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
1. Claim 8-10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“’the outlet of the dust port” should be –the dust port outlet—to be consistent with the preceding claims such as claim 3 and 15. 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 4-12 and 13-20 are 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 claims 4 and 16, “the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor” is unclear. The term “generally parallel” is a relative and subjective term that fails to provide clear boundaries as to the scope of the claim. Specifically, the claims do not specify the degree of angular deviation permitted from being parallel, nor do they provide an objective standard by which one of ordinary skill in the art could determine whether a given structure falls within the scope of the term.
Regarding claim 13, “configured to abut a workpiece” is unclear. It is not clear whether this recitation of the workpiece is a reference to the workpiece previously recited in the same claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Funabiki (WO 2021/241737 A1). Regarding claim 1, Funabiki teaches a rotary cutting tool 10, comprising: a battery pack receptacle 49 (Fig. 2); a handle 26; a motor 41; a wheel 12 driven by the motor; a blade guard (60, 80; Fig. 4) surrounding the wheel 12; and a shoe 22; wherein the shoe comprises a base (defined by the horizontal portion of the shoe 22; Fig. 4) and an attachment portion (defined by the parallel brackets extending from and perpendicular to the horizontal portion of the shoe 22 and pivotally connected to the housing 24; Fig. 4); wherein the base comprises a flat portion (as shown in Fig. 4, the horizontal portion of the shoe is flat) and is configured to abut a workpiece and provide a depth of cut; wherein the attachment portion is perpendicular to the base (Fig. 4); wherein the blade guard (60, 80) comprises a dust port (27, 65, 80; Fig. 4) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 12. See Figs. 1-14 in Funabiki.
Regarding claim 2, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that dust port (27, 65, 80) is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 60.
Regarding claim 3, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that dust port comprises a dust port inlet (27, 65) and a dust port outlet 82A.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A); and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 41.
Regarding claim 5, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that
the dust port outlet (82A) is at an end of the horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A).
Regarding claim 6, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that the dust port further comprises a vertical portion (defined by the vertical wall of the box 80 adjacent to the horizontal portion 27, 65, 82A and also adjacent to the bottom portion 61 of the guard) in communication with the horizontal portion.
Regarding claim 7, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that the vertical portion is transverse to the horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A).
Regarding claim 8, Funabiki teaches everything note above including a central axis of the outlet (82A) of the dust port is below a top edge (defined by the top edge of the guard 60 which is located above the outlet 82A; Figs. 4-5) of the blade guard. The central axis passes through the outlet (82A) is located below the top edge of the guard 60, as clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Funabiki.
Regarding claim 9, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that the central axis of the outlet of the dust port is above a bottom 61 (defined by the section 61, as shown in Fig. 1) of the guard 60.
Regarding claim 10, Funabiki teaches everything note above including that
the central axis of the outlet (82A) of the dust port is closer to the bottom 61 of the guard than the top of the guard (as clearly shown in Fig. 1).
6. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedgwick (9,009,982 B1), provided with the IDS filled on 09/12/2024. Regarding claim 1, Sedgwick teaches a rotary cutting tool, comprising: a battery pack receptacle (23; Fig. 3); a handle 22; a motor 70; a wheel 31 driven by the motor; a blade guard 34 (Fig. 3) surrounding the wheel 31 ; and a shoe 43; wherein the shoe comprises a base (defined by the horizontal portion of the shoe 43; Fig. 2) and an attachment portion (defined by the portion extending from and perpendicular to the horizontal portion of the shoe 31; Fig. 2); wherein the base comprises a flat portion (as shown in Fig. 2, the horizontal portion of the shoe is flat) and is configured to abut a workpiece (as a drywall) and provide a depth of cut (See col. 4, lines 54-67); wherein the attachment portion is perpendicular to the base (Fig. 2); wherein the blade guard 34 comprises a dust port (35, 37, 39, 41; Fig. 2) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 31 (col. 5, lines 42-59). See Figs. 1-3 in Sedgwick.
Regarding claim 2, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that dust port is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 34. As shown in Sedgwick, sections 34 and 41 of the dust port are located at the forward end of the blade guard 34. The forward end of the blade guard is defined as the portion of the blade guard that faces the handle 20. See Fig. 1 of Sedgwick.
Regarding claim 3, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that dust port comprises a dust port inlet 39 and a dust port outlet (defined by the outlet of the section 37, which communicates with the bag 50; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion 37 (defined by the portion 37 of the dust port, which extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the blade guard and is parallel to the rotation axis of the wheel 31; Figs. 1-2); and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 70.
Regarding claim 5, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that
the dust port outlet is at an end of the horizontal portion 37.
Regarding claim 6, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that the dust port further comprises a vertical portion 41 in communication with the horizontal portion 37.
Regarding claim 7, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that the vertical portion 41 (which extends upwardly from the blade guard 34; Fig. 3) is transverse to the horizontal portion 37.
Regarding claim 8, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including a central axis of the outlet of the dust port (defined by the port of the section 37) is below a top edge (defined by the top edge of the section 41 of the blade guard; Fig. 2) of the blade guard. The central axis passes through the section 37 which is located below the top surface of the section 41 of the blade guard 34.
Regarding claim 9, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that the central axis of the outlet of the dust port is above a bottom of the guard. The bottom is defined by the portion of the blade guard adjacent to the flat portion of the shoe 43, as shown in Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 10, Sedgwick teaches everything note above including that
the central axis of the outlet of the dust port is closer to the bottom of the guard than the top of the guard.
7. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by
Xing et al. (2011/0185581 A1), hereinafter Xing. Regarding claim 1, Xing teaches a rotary cutting tool 10, comprising: a battery pack receptacle (17; Fig. 1); a handle 14; a motor 12; a wheel 13 driven by the motor; a blade guard 31 (Fig. 1) surrounding the wheel 13 ; and a shoe (18, 23); wherein the shoe comprises a base 18 and an attachment portion 23; wherein the base comprises a flat portion and is configured to abut a workpiece and provide a depth of cut; wherein the attachment portion 23 is perpendicular to the base 18 (Fig. 1); wherein the blade guard 31 comprises a dust port (defined by the port connected to the exhaust device 33; Fig. 1) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 13. See Figs. 1-6 in Xing.
Regarding claim 2, Xing teaches everything note above including that dust port is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 31 (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Xing teaches everything note above including that dust port comprises a dust port inlet (defined by an inlet of the exhaust device 31) and a dust port outlet (defined by the outlet of exhaust device).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Xing teaches everything note above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion (defined by the portion of the exhaust that extends parallel to the rotation axis of the blade and port within the guard 31; Fig. 1); and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funabiki. Regarding claims 11-12, Funabiki teaches everything noted above except that the horizontal portion of the dust port is at least 5 millimeters long, or at least 10 millimeters long. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose the length of the horizontal portion of the dust port as claimed, 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).
10. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedgwick. Regarding claims 11-12, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above except that the horizontal portion of the dust port is at least 5 millimeters long, or at least 10 millimeters long. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose the length of the horizontal portion of the dust port as claimed, 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).
11. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funabiki in view of Anton (2,866,485). Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Funabiki teaches a rotary cutting tool 10, comprising: a battery pack receptacle 49 (Fig. 2); a handle 26; a motor 41; a wheel 12 driven by the motor and configured to cut or grind a workpiece; a blade guard (60, 80; Fig. 4) surrounding the wheel 12; and a shoe 22; wherein the shoe comprises a base (defined by the horizontal portion of the shoe 22; Fig. 4) and an attachment portion (defined by the parallel brackets extending from and perpendicular to the horizontal portion of the shoe 22 and pivotally connected to the housing 24; Fig. 4); wherein the base comprises a flat portion (as shown in Fig. 4, the horizontal portion of the shoe is flat) and is configured to abut a workpiece and provide a depth of cut; wherein the base has a front width and a rear width; wherein the attachment portion is perpendicular to the base (Fig. 4); wherein the blade guard (60, 80) comprises a dust port (27, 65, 80; Fig. 4) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 12. See Figs. 1-14 in Funabiki.
Funabiki does not explicitly teach that the front width is 8 cm or less. However, Anton teaches a rotary cutting tool 20 including a shoe 34 having a base 91 with a front portion. Anton further teaches that the width of the base 91, including its front portion, is approximately 2.125 inches (col. 8, lines 30-40), which is less than 8 cm. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose the width of Funabiki’s front portion, as taught by Anton, 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, Funabiki teaches everything noted above including that the dust port (27, 65, 80) is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 60.
Regarding claim 15, Funabiki teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a dust port inlet (27, 65) and a dust port outlet 82A.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Funabiki teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A); and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 41.
Regarding claim 17, Funabiki teaches everything noted above including that
thedust port outlet (82A) is at an end of the horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A).
Regarding claim 18, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that
the dust port further comprises a vertical portion (defined by the vertical wall of the box 80 adjacent to the horizontal portion 27, 65, 82A and also adjacent to the bottom portion 61 of the guard) in communication with the horizontal portion.
Regarding claim 19, Funabiki teaches everything noted above including that
the vertical portion is transverse to the horizontal portion (27, 65, 82A).
Regarding claim 20, Funabiki teaches everything note above including a central axis of the outlet (82A) of the dust port is below a top edge (defined by the top edge of the guard 60 which is located above the outlet 82A; Figs. 4-5) of the blade guard. The central axis passes through the outlet (82A) is located below the top edge of the guard 60, as clearly shown in Figs. 1 and 4-5 of Funabiki.
12. Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedgwick in view of Anton. Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Sedgwick teaches a rotary cutting tool, comprising: a battery pack receptacle (23; Fig. 3); a handle 22; a motor 70; a cutting wheel 31 driven by the motor and configured to cut or grind a workpiece (as a drywall); a blade guard 34 (Fig. 3) surrounding the cutting wheel 31 ; and a shoe 43; wherein the shoe 43 comprises a base (defined by the horizontal portion of the shoe 43; Fig. 2) and an attachment portion (defined by the portion extending from and perpendicular to the horizontal portion of the shoe 31; Fig. 2); wherein the base comprises a flat portion (as shown in Fig. 2, the horizontal portion of the shoe is flat) configured to abut a workpiece (as a drywall) and provide a depth of cut (See col. 4, lines 54-67); wherein the attachment portion is perpendicular to the base (Fig. 2); wherein the base has a front width and a rear width (Fig. 2) ; wherein the blade guard 34 comprises a dust port (35, 37, 39, Fig. 2) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 31 (col. 5, lines 42-59). See Figs. 1-3 in Sedgwick.
Sedgwick does not explicitly teach that the front width is 8 cm or less. However, Anton teaches a rotary cutting tool 20 including a shoe 34 having a base 91 with a front portion. Anton further teaches that the width of the base 91, including its front portion, is approximately 2.125 inches (col. 8, lines 30-40), which is less than 8 cm. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose the width of Sedgwick’s front portion, as taught by Anton, 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, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that the dust port is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 34. As shown in Sedgwick, sections 34 and 41 of the dust port are located at the forward end of the blade guard 34. The forward end of the blade guard is defined as the portion of the blade guard that faces the handle 20. See Fig. 1 of Sedgwick.
Regarding claim 15, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a dust port inlet (defined by an inlet of the exhaust device 31) and a dust port outlet (defined by the outlet of the section 37, which communicates with the bag 50; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion 37; and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 70.
Regarding claim 17, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that
the dust port outlet is at an end of the horizontal portion 37.
Regarding claim 18, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that
the dust port further comprises a vertical portion 41 (which extends upwardly from the blade guard 34; Fig. 3) in communication with the horizontal portion.
Regarding claim 19, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that
the vertical portion is transverse to the horizontal portion.
Regarding claim 20, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that
a central axis of the outlet of the dust port (defined by the port of the section 37) is below a top edge (defined by the top edge of the section 41 of the blade guard; Fig. 2) of the blade guard. The central axis passes through the section 37 which is located below the top surface of the section 41 of the blade guard 34.
13. Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xing in view of Anton. Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Xing teaches
Xing teaches a rotary cutting tool 10, comprising: a battery pack receptacle (17; Fig. 1); a handle 14; a motor 12; a cutting wheel 13 driven by the motor and configured to cut or grind a workpiece; a blade guard 31 (Fig. 1) surrounding the cutting wheel 13 ; and a shoe (18, 23); wherein the shoe comprises a base 18 and an attachment portion 23; wherein the base comprises a flat portion and is configured to abut a workpiece and provide a depth of cut; wherein the attachment portion 23 is perpendicular to the base 18 (Fig. 1); wherein base 18 has a front width and a rear width; wherein the blade guard 31 comprises a dust port (defined by the port connected to the exhaust device 33; Fig. 1) configured to direct dust away from the wheel 13. See Figs. 1-6 in Xing.
Xing does not explicitly teach that the front width is 8 cm or less. However, Anton teaches a rotary cutting tool 20 including a shoe 34 having a base 91 with a front portion. Anton further teaches that the width of the base 91, including its front portion, is approximately 2.125 inches (col. 8, lines 30-40), which is less than 8 cm. Accordingly, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose the width of Xing’s front portion, as taught by Anton, 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, Xing teaches everything noted above including that the dust port is disposed at a forward end of the blade guard 31. See Fig. 1 in Xing. .
Regarding claim 15, Xing teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a dust port inlet (defined by an inlet of the exhaust device 31) and a dust port outlet (defined by the outlet of exhaust device 31).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Sedgwick teaches everything noted above including that the dust port comprises a horizontal portion (defined by the portion of the exhaust that extends parallel to the rotation axis of the blade and port within the guard 31; Fig. 1); and wherein the horizontal portion is generally parallel to a rotational axis of the motor 12.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Matson et al. (11,577,328 B1), Duncan et al. (5,074,044), Moreno et al. (2014/0208600 A1), Doumani et al. (6,167,626 B1), Patel (2008/0244910 A1), Kozlowski (2006/0169111 A1), and Loveless et al. (2009/0183377 A1) teach a rotary cutting tool.
15. 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) 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
January 26, 2026