiece contact element”); and
pivoting the at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the attachment base in a second direction so as to tension the saw blade between the distal ends of the two elongated legs (see Fig. 10 in view of Col. 5, ll. 26-44).
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 2-7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,499,674 to Holba in view of US 2008/0115367 to Glynn.
If it is argued that the structure of Holba is not equivalent, under 35 USC 112F, then Claim 2 is rejected in view of Glynn.
In re Claim 2, Glynn teaches a means for moving the at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the base so as to adjust a distance between the distal ends of the elongated legs (see Glynn, Figs 1/4/6, #54/56/58 and legs #22/22- see also Glynn, Para. 0025).
In the same field of invention, saws with arms that are tensioned to secure a blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the tensioning structure of Holba with the tensioning structure of Glynn (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The adjustment of the tension device allows the operator to adjust the blade to match a particular coping cut (see Glynn, para. 0025).
In re Claim 3, Holba does not teach further comprising an adjustment shaft coupled to at least one of the two elongated legs, wherein rotation of the adjustment shaft causes movement of at least one of the two elongated legs.
However, Glynn teaches that it is known in the art of pivoting arms for saws to provide a tension device (see Glynn, Figs 1/4/6, #54), comprising an adjustment shaft (see Glynn, Fig. 1 and 4, #56/58)coupled to at least one of the two elongated legs (Glynn Fig. 1 and 4, #22/#22), wherein rotation of the adjustment shaft causes movement of at least one of the two elongated legs (see Glynn, Para. 0025).
In the same field of invention, saws with arms that are tensioned to secure a blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the tensioning structure of Holba with the tensioning structure of Glynn (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The adjustment of the tension device allows the operator to adjust the blade to match a particular coping cut (see Glynn, Para. 0025).
In re Claim 4, modified Holba, in re Claim 3, teaches wherein the adjustment shaft has a first end threadedly coupled to a first one of the two elongated legs and an opposing second end threadedly coupled to a second one of the two elongated legs (see Figs. 1/4/6, teaching a threaded shaft both labeled #58 on either side of nut #56).
In re Claim 5, modified Holba, in re Claim 4 teaches further comprising a knob disposed on and outwardly projecting from the adjustment shaft (nut #56 is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of knob #124 of Applicant’s disclosure, a knob).
In re Claim 6, modified Holba, in re Claim 4, teaches, wherein both of the two elongated legs are pivotably mounted to the base (see Glynn, Fig. 6, and Para. 0031 teaching arms 22 pivotally mounted to end #24).
In re Claim 7, modified Holba, in re Claim 4, teaches, further comprising a plurality of alignment holes extending through the base between the front face and the opposing back face, each of the plurality of alignment holes being radially spaced apart from the mounting opening (see e.g., Fig. 4, mounting holes #96; see also different mounting structures illustrated in Figs. 2A-F).
If it is argued that the structure of Holba is not equivalent, under 35 USC 112F, then Claim 17 is rejected in view of Glynn.
In re Claim 17, Glynn teaches a means for moving the at least one of the two elongated legs relative to the base so as to adjust a distance between the distal ends of the elongated legs (see Glynn, Figs 1/4/6, #54/56/58 and legs #22/22- see also Glynn, Para. 0025).
In the same field of invention, saws with arms that are tensioned to secure a blade, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the tensioning structure of Holba with the tensioning structure of Glynn (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The adjustment of the tension device allows the operator to adjust the blade to match a particular coping cut (see Glynn, para. 0025).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,499,674 to Holba in view of US 3,395,204 to Olsson and US 4,838,138 to Rice.
In re Claim 10, Holba teaches further comprising: each of the two elongated legs having an inside face and an opposing outside face each extending to a distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, #38 has an inner surface, and outer surface and a distal surface, #40 has an inner surface, an outer surface and a distal surface), a side face extending between the inside face and the outside face (each of #38/40 has a side face perpendicular to the outside/inside faces);
a second slot recessed into the side face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face (see Figs. 1-5, slots #56/58 which extend from the inner surface and outer surface on each elongated leg), the second slot being spaced apart from the distal terminal end face (see Figs. 1-5, there is material between each slot #56/58 and the end of the arms); and the saw blade being disposed within the first slot or the second slot of each of the two elongated legs (see Figs. 1-5, showing #26 disposed in the two slots #56/58).
Holba does not teach a first slot recessed into the distal terminal end face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face;
However, Olsson teaches that it is known in the art of reciprocative saw blades to provide two saw blades (see Olsson, Figs. 1-3 and 5). In the same field of invention, reciprocating/oscillating saw blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary’s kill in the art to add structure to the device of Holba to add a second saw blade, as taught by Olsson. Doing so improves the cutting speed (see Col. 2, ll. 48-55).
Modified Holba teaches two blades, but does not teach a slot recessed into the distal terminal end face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face. However, Rice teaches that it is known in reciprocating blades to provide slots at the distal end of arms (see Rice, Fig. 7, slot #204/slot #32a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add slots at the distal end of the arms, as taught by Rice, on the ends of the arms of modified Holba. The blade attachment structure of Rice centers the blade and properly aligns the blade (see Rice, abstract and Col. 2, ll. 25-44).
In re Claim 16, Holba does not teach further comprising a second slot recessed into the side face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face, the second slot being spaced apart from the distal terminal end face, the second slot of each of the two elongated legs being configured to receive the saw blade.
However, Olsson teaches that it is known in the art of reciprocative saw blades to provide two saw blades (see Olsson, Figs. 1-3 and 5). In the same field of invention, reciprocating/oscillating saw blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary’s kill in the art to add structure to the device of Holba to add a second saw blade, as taught by Olsson. Doing so improves the cutting speed (see Col. 2, ll. 48-55).
Modified Holba teaches two blades, but does not teach a slot recessed into the distal terminal end face of each of the two elongated legs so as to extend between the inside face and the outside face, the second slot being spaced apart from the distal terminal end face, the second slot of each of the two elongated legs being configured to receive the saw blade.
However, Rice teaches that it is known in reciprocating blades to provide slots at the distal end of arms (see Rice, Fig. 7, slot #204/slot #32a) the second slot being spaced apart from the distal terminal end face (see Rice Slot #204/32a is recessed into the arm spaced from the distal terminal end face), the second slot of each of the two elongated legs being configured to receive the saw blade (see blade in Rice Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add slots at the distal end of the arms, as taught by Rice, on the ends of the arms of modified Holba. The blade attachment structure of Rice centers the blade and properly aligns the blade (see Rice, abstract and Col. 2, ll. 25-44).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724