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
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “wherein the connecting portion is flexibly deformed,” in Claim 4, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the combining member is a hook and loop fastener,” in Claim 8, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the combining member is a bolt,” of Claim 9, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: a combining member configured to fix the dust collection member to the worktable 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 § 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 1, 2, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,789,569 to Tannewitz in view of DE 3446317 A.
In re Claim 1, Tannewitz teaches a dust collection structure (see Fig. 4) of a band saw machine (see Fig. 1, #1) for installation on a worktable (see Figs. 1-2, #5) and for a saw band to pass through (see Figs. 1-2, #4), the dust collection structure comprising:
a dust collection member (see Figs. 1-4, #10-18) including a seat for connecting to the worktable (see Figs. 1-4, upper surface of #10-18), a tube connected to the seat (see Figs. 1-3, #10/12), and a slot provided at the seat and the tube for the saw band to pass through (see Figs. 1-2, #14/15), the seat having a seat hole (see annotated Fig. 2, below), the tube having a tube hole communicating with the seat hole of the seat (see annotated Fig. 2, below, air can pass through from the seat hole to the tube hole), the slot communicating with the seat hole of the seat and the tube hole of the tube (see Fig. 2, #15/14, the air/fluid can pass from the seat hole through #14/15 into the tube hole).
PNG
media_image1.png
618
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tannewitz does not teach a combining member configured to fix the dust collection member to the worktable through the seat of the dust collection member.
However, DE 3446317 A teaches that it is known in the art of enclosures surrounding band saws to provide combining members (see DE 3446317 A, Fig. 3, magnets #25 and #26) which are configured to fix the dust collection member to the worktable (see DE 3446317 A, Para. 0040 teaching “Holding magnets 25, 26 serve to hold the container 15 on the machine frame.”). Doing so provides for a quick release to disassemble the saw to, for example, clean the saw (see DE 3446317 A, Para. 0040).
In re Claim 2, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the seat and the tube are integrally formed (the seat and tube are of the same structure).
In re Claim 5, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the combining member is a magnetic member (see DE 3446317 A, Para. 0040).
In re Claim 6, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, wherein the connecting member is installed in an installation hole of the seat (see DE 3446317 A, Para. 0040, Fig. 3, the circular magnets are in an installation hole in Fig. 3 of DE 3446317 A).
In re Claim 10, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the dust collection member has an opening passing through the fixing portion and communicating with the seat hole (see annotated, Fig. 2, above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,789,569 to Tannewitz in view of DE 3446317 A, and further in view of
US 8,869,665 to Dammertz.
In re Claim 3, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, wherein the seat has a fixing portion for fixing to the worktable and a connecting portion connected to the tube; the seat hole passes through the fixing portion and the connecting portion.
However, Dammertz teaches that it is known in the art of locking vacuum attachments to the underside of saw tables to provide a fixing portion (see Dammertz, Fig. 5, the edge surface of mounting flange #56) for fixing to the worktable and a connecting portion (see Dammertz, Fig. 5, the bottom surface of mounting flange #56) connected to the tube.
In the same field of invention, vacuum attachments for saw that are attached to the underside of the work table, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the mounting flange of Dammertz to the device of modified Tannewitz. Doing so allows the user to secure the assembly the table in a number of different ways (see Dammertz, Col. 3, ll. 53-Col. 4, ll. 5). Additionally, the flange of Dammertz, provides more surface area to secure the assembly to the table, thus making a more secure connection.
Such a combination would provide for the seat hole passes through the fixing portion and the connecting portion (see Dammertz, Fig. 5, #56 in view of Tannewitz, Fig. 3).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,789,569 to Tannewitz in view of DE 3446317 A, and further in view of US 2006/0053629 to Martin.
In re Claim 4, Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the connecting portion is flexibly deformed.
However, Martin teaches that it is known in the art of dust collection from saws, to utilize bellows between a flat planer surface and the collection system (see Fig. 1, #15 and Para. 0028-0031). In the same field of invention, dust /debris collection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the dust bellows between the collection assembly and the table of modified Tannewitz. Doing so provides a system that is “almost completely closed” (see Martin, Para. 0031), thereby making the system more efficient in capturing the debris.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,789,569 to Tannewitz in view of DE 3446317 A, and further in view of US 2,664,118 to Krumbach.
In re Claim 7, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the seat has a through hole communicating with the installation hole.
However, Krumbach teaches that it is known in the art of securing structures to band saws by way of a bolt (see Fig. 1, #51/52). In the same field of invention, securing enclosures to band saws. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the attachment structures of modified Tannewitz with the bolts of Krumbach. Doing is the substation of one known attachment structure for another known attachment structure to achieve the
In re Claim 9, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the combining member is a bolt.
However, Krumbach teaches that it is known in the art of securing structures to band saws by way of a bolt (see Fig. 1, #51/52). In the same field of invention, securing enclosures to band saws. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the attachment structures of modified Tannewitz with the bolts of Krumbach. Doing is the substation of one known attachment structure for another known attachment structure to achieve the
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 1,789,569 to Tannewitz in view of DE 3446317 A, and further in view of US 5,464,286 to Stevens.
In re Claim 8, modified Tannewitz, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the combining member is a hook and loop fastener. However, Stevens teaches that it is known in the art of debris catching assemblies to secure the assembly (see e.g., Fig. 4, of Stevens, #10) by way of magnets, or hook and pile fasteners (Velcro) (see Stevens, Col. 2, ll. 45-53). In the same field of invention, securing debris structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use any known securing means including magnets or Velcro. Doing so is the substitution of one known securing means for another known secure means in order to position the debris catcher in the proper location (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
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