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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 7-17-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 14, and 16 were amended. Claims 18-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-17 are examined in this action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a locking member in Claim 2; a biasing member in Claim 5; and a limiting member in Claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 5,370,025 to Itzov.
In re Claim 1, Itzov teaches a cutting device, comprising
a cutting system configured to complete workpiece cutting (see the miter saw in Fig. 1) wherein the cutting system comprises:
a motor configured to provide power for the cutting system (#74);
a cutting assembly comprising a cutting member (#78) and a shield at least partially surrounding the cutting member (#86), wherein the cutting member is driven by the motor to rotate (the motor drives the saw blade in Itzov – see abstract); and
a first handle provided with a switch assembly configured to control the motor to switch a state (#62 – incorrectly labeled #70 in Fig. 1);
wherein, in a case where the switch assembly is in a first state, the cutting system is powered off and the shield is positioned at a first position (see Fig. 5 with the switch “off”) and, in a case where the switch assembly is in a second state, the cutting system is started and the shield is positioned at a second position (see Fig. 2 with the switch “on”),and
wherein the shield is substantially open at the first position (see Fig. 5), and the shield is substantially closed at the second position (see Fig. 2).
In re Claim 6, Itzov teaches wherein the first handle is formed with a grip portion (see Fig. 1, surfaces which the user’ grips), and the switch assembly is disposed on the grip portion (see Fig.1, structure incorrectly labeled #70 – the switch is #68 in the text of the specification).
In re Claim 7, Itzov teaches wherein the first handle comprises a housing (see 1, handle surfaces comprise a housing), the grip portion is formed on the housing and has an opening, and the switch assembly is disposed in the opening (see Fig. 1, the switch is located in an opening in the handle housing).
In re Claim 8, Itzov teaches wherein, in a case where the shield is positioned at the first position, the first handle is located on one side of the shield (See Fig. 5).
In re Claim 15, Itzov teaches wherein the cutting assembly further comprises a fixed cover disposed above the cutting member and at least partially surrounding the cutting member, and the fixed cover is disposed between the shield and the cutting member (see Figs. 1-6, #82).
In re Claim 16, Itzov teaches a cutting device (see Figs. 1-10), comprising a cutting system configured to complete workpiece cutting (see Figs. 1-10), wherein the cutting system comprises:
a motor (#74) configured to provide power for the cutting system;
a cutting assembly (#74) comprising a cutting member (see Figs. 1-2, #9) and a shield (#86) at least partially surrounding the cutting member (see Figs. 1-6),
wherein the cutting member is driven by the motor to rotate (the motor drives the saw blade in Itzov – see abstract); and
a switch assembly configured to control the motor to switch a state (#62 – incorrectly labeled #70 in Fig. 1);
wherein, in a case where the switch assembly is in a first state, the cutting system is powered off and the shield is positioned at a first position (see Fig. 5 with the switch “off”) and, in a case where the switch assembly is in a second state, the cutting system is started and the shield is positioned at a second position (see Fig. 2 with the switch “on”) and
wherein the shield is substantially open at the first position (see Fig. 5), and the shield is substantially closed at the second position (see Fig. 2).
In re Claim 17, Itzov teaches wherein the cutting assembly further comprises a fixed cover disposed above the cutting member and at least partially surrounding the cutting member and the fixed cover is disposed between the shield and the cutting member (see Figs. 1-6, #82).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5,370,025 to Itzov in view of US 5,969,312 to Svetlik.
In re Claim 9, Itzov does not teach wherein the switch assembly comprises a first pressed portion and a second pressed portion, the first pressed portion is connected to the second pressed portion through a connecting portion, and a gap exists between the first pressed portion and the second pressed portion.
However, Svetlik teaches wherein the switch assembly comprises a first pressed portion (see Fig. 3, #21) and a second pressed portion (see Fig. 3, portion of 21 that contacts step #43), the first pressed portion is connected to the second pressed portion through a connecting portion (see Fig. 3, structure of #21 between the first and second pressed portions), and a gap exists between the first pressed portion and the second pressed portion (see Fig. 3, portions of #21 where the user grips are spaced from the portion of #21 that contacts step #43).
In the same field of invention, miter saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the handle of Itzov with the handle of Svetlik. Doing so provides a power tool with an ambidextrous lock-out mechanism to prevent unintended actuation of a power switch operatively associated with a motor that operates the power tool (see Svetlik, Abstract).
In re Claim 10, modified Itzov, in re Claim 9, teaches wherein the first handle is formed with a grip (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, #18), the grip has an opening (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, #27) and the first pressed portion and the second pressed portion are separately disposed on two sides of the opening (see Fig. 3, showing surfaces of #21 that the user grips on one side opening and the surfaces and the surfaces that contact #43 on the other side of the opening).
In re Claim 11, Itzov does not teach wherein the switch assembly is connected to the first handle through a second spindle, and the switch assembly rotates around the second spindle.
However, Svetlik teaches wherein the switch assembly is connected to the first handle through a second spindle, and the switch assembly rotates around the second spindle (see Svetlik, Col. 3, ll. 5-10, teaching trigger -first handle- is connected through s second spindle – pivot axis of handle).
In the same field of invention, miter saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the handle of Itzov with the handle of Svetlik. Doing so provides a power tool with an ambidextrous lock-out mechanism to prevent unintended actuation of a power switch operatively associated with a motor that operates the power tool (see Svetlik, Abstract).
In re Claim 12, Itzov does not teach wherein the first handle comprises a limiting member, and, in the case where the switch assembly is in the first state, the limiting member exerts a force on the switch assembly to keep the switch assembly still relative to the shield.
However, Svetlik teaches that it is known in the miter saw art to provide a handle wherein the first handle comprises a limiting member (see Fig. 3, #44/45), and, in the case where the switch assembly is in the first state, the limiting member exerts a force on the switch assembly to keep the switch assembly still relative to the shield (the spring #45 keeps the switch assembly in the “first state” until a force for overcoming the spring allows the user to move trigger #21).
In the same field of invention, miter saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the handle of Itzov with the handle of Svetlik. Doing so provides a power tool with an ambidextrous lock-out mechanism to prevent unintended actuation of a power switch operatively associated with a motor that operates the power tool (see Svetlik, Abstract).
In re Claim 13, modified Itzov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the switch assembly comprises a first pressed portion (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, portion of #21 that #43 contacts) and a second pressed portion (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, portion of #21 that the user grips), and the limiting member abuts against one end of the first pressed portion (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, showing #43/42 which is part of limiting member #44/45, abuts against the second pressed portion).
In re Claim 14, modified Itzov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the limiting member includes an elastic member (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, spring #45 deforms under force), and the elastic member protrudes outward and abuts against one end of the switch assembly when the switch assembly is in the first state and when the switch assembly moves to the second state under that action of the external force the elastic member is reset (the side of #21 contacts the side of arm #42 and provides a force on the spring that is more than the spring force when the user moves trigger #21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 2 was interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) – see above.
The closest prior art includes:
US 6,662,695 to Bettacchini.
US 5,370,025 to Itzov.
US 5,969,312 to Svetlik.
US 2012/0067185 to Weusthof.
However, None of the cited prior art teach a locking member structure which is disposed between the switch assembly and the shield and linked to the switch assembly, that can perform the function of positioning the shield at the first when the switch assembly is in the first state and releasing the shield when the switch assembly moves to the second state. As such, Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments to Claim 14 have obviated the prior drawing objection.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1 and 16 have overcome the US 6,662,695 to Bettacchini reference. However, as noted above US 5,370,025 to Itzov reads on the amended Claims. The Examiner notes that Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
