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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 September 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The examiner notes that US Patents listed as Cite No. 30, Cite No. 33, and Cite No. 35 were identified by the first names of the respective inventors in the ‘Name of Patentee or Applicant of Cited Document’ column. The examiner has annotated the IDS for each of these citations to list the inventors’ last names. Regardless, the examiner has considered all references cited in the IDS, including US Patents listed as Cite No. 30, Cite No. 33, and Cite No. 35.
Election/Restrictions
Although the claims include claims to different both an apparatus (claims 1-14) and a method (claim 15), the examiner has determined that there is presently no burden to examining both the apparatus and method. As such, no restriction requirement is presently being made.
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. The drawings fail to illustrate the configuration of the stop member, the ram, and the return spring, such that the structure of the inventive tool head with respect to these structures is unclear. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“the stop member engaging the ram to inhibit distal movement of the ram after a predetermined stroke length has been reached” as recited in claim 11 (e.g., Fig. 1 illustrates a ram “36”, but no stop member “84”. As such, Fig. 1 does not illustrate the ram “36” engaging the stop member “84”. Conversely, Fig. 2 illustrates a stop member “84”, but no ram “36”. As such, Fig. 2 does not illustrate the ram “36” engaging the stop member “84”. No other figure illustrates either of the ram “36” and the stop member “84”. Moreover, the present disclosure contemplates a return spring between the stop member and ram.);
“the ram is cone-shaped, and wherein the ram passes through the stop member freely during a stroke but engages the stop member at an end of the stroke” as recited in claim 12 (no cone-shape of the ram is illustrated, and neither of the ram passing through the stop member and engaging the stop member is illustrated; moreover, in view of the return spring as recited in claim 14, it is unclear in view of the present drawings how the ram can pass through the stop member ‘freely’); and
“wherein the stop member retains an end of a return spring to assist movement of the ram during retraction” as recited in claim 14 (no return spring is illustrated, nor is any retention of a return spring by the stop member).
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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for “a bottom surface of the second frame” as recited in claim 7. Although the specification describes “a bottom surface 74”, the “bottom surface 74” is a surface of the second arm rather than the second frame. That is, the “bottom surface 74” in the specification correspond to the bottom surface recited in claim 6, rather than the bottom surface in claim 7.
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 biasing member” as recited in claim 5 (first, “member” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “to bias the latch”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “biasing” 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 at the first two lines recites, “wherein the trip lever moving between the closed lever position to the open lever position” (emphasis added). The words ‘between’ and ‘to’ are a grammatical mismatch, noting that ‘to’ should be paired with ‘from’ rather than with ‘between’ (and ‘between’ should be pair with ‘and’ instead of ‘to’). The examiner suggests the following amendments to resolve this issue: – wherein the trip lever moving from the closed lever position to the open lever position –.
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(s) 4-7 and 12 is/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 4 recites, “wherein engaging the release lever causes the latch to disengage from the second frame moving the second frame to the open frame position”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification. It is unclear whether the recitation “moving the second frame to the open frame position” is required to be performed merely as a result of disengaging the latch from the second frame, or whether the recitation encompasses application of some additional external force to move the second frame to the open frame position. The plain language of the claim appears to require that disengaging the latch from the second frame in and of itself is sufficient to move the second frame to the open frame position. This is because the recitation recites “moving the second frame”, not a recitation such as ‘permitting movement of the second frame’. That is, the use of “moving” suggests that the disengagement of the latch is what produces the movement. However, such an interpretation is inconsistent with the present disclosure. For example, the present disclosure does not expressly contemplate the second frame being biased to the open frame position, where only the latch maintains the second frame in the closed frame position such that upon disengagement of the latch the second frame necessarily moves to the open frame position. As another example, the present disclosure describes a detent that retains the second frame in the closed position, even if the latch is disengaged (see also claims 8 and 9 describing this feature). Since the present specification does not disclose any structure that necessarily produces movement of the second frame to open frame position upon disengagement of the latch, and since the present specification discloses structure that retains the second frame in the closed frame position even when the latch is disengaged, the recitation “moving the second frame to the open frame position” appears to permit an application of an external force to achieve the movement. Since the plain language of claim 4 appears to require that disengagement of the latch is required to necessarily move the second frame to the open frame position, but since the present specification does not support this interpretation, the intended interpretation of claim 4 is unclear and the claim is indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 4 as permitting an application of external force to move the second frame to the open position.
Claim 7 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim intends double inclusion of “a spring” and/or of “a top surface of the latch”. Claim 7 depends on claim 6. Claim 6 introduces, “a spring extending between a bottom surface of the second arm and a top surface of the latch”, whereas claim 7 introduces, “a spring extending between a bottom surface of the second frame and a top surface of the latch”. Does claim 7 encompass a single spring that extends between bottom surfaces of the second arm and the second frame and a single top surface of the latch? Or, does claim 7 require an additional spring that extends between a bottom surface of the second frame and an additional top surface of the latch? The use of “a” to describe the spring and the top surface of the latch in claim 7 suggests that a new spring and a new top surface are being introduced. However, since the present specification only discloses a single spring “70”, the present specification suggests that claim 7 is describing the same spring and top surface already introduced in claim 6.
Claim 12 recites, “wherein the ram passes through the stop member freely during a stroke”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification. First, the present drawings fail to illustrate the ram passing through the stop member as recited in claim 12, and also fail to disclose a return spring as illustrated in claim 14. Second, the present specification at paragraph 42 describes a return spring that acts on the ram to urge the ram away from the stop member. As such, the intended interpretation of ‘freely’ as used in claim 12 is unclear. Does claim 12 prohibit the use of a return spring, even though the present specification and claims expressly contemplate a return spring? Put another way, in one interpretation, ‘freely’ as used in claim 12 requires no force acting on the ram that inhibits the ram from passing through the stop member. In this interpretation, however, no return spring is permitted even though the present application contemplates a return spring. In an alternative interpretation, a force inhibit movement of the ram passing through the stop member can be provided, so long as the force is not directly provided by the stop member. In this interpretation, ‘freely’ only prevents the stop member from directly acting on the ram. The problem with this interpretation is that the definition of ‘freely’ includes without restriction or interference, and a return spring does provide some restriction, such that this interpretation reads ‘freely’ as only describing the stop member. The lack of clarity is compounded by the present specification, which fails to illustrate the features of claims 11, 12, and 14 such that the inventive structure is unclear. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets ‘freely’ in claim 11 as requiring only that the stop member does not inhibit passage of the ram, such that claim 11 permits a return spring to inhibit passage of the ram. This interpretation, as best as can be determined, is consistent with the structure contemplated in the present application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 01/62452 A1 to Algminas in view of US Pat. No. 4,342,216 to Gregory.
Regarding claim 1, Algminas discloses a tool head (see, in particular, the embodiment of the tool head in Fig. 9) comprising:
a first frame having a first arm and a second arm (see the annotated Fig. 9 below);
a latch coupled to the second arm (see the annotated Fig. 9 below; the latch is coupled to the second arm at least when the second frame is in the closed frame position); and
a second frame hingedly coupled to the first arm (see the annotated Fig. 9 below), the second frame moveable between an open frame position and a closed frame position (the closed frame position being illustrated in Fig. 9; the open frame position is when the latch does not retain the second frame to the second arm and when the second frame is pivoted clockwise relative to the position of the second frame illustrated in Fig. 9; see page 4, lines 10-12), the latch coupled to the second frame enclosing a cutting zone between the first arm, the second arm, and the second frame in the closed frame position (see annotated Fig. 9 below indicating the cutting zone).
PNG
media_image1.png
852
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Algminas discloses that in the closed frame position, the second frame engages the latch (see Fig. 9; the second frame always engages the latch, such that the second frame engages the latch in the closed frame position, even if the second frame also engages the latch in the open frame position) and a cutting operation is performed on a workpiece (when the blade on the first frame is moved toward the second frame; see page 4, lines 2-22 and page 28, line 21 to page 29, line 13).
Regarding claim 10, Algminas discloses that a passage extends through a base of the first frame (see Figs. 2 and 9; the passage defines the space through which ram 246 extends).
Regarding claim 11, Algminas discloses that a stop member 228 is positioned in the passage (see Fig. 2), the stop member 228 engaging a ram 246 to inhibit distal movement of the ram 246 after a predetermined stroke length has been reached (see Fig. 2 and page 21, lines 1-7; the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘engaging’ encompasses the stop member 228 indirectly acting on the ram 236 via the spring 230, particularly in view of claim 14 requiring that the stop member retains an end of a return spring, which is what is disclosed by Algminas; since the stop member 228 of Algminas acts on the spring 230, which in turn urges the ram 230 rightward relative to Fig. 2 (oriented with the reference characters upright), the stop member 228 inhibits distal movement of the ram 246 after a sufficient stroke length to produce compression of the spring 230; again, in view of the present application, Algminas discloses the same structure as disclosed in the present application, as best as can be determined in view of the present specification failing to illustrate the features of claim 11).
Regarding claim 12, Algminas discloses that the stop member 228 is ring-shaped (see Figs. 2 and 6; the member 228 is ‘ring-shaped’ because the member is annular due to extending around the ram 246 and defining an opening for the ram 246 to pass through) and the ram 246 is cone-shaped (see Fig. 2; the ram 246 is cone-shaped due to including a conical shape toward its right end, relative to the figure being oriented with the reference characters upright), and wherein the ram 246 passes through the stop member 228 freely during a stroke (see Figs. 2 and 6; the seat 228 defines an opening through which the ram 246 freely passes) but engages the stop member 228 at an end of the stroke (this feature is satisfied due to the action of the return spring 230; that is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘engages’ does not require direct contact between the stop member and the ram, since such an interpretation does not appear consistent with the present application, which also contemplates a return spring between the stop member and ram – the spring 230 of Algminas acts on the stop member 228, such that the lack of movement of the stop member 228 is what causes the stop member to engage the ram 246 via the spring 230 at the end of the stroke).
Regarding claim 14, Algminas discloses that the stop member 228 retains an end of a return spring 230 to assist movement of the ram 246 during retraction (see Fig. 2 and page 21, lines 1-7).
Algminas fails to disclose that the tool head comprises a trip lever hingedly coupled to the first arm to rotate between an open lever position and a closed lever position, the trip lever being in the open lever position and outside the cutting zone when the second frame is in the closed frame position, the trip lever being in the closed lever position and inside the cutting zone when the second frame is in the open frame position as required by claim 1. Algminas further fails to that the trip lever moving between the closed lever position to the open lever position causes the second frame to move from the open frame position to the closed frame position as required by claim 2.
Gregory teaches a tool head (see Fig. 1) having a trip lever 24 hingedly coupled to an arm of the first frame 30 (see Fig. 1, where the arm is an L-shape, and where Fig. 1 illustrates two positions of the trip lever 24 in solid and phantom to disclose the ‘hingedly’ feature; the trip lever 24 is coupled to the arm of the first frame by pivot pin 28; note that ‘coupled to’ permits an indirect coupling between the trip lever 24 and the arm) to rotate between an open lever position (shown in solid in Fig. 1) and a closed lever position (shown in phantom in Fig. 1), the trip lever 24 being in the open lever position and outside the cutting zone when a second frame 26 is in a closed frame position (see the solid position shown in Fig. 1; in this position, the trip lever 24 is ‘outside the cutting zone’ because the cutting zone is limited to the open space available to receive an object to be cut with the trip lever 24 and the second frame 26 in the solid position – the trip lever 24 is not within this space when the trip lever 24 is in the open lever position), and the trip lever 24 being in the closed lever position and inside the cutting zone when the second frame 26 is in the open frame position (see the phantom position shown in Fig. 1; in this position, the trip lever 24 extends into the cutting zone, with the cutting zone defined as the area available to receive an object to be cut when the second frame 26 is closed as explained above). [Claim 1] Gregory feature teaches that the trip lever 24 moving between the closed lever position (shown in phantom in Fig. 1) to the open lever position (shown in solid in Fig. 1) causes the second frame 26 to move from the open frame position (shown in phantom in Fig. 1) to the closed frame position (shown in solid in Fig. 1). [Claim 2] Gregory teaches that providing the trip lever is advantageous because forces produced by the tool head on the object being processed within the cutting zone are transmitted to the trip lever, which in turn causes the second frame to be urged into the closed frame position (see col. 2, lines 19-34). As such, the trip lever improves safety because the trip lever aids in maintaining the second frame in a closed position during processing of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to hingedly couple a trip lever having the features discussed in the preceding paragraph as taught by Gregory to the first arm of Algminas in order to improve safety because the trip lever converts forces acting on the object during processing into closing forces to ensure that the second frame remains in the closed frame position during processing of the object. Safety is a known concern for cutting tools, such as the tool head of Algminas, and thus this modification enhances safety by providing a second mechanism for ensuring that the second frame remains closed during processing of the object. For example, if a user of the tool head of Algminas mistakenly believes that the latch is engaged, when the latch is in fact disengaged, there is a risk prior to this modification that the second frame could move during processing of the object and result in a dangerous condition such as the object being processing becoming dislodged from the tool head. However, following this modification, the second frame of Algminas, as modified, is retained closed even if the latch is inadvertently left unlatched. The coupling of the trip to the first arm of Algminas is obvious in view of the combined teachings of Algminas and Gregory. Algminas discloses the second frame being hingedly coupled to the first arm, and Gregory discloses the trip lever being coupled to the same arm as that to which the second frame is hingedly coupled.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algminas as modified by Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,209,585 B2 to Houser et al.
Regarding claim 3, Algminas, as modified, discloses the latch includes a proximally sloped top surface (a portion of the latch engaging element 403 as can be seen in Fig. 9 of Algminas; the top surface is a ‘proximally sloped’ surface because the surface slopes moving along the proximal direction) and the second arm includes a distally sloped bottom surface (a bottom surface of element 403; the bottom surface is a ‘distally sloped’ surface because the surface slopes moving along the distal direction), the distally sloped bottom surface engaging the proximally sloped top surface in the closed frame position (see Fig. 9 of Algminas).
Regarding claim 4, Algminas, as modified, discloses a release lever 398 coupled to the second frame and the latch (see Fig. 9 of Algminas; the release lever 398 beginning immediately to the left of the spring 396), wherein engaging the release lever 398 causes the latch to disengage from the second arm (see Fig. 9; urging the release lever 398 clockwise against the biasing of the spring 396 disengages the latch) moving the second frame to the open frame position (as best understood, this recitation is satisfied by Algminas, as modified, because disengaging the latch permits the second frame to move to the open frame position, given that the second frame is no longer constrained to the second arm).
Regarding claim 5, Algminas discloses a biasing member 396 to bias the latch toward a closed latch position (see Fig. 9; the spring 396 exerts a downward force on the release lever 398, biasing the latch in a counter-clockwise direction relative to Fig. 9, which is toward a closed latch position).
Regarding claim 6, Algminas discloses that the biasing member 396 includes a spring 396 extending between a bottom surface of the second frame and a top surface of the latch (see Fig. 9; the release lever can be considered as beginning immediately to the left of the spring 396).
Regarding claim 7, Algminas discloses that the biasing member 396 includes a spring 396 extending between a bottom surface of the second frame and a top surface of the latch (see Fig. 9).
However, since Algminas, as modified, teaches that the latch is directly pivotally coupled to the second frame rather than the second arm. Put another way, Algminas, as modified, discloses that the latch is reversed relative to the claimed latch.
Turning to claimed features, Algminas, as modified, fails to disclose: that the second frame is the structure that includes the distally sloped bottom surface as required by claim 3; that the release lever is coupled to the second arm and that the latch disengages from the second frame as required by claim 4; and that the spring extends between the bottom surface of the second arm as required by claim 6.
Houser, though, teaches a tool head 12 having a latch 62 with a reverse configuration compared to the latch of Algminas (see Figs. 2-3 of Houser; the configuration of the latch of Houser is reversed relative to the latch of Algminas because the latch 62 of Houser is pivotally joined to a first arm 64 of the tool head 12, such that the latch 62 of Houser selectively engages a second frame 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the latch of Algminas, as modified, in view of the teachings of Houser by making the latch of Algminas, as modified, pivotally joined to the second arm rather than to the second frame and by providing the distally sloped bottom surface that is engaged by the latch on the second frame rather than on the second arm. This modification is obvious because it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167), and since Houser provides evidence that reversing a latch of a tool head achieves a same result as desired by Algminas of holding a tool head in a closed frame position. Thus, Algminas, as thus modified with the latch reversed, discloses that the second frame is the structure that includes the distally sloped bottom surface since the distally sloped bottom surface is reversed from being provided on the second arm to being provided on the second frame [claim 3]; that the release lever is coupled to the second arm and that the latch disengages from the second frame since the release lever and latch are moved to be pivotally joined to the second arm so that the latch disengages the second frame [claim 4]; and that the spring extends between the bottom surface of the second arm and the top surface of the latch since the entire latch is reversed [claim 6].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algminas as modified by Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gregory and US Pat. No. 4,689,859 to Hauser, as evidenced by US Pat. No. 9,209,585 B2 to Houser et al.
Algminas, as modified, fails to disclose that the trip lever includes a first retention structure including a ball, and the first frame includes a second retention structure including a first detent and a third retention structure including a second detent, the ball engaging the first detent in the open lever position and the ball engaging the second detent in the closed lever position as recited in claim 8, and wherein moving the trip lever from the open lever position to the closed lever position overcomes engagement between the ball and the first detent and moves the ball into engagement with the second detent as recited in claim 9.
First, Gregory teaches that the trip lever 24 includes a first retention structure (the first retention structure being the structure engaged by the second detent 40; see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 24-27) and the first frame 30 includes a third retention structure including a second detent 40 (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 24-27), the first retention structure engaging the second detent 40 in the closed lever position (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 24-27). [Claim 8] Gregory further teaches that moving the trip lever 24 into the closed lever position moves the first retention structure into engagement with the second detent 40 (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 24-27). [Claim 9] Gregory teaches that providing the trip lever with the first retention structure and providing the first frame with the second detent is advantageous to initially retain the second frame in the closed position (see col. 2, lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Algminas, as previously modified, by providing the trip lever with a first retention structure and by providing the first frame with a second detent in view of Gregory in order to provide an initial retention force holding the second frame in the closed frame position. For example, if the latch of Algminas does not properly engage, then the first retention structure and the second detent prove a structure that regardless exerts some retention force to hold the second frame in the closed position, thus providing a back-up mechanism in the event that the latch does not properly function. This modification is further obvious under KSR Rationale A – combining prior art element according to known methods to achieve predictable results because Algminas, as modified, and Gregory together disclose each claimed element. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., the methods of Gregory noted above) and in combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately (i.e., no function of Algminas is changed, whereas the first retention structure and second detent of Gregory continue to provide a retention force on the second frame to hold the second frame in the closed position). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of this combination were predictable because Gregory teaches the suitability of providing a detent structure to retain a second frame in a closed position, even though Gregory also contemplates an additional structure (i.e., the trip lever) for holding the second frame in the closed frame position.
Still, Algminas, as modified above, fails to disclose that the first retention structure includes a ball, and that the first frame includes a second retention structure including a first detent, where the first retention structure engaging the first detent in the open lever position as required by claim 8, and wherein moving the trip lever from the open lever position to the closed lever position overcomes engagement between the ball and the first detent as recited in claim 9.
Regardless, Hauser is pertinent to the problem of retaining a gate in an open or closed position, where the gate is a structure that allows or inhibits access to an enclosed area. Hauser is thus pertinent to the problem of retaining the second frame, which acts as a gate, in the open or closed position as faced by the present inventor. Hauser teaches providing first and second detents 44 and 45, where the first detent 44 holds the gate 30 in the closed position (see Fig. 5) and the second detent 45 holds the gate 30 in the open position (see Fig. 2). [Claim 8] Hauser teaches that moving the gate 30 from a closed gate position to an open gate position overcomes engagement of the first detent (compare Figs. 2 and 5; as is evident from comparing Fig. 4 and Fig. 2, movement of the gate 30 from the closed gate position in Fig. 2 urges the ball 40 out of engagement with the first detent 44). [Claim 9] Thus, Hauser teaches that multiple detents can be provided so that a gate can be retained not only in the closed position (as is the case with Algminas as modified above) but also in the open position. Moreover, it is known in the to provide multiple detents on a second frame of a tool head (see Houser at col. 10, lines 10-12, explaining that second frame 162 may include multiple detents to control the position of the second frame 162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first frame of Algminas with a second retention structure including a first detent, where the first retention structure engages the first detent in the open lever position and where moving the trip lever from the open lever position to the closed lever position overcomes engagement of the first detent in view of the teachings of Hauser. This modification is advantageous because it provides the first detent to engage with the first retention structure when the second frame is in the open position, thus holding the second gate open to ease insertion of an object into the cutting zone. That is, prior to this modification, a user would have to manually hold the second frame open, whereas post modification Algminas, as thus modified, reduces the burden on the operator by automatically retaining the second frame in the open frame position. Houser provides further evidence of the obviousness of this modification, since Houser already contemplates providing multiple detents to control the position of a second frame.
Finally, Algminas, as modified above, fails to disclose that the first retention structure includes a ball as required by claim 8.
Hauser teaches a first retention structure 40 that includes a ball (see Fig. 4). Hauser teaches that a ball is a suitable structure for engaging with a detent 44 or 45 to hold a gate 30 in a desired open or closed position (see Figs. 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the first retention structure of Algminas, as modified, as a ball in view of the teachings of Hauser. This modification is obviousness because it is merely the selection of some particular retention structure (i.e., the ball of Hauser) for the generically disclosed first detent structure of Algminas, as modified. A ball is known to be a suitable first retention structure for retaining a gate in an open and closed position, and therefore the ball is Hauser is suitable in place of the generically disclosed first retention structure of Algminas, as modified. (Moreover, to the extent that the spring biased detent 40 of Gregory as provided to Algminas, as modified above, corresponds to a ball, this modification is merely a reversal of parts where the ball is provided on the trip lever instead of on the first frame, and likewise ball-receiving detents are provided on the first frame instead of on the trip lever.)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Algminas as modified by Gregory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2010/0236315 A1 to Robinson et al. and US Pat. No. 5,722,170 to Smith.
Algminas, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the stop member and the first frame are made of different materials as required by claim 13.
First, Robinson teaches constructing a frame 56 of a tool head from metal (see paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the first frame of Algminas, as modified, from metal, in view of the teachings of Robinson. This modification is advantageous because metal is a strong material, and the frame of Algminas, as modified, undergoes substantial forces, such that material is a strong material for withstanding the forces producing by the tool head of Algminas, as modified. Moreover, this modification is obvious because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416), and Robinson demonstrates the suitability of metal for a tool head frame.
Next, Smith teaches constructing a stop member 31 a material designed to dissipate kinetic energy, in particular from a polyurethane material (see col. 3, lines 61-64). Smith teaches that constructing the stop member from a material such as polyurethane material is advantageous to be able to dissipate kinetic energy over a short distance and stop the cutting stroke (see col. 3, lines 61-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the stop member of Algminas, as modified, from a material such as polyurethane in view of the teachings of Smith in order to aid in dissipating kinetic energy over a short distance and stop the cutting stroke.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 01/62452 A1 to Algminas in view of US Pat. No. 4,342,216 to Gregory and US Pat. No. 9,209,585 B2 to Houser et al.
Regarding claim 15, Algminas discloses a method of operating a tool head (in particular, the tool head of the embodiment of Fig. 9) to perform an operation on a workpiece (see page 28 lines 22-24 and page 29, lines 9-13), the tool head including a first frame with a first arm, a second arm, and a first blade, a second frame coupled to the first arm, the second frame including a second blade (see the annotated Fig. below and page 28, lines 22-24), a latch coupled to the second arm (see the annotated Fig. 9 below; the latch being coupled to the second arm in the closed frame position; see also the modification in view of Houser below), and a release lever 398 coupled to the latch and the second frame (see the annotated Fig. 9 below), the method comprising:
actuating the release lever 398 to disengage the latch from the second arm to move the second frame to an open frame position (see Fig. 9 – the second frame is moved to the open position by pivoting about the pivot at the upper end of the second frame (relative to the figure being oriented with the reference characters upright) in order to insert a workpiece into the tool head; see also page 4, lines 10-12);
a cutting zone being between the first arm and the second arm (see the annotated Fig. 9 below)
moving the second frame to a closed frame position in which the second frame is coupled to the latch (see the annotated Fig. 9 below showing the closed frame position); and
in the closed frame position, moving the first blade in the first frame toward the second blade in the second frame to perform a cutting operation on the workpiece (see page 29, lines 9-13; the cutting operation is disclosed at page 28, lines 22-24 and page 29, lines 3-5).
PNG
media_image2.png
857
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Algminas fails to disclose a trip lever coupled to the first arm; that the release lever is coupled to the second arm; that the latch is disengaged from the second frame; causing the trip lever to move from an open lever position to a closed lever position blocking the cutting zone; and engaging the trip lever with the workpiece to move the trip lever out of the cutting zone, the trip lever causing the second frame to move from the open frame position to a closed frame position.
Regarding the trip lever, Gregory teaches a tool head (see Fig. 1) having a trip lever 24 hingedly coupled to an arm of a first frame 30 (see Fig. 1, where the arm is an L-shape, and where Fig. 1 illustrates two positions of the trip lever 24 in solid and phantom to disclose the ‘hingedly’ feature; the trip lever 24 is coupled to the arm of the first frame by pivot pin 28; note that ‘coupled to’ permits an indirect coupling between the trip lever 24 and the arm), causing the trip lever 24 to move from an open lever position (shown in solid in Fig. 1) to a closed lever position blocking a cutting zone between the first frame 30 and a second frame 26 (shown in phantom in Fig. 1); and engaging the trip lever 24 with a workpiece 22 to move the trip lever 24 out of the cutting zone (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 19-34), the trip lever 24 causing the second frame 26 to move from the open frame position (shown in phantom in Fig. 1) to a closed frame position (shown in solid in Fig. 1). [Claim 15] Gregory teaches that providing the trip lever is advantageous because forces produced by the tool head on the object being processed within the cutting zone are transmitted to the trip lever, which in turn causes the second frame to be urged into the closed frame position (see col. 2, lines 19-34). As such, the trip lever improves safety because the trip lever aids in maintaining the second frame in a closed position during processing of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to hingedly couple a trip lever having the features discussed in the preceding paragraph as taught by Gregory to the first arm of Algminas in order to improve safety because the trip lever converts forces acting on the object during processing into closing forces to ensure that the second frame remains in the closed frame position during processing of the object. Safety is a known concern for cutting tools, such as the tool head of Algminas, and thus this modification enhances safety by providing a second mechanism for ensuring that the second frame remains closed during processing of the object. For example, if a user of the tool head of Algminas mistakenly believes that the latch is engaged, when the latch is in fact disengaged, there is a risk prior to this modification that the second frame could move during processing of the object and result in a dangerous condition such as the object being processing becoming dislodged from the tool head. However, following this modification, the second frame of Algminas, as modified, is retained closed even if the latch is inadvertently left unlatched. The coupling of the trip to the first arm of Algminas is obvious in view of the combined teachings of Algminas and Gregory. Algminas discloses the second frame being hingedly coupled to the first arm, and Gregory discloses the trip lever being coupled to the same arm as that to which the second frame is hingedly coupled.
Regarding the latch position , Houser teaches a tool head 12 having a latch 62 with a reverse configuration compared to the latch of Algminas (see Figs. 2-3 of Houser; the configuration of the latch of Houser is reversed relative to the latch of Algminas because the latch 62 of Houser is pivotally joined to a first arm 64 of the tool head 12, such that the latch 62 of Houser selectively engages a second frame 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reverse the latch of Algminas in view of the teachings of Houser by making the latch of Algminas pivotally joined to the second arm rather than to the second frame and by providing the distally sloped bottom surface that is engaged by the latch on the second frame rather than on the second arm, such that in an unlatch position the latch is disengaged from the second frame (rather than from the second arm). This modification is obvious because it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167), and since Houser provides evidence that reversing a latch of a tool head achieves a same result as desired by Algminas of holding a tool head in a closed frame position.
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