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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figures 3a and 3b fail to properly illustrate the location of bushing recesses 198 and 202. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 1, “comprise” should read “comprises”.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the second side of the sub-base adapter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karkosch (US 20060037667 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Karkosch discloses a sub-base 18 (Figure 2) mountable to the base portion 23 of a router, the sub-base comprising a sub-base adapter 18 having a first mounting arrangement 40 configured to receive a first guide bushing and a second mounting arrangement 40a configured to receive second guide bushing (the guide bushings are not positively claimed), wherein the first guide bushing is a different type of bushing from the second guide bushing (the guide bushings are not positively claimed).
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.
Claims 1-5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkosch (US 20060037667 A1) in view of Hessenberger (US 20040035495 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karkosch discloses a router 14 comprising a housing including a base portion 23 (Figure 2), a tool holder 28 arranged to hold a cutting tool bit 26 (Figure 3), and a sub-base 18 mountable to the base portion (Figure 2), the sub-base including a sub-base adapter 18 configured to receive a first guide bushing and a second guide bushing (the guide bushings are not positively claimed), wherein the first guide bushing is a different type of bushing from the second guide bushing (Figure 2). Karkosch does not explicitly disclose a motor mounted in the housing and operatively connected to the tool holder. However, Hessenberger (US 20040035495 A1) teaches that it was well known in the art to include a motor 30 in a router (Figure 53) operable to drive a tool element (para. 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the router of Karkosch and include a motor in order to operate the tool bit.
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Karkosch discloses a first bushing mounting arrangement 40 arranged to mount the first guide bushing to the base portion (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, Karkosch discloses a second bushing mounting arrangement 40a arranged to mount the second guide bushing to the base portion (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, Karkosch discloses that the first and second bushing mounting arrangements are different (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 4, Karkosch discloses that the first bushing mounting arrangement is at a first position on the sub-base adapter and the second bushing mounting arrangement is at a second position on the sub-base adapter (Figure 12).
Regarding claim 14, which is dependent on claim 1, Karkosch discloses that the sub-base adapter is removably mountable to the base portion (Figure 1, Paragraph 70).
Regarding claim 15, which is dependent on claim 14, Karkosch discloses that the sub-base adapter is mountable to the base portion with a plurality of screw fasteners 46 (Figures 3-6, Paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 16, which is dependent on claim 1, Karkosch discloses that the first and second guide bushings comprise different heights in a direction along a longitudinal axis of the router when mounted on the router (the guide bushings are not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 17, Karkosch discloses a router assembly comprising a router 14 having a housing (Figure 2), a tool holder 28 arranged to hold a cutting tool bit 26 (Figure 3), a base portion 23 mounted to the housing (at least one of a first guide bushing and a second guide bushing 12) (Figure 2), and a sub-base 18 mountable to the base portion, the sub-base including a sub-base adapter 18 configured to receive one of the first guide bushing or the second guide bushing, wherein the first guide bushing is a different type of bushing from the second guide bushing (only one guide bushing is being positively claimed). Karkosch does not explicitly disclose a router assembly comprising a motor mounted in the housing and operatively connected to the tool holder. However, Hessenberger teaches that it was well known in the art to include a motor 30 in a router (Figure 53) operable to drive a tool element (para. 67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the router of Karkosch to include a motor in order to operate the tool bit.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkosch in view of Hessenberger (US 20040035495 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of McDaniel (US 20060021676 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 2, Karkosch in view of Hessenberger discloses router of claim 2, but is silent on a first guide bushing comprising a protruding portion that projects through the sub base adapter, and wherein the first bushing mounting arrangement comprises clamping the sub-base adapter between a bushing locking ring engageable with the protruding portion of the first guide bushing. However, McDaniel teaches a first guide bushing 115 comprises a protruding portion 129 that projects through the sub base adapter 113 (Figure 28B-29) (it is to be noted the guide bushing is not positively claimed), and wherein the first bushing mounting arrangement 129 comprises clamping the sub-base adapter between a bushing locking ring 117 engageable with the protruding portion 129 of the first guide bushing (Figure 28A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first guide bushing of Karkosch in view of Hessenberger to include a protruding portion and be clamped to the sub-base adapter with a locking ring, as taught by McDaniel, for securing the system to the router (para. 87).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkosch in view of Hessenberger (US 20040035495 A1) and McDaniel as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hedrick (US 5289861 A).
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 6, Karkosch in view of Hessenberger and McDaniel discloses the router of claim 6, but is silent on the first bushing mounting arrangement comprising a first bushing recess on a first side of the sub-base adapter, the first bushing recess being configured to receive the bushing locking ring, and a second bushing recess on a second side of the sub-base adapter, the second bushing recess being configured to receive a portion of the first guide bushing. However, Hedrick teaches that the first bushing mounting arrangement 49 (Figure 3, shown below) comprises a first bushing recess (Figure 3, shown below) on a first side of the sub-base adapter 16, the first bushing recess being configured to receive the bushing locking ring 20b (Figure 2), and a second bushing recess (Figure 3, shown below) on a second side of the sub-base adapter, the second bushing recess being configured to receive a portion of the first guide bushing (Figure 3, shown below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sub-base adapter of Karkosch in view of Hessenberger and McDaniel to include the first and second bushing recesses, as taught by Hedrick, in order to receive a locking ring on one side’s recess and a portion of the first guide bushing on the other side’s recess.
PNG
media_image1.png
208
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 7, Hedrick teaches that the first guide bushing comprises a radially protruding shoulder portion and the second bushing recess is configured to receive the radially protruding shoulder portion of the first guide bushing (Figure 3 above shows the second bushing recess that is configured to receive a shoulder portion) (it is to be noted that the guide bushing is not positively claimed).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karkosch in view of Hessenberger (US 20040035495 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Grove (US 20190275695 A1).
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 3, Karkosch in view of Hessenberger discloses the router of claim 3, but is silent on the second bushing mounting arrangement comprising at least one bushing fastener hole in the sub-base adapter, wherein the at least one bushing fastener hole is configured to receive at least one bushing screw fastener when the second guide bushing is mounted to the router. However, Grove teaches that the second bushing mounting arrangement 403 (Figure 3) comprises at least one bushing fastener hole 403 in the sub-base adapter 10, and wherein the at least one bushing fastener hole is configured to receive at least one bushing screw fastener 401 when the second guide bushing 400 is mounted to the router. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sub-base adapter of Karkosch in view of Hessenberger to include at least one bushing fastener hole, as taught by Grove, to receive at least one bushing screw fastener.
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 9, Grove teaches a second bushing recess 15 (Figure 3) on a second side of the sub-base adapter is configured to receive at least a portion of the second guide bushing and a head portion of the at least one bushing screw fastener when the at least one bushing screw fastener is inserted into the at least one bushing fastener hole.
Regarding claim 11, which is dependent on claim 10, Grove teaches that the at least a portion of the second guide bushing 400 is a radially projecting flange portion 420 of the second guide bushing (Figures 2 and 3; it is to be noted that the bushing is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, Grove teaches that the radially projecting flange portion 420 of the second guide bushing is flush with a workpiece facing surface of the sub-base adapter (Figure 2; it is to be noted that the bushing is not positively claimed).
Regarding claim 13, which is dependent on claim 9, Grove teaches that the at least one bushing fastener hole 403 is configured to receive the at least one bushing screw fastener 401 when the second guide bushing is not mounted to the router (Figure 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO J RIOS whose telephone number is (571)270-0828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/ORLANDO J RIOS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights