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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 3-3-2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3-3-2026.
Claims 1-18 are examined in this action.
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.
Therefore, “wherein the limiting member is configured to deform under an action of an external force, and, in a case where the switch assembly is switched from the first state to the second state, the switch assembly deforms the limiting member so that the force exerted by the limiting member on the switch assembly is weakened until the force is less than the external force exerted by the switch assembly on the limiting member, of Claim 14, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the shield overlaps the fixed cover, and an overlap between the shield positioned at the first position and the fixed cover has a greater area than an overlap between the shield positioned at the second position and the fixed cover,” of Claim 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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: biasing member in Claim 5; 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 6,662,695 to Bettacchini.
In re Claim 1, Bettacchini teaches a cutting device (see Figs. 1-2), comprising a cutting system configured to complete workpiece cutting (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the cutting system comprises:
a motor (#30) configured to provide power for the cutting system;
a cutting assembly (see assembly of Figs. 1-2, including circular saw blade #9) comprising a cutting member (see Figs. 1-2, #9) and a shield (see Figs. 1-2, #10) at least partially surrounding the cutting member (see Figs. 1-2),
wherein the cutting member is driven by the motor to rotate (see Col. 3, ll. 1-3); and
a first handle provided with a switch (see Figs. 1-2, on/off switch #42) assembly configured to control the motor to switch a state;
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 Col.4 , ll. 42-45, which states “When the motor is switched off, the lower guard (10) is locked against retraction into the upper guard (8) and so the saw housing (5) cannot be lowered far towards the saw table (3) because the lower guard (10) blocks such movement” 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 Col. 4, ll. 45-52, which states : ) When the motor is switched off, the lower guard (10) is locked against retraction into the upper guard (8) and so the saw housing (5) cannot be lowered far towards the saw table (3) because the lower guard (10) blocks such movement).
In re Claim 2, Bettacchini teaches wherein the first handle comprises a locking member (see Figs. 1-2, guard lock lever #31), the locking member is disposed between the switch assembly and the shield (see Figs. 1-2, showing #31 between #42 and #10) and linked to the switch assembly (see Col. 4, ll. 22-27, teaching: “The lever (31) can be moved by a user of the saw grasping a hand grip (37) provided at the end of the handle (32) into an on-position (position Y) shown in dotted lines in FIG. 2. In the on-position a projection (40) at the free end of the lever (31) engages an actuator of an on-off power switch (42) to activate the motor (30) of the saw.”), in the case where the switch assembly is in the first state, the locking member positions the shield at the first position, and, in the case where the switch assembly is in the second state, the locking member releases the shield (see Col 4, ll. 17-52).
In re Claim 3, Bettacchini teaches wherein the locking member is formed with a locking portion (see Figs. 1-2, locking extension #36), the shield is formed with a positioning groove for mating with the locking portion (see Figs. 1-2, slot #39), and, in a case where the locking portion mates with the positioning groove, the shield is positioned at the first position (see Col. 4, ll. 27-34, which states: “The guard lock lever (31) has a locking extension (36) which in the off-position extends through a gap in the upper guard (8) to engage with an edge (38) of a slot (39) in the lower guard part (10).”)
In re Claim 4, Bettacchini teaches wherein the locking member is rotatably connected to the first handle through a first spindle (see Figs. 1-2, #31; see also Col. 4, ll. 17-20, which states “The guard lock lever (31) has a locking extension (36) which in the off-position extends through a gap in the upper guard (8) to engage with an edge (38) of a slot (39) in the lower guard part (10).” – the examiner notes that the bolt is a spindle in this interpretation), the locking member is formed with a locking portion (locking extension #36), and the locking portion rotates around the first spindle (The assembly of #31, including #36, rotates about, #35).
