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
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 7 August 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 15-17 are pending. Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 7 May 2026.
Applicant is reminded to use the status identifier ‘New’ for all newly added claims – here, claims 16 and 17 should include the status identifier ‘New’.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites, “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”. Fig. 4 of the present drawings shows the trip lever being in the closed lever position and inside the cutting zone, and Fig. 4 shows that the trip lever in the closed lever position is only partially inside the cutting zone. An upper portion of the trip lever relative to Fig. 4 is outside the cutting zone, even when the trip lever is in the closed lever position. Therefore, the trip lever being “inside the cutting zone” is interpreted as merely requiring that some portion of the trip lever is inside the cutting zone, even if some other portion of the trip lever is outside the cutting zone. This interpretation is necessary is order for the claim to be interpreted consistent with the present disclosure. Moreover, since the trip lever being “inside the cutting zone” is interpreted as being satisfied even when only a portion of the trip lever is inside the cutting zone, the recitation that the trip lever is “outside the cutting zone” when the trip lever is in the open lever position is likewise interpreted as merely requiring that the trip lever is at least partially outside the cutting zone. As such, the recitation in claim 1 that the trip lever is “outside the cutting zone” when the trip lever is in the open lever position permits some portion of the trip lever to be inside the cutting zone, so long as at least some portion of the trip lever is outside the cutting zone. The recitation that the trip lever is “outside the cutting zone” as recited in claim 1 is broader than a recitation such as the trip lever being “entirely outside the cutting zone”, in that the former permits some portion of the trip lever to be inside the cutting zone while the latter does not. Indeed, the Applicant appears to recognize this distinction in view of the Applicant recited “entirely outside” in related application 17/209,969.
Claim 15 also recites that the trip lever is moved “out of the cutting zone”. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, this recitation is interpreted as requiring that the trip lever is moved at least partially out of the cutting zone and does not require that the entirety of the trip lever is out of the cutting zone.
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 12 at line 2 recites, “comprising a stop member is ring-shaped”. This recitation should read – comprising a stop member that is ring-shaped –.
Claim 16 at lines 1-2 recites, “wherein the trip lever extends ... in the open frame position”. The open frame position is a position of the second frame, not a position of the trip lever. Thus, claim 16 should be amended to recite either – wherein the trip lever extends ... in the closed lever position – or – wherein the trip lever extends ... when the second frame is in the open frame position –.
Claim 17 at lines 1-2 recites, “wherein the trip lever extends ... in the closed frame position”. The closed frame position is a position of the second frame, not a position of the trip lever. Thus, claim 17 should be amended to recite either – wherein the trip lever extends ... in the open lever position – or – wherein the trip lever extends ... when the second frame is in the closed frame position –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-17 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; note that the first frame also is interpreted as including the first blade, in the same manner as the present application considers the second frame as including the second blade);
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 includes the second blade, in the same manner as the present application considers the second frame as including the second blade), 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 bounded by the first arm, the second arm, and the second frame in the closed frame position (see annotated Fig. 9 below indicating the cutting zone; the phrase ‘bounded by’ permits other structures, such as the first frame, as further bounding the cutting zone – i.e., ‘bounded by’ is not a closed recitation).
PNG
media_image1.png
857
915
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 first blade of 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 12, Algminas discloses a stop member 228 is ring-shaped (see Figs. 2 and 6; member 228 acts as a stop for spring 230; 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).
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 disclose: that the trip lever moving between the closed lever position and the open lever position causes the second frame to move between the open frame position and the closed frame position as required by claim 2; that the trip lever extends perpendicular to at least one of the first arm and the second arm in the open frame position as required by claim 16; and that the trip lever extends parallel to at least one of the first arm and the second arm in the closed frame position as required by claim 17.
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) 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 of the trip lever 24 shown in Fig. 1; in this position, the trip lever 24 is ‘outside the cutting zone’ because the cutting zone is limited to an 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; further, the trip lever is ‘outside the cutting zone’ at all locations where the trip lever 24 overlaps with the first frame 30 – as discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the requirement that the trip lever is ‘outside the cutting zone’ is satisfied so long as some portion of the trip lever is outside the cutting zone, and a comparison of the solid and phantom positions of the trip lever 24 of Gregory makes clear that various portions of the trip lever 24 are outside the cutting zone when the trip lever is in the open lever position, even if the cutting zone extends to a left side of the vertical portion of the first frame arm 30 relative to Fig. 1 of Gregory), 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) and the open lever position (shown in solid in Fig. 1) causes the second frame 26 to move between the open frame position (shown in phantom in Fig. 1) and the closed frame position (shown in solid in Fig. 1). [Claim 2] Gregory also teaches that the trip lever 24 extends perpendicular to at least one of the first arm and the second arm in the open frame position (see the annotated Fig. 1 below illustrating two options for satisfying claim 16, where the open frame position is illustrated in phantom; in the first option, the trip lever 24 has a reach or dimension in a direction perpendicular to the arm of the first frame as indicated by the vertical line added to the annotated figure, such that the trip lever 24 ‘extends’ perpendicular to the arm of the first frame 30 – i.e., the recitation ‘extends perpendicular’ merely requires that some reach direction or dimension of the trip lever 24 is perpendicular to the arm of the first frame 30, in contrast to a recitation such as ‘the trip lever is perpendicular to’, such that the first option is satisfied because ‘extends perpendicular’ is a broader recitation than ‘is perpendicular’; regarding the second option, a portion of the trip lever 24 is perpendicular to a portion of the second arm as indicated in the annotated figure) [claim 16]; and that the trip lever 24 extends parallel to at least one of the first arm and the second arm in the closed frame position (see Fig. 2, where a surface of the trip lever 24 that receives the lead line for reference character 24 in Fig. 2 is parallel to a vertical first arm portion of the first frame 30 and is also parallel to the portion of the second arm indicated in the annotated Fig. 1 below; similar to as discussed above with respect to claim 16, ‘extends parallel’ is a broader recitation than ‘is parallel’, since the former is describing an extension direction) [claim 17].
PNG
media_image2.png
561
923
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 (in addition to the latch of Algminas) 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 processed 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 or mistakenly 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) 3-6 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 (the top surface being defined by a portion of the latch that engages element 403 as can be seen in Fig. 9 of Algminas; the top surface is a ‘proximally sloped’ surface because the top surface slopes downward relative to Fig. 9 when moving in the right direction along the plane of the page with Fig. 9 oriented with the reference characters upright) and the second arm includes a distally sloped bottom surface (the distally sloped bottom surface being a bottom surface of element 403; the bottom surface is a ‘distally sloped’ surface because the surface slopes upward when moving in the left direction along the plane of the page with Fig. 9 oriented with the reference characters upright), 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) and permits the second frame to move to the open frame position (Algminas, as modified, discloses this feature 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).
However, 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 advantageous to hold the second frame in the closed frame position while the latch is being engaged, such that a user need not manually hold the second frame in the closed frame position while simultaneously engaging the latch. 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 frame 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 following this 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 with 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 bounded between the first arm, the second arm, and the second frame (see the annotated Fig. 9 below; the second frame including the second blade as required by claim 15);
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_image1.png
857
915
media_image1.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 the closed frame position as required by claim 15.
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; at least some portion of the trip lever 24 is moved out of the cutting zone because the trip lever is moved to a position overlapping with the first frame 30), 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 processed 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, the Applicant argues under the ‘Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)’ header that ‘biasing member’ should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). The Applicant argues “biasing member” is understood by persons or ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure. The Applicant points to US Pat. No. 10,611,275 as evidence that a ‘biasing member’ is a structural term.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. First, the Federal Circuit has held that generic terms (such as ‘member’ in the present case) typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment. See Welker Bearing Company v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Second, the cited patent is merely an example of another Applicant providing a definition of ‘biasing member’ for the purposes of that particular Applicant’s application. Merely because another Applicant has also used the term ‘biasing member’ does not mean that the definition from the cited patent is controlling. Indeed, the Applicant in the cited patent appears to be acting as his own lexicographer in providing a ‘Glossary of Claim Terms’. The Applicant in the cited patent acting as his own lexicographer is insufficient to establish that the definition of ‘biasing member’ selected by the Applicant in the cited patent establishes a common, art-wide meaning for a term. One of ordinary skill in the art considering the cited patent would understand that the cited patent is defining ‘biasing member’ for the purposes of that particular patent, not as evidence of a commonly understood definition of the term. Contrast the citation of a single patent with a textbook definition – the former is merely one Applicant’s use of a term, whereas the latter can be relied upon to establish that a term has a known structural meaning in the art. If the Applicant were to provide a textbook definition in a mechanical engineering textbook, in a hydraulic tool textbook, or in a similar source, such a definition would be more persuasive than the use of ‘biasing member’ in a seemingly random patent. Further still, the cited definition of ‘biasing member’ is a resilient member, reacting as a spring to forces applied to a surface. This definition also uses a generic term coupled with functional language, such that this definition, even if applicable, would in turn invoke 35 USC 112(f) itself. Third, a ‘biasing member’ is not a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, and instead ‘spring’ is the name of the structure at issue. Since the structure at issue has a name known by those of ordinary skill in the art, in particular ‘sprint’, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. The examiner would agree that an alternative recitation, such as a spring, is a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure, and a recitation of a spring would not invoke 35 USC 112(f). As such, “biasing member” is properly interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f), and the interpretation is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant argues under the ‘Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103’ header that there is no proper motivation to provide Algminas with a trip lever as taught by Gregory. In support of this argument, the Applicant asserts that, “[The motivation cited in the rejection] is an Office-manufactured scenario and a slippery slope that lacks rationale underpinnings.” This argument is not persuasive. The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning). In this case, the rationale is at least reasoned from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. Algminas has no structure automatically converts cutting forces into closing forces acting on the second frame. The retention of the second frame of Algminas in the closed frame position is achieved only when the latch is properly secured. One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that a user of a tool is susceptible to misuse of the tool, and one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the trip lever of Gregory, when provided to the tool head of Algminas improves retention of the second frame in the closed frame position. The modification improves the tool head of Algminas by enhancing safety in the even that the latch is not properly engaged (e.g., if the user does not close the second frame a sufficient amount to engage the latch) – even in this situation, once the tool head is actuating, the cutting force exerted on a workpiece received in the cutting zone necessarily results in a closing action acting on the second frame. As another example, even if the user initially properly secures the latch, if the user inadvertently disengages the latch during a cutting operation, the modification ensures that the second frame remains urged close during cutting, thus presenting a safety hazard. The user may set the front end of the tool of Algminas on a support surface to reduce the user’s load during cutting; however, the release lever for the latch is at the front end of the tool and is susceptible to being inadvertently released if the front end of the tool is rested on a support. In this situation, like the preceding example, providing the trip lever ensures that the second frame is urged close during cutting. One of ordinary skill in the art is aware that power tools can be dangerous and that all reasonable precautions should be taken to ensure safe operation. One of ordinary skill in the art is therefore motivation by safety concerns to contemplate potential safety hazards and to address these safety hazards. One of ordinary skill in the art is also aware that lots of power tool accidents occur due to misuse or inattentive use of power tools, and that conceivable safety risks should be addressed to maximize safety. Therefore, since the present rejection relies on a motivation that is reasoned from the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, the motivation is proper.
Further arguing against the modification to provide Algminas with a trip lever as taught by Gregory, the Applicant further states at page 9 of the Remarks, “Besides, the inclusion of yet another safety element would not alleviate the user’s already forgetful state of mind.” This argument is incorrect. The trip lever of Gregory, acting on its own, converts forces produced during cutting into closing forces acting on the second frame. Therefore, the trip lever of Gregory acts without any action by the user, such that the trip lever does alleviate the user’s forgetful state of mind. The fact that the trip lever acts on its own without any user action is a reason that providing the trip lever to the tool head of Algminas is advantageous. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further still, the Applicant states at page 9 of the Remarks, “This reasoning is no more than a mere conclusory statement that is insufficient to support in [an, sic] obviousness combination.” This argument is not persuasive because it ignores the reasoned analysis set forth in the rejection. In short, the trip lever of Algminas is advantageous to enhance operator safety by providing a trip that automatically produces a closing force acting on the second frame so that user safety is improved if the latch is not properly engaged.
Next, the Applicant beginning at page 9 argues that the rejection relies on a ‘more-is-better’ type reasoning. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not merely rely on a more-is-better approach, and also because the prior art already acknowledges that it is advantageous to provide more than one mechanism for achieving the closed frame position. First, this rejection is not merely a more-is-better approach that provides redundant safety features. Instead, the trip lever of Gregory enhances safety for a particular use instance in which an operator performs a cutting action without the latch engaged (or if the latch is disengaged mid-cutting action as discussed above). The trip lever of Gregory is an automatically acting safety feature that does not depend on the user properly engaging the latch. Thus, the trip lever of Gregory is not redundant with the latch of Algminas, since the trip lever of Gregory improves safety in particular instances in which the latch fails. Unlike the latch of Algminas, which requires a user action to engage, the trip lever of Gregory produces a closing force in response to a cutting force, such that the trip lever of Gregory is necessarily actuated during cutting. Thus, Gregory’s trip lever provides additional, not redundant, safety when applied to the tool head of Algminas. Moreover, Gregory already acknowledges advantages from the use of multiple structures to hold the second frame closed. In particular, Gregory provides both a spring detent ‘40’ and the trip lever to hold the second frame closed. See Gregory at col. 2, lines 24-34. If Applicant’s argument that there is not need to provide multiple structures for retaining the second frame in a closed position, then Gregory would not include two structures for this purpose. This Applicant’s argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not contemplate providing two structures to retain a second frame in a closed position is not persuasive in view of Gregory teaching the use of two structures to retain a second frame in a closed position. Thus, since Gregory’s trip lever improves safety in a manner that is not redundant with the latch of Algminas, and since Gregory provides evidence that providing multiple structures for retaining a second frame in a closed frame position is contemplated by those of skill in the art, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Continuing to argue against the motivation to modify Algminas to include a trip lever as taught by Gregory, the Applicant further argues at page 10 of the Remarks that PTAB has held as a matter of law that “where the proposed motivation is to achieve a function already taught by the primary reference, a prima facie case of obviousness does not exist.” This argument is not persuasive because the modification does not merely re-produce a function already taught by Algminas. The advantage of the motivation of Algminas is that cutting forces automatically produce a closing action on the second frame, thus enhancing safety even if the latch is not engaged. This function is not already disclosed by Algminas. Algminas has no structure for automatically converting cutting forces into closing of the second frame. Since the modification provides a new feature to Algminas, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights