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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes a phrase which can be implied, in particular, “The present invention utilizes ...” at line 9 (using the Applicant’s numbering). 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. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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” as recited in claim 1 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to fix the fixed cover to the fixed table”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “combining” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the member).
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.
Note also that “a fixed member” is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the member is “for being fixed to the fixed table”, and claim 1 recite the structure of the combining member that performs the function of fixing the fixed cover to the fixed table. Also, “a pivot member” as recited in claim 2 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because a pivot is a structural term – a “pivot”’ is a particular type of structure.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 2-3 (using the Applicant’s numbering) recites, “A dust collection structure of a band saw machine comprising”. This recitation should read – A dust collection structure of a band saw machine, the band saw machine comprising – to more clearly indicate that the band saw machine, rather than the dust collection system, comprises the saw band, the fixed table, and the worktable.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the band saw machine is required by the claim, and further because, assuming that the band saw machine is not required by claim 1, it is unclear how to interpret recitations that positively recite interaction between the dust collection structure and the band saw machine. Regarding whether or not the band saw machine is part of the claimed structure, the preamble of the claim recites, “A dust collection structure of a band saw machine”. The term “of” can be interpreted as requiring that the dust collection structure is part of the band saw machine, in which case the band saw machine is part of the claimed structure. Alternatively, the term “of” can be interpreted as an intended use of the claimed dust collection structure, in which case the band saw machine is not part of the claimed structure. The claim further raises issues of whether or not the band saw machine is required because the claim positively recited interactions of the dust collection structure and the band saw machine. For example, claim 1 at lines 7-8 recites, “such that the first cover surrounds the saw blade”. In order for the first cover to surround the saw blade, a saw blade must be present. On the other hand, this recitation can be interpreted as describing an intended use of the dust collection structure, where the recitation is interpreted as if it read – such that the first cover is configured to surround the saw blade –. Still, the problem with this latter interpretation is that is reads language into the claim that is not actually present in the claim. As another example, claim 1 at lines 9-10 recites, “a first bevel edge fitted to a pivotal direction of the worktable”. In order for the first bevel edge to be “fitted to” the pivotal direction of the worktable, the worktable must be part of the claimed structure. On the other hand, this recitation can be read as an intended use of the first bevel edge. As yet another example, claim 1 at lines 12-13 recites that the movable cover is “pressed by the worktable to pivot”, which feature can be interpreted as requiring the worktable (otherwise, no pressing by the worktable can occur), or can alternatively be interpreted as an intended use of the movable cover such that the worktable is not required. As such, it is unclear claim 1 requires the band saw machine. Further still, assuming that no band saw machine is required by claim 1, it is unclear how to interpret recitations that positively recite interactions between the dust collection system and the band saw machine. For example, if no blade is required, it is impossible for the fixed cover to ‘surround the saw blade’ as required by claim 1. The examiner suggests either amending the preamble to make clear that the band saw machine is part of the claimed structure (such as by reciting, “A band saw machine comprising a saw blade, a fixed table, a worktable, and a dust collection structure, the dust collection structure comprising ...”), or alternatively amending claim 1 to make clear that the band saw machine is not part of the claimed structure (such as by amending the preamble of claim 1 to begin, “A dust collection structure for use with a band saw machine”, and further amending all limitations that positively recite interactions between the dust collection system and the band saw machine to make clear that the dust collection structure is configured for interaction with the band saw machine, rather than actually interacting with the band saw machine). For examination purposes, the examiner interprets the band saw machine as being part of the claimed structure due to the claim expressly requiring interaction between the dust collection structure and the band saw machine (e.g., that the fit lateral plate having the first bevel edge is “fitted to a pivotal direction of the worktable”, and that that the movable cover is “pressed by the worktable”).
Claims Not Subject to Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1-10 are not subject to any prior art rejection under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103. However, no determination of allowability can be made in view of the issues raised above with respect to 35 USC 112.
Claim 1, as interpreted as set forth above, distinguishes over the best known prior art. The present invention is directed to a dust collection structure of a band saw machine, where the dust collection structure is able to permit pivoting of a worktable of the band saw machine without leaving open a gap between the dust collection structure and the worktable. To this end, claim 1 recites that the dust collection structure includes, “a fixed cover having ... a first lateral plate”, where the first lateral plate has “a first bevel edge fitted to a pivotal direction of the worktable”, and where the dust collection structure further includes, “a movable cover pivotally connected to the fixed cover and pressed by the worktable to pivot relative to the fixed cover, the movable cover having a second front plate pivotally connected to the first front plate of the fixed cover and a second lateral plate abutted against the first lateral plate of the fixed cover” and “a spring disposed between the fixed cover and the movable cover to provide a rebound force to the movable cover”. No known reference or combination of references teaches or suggests these features, in conjunction with the remainder of features required by claim 1.
The best known prior art is JP-2004009271-A to Wada Kimio. Wada Kimio solves the same problem as the present invention, in that Wada Kimio teaches a dust collection structure (including elements 4 and 5) that adjusts with pivoting of a worktable 15 of a band saw machine so that the dust collection structure avoids leaving an open gap regardless of the pivotal position of the worktable 15 (see Figs. 1 and 2) . Wada Kimio teaches that the dust collection structure includes a skirt 5 that extends between the worktable 15 and a dust cover 4 of the dust collection structure. Wada Kimio teaches that the skirt 5 is connected to the worktable 15 (see paragraph 12 of the English language translation of Wada Kimio). However, the structure of the dust collection structure of Wada Kimio differs from that recited in claim 1. Wada Kimio fails to disclose at least the following features of claim 1: that the dust cover has a first lateral plate having a first bevel edge fitting to a pivotal direction of the worktable, that the movable cover is pivotally connected to the fixed cover and is pressed by the worktable to pivot relative to the fixed cover, that the movable cover has a second front plate pivotally connected to the first front plate of the fixed cover and a second lateral plate abutted against the first lateral plate of the fixed cover, and a spring that is disposed between the fixed cover and the movable cover to provide a rebound force to the movable cover. As such, although Wada Kimio solves the same problem as the present invention, Wada Kimio teaches a different structure for solving the problem such that claim 1 distinguishes over Wada Kimio.
Another highly relevant reference is EP-0185292-A1 to Schweighardt. Schweighardt teaches a dust collection structure 15 (shown in isolation in Fig. 3) of a band saw machine (see Figs. 1-2). Schweighardt teaches that the dust collection structure 15 includes a fixed cover (see Fig. 3) having a fixed portion for being fixed to a fixed table of the band saw machine (the fixed portion receiving magnets 25 and 26), a first front plate 22, a first rear plate 16, and a first lateral plate (having grip 27) connected with the first front plate 22 and the first rear plate 16 such that the fixed cover surrounds a saw blade (see Figs. 1-3), the first lateral plate having a first bevel edge (at an upper left edge of the first lateral plate relative to Fig. 3). Schweighardt also teaches a combining member (one of magnets 25 and 26) configured to fixe the fixed cover to the fixed table through the fixed portion of the fixed cover. Still, Schweighardt fails to disclose a movable cover and spring as required by claim 1.
Regardless, it is known in the art to provide a worktable of a band saw machine with the ability to pivot (see various band saw references cited below). Moreover, it is known in the art to provide a fixed cover of a dust collection structure with a movable cover that is able to fill a gap that would otherwise be formed between the fixed cover and the worktable due to a change in pivotal relationship between the fixed cover and the worktable. Two relevant references teaches such a movable cover are US Pat. No. 11,858,167 B2 to Kovacs and US Pat. No. 4,255,995 to Conor. However, even if Schweighardt were modified in view of either of Kovacs and Connor, as well as being modified to include a pivotal worktable, the resulting structure still would render claim 1 obvious.
First consider Kovacs, Kovacs at Figs. 7 and 8 teaches a movable cover 87 that pivots relative to a fixed cover 83 to fill a gap between a worktable 12 and the fixed cover 83 that arises due to a change in pivotal relationship between the worktable 12 and the fixed cover 83. However, the movable cover of Kovacs, if provided to the fixed cover of Schweighardt, still does not disclose the features of “the movable cover having a second front plate pivotally connected to the first front plate of the fixed cover and a second lateral plate abutted against the first lateral plate of the fixed cover” and “a spring disposed between the fixed cover and the movable cover to provide a rebound force to the movable cover”. Instead, Schweighardt as modified to include the movable cover of Kovacs would include the movable cover being pivotally connected to the first lateral plate in view of the positions of the bevel edges of Schweighardt and Kovacs. As such, the structure of the movable cover of Schweighardt, even if modified in view of Kovacs, does not disclose the movable cover as recited in claim 1.
Connor teaches a movable cover 42 that moves linearly relative to a fixed cover 20. Thus, even if Schweighardt were provided with a movable cover as taught by Connor, the resulting structure would not render obvious claim 1, which requires a particular configuration of a pivotally connected movable cover.
Other relevant art cited below does not resolve the failures of Wada Kimio and/or Schweighardt (even if Schweighardt is modified in view of Kovacs or Connor).
Each of the following references discloses a relevant band saw:
US Pat. No. 2,585,957 to Meeker et al.
US Pat. No. 2,604,126 to Wiken et al.
US Pat. No. 3,669,163 to Crane
US Pat. No. 4,213,253 to Johnson et al.
US Pub. No. 2004/0007109 A1 to Chiang
US Pub. No. 2004/0154446 A1 to Chang
US Pub. No. 2004/0168555 A1 to Donovan et al.
US Pub. No. 2007/0044609 A1 to Brazell et al.
US Pub. No. 2017/0106458 A1 to Duan et al.
Each of the following references discloses a relevant dust collection structure:
US Des. Pat. No. D292,407 to Legler et al.
US Pat. No. 4,063,478 to Stuy
US Pat. No. 4,721,023 to Bartlett et al.
US Pat. No. 8,844,415 B2 to Taylor (see especially the dust collection structure of Fig. 7)
US Pub. No. 2017/0252841 A1 to Wang et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724