In re Claim 5, Bettacchini teaches, wherein the first handle comprises a biasing member (see Col. 4, ll. 19-23, which states: “The lever (31) is biased into an off-position (position X) shown in full black lines in FIG. 2 by means of a spring (not shown), the biasing member is connected to the locking member, and, in the case where the switch assembly is in the second state, the biasing member provides a force for releasing the locking member (see Col. 3, ll. 19-22, the spring biases the lever to the “off” position).
In re Claim 6, Bettacchini teaches wherein the first handle is formed with a grip portion (see Figs. 1-2, #37), and the switch assembly is disposed on the grip portion (See Figs. 1-2, #42 is in #37).
In re Claim 8, Bettacchini 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 (the handle, #37/41, etc. is located on one side of the shield when saw is “off”).
In re Claim 15, Bettacchini 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. 1-2, #8).
In re Claim 16, Bettacchini teaches a cutting device (see Figs. 1-2), comprising a cutting system configured to complete workpiece cutting (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the cutting system comprises:
a motor (#30) configured to provide power for the cutting system;
a cutting assembly (see assembly of Figs. 1-2, including circular saw blade #9) comprising a cutting member (see Figs. 1-2, #9) and a shield (see Figs. 1-2, #10) at least partially surrounding the cutting member (see Figs. 1-2),
wherein the cutting member is driven by the motor to rotate (see Col. 3, ll. 1-3); and
a switch (see Figs. 1-2, on/off switch #42) assembly configured to control the motor to switch a state;
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 Col.4 , ll. 42-45, which states “When the motor is switched off, the lower guard (10) is locked against retraction into the upper guard (8) and so the saw housing (5) cannot be lowered far towards the saw table (3) because the lower guard (10) blocks such movement” 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 Col. 4, ll. 45-52, which states : ) When the motor is switched off, the lower guard (10) is locked against retraction into the upper guard (8) and so the saw housing (5) cannot be lowered far towards the saw table (3) because the lower guard (10) blocks such movement).
In re Claim 17, Bettacchini 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. 1-2, #8).
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 7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,662,695 to Bettacchini in view of US 5,969,312 to Svetlik.
In re Claim 7, Bettacchini does not teach wherein the first handle comprises a housing, the grip portion is formed on the housing and has an opening, and the switch assembly is disposed in the opening.
However, Svetlik teaches wherein the first handle comprises a housing (see Svetlik, Figs. 3, #17), the grip portion is formed on the housing and has an opening (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, #27), and the switch assembly is disposed in the opening (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, #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 Bettacchini 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 9, Bettacchini 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 Bettacchini 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 Bettacchini, 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, Bettacchini 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 Bettacchini 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, Bettacchini 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 Bettacchini 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 Bettacchini, 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 Bettacchini, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the limiting member is configured to deform under an action of an external force (see Svetlik, Fig. 3, spring #45 deforms under force), and, in a case where the switch assembly is switched from the first state to the second state, the switch assembly deforms the limiting member so that the force exerted by the limiting member on the switch assembly is weakened until the force is less than the external force exerted by the switch assembly on the limiting member (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).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,662,695 to Bettacchini in view of US 2012/0067185 to Weusthof.
In re Claim 18, Bettacchini, in re Claim 17, does not teaches wherein the shield overlaps the fixed cover, and an overlap between the shield positioned at the first position and the fixed cover has a greater area than an overlap between the shield positioned at the second position and the fixed cover.
However, Weusthof teaches that it is known in the miter saw art to provide a shield (see Weusthof, Fig. 1, #12) that overlaps the fixed cover (see Weusthof, Fig. 1, #11), and an overlap between the shield positioned at the first position (see Weusthof, Fig. 2) and the fixed cover has a greater area than an overlap between the shield positioned at the second position and the fixed cover (see Weusthof, Fig. 8 showing no overlap in view of Fig. 2).
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 provide a pivoting guard extending to a “fully open” position as taught by Weusthof. Doing so allows the user the cut larger workpieces as the “moving guard” does not limit the distance between the workpiece table and the largest distance of the saw assembly. In other words, the fixed guard is the liming distance and not the moving guard.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights