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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3, 5, 7-11 and 14, the cancelation of claims 4, 12-13 and 15, and the addition of new claims 16-18.
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, the offset portion, un-notched portion, first gap, second gap, through passage, region below the upper surface of the base, stepped portion, penetrated portion, front portion and wall portion must be identified by a reference character. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Offset portion
Un-notched portion
First gap
Second gap
Through passage
Region below the upper surface of the base
Stepped portion
Penetrated portion
Front portion
Wall portion
No new matter should be entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes the limitations an “offset portion”, a “first gap”, a “second gap” and an “un-notched portion” which have been amended into the claim and which do not appear in the instant specification or are specifically shown in the instant drawings. In the Applicant’s response they did not point where these new claim limitations are supported. It is recommended that the Applicant either amend the limitations to reflect the terms used in the present disclosure for the claimed subject matter or that the applicant amend the disclosure such that the specification has proper antecedent basis for the limitations and such that the drawings point to the particular structure being claimed without the inclusion of new matter.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6 and 16-18, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to provide a sufficient written description due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the claim includes the limitations a “stepped portion” and a “penetrated portion” which have been amended into the claim and which do not appear in the instant specification or are specifically shown in the instant drawings. In the Applicant’s response they did not point where these new claim limitations are supported. It is recommended that the Applicant either amend the limitations to reflect the terms used in the present disclosure for the claimed subject matter or that the applicant amend the disclosure such that the specification has proper antecedent basis for the limitations and such that the drawings point to the particular structure being claimed without the inclusion of new matter.
Regarding claim 3, the claim states “wherein the penetrated portion is arranged between the stepped portion in the left-right direction of the work machine” in lines 1-3 of the claim. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation in the application as filed. Further, the instant disclosure does not appear to support this claimed relationship and may be new matter that was not previously disclosed.
Regarding claim 7, the claim includes the limitation a “penetrated portion” which has been amended into the claim and which does not appear in the instant specification or is specifically shown in the instant drawings. In the Applicant’s response they did not point where these new claim limitations are supported. It is recommended that the Applicant either amend the limitation to reflect the terms used in the present disclosure for the claimed subject matter or that the applicant amend the disclosure such that the specification has proper antecedent basis for the limitation and such that the drawings point to the particular structure being claimed without the inclusion of new matter.
Regarding claims 8-11 and 14, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing to provide a sufficient written description due to their dependency on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “an offset portion that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to a lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap in the up-down direction between the fence and the turntable” in lines 15-17 of the claim. It is unclear if the offset portion is a portion of the fence that is offset upwardly or if the portion is structure that offsets a portion of the fence upwardly.
Regarding claims 2-3, 5-6 and 16-18, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim states “wherein the penetrated portion is arranged between the stepped portion in the left-right direction of the work machine” in lines 1-3 of the claim. The common definition of “between” is in the space that separates two or more things. The stepped portion as best understood is a single portion and claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, requires that the penetrated portion to be continuous with the stepped portion. There is a great deal of uncertainty as to how the penetrated portion is arranged in relation to the stepped portion as it is not known how the penetrated portion is “between” the stepped portion.
Regarding claim 16, the claim states “wherein: the through passage is in communication with the rear side of the fence; and the notch portion includes a rear notch provided on a rear end of the fence, and a part of the second gap, formed between the rear notch and the upper surface of the base, forms a rear side portion of the through passage” in lines 1-5 of the claim. The claim includes the limitations “rear side of the fence” and “rear end of the fence”. It is unclear if the rear side and rear end are the same portion of the fence or are different portions of the fence. To expedite prosecution the Examiner has interpreted the rear side and rear end as referring to the same portion of the fence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knittle (US 2021/0276110 A1) in view of Ponce (US 5,735,324 A) and Viazanko (US 4,987,813 A).
Regarding claim 1, Knittle teaches a work machine (Knittle, Fig. 1-4, 100) comprising:
a base (Knittle Fig. 1, 110) having an upper surface (Knittle, Fig. 1, 112) on which a material to be processed is placed;
a main body (Knittle, Fig. 1, 130) that is movably connected to the base and drives a blade (Knittle, P. 0008) for cutting the material to be processed; and
a fence (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1124) extending upward from the upper surface of the base and extending in a left-right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) below);
wherein the base includes a base body (Knittle, Fig. 1, 110) to which the fence is fixed, and a turntable (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) below) featuring a first gap (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1120) that is rotatably connected to the base body with an up-down direction of the work machine as a rotation axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) below);
wherein the fence includes:
a contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) below) that faces a front side of the work machine and that is positioned above the upper surface of the base and that restricts rearward movement of the material to be processed placed on the upper surface of the base; and
a notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) that is provided on the contact surface and above the upper surface of the base, the notch portion on the contact surface forming a second gap in the up-down direction (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125); and
wherein the fence includes a through passage (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) configured to allow dust to pass therethrough (Knittle, P. 0030), the second gap (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) forming at least a front side portion of the through passage, and wherein the through passage is in communication with at least one of a rear side of the fence and a region below the upper surface of the base (Knittle, Fig. 3, 1122), Knittle teaches the second gap being in communication with the internal tubing which is both a region below the upper surface of the base and on a rear side of the fence however it also appears from the drawings of Knittle that the second gap may just be open to the rear of the fence, and wherein the first gap and second gap are separate (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1120 and 1125).
Knittle does not teach an offset portion that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to a lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap in the up-down direction between the fence and the turntable, the notch portion wherein the notch portion is provided at the lower end of the fence thereby forming a second gap in the up-down direction between the fence and the base body, wherein the first gap and the second gap are at least partially separated from one another by an un-notched portion of the fence which is in contact with the upper surface of the base.
Ponce teaches a fence (Ponce, Fig. 1-5, 20) for a work machine (Ponce, Col. 1, lines 11-14) featuring an offset portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ponce) below) that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to a lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap in the up-down direction between the fence and the turntable (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ponce) below). Such notches allow for sawdust to pass through or be sweep into the space (Ponce, Col. 2 lines 40-43, and Col. 3 lines 20-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention when building the device from the ground up, to modify the fence taught by Knittle to include an offset portion that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to a lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap in the up-down direction between the fence and the turntable like the one taught by Ponce as doing so allows for sawdust to pass or be swept into the notch.
Viazanko teaches a work machine (Viazanko, Figs. 1-4) comprising a base (Viazanko, Figs. 1 and 4, 1) including a base body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) having an upper surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below), a fence (Viazanko, Figs. 1-3, 12 and 13) extending upward from the upper surface of the base and extending in a left-right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) including a contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) and a notch portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) that is provide at the lower end of the fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) thereby forming a second gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) in the up-down direction between the fence and base body, an offset portion (Viazanko, Figs. 1-3, 35) that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to the lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) below) in the up-down direction between the fence and a lower section (Viazanko, Figs. 1 and 3-4, 3) and wherein the first gap and the second gap are at least partially separated from one another by an un-notched portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Viazanko) below) of the fence which is in contact with the upper surface of the base. This allows sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy of a cut (Viazanko, Col. 4, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the position of the notch portion taught by Knittle such that the notch portion were positioned under the contact surface and above the upper surface of the base as taught by Viazanko and to modify the first gap and second gap taught by Knittle such that the first gap and the second gap are at least partially separated from one another by an un-notched portion of the fence which is in contact with the upper surface of the base as taught by Viazanko as this allow sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy of a cut.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
340
859
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
465
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
383
667
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Knittle in view of Ponce teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the fence (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1124) comprises: a main fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) that is fixed to the base so as not to be relatively movable to the base; and a sub-fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) connected to the main fence and relatively movable to the main fence (Knittle, P. 0027), wherein the notch portion (Ponce, Fig. 1, 29) is provided at a lower end of the main fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Ponce) above).
