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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Joa (3,036,605). Regarding claim 1, Joa teaches a cut-off work tool comprising an integrally formed tool arm 75 of the cut-off work tool (tool arm 75 shown in Fig. 2 as a unitary swingable support arm mounted on carriage 77), the tool arm comprising a first aperture (bearing support structure including bearing 38 receiving shaft 37; Fig. 3) for receiving a motor axle 37, a second aperture (tool mounting hub structure receiving shaft 60 supporting cutting tool 33; Fig. 3) for receiving a tool axle 60 of a rotatable work tool 33, wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are intersected by and orthogonal to a longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (axis defined along elongation of arm 75 as shown in Figs. 2-3), the tool arm 75 further comprising first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 arranged to receive a rail cutting accessory (mounting structure 90 associated with tool support/positioning components such as carriage and guide structures 76, 77 supported relative to crossway 44; Figs. 1-3), wherein the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset from the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm (structure 90 positioned laterally offset relative to axis passing through the first and second apertures of arm 75 as shown in Fig. 2).
It should be noted that the preamble reciting “cut-off work tool” merely states an intended use or field of use for the claimed structure and does not further limit the claimed invention. See MPEP §2111.02. The body of claim 1 fully recites the structural limitations of the tool arm, including the first aperture, second aperture, and first rail cutting accessory attachment means. Therefore, the preamble does not impart additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the body of the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches attachment structure for securing the tool arm 75 to a support frame (carriage mounting and connection structures 87–89 associated with carriage 77 and frame support; Figs. 1-4) (wherein the tool arm 75 is mounted to a movable support carriage system permitting positional adjustment relative to the workpiece conveyor), wherein the attachment structure is arranged offset relative to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (as shown by the lateral mounting of carriage support structures relative to the central axis of arm 75 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches that the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset toward the second aperture (structure 90 located closer to tool-side axle 60 than motor-side axle 37; Fig. 2) from a midpoint between the first aperture and the second aperture (midpoint defined along axis between shaft 37 and shaft 60 as shown as M in annotated Fig. 2 below, with structure 90 positioned asymmetrically toward the tool axle side).
Regarding claim 13, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches that the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 comprises a tubular or aperture-like mounting structure extending transverse to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (mounting structure 90 configured as a transverse receiving/support element for accessory mounting relative to arm 75 as shown in Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 15, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches drive pulley attachment structure 80 associated with the second aperture region (pulley/sheave mounting arrangement coupled to shaft 60/tool-side region of arm 75; Fig. 3), wherein the drive pulley attachment structure 80 is arranged offset from the second aperture in a direction toward the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 (offset positioning of pulley structure relative to tool axle 60 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Joa teaches a kit of parts comprising the tool arm 75 of claim 1 (tool arm 75 as disclosed in FIG. 1 and Fig. 3) and a rail cutting accessory (accessory support/guide structures such as 76, 77 associated with crossway 44 and mounting structure 90), wherein the kit components are configured for assembly into a cutting tool system.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa in view of Almqvist et al. (CN 113767001 A), hereinafter Almqvist. Regarding claim 16, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the tool arm is arranged to receive a plastic cover (Joe does not explicitly disclose a protective cover over the tool arm structure). However, Almqvist teaches an arm tool 240 formed from magnesium arranged to receive a plastic cover 115. See Figs. 1-2C and page 4, lines 8-10 of the attached translation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Joa’s tool arm with a plastic cover as taught by Almqvist in order to protect components mounted on the arm from dust, debris, and environmental wear.
Regarding claims 2-3, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the tool arm is formed from metal, wherein the metal material comprises any of magnesium, aluminum, and steel (Joa does not explicitly limit the material composition of the arm). However, Almqvist teaches an arm tool 240 formed from magnesium. See Figs. 1-2C and page 4, lines 8-10 of the attached translation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form Joe’s tool arm from a known metal such as magnesium, aluminum, or steel because selection of a known structural material for a known component based on suitability for intended use has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
5. Claims 7, 14, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa. Regarding claim 7, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the material thickness of the tool arm is between 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm (Joa does not explicitly disclose a thickness range). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a suitable thickness for the tool arm, since modifying thickness constitutes a mere change in size of a known structural element, which is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Joa teaches everything noted above including that
a length of the tubular aperture, measured orthogonally to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 and parallel to the motor axle and/or parallel to the tool axle, is about unknown millimeters. Joe does not explicitly teach that the length is at least 30 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the length of the tube as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Joa teaches everything noted above including that there is a distance between a center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 and a center axis of the second aperture, and the center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means and the center axis of the second aperture separated by the distance, wherein an area of a circle centered on a center defined by the center axis of the rail cutting attachment means and with a radius equal to the distance, overlaps with the tool arm. Joe does not explicitly teach that the overlapping of is at the degree of at least 40%, as seen from a side of the tool arm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the size of the first cutting accessory attachment means, the second aperture, and the distance between them as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
6. Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa in view of Baratta (7,757,684 B2). Regarding claim 4, Joa does not explicitly teach at least one structural reinforcement section configured to increase a structural integrity of the tool arm. However, Baratta teaches a housing or arm 350 (Figs. 22A-23 or various embodiments) as a carriage for a saw machine. Baratta further teaches that the housing or the arm 350 includes a body layer which is formed from honeycomb as a reinforcement section over a cover layer or skin. See col. 24, lines 4-24. It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Joa’s arm with the reinforcement section in order to increase rigidity and structural durability under load.
Regarding claim 5, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including that the at least one structural reinforcement section comprises a honeycomb structure (as disclosed on Baratta).
Regarding claim 6, Joa teaches everything noted above except that width of the tool arm measured orthogonally to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm and parallel to the motor axle and/or parallel to the tool axle is between 100 mm and 300 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the width of the tool arm as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including a first structural reinforcement section (as taught by Baratta) configured to increase a structural integrity of the tool arm, wherein the first structural reinforcement section inherently extends along a line between the body attachment means (87-89) and the first rail cutting accessory attachment means.
Regarding claim 10, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including that a body attachment point (87-89) is separated from the first rail cutting accessory attachment means by a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal extension axis of the power cutter arm and intersecting a midpoint (a scan be seen in Fig. 4) between the first aperture and the second aperture.
Regarding claim 12, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything including
a second reinforcement structure (as the reinforcement structure taught by Bratatta) inherently arranged at least partly in-between the first aperture and the second aperture and in connection to the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90.
To the extent that it may still be argued that the claim positively recites a cut-off cutting tool, the rejection below is applied.
7. Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa in view of Deiry et al. (2,745,446), hereinafter Deiry.
Regarding claim 1, Joa teaches a cut-off work tool comprising an integrally formed tool arm 75 of the cut-off work tool (tool arm 75 shown in Fig. 2 as a unitary swingable support arm mounted on carriage 77), the tool arm comprising a first aperture (bearing support structure including bearing 38 receiving shaft 37; Fig. 3) for receiving a motor axle 37, a second aperture (tool mounting hub structure receiving shaft 60 supporting cutting tool 33; Fig. 3) for receiving a tool axle 60 of a rotatable work tool 33, wherein the first aperture and the second aperture are intersected by and orthogonal to a longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (axis defined along elongation of arm 75 as shown in Figs. 2-3), the tool arm 75 further comprising first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 arranged to receive a rail cutting accessory (mounting structure 90 associated with tool support/positioning components such as carriage and guide structures 76, 77 supported relative to crossway 44; Figs. 1-3), wherein the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset from the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm (structure 90 positioned laterally offset relative to axis passing through the first and second apertures of arm 75 as shown in Fig. 2).
It should be noted that the preamble reciting “cut-off work tool” merely states an intended use or field of use for the claimed structure and does not further limit the claimed invention. See MPEP §2111.02. The body of claim 1 fully recites the structural limitations of the tool arm, including the first aperture, second aperture, and first rail cutting accessory attachment means. Therefore, the preamble does not impart additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the body of the claim.
To the extent that the claim may still be interpreted as expressly reciting a cut-off cutting tool, the following rejection is applied. Deiry teaches a cutting machine that may be used for cutting off lumber. See Figs. 1–17 of Deiry. Additionally, the saw arrangement disclosed in Deiry appears capable of performing partial-depth cutting operations depending on the extent to which the saw is moved downward relative to the workpiece. Thus, the disclosed cutting arrangement is reasonably understood to be capable of forming grooves or partial cuts in a workpiece in addition to complete cut-off operations. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure Joa’s tool as a cut-off tool as taught by Deiry, because Deiry teaches similar cutting arrangements capable of cutting through a workpiece.
Regarding claim 7, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the material thickness of the tool arm is between 1.5 mm and 3.5 mm (Joa does not explicitly disclose a thickness range). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a suitable thickness for the tool arm, since modifying thickness constitutes a mere change in size of a known structural element, which is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches attachment structure for securing the tool arm 75 to a support frame (carriage mounting and connection structures 87–89 associated with carriage 77 and frame support; Figs. 1-4) (wherein the tool arm 75 is mounted to a movable support carriage system permitting positional adjustment relative to the workpiece conveyor), wherein the attachment structure is arranged offset relative to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (as shown by the lateral mounting of carriage support structures relative to the central axis of arm 75 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches that the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset toward the second aperture (structure 90 located closer to tool-side axle 60 than motor-side axle 37; Fig. 2) from a midpoint between the first aperture and the second aperture (midpoint defined along axis between shaft 37 and shaft 60 as shown as M in annotated Fig. 2 above, with structure 90 positioned asymmetrically toward the tool axle side).
Regarding claim 13, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches that the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 comprises a tubular or aperture-like mounting structure extending transverse to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 (mounting structure 90 configured as a transverse receiving/support element for accessory mounting relative to arm 75 as shown in Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Joa teaches everything noted above including that
a length of the tubular aperture, measured orthogonally to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm 75 and parallel to the motor axle and/or parallel to the tool axle, is about unknown millimeters. Joe does not explicitly teach that the length is at least 30 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the length of the tube as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, Joa teaches the structure of claim 1 and further teaches drive pulley attachment structure 80 associated with the second aperture region (pulley/sheave mounting arrangement coupled to shaft 60/tool-side region of arm 75; Fig. 3), wherein the drive pulley attachment structure 80 is arranged offset from the second aperture in a direction toward the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 (offset positioning of pulley structure relative to tool axle 60 as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 17, Joa teaches everything noted above including that there is a distance between a center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 and a center axis of the second aperture, and the center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means and the center axis of the second aperture separated by the distance, wherein an area of a circle centered on a center defined by the center axis of the rail cutting attachment means and with a radius equal to the distance, overlaps with the tool arm. Joe does not explicitly teach that the overlapping of is at the degree of at least 40%, as seen from a side of the tool arm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the size of the first cutting accessory attachment means, the second aperture, and the distance between them as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Joa teaches a kit of parts comprising the tool arm 75 of claim 1 (tool arm 75 as disclosed in FIG. 1 and Fig. 3) and a rail cutting accessory (accessory support/guide structures such as 76, 77 associated with crossway 44 and mounting structure 90), wherein the kit components are configured for assembly into a cutting tool system.
8. Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa in view of Deiry and in further view of Almqvist. Regarding claim 16, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the tool arm is arranged to receive a plastic cover (Joe does not explicitly disclose a protective cover over the tool arm structure). However, Almqvist teaches an arm tool 240 formed from magnesium arranged to receive a plastic cover 115. See Figs. 1-2C and page 4, lines 8-10 of the attached translation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide tool arm of Joa’s tool, as modified by Deiry, with a plastic cover as taught by Almqvist in order to protect components mounted on the arm from dust, debris, and environmental wear.
Regarding claims 2-3, Joa teaches everything noted above except that the tool arm is formed from metal, wherein the metal material comprises any of magnesium, aluminum, and steel (Joa does not explicitly limit the material composition of the arm). However, Almqvist teaches an arm tool 240 formed from magnesium. See Figs. 1-2C and page 4, lines 8-10 of the attached translation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to form the tool arm of Joa’s tool, as modified above, from a known metal such as magnesium, aluminum, or steel because selection of a known structural material for a known component based on suitability for intended use has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
9. Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joa in view of Deiry and in further view of Baratta. Regarding claim 4, Joa does not explicitly teach at least one structural reinforcement section configured to increase a structural integrity of the tool arm. However, Baratta teaches a housing or arm 350 (Figs. 22A-23 or various embodiments) as a carriage for a saw machine. Baratta further teaches that the housing or the arm 350 includes a body layer which is formed from honeycomb as a reinforcement section over a cover layer or skin. See col. 24, lines 4-24. It would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the arm tool of Joa’s too, as modified by Deiry, with the reinforcement section in order to increase rigidity and structural durability under load.
Regarding claim 5, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including that the at least one structural reinforcement section comprises a honeycomb structure (as disclosed on Baratta).
Regarding claim 6, Joa teaches everything noted above except that width of the tool arm measured orthogonally to the longitudinal extension axis of the tool arm and parallel to the motor axle and/or parallel to the tool axle is between 100 mm and 300 mm. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the width of the tool arm as specified above, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including a first structural reinforcement section (as taught by Baratta) configured to increase a structural integrity of the tool arm, wherein the first structural reinforcement section inherently extends along a line between the body attachment means (87-89) and the first rail cutting accessory attachment means.
Regarding claim 10, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including that a body attachment point (87-89) is separated from the first rail cutting accessory attachment means by a plane orthogonal to the longitudinal extension axis of the power cutter arm and intersecting a midpoint (a scan be seen in Fig. 4) between the first aperture and the second aperture.
Regarding claim 12, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything including
a second reinforcement structure (as the reinforcement structure taught by Bratatta) inherently arranged at least partly in-between the first aperture and the second aperture and in connection to the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s argument regarding the preamble language “a cut-off work tool comprising an integrally formed tool arm of the cut-off work tool” has been considered but is unpersuasive. The preamble merely states an intended use or field of use for the claimed structure and does not further limit the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2111.02. The body of claim 1 fully recites the structural limitations of the claimed tool arm, including the first aperture, second aperture, and first rail cutting accessory attachment means. As such, the preamble language does not impart additional structural limitations beyond those positively recited in the body of the claim. Furthermore, the recitation of cut-off working tool does not have be given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951).
Moreover, Joa discloses a woodworking machine including cutting tools, such as circular saws and dado cutters, capable of cutting workpieces. Joa expressly discloses woodworking tools 33 mounted on support arms 34 and movable relative to a workpiece conveyor. Therefore, Joa teaches a cutting tool assembly reasonably corresponding to the claimed cut-off work tool under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. The claims do not positively recite any structural limitation requiring a hand-held configuration or requiring the tool to cut completely through a workpiece. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Joa is limited to groove cutting and therefore cannot disclose a cut-off work tool is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the Examiner’s identification of Joa’s arm positioning system (76, 77, and 84-90) as corresponding to the claimed “first rail cutting accessory attachment means” is far-fetched. However, during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under this standard, the Examiner’s interpretation is reasonable because Joa discloses structural components arranged on the tool arm assembly for coupling and positioning associated structures relative to the cutting tool assembly. The claim language broadly recites “attachment means arranged to receive a rail cutting accessory” without positively reciting specific structural limitations requiring a particular type of rail system or attachment interface. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Joa reasonably teaches or suggests the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (571) . 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 May 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights