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 Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 17,
“there” should be replaced by proper antecedent noun. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 2, 10-11 and 17 are 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 2, “integrally formed in a metal material” is confusing as it is not clear what item or element is integrally formed in a metal material.
Regarding claim 10, “the body attachment point” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11, “the midpoint” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding 17, “the center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means” and “the center axis if the second aperture” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 17, “wherein there is a distance between the center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means and the center axis of the second aperture is separated by the distance” is unclear, as it is not evident to which elements the distances relate or what those distances represent.
Regarding claim 17, “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 to a degree of at least 40%, as seen from a side of the tool arm” is unclear, as it us not apparent how the radius overlaps with the tool arm, how the degree of overlap is determined or what members are overlapping. .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Joa (3,036,605). Regarding claim 1, Joa teaches an integrally formed tool arm 75 for a power cutter (Fig. 1), the tool arm comprising a first aperture (defined by the aperture receiving bearing 38 and axel 37; Fig. 3) for receiving a motor axle 37, a second aperture (defined by the aperture which receives axel 60; 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 (Figs. 2-3) of the tool arm 75, the tool arm 75 further comprising first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 arranged to receive a rail cutting accessory (76, 77, which slide on the cross bar 44; Figs. 1-3), wherein the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset from the longitudinal extension axis of the power cutter tool arm. It should be noted that the accessory attachment means 90 is located offset with respect to the line that passes through the first and second apertures for the motor axel 37 and the tool axel 60 of the tool arm 75.
Regarding claim 8, Joa teaches everything noted above including that attachment means (87-89; Fig. 4) for attaching the tool arm 75 to a main body 77 of the power cutter, wherein the body attachment means is arranged offset from the longitudinal extension axis of the power cutter arm 75.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Joa teaches everything noted above including that the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is arranged offset towards the second aperture (defined by the aperture receiving the axel 60; Fig. 3) from the midpoint (M; see annotated Fig, 2 below) between the first aperture and the second aperture.
Regarding claim 13, Joa teaches everything noted above including that the
the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 is a tubular aperture extending transversal to the longitudinal extension direction of the tool arm 75.
Regarding claim 15, Joa teaches everything noted above including drive pulley attachment means 80 arranged in connection to the second aperture 58, wherein the drive pulley attachment means 58 is arranged offset from the second aperture in direction of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90.
Regarding claim 19, Joa teaches everything noted above including a
cut-off work tool comprising the tool arm 75 according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, Joa teaches everything noted above including a kit of parts comprising the tool arm 75 according to claim 1 and a rail cutting accessory.
PNG
media_image1.png
727
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joe in view of Almqvist et al. (CN 113767001 A)(, hereinafter Almqvist. Regarding claim 16, Joe teaches everything noted above except that the tool arm is arranged to receive a plastic cover. 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 obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Joe’s arm tool with a plastic cover in order to protect the components attached to the arm tool from dust and debris.
Regarding claims 2-3, as best understood, Joa teaches that the tool arm 75 is integrally formed. Joa does not teach that the tool arm 75 is formed from metal, wherein the metal material comprises any of magnesium, aluminum, and steel. However, 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. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form Joa’s tool arm from metal such as magnesium, aluminum steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
8. 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. However,
it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the thickness 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 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, as best understood, Joe teaches everything noted above including that there is a distance between the center axis of the first rail cutting accessory attachment means 90 and the center axis of the second aperture is 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).
9. 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 create strengthen arm.
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.
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, as beat understood, Joa, as modified by Baratta, teaches everything noted above including that the 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.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
McIlrath (4,156,991), Harding (4,446,845), Kund (1,606,308), Elfner et al. (2015/0038064 A1), and Carlson (1,615,901) teach a tool arm.
11. 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 January 28, 2026