DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 38, 40-42, & 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cole (3669031).
Regarding claim 38, Cole teaches a machining unit (10, 20) comprising a portable work table (10) and a semi-stationary electric tool (20), the portable work table comprising: a carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22) with a table leg arrangement (16a-b, 18a-b) with which the portable work table can be placed on a stand surface (40), a rest (14) which extends along a longitudinal direction and a width direction (Figs. 1-2), wherein the rest comprises a first rest (14) which is fixed to the carrier structure (Figs. 1-2); wherein the carrier structure can be brought into a first working configuration for use of the portable work table as a table (Fig. 1), wherein the portable work table can be brought into a transport configuration in which the portable work table can be manually brought into a tilt position and be moved relative to the stand surface, for the transport of the portable work table (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at an 45° or 90° angle), wherein the portable work table comprises a second rest (30a-b, 32) which can be selectively brought into a first rest position (Fig. 4) or into a second rest position (Fig. 1); wherein the portable work table in the first working configuration (Fig. 1) or a second working configuration (Fig. 4) forms a sub-frame for the semi-stationary electrical tool (Fig. 1), wherein the electrical tool comprises at least one workpiece rest (D in Fig. 1 Annotated) and a saw blade (E) for the cutting machining of a workpiece (35) which can be placed on the workpiece rest; wherein the workpiece rest (D) and the second rest (30a-b, 32) that are arranged to one another such that a side (G) of the second rest and a side (H) the workpiece rest have the same distance to a rest surface (F) which is formed by the first rest (14). Note that Fig. 1 shows the workpiece (35) extending parallel to both the rest surface (F) and the side (H) of the workspace rest (D). This indicates that the vertical distance between the rest surface (F) and the side (G) of the second rest (30a-b, 32) is the same as the vertical distance between the rest surface (F) and the side (H) the workpiece rest (D).
PNG
media_image1.png
220
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, Cole teaches a side (G) of the second rest (30a-b, 32) that faces away from the carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 41, Cole teaches a plane workpiece (35) which is placed onto the workpiece rest (D) in a two-dimensional manner that is also supported or supportable (Fig. 1) by the second rest (30a-b, 32). See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 42, Cole teaches a plane workpiece (35) placed onto the workpiece rest (D) in the two-dimensional manner that is supported or supportable (Fig. 1) by a side (G) of the second rest (30a-b, 32) which side is facing away (Fig. 1) from the carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22).
Regarding claim 44, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) in a transport configuration (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at an 45° angle) forms a sack barrow, and the second rest (30a-b, 32) in the transport configuration of the portable work table forms a ledge of the sack barrow (as in Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 24-37, 43, & 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cole (3669031) in view of Brazell (20050093258).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 24 & 45, Cole teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a second rest (30a-b, 32); and a semi-stationary electric tool (20) secured to a side (F) of a rest (14) by unspecified securing means; but fail(s) to teach an electric tool capable of resting on & being supported by the second rest. However, Brazell teaches securing means (60 & J in Fig. 2 Annotated) comprising screws (60, which Fig. 2 shows to have a rounded screw head and threading) and a hole structure (J) formed on a side (K) of a rest (52). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute securing means, as taught by Brazell, for the unspecified securing means of Cole, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively secure the semi-stationary electric tool to the rest, and because such an outcome would have been a predictable result of such a substitution of one known securing means for another. Hence, Cole as modified would teach a semi-stationary electric tool (20) that is removable from a rest (14) (since screws are inherently reversible), and that can therefore rest on and be supported by the second rest (30a-b, 32) when the portable work table (10) is in the transport configuration (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at a 45° or 90° angle). Note that claims 24 & 45 merely recite a portable work table that can be brought into a transport configuration in which the semi-stationary electric tool rests on and is supported by the second rest. Since the portable work table (10) and semi-stationary electric tool (20) of the machining unit of Cole as modified can be so positioned and supported, said machining unit therefore reads upon the limitations of these claims.
Regarding claim 24, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) that, in a first working configuration (Fig. 1) or a second working configuration (Fig. 4) forms a sub-frame for the semi-stationary electrical tool (see Figs. 1 & 4), wherein the semi-stationary electrical tool comprises at least one workpiece rest (D) and a tool (E) for machining a workpiece (35) which can be placed on the workpiece rest (Fig. 1). For these reasons, and the reasons stated in par. 4 & 10 above, the structure of Cole as modified would read upon the limitations of this claim.
Regarding claim 25, Cole teaches a carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22) that can be brought into a second working configuration (Fig. 4) for the use of the portable work table (10) as a base surface at a height which is closer to the ground (Figs. 1 & 4) than in the first working configuration (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Cole teaches a carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22) that further comprises a stand foot arrangement (49a-b) and/or the portable work table comprises wheels (27a-b) which are arranged on the carrier structure and/or a handle (56) for transporting the portable work table.
Regarding claim 27, Cole teaches a stand foot arrangement (49a-b) and/or the handle (56) in the longitudinal direction is/are arranged on one side of the carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22) and/or of the rest (14), and the wheels (27a-b) in the longitudinal direction are arranged on the other side of the carrier structure and/or of the rest (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 28, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) that, in a first working configuration (Fig. 1) can be placed with the table leg arrangement (16a-b, 18a-b) on the stand surface (40) and the first rest (14) can be aligned parallel to the stand surface (see Fig. 1, in which the first rest (14) is oriented parallel to the stand surface (40)).
Regarding claim 29, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) that can be brought into a transport configuration (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at an 90° angle) by way of the table leg arrangement (16a-b, 18a-b) being received in a table leg receiving volume (i.e., space between 27a-b & 54a-b) below the rest (Fig. 4), the second rest being brought into the second rest position (Fig. 4) and the portable work table being brought into an essentially vertical position (note that the table (10) in the configuration shown in Fig. 4 could obviously be tilted at a 90° angle, such that the first rest (14) was essentially perpendicular, and the second rest (30a-b, 32) is essentially parallel, to the stand surface (40)).
Regarding claim 30, Cole teaches a table leg receiving volume (i.e., space between 27a-b & 54a-b) that is limited by the wheels (27a-b).
Regarding claim 31, Cole teaches a carrier structure (12, 16a-b, 18a-b, 22) that further comprises table leg receivers (44, which receive at least the hinge pins of some (16a-b) of the table leg arrangement (16a-b, 18a-b)) and a rest carrier (12, 22), wherein the table leg arrangement (16a-b, 18a-b) is connected onto the rest carrier (12, 22) by way of the table leg receivers (44 – see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 32, Cole teaches a second rest (30a-b, 32) that can be brought from a first rest position (Fig. 4) into the second rest position (Fig. 1) by way of a translatory movement (Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 2, lines 18-30).
Regarding claim 33, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) in the transport configuration (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at a 45° angle) that forms a sack barrow with a ledge (30a-b) and/or the portable work table in the first working configuration (Fig. 1) or a second working configuration (Fig. 4) forms a sub-frame for a semi-stationary electrical tool (20 - see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Cole teaches a portable work table (10) in the transport configuration (i.e., when the table (10) is in the configuration shown in Fig. 4, but tilted at a 45° angle) that forms a sack barrow with a ledge (30a-b) and the second rest (30a-b, 32) in the transport configuration of the portable work table forms a ledge of the sack barrow (Figs. 1 & 4), wherein the ledge with its upper side forms a placement surface (i.e., surface of 30a-b facing 14) for receiving a transport box and/or supporting the semi-stationary electric tool (Figs. 1 & 3-4).
Regarding claim 35, Cole teaches a placement surface (i.e., surface of 30a-b facing 14) that comprises coupling receivers (37, 38) for receiving coupling means (e.g., bungee cords) of the transport box.
Regarding claims 36-37, Brazell teaches securing means (60 & J) comprising a hole structure (J) that is formed on a side (K) of a rest (52), said side facing away from a carrier structure (62, 64), wherein the hole structure is designed to form a coupling interface (Fig. 2 & par. 27) for a semi-stationary electric tool (12).
Regarding claim 43, Cole teaches a method for operating a machining unit (10, 20), comprising the step: bringing the second rest (30a-b, 32) into a first rest position (Fig. 4) or into a second rest position (Fig. 1). See Figs. 1 & 4 and col. 2, lines 18-30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding Jung (Remarks at 7-8) are moot because the new grounds of rejection set forth above do not rely on this reference. Applicant’s arguments regarding Cole & claim 24 (Remarks at 8-10) are addressed in the par. 10 above. Applicant’s arguments regarding Cole & claim 38 (Remarks at 10-11) are not persuasive, for the reasons stated in the par. 4 above; and because the claims do not recite, and Cole is not relied on to teach, any specific dimensions. Concerning claim 44, applicant contends that “a sack barrow (or hand truck) inherently requires an upright, vertical transport orientation where the bottom wheels contact the ground to bear the load when tilted” (Remarks at 12); but applicant does not cite to any source that specifically defines the term “sack barrow” in this manner. Nor does applicant explain why Cole’s ledge (30a-b) could not support a load (e.g., an electric tool (20)) resting on its placement surface (i.e., surface of 30a-b facing 14).
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights