BANDSAW

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 . Drawings There are more 44 figures have not been thoroughly 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 these figures. Specification The lengthy specification (26 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 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. 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. Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitznas (DE 19614608 A1 and Translation) in view of Maso (CN 103692397 A) and Translation). Regarding claim 18, Spitznas shows a bandsaw (Figures 1-2), comprising: a motor (7), a transmission coupled to the motor (see all gears coupled to an output shaft 23 of the motor, Figure 4), a base (a base frame 2, Figure 2), the base including an integrated transmission housing (19, Figure 4), the transmission received in the integrated transmission housing, a drive wheel (15, Figure 4), the drive wheel coupled to the transmission, a driven wheel (14), a blade (6) positioned about the drive wheel and the driven wheel; Spitznas shows that the transmission includes a first planet gear set (31, Figure 4) and a first carrier (28), the first planet gear set received on a first side of the first carrier (an upper side of the carrier 28 as seen in Figure 4), the motor output gear (23) received within a central area formed by the first planet gear set in driving communication with the first planet gear set (see Figure 4 and see the discussion of Figure 4 in the translation, page 4); Spitznas shows that the transmission includes a second planet gear set (32) and a second carrier (29), the second planet gear set received on a first side of the second carrier (an upper side), the first central sun gear (27) received within a central area formed by the second planet gear set in driving communication with the second planet gear set (Figure 4); and Spitznas shows that the transmission includes a first ring gear (a top portion of a ring gear 25, Spitznas’s Figure 4 below) and wherein the first planet gear set, the first carrier, the second planet gear set, and the second carrier are received within an interior volume of the first ring gear (see Spitznas’s Figure 4 below). PNG media_image1.png 743 1062 media_image1.png Greyscale However, Spitznas fails to discuss that the first ring gear includes a set of tongues on an exterior surface of the first ring gear and the transmission housing includes a set of channels on an interior surface of the transmission housing, the set of tongues of the first ring gear received in the set of channels of the transmission housing thereby preventing the first ring gear from moving relative to the transmission housing. Maso shows a transmission of a power tool (Figures 7-8) including a gear box 29 or a transmission housing for housing 4-stage planetary gear mechanisms (four individual gear sets 33-36, Figures 7-8 and Para. 41), wherein the first stage mechanism (33) includes planetary gears (43) and a first ring gear (42, Figure 8 and Para. 48), wherein the first ring gear includes tongues (a plurality of projections 42d) received in a set of channels (29b) of the transmission housing thereby preventing the first ring gear from moving relative to the transmission housing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the transmission of Spitznas to have tongues of the first ring received in a set of channels of the transmission housing, as taught by Maso, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose of mounting the first ring in the transmission housing and in order to prevent the first ring gear from moving relative to the transmission housing (as discussed in Para. 60). Regarding claims 2-3, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that a cover (the cover where the reference “22” is pointing to, Figure 4 of Spitznas) attached to an outer opening of the transmission housing and the cover includes a central opening to receive a motor output gear (see the output shaft gear 23 of the motor, Figure 4 of Spitznas). Regarding claim 5, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the first carrier (28 of Spitznas) includes a first central sun gear (27 of Spitznas) on a second side of the first carrier, the second side of the first carrier being opposed to the first side of the first carrier (the bottom side of the carrier 28 as seen in Figure 4 of Spitznas), the first planet gear set in driving communication with the first carrier and the first central sun gear (see all gears connect and driven together in Figure 4 and see the discussion of Figure 4 in the translation, page 4). Regarding claim 7, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the second carrier (29) includes a second sun gear (27a, Figure 4 of Spitznas) on a second side of the second carrier (the bottom side of the carrier 29 as seen in Figure 4 of Spitznas), the second side of the second carrier being opposed to the first side of the second carrier, the second planet gear set (32, Figure 4 of Spitznas) in driving communication with the second carrier and the second central sun gear. Regarding claim 8, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the transmission includes a third planet gear set (33) and a third carrier (30), the third planet gear set received on a first side of the third carrier, the second central sun gear (27a) received within a central area formed by the third planet gear set in driving communication with the third planet gear set (Figure 4 of Spitznas). Regarding claim 9, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the third carrier (30) includes a central opening (there is a cutout of the carrier 30 for receiving the sun gear 27a, Figure 4 of Spitznas), the third planet gear set is in driving communication with the third carrier (see Figure 4 of Spitznas). Regarding claim 14, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that teeth of the first planet gear set and teeth of the second planet gear set are engaged with teeth of the first ring gear to enable relative movement between the first planet gear set (31) and the second planet gear set (32) and the first ring gear (see the top portion of the ring gear 25, Spitznas’s Figure 4 below and this is an inherent limitation since all gears are connected to each other). If one argues that “teeth of the first planet gear set and teeth of the second planet gear set are NOT engaged with teeth of the first ring gear”, Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have the teeth of the first planet gear set and teeth of the second planet gear set are engaged with teeth of the first ring gear. For an example, see Maso’s reference, Figure 8. Further Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have teeth of the first planet gear set and teeth of the second planet gear set are engaged with teeth of the first ring gear, in order to drive the drive wheel and reduce stress on any single gear transmission. PNG media_image1.png 743 1062 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 15-17, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows all of the limitations as stated above including that the transmission includes a second ring gear (see a bottom portion of the ring gear 25 in Spitznas’s s Figure 4 above) and wherein the third planet gear set (33) and the third carrier (see portion of the carrier 30) are received within an interior volume of the second ring gear, wherein teeth of the third planet gear set (33) are engage with teeth of the second ring gear to enable relative movement between the third planet gear set and the second ring gear (see Spitznas’s s Figure 4 above; all gears are connected to each other), and wherein the transmission housing (19, Spitznas’s s Figure 4 and see the discussion in claim 1 above) receives and holds the first ring gear and the second ring gear. Please note that in Applicant’s original specification, Para. 90 discusses that the first and second ring gears affix to the transmission housing that means both ring gears are integral to the transmission housing and non-rotation relative with the transmission housing, therefore, looking at Spitznas’s s Figure 4, both top and bottom ring gear portions of the ring gear 25 are integral, affix, and non-rotation relative to the transmission housing. Moreover, as claims 15-17 are written, it is unclear whether both first and second ring gears are formed in single part or two different parts. Therefore, top and bottom ring gear portions are made integral and meet this claimed limitation. See MPEP. 2144.04, section V, B “Making integral”. Also, see Maso’s reference, there are individual ring gears. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitznas in view of Maso and Yuta (JP 2020001126A and Translation) Regarding claim 10, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows all of the limitations as stated above except an arbor (Examiner notes that the drive wheel 15 attaches to the third carrier 30), however, it is not clear whether it is attached by an arbor or not. Yuta shows a bandsaw (Figures 1-2) having a drive wheel (12, Figure 6) and an arbor (see Figure 6 below) configured to fasten to a carrier (21b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the fastening means of Spitznas to have an arbor, as taught by Yuta, since this is known alternative way for the same purpose and in order to allow the drive wheel securely connecting to the carrier. PNG media_image2.png 874 693 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 11, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the first end of the arbor has a shape corresponding to the central opening of the third carrier such that when the third carrier rotates the third carrier drives the arbor (see a top end of the arbor or fastener in Yuta’s Figure 6 above). Regarding claim 12, the modified bandsaw of Spitznas shows that the arbor includes a second end received in an opening of the drive wheel in driving communication with the drive wheel (see Yuta’s Figure 6 above). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 19 is free of prior art because the prior art does not suggest to have the second ring gear that includes a set of tongues on an exterior surface of the second ring gear and the transmission housing includes a set of channels on an interior surface of the transmission housing, the set of tongues of the second ring gear received in the set of channels of the transmission housing, thereby preventing the second ring gear from moving relative to the transmission housing as set in claim 19. Claim 20 is considered allowable subject matter because they depend on claim 19. Another closest art, CN 206153679 U, art of record shows a bandsaw (Figures 1-3) having a transmission (Figure 7) that includes 3 stages of planetary gear sets, however, this transmission uses one ring gear (91) without a set of tongues for securing into the transmission housing. Nishi (CN 103692397 and Translation, art of record) has a transmission that includes at least 3 stages of planetary gear sets (33-36, Figure 4) and two ring gears (42, 46) without a set of tongues for securing into the transmission housing, however, this transmission is used to control changing variable-speed (see the abstract) in a power drill. Mao (US 2017/0355072 A1, art of record) shows has a transmission that includes at least 3 stages of planetary gear sets (231, 241, 261, Figure 5) and two ring gears (25, 27) with a set of tongues (252, Figure 5), however, the tongues are not for securing the ring gears into the transmission housing, and this transmission is used to control changing torque output tool (see the abstract) in a power drill. See Maso’s reference above; there are tongues on outer ring gears, however, there is no reason to add tongues on the second ring gear to Spitznas’s single piece ring gear (91) because there are two different ring gears. Based on the teachings above, there appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned art, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention because there are different configurations and non-analogous art. Thus, these claims could not be considered an obvious expedient of the combination, the claimed instant invention requires these limitations for reason purposes of the invention. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. With regards to the original claims 18-20, which are considered allowable subject matter (see the previous office). The reason of indicating the allowable subject matter because the invention of original claim 18 is unique. The original Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (emphasis added). However, the current claim 18 does not include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims; therefore, claim 18 is not allowable. However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 10/7/2026