Regarding claim 16, The work machine according to claim 1, wherein: the notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) includes a rear notch (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) provided on a rear end of the fence, and a part of the second gap, formed between the rear notch and the upper surface of the base, forms a rear side portion of the through passage.
Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko as modified does not teach wherein the through passage is in communication with the rear side of the fence, the through passage as taught by Knittle is in communication with tubing.
Viazanko further teaches a through passage (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) below) that is in communication with the rear side of the fence (Viazanko, Figs. 1-3, 12 and 13) which allows for the sawdust to pass through the through passage without the need of a vacuum.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the through passage taught by Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko such that the through passage that is in communication with the rear side of the fence as further taught by Viazanko as it allows for the sawdust to pass through the through passage without the need of a vacuum.
PNG
media_image5.png
454
557
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko teaches the work machine according to claim 1.
Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko as modified does not teach wherein: the through passage is in communication with a region below the upper surface of the base; a vertical through-hole is formed in a portion of the base located rearward of the contact surface; and the vertical through-hole is configured to allow dust located on the base body forward of the contact surface to pass through the vertical through-hole to a space below the upper surface of the base.
Viazanko further teaches a vertical through-hole (Viazanko, Col. 3, lines 1-6) formed in a portion of the base located rearward of the contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) above) in communication with a region below the upper surface of the base (Viazanko, Figs. 1 and 4, 1) located below the fence and in communication with the through passage (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) above). As the vertical through-hole taught by Viazanko is a hole and penetrates the upper surface of the base the hole itself is a region below the upper surface of the base and would be capable of allowing dust located on the base body forward of the contact surface to pass through the vertical through-hole to a space below the upper surface of the base with or without a bolt present. This allows sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy of a cut (Viazanko, Col. 4, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the base taught by Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko to include a vertical through-hole like that one further taught by Viazanko as doing so allows sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy of a cut
Regarding claim 18, Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) includes a plurality of penetrated portions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) penetrating the fence in a front-rear direction of the work machine spaced apart from each other in the left-right direction of the work machine, the notch portion of Knittle includes a plurality of penetrated portions as there is a penetrated portion on either side of the fence.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knittle (US 2021/0276110 A1) in view of Ponce (US 5,735,324 A) and Viazanko (US 4,987,813 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kani et al. (US 8,495,939 B2).
Regarding claim 2, Knittle in view of Ponce teaches the work machine according to claim 1, wherein the notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) include: a penetrated portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) penetrating the lower end of the fence in a front-rear direction of the work machine, as best understood by the Examiner the penetrated portion is the portion where the notch portion enters the fence, the penetrated portion being configured to form at least a part of the second gap and the penetrated portion forms at least a part of the through passage.
Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko does not teach a stepped portion configured to form at least a part of the second gap, the stepped portion being recessed rearwardly from the contact surface, and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion.
Kani teaches a work machine (Kani, Figs. 1-2, 1) with a fence (Kani, Figs. 1-2, 20) having a contact surface (Kani, Fig. 6, 21a), wherein the lower end of the fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) below) comprises a stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) below) configured to form at least port of a gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) below), the stepped portion being recessed rearwardly from the contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) below), and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) below), as best understood this limitation requires that the stepped portion be continuous in the area where the penetrated portion is which would be the case as the penetrated portion as claimed and shown by Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko is on a small section of the lower end of the fence while the may extend further (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125). Such a stepped portion helps to prevent mutual interference between the fence and base (Kani, Col. 6, lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the fence taught by Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko such that a lower end of the fence included a stepped portion configured to form at least a part of the second gap, the stepped portion being recessed rearwardly from the contact surface, and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion like the stepped portion taught by Kani as such a portion helps to prevent mutual interference between the fence and the base.
PNG
media_image6.png
432
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Knittle in view of Ponce, Viazanko and Kani teaches the work machine according to claim 2, wherein the penetrated portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) is arranged between the stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above) in the left-right direction of the work machine, as best understood by the Examiner this limitation requires that the penetrated portion be positioned somewhere within the stepped portion which Kani teaches.
Regarding claim 5, Knittle in view of Ponce, Viazanko and Kani teaches the work machine according to claim 2, wherein the stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above) is provided at least at a lateral end of the fence in the left-right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above), and wherein the stepped portion is configured to allow dust to discharge through the lateral end thereof laterally of the fence, as the stepped portion taught by Kani is a recessed portion it is capable of allowing dust to pass.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knittle (US 2021/0276110 A1) in view of Viazanko (US 4,987,813 A).
Regarding claim 7, Knittle teaches a work machine (Knittle, Fig. 1-4, 100) comprising:
a base (Knittle Fig. 1, 110) having an upper surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) on which a material to be processed is placed;
a main body (Knittle, Fig. 1, 105) that is movably connected to the base and drives a blade (Knittle, P. 0008 and see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) for cutting the material to be processed; and
a fence (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1124) extending upwardly from the upper surface of the base and extending in a left- right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above),
wherein:
the base includes a base body (Knittle, Fig. 1, 110) to which the fence is fixed, and a turntable (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) featuring a gap (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1120) that is rotatably connected to the base body with an up-down direction of the work machine as a rotation axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above);
the fence includes:
a contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) that faces a front side of the work machine, and that is positioned above the upper surface of the base and that restricts rearward movement of the material to be processed placed on the upper surface of the base; and
a notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) that is provided on the contact surface, the notch portion on the contact surface forming another gap in the up-down direction (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125);
the notch portion includes a plurality of penetrated portions (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) penetrating the fence in a front-rear direction of the work machine spaced apart from each other in the left-right direction; and
at least one of the plurality of penetrated portions is configured to allow dust to pass therethrough (Knittle, P. 0030) and is in communication with a rear side of the fence, as the penetrated portion taught by Knittle is through the fence a rear side of the penetrated portion is on the rear side of the fence and in communication with a rear side of the fence.
Knittle does not teach a notch portion that is provided at a lower end of the fence, the gap formed between the fence and the base body.
Viazanko teaches a work machine (Viazanko, Figs. 1-4) comprising a base (Viazanko, Figs. 1 and 4, 1) including a base body (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) having an upper surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above), a fence (Viazanko, Figs. 1-3, 12 and 13) extending upward from the upper surface of the base and extending in a left-right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) including a contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) and a notch portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) that is provide at the lower end of the fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) thereby forming a gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) in the up-down direction between the fence and base body and thereby a through-passage (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) above), an offset portion (Viazanko, Figs. 1-3, 35) that is disposed so as to offset upwardly with respect to the lower end of the fence, thereby forming a first gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 3 (Viazanko) above) in the up-down direction between the fence and a lower section (Viazanko, Figs. 1 and 3-4, 3) and wherein the first gap and the second gap are at least partially separated from one another by an un-notched portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Viazanko) above) of the fence which is in contact with the upper surface of the base. This allows sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy of a cut (Viazanko, Col. 4, lines 3-11).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the position of the notch portion taught by Knittle such that the notch portion were positioned under the contact surface and above the upper surface of the base as taught by Viazanko and to modify the first gap and second gap taught by Knittle such that the first gap and the second gap are at least partially separated from one another by an un-notched portion of the fence which is in contact with the upper surface of the base as taught by Viazanko as this allow sawdust to pass under the fence so as to not interfere with the accuracy of placement of a workpiece and the accuracy.
Regarding claim 8, Knittle in view of Viazanko teaches the work machine according to claim 7, wherein: the fence (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1124) has a front portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above), comprising the contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above), and a wall portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above) located behind the front portion and extending in the left-right direction of the work machine, as best understood the wall portion is the inner part of the fence; and the notch portion is provided on both the front portion and the wall portion of the fence, as best understood as the notch portion extends through the fence it would thus be provided on both the front portion and wall portion.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knittle (US 2021/0276110 A1) in view of Viazanko (US 4,987,813 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kani (US 8,495,939 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Knittle in view of Viazanko teaches the work machine according to claim 7, wherein: the notch portion (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125) includes: a penetrated portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above), as best understood by the Examiner the penetrated portion is the portion where the notch portion enters the fence, penetrating the lower end of the fence in the front-rear direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) above); and the penetrated portion forms a through-passage (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 2 (Viazanko) above)
Knittle in view of Viazanko does not teach a stepped portion that is recessed rearwardly from the contact surface and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion.
Kani teaches a work machine (Kani, Figs. 1-2, 1) with a fence (Kani, Figs. 1-2, 20) having a contact surface (Kani, Fig. 6, 21a), wherein the lower end of the fence (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above) comprises a stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above) configured to form at least port of a gap (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above), the stepped portion being recessed rearwardly from the contact surface (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above), and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above), as best understood this limitation requires that the stepped portion be continuous in the area where the penetrated portion is which would be the case as the penetrated portion as claimed and shown by Knittle in view of Viazanko is on a small section of the lower end of the fence while the may extend further (Knittle, Fig. 1, 1125). Such a stepped portion helps to prevent mutual interference between the fence and base (Kani, Col. 6, lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the fence taught by Knittle in view of Viazanko such that a lower end of the fence included a stepped portion being recessed rearwardly from the contact surface, and the penetrated portion being continuous with the stepped portion like the stepped portion taught by Kani as such a portion helps to prevent mutual interference between the fence and the base.
Regarding claim 10, Knittle in view of Viazanko and Kani teaches the work machine according to claim 9, wherein a width of the penetrated portion in the left-right direction of the work machine is larger than a depth of the penetrated portion in an up-down direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 1 (Knittle) above), the width of the penetrated portion taught by Knittle is larger than the depth of the penetrated portion taught by Knittle.
Regarding claim 11, Knittle in view of Viazanko and Kani teaches the work machine according to claim 9, wherein a depth of the penetrated portion in an up-down direction of the work machine is larger than a depth of the stepped portion in the up-down direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 6 (Kani) above), as best understood the depth of the penetrated portion includes the stepped portion depth and the through passage depth, as such the depth of the penetrated portion taught by Knittle in view of Viazanko and Kani would be larger than the depth of the stepped portion taught by Knittle in view of Viazanko and Kani.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knittle (US 2021/0276110 A1) in view of Viazanko (US 4,987,813 A) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Eiswerth et al. (US 2016/0075050 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Knittle in view of Ponce teaches the work machine according to claim 7.
Knittle in view of Viazanko does not teach wherein the notch portion has a stepped portion extending in the left-right direction of the work machine, and the stepped portion is open at least on one side in the left-right direction.
Eiswerth teaches a notch portion (202) which is a stepped portion extending in the left-right direction of the work machine (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Eiswerth) below), and the stepped portion is open at least one side in the left-right direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 5 (Eiswerth) below). This ensure that the fence provides clearance for a turntable (Eiswerth, P. 0026).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention, when building the device from the ground up, to modify the fence taught by Knittle in view of Viazanko to include a stepped portion open to one side in the left-right direction like the one taught by Eiswerth as such a portion provides clearance for a turntable.
PNG
media_image7.png
278
299
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the amendments to the claims overcome the drawing objection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the drawing objection of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to the claims overcome the claim objections of record for claims 3-4, 7, 12-13 and 15. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections of record.
The applicant asserts that the amendments to claims 1-2 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record.
The applicant asserts the amendments to claim 1 overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection of record for claim 1. The Examiner agrees, however, due to the amendments to claim 1 the claim is now rejected over Knittle in view of Ponce and Viazanko.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights