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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a dust collection system” as recited in claims 4 and 13 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “dust collection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the phrase “dust collection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the system).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka.
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses a blade guard assembly 50 for a table saw 1 including a riving knife 20 (see Fig. 1), the blade guard assembly 50 comprising:
a main body 40 defining a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, where the ‘longitudinal axis’ extends through the main body 40 in a left-right direction along the plane of the page when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright);
at least one guard bale 55 rotatably connected to the main body 40 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 38; the rotational connection being via shaft 56);
a fixed locking pin 32 connected to the main body 40 (see Figs. 3-6; a comparison of Figs. 5 and 6 is evidence that the pin 32 is fixed);
a movable locking pin 35 movable relative to the main body 40 along the longitudinal axis (compare Figs. 5 and 6; the pin 35 moves along the slots 44, with slot portions 44a extending along the longitudinal axis);
a handle 31 connected to the main body 40 at a pivot point (compare Figs. 5 and 6, where the pivot point is at the fixed locking pin 32), the handle 31 movable to a locked position (see Fig. 5) and a release position (see Fig. 6) by rotation about the pivot point (compare Figs. 5 and 6); and
a linkage 34 connected to the movable locking pin 35 and to the handle 31 (see Figs. 5-6 and paragraph 41), the linkage 34 connected to the handle 31 at a connection point that is spaced apart from the pivot point (see Figs. 5 and 6; the linkage 34 is connected to the handle 31 at a connection point of shaft 33 per paragraph 41), such that rotation of the handle 31 about the pivot point causes a cam movement of the linkage 34 (see Figs. 5 and 6; see also paragraph 42),
wherein the cam movement of the linkage 34 causes the movable locking pin 35 to move along the longitudinal axis (compare Figs. 5 and 6),
wherein with the handle 31 in the release position, the movable locking pin 35 is a first distance from the fixed locking pin 32 (the first distance being shown in Fig. 6) and the blade guard assembly 50 is removable from the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 49),
wherein with the handle 31 in the locked position, the movable locking pin 35 is a second distance from the fixed locking pin 32 and the blade guard assembly 50 is connected to the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 48), and
wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (compare Figs. 5 and 6, with the former showing the second distance the latter showing the first distance).
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses that the riving knife 20 defining an attachment groove 20b having a first curved end (a left end of groove 20b relative to Fig. 3, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright) and an opposite second curved end (a right end of groove 20b relative to Fig. 3, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright), wherein: in the locked position of the handle 31, the linkage presses 34 the movable locking pin 35 toward the first curved end of the attachment groove 20b and the fixed locking pin 32 is pressed toward the second curved end of the attachment groove 20b to connect the blade guard assembly 50 to the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 5), and in the release position of the handle 31 the movable locking pin 35 and the fixed locking pin 32 are removable from attachment groove 20b through an attachment opening 20a of the attachment groove 20b (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka discloses a table saw 1, comprising:
a table 2 defining a workpiece support surface (see Fig. 1, showing the support surface of the table 2 as the surface supporting workpiece W);
a riving knife 20 extending from the workpiece support surface (see Fig. 1; the knife 20 extends upward from the support surface); and
a blade guard assembly 50 removeably connected to the riving knife 20 (see Figs. 1 and 5-6; see also paragraphs 48 and 49) and configured to guard a sawblade 3 of the table saw 1 (see Fig. 1), the blade guard assembly 50 including:
a main body 40 defining a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1, where the ‘longitudinal axis’ extends through the main body 40 in a left-right direction along the plane of the page when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright);
at least one guard bale 55 rotatably connected to the main body 40 (see Fig. 1 and paragraph 38; the rotational connection being via shaft 56);
a fixed locking pin 32 connected to the main body 40 (see Figs. 3-6; a comparison of Figs. 5 and 6 is evidence that the pin 32 is fixed) and extending across the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 4);
a movable locking pin 35 extending across the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 4), the movable locking pin 35 movable relative to the main body 40 along the longitudinal axis (compare Figs. 5 and 6; the pin 35 moves along the slots 44, with slot portions 44a extending along the longitudinal axis);
a handle 31 connected to the main body 40 at a pivot point (compare Figs. 5 and 6, where the pivot point is at the fixed locking pin 32), the handle 31 movable to a locked position (see Fig. 5) and a release position (see Fig. 6) by rotation about the pivot point (compare Figs. 5 and 6); and
a linkage 34 connected to the movable locking pin 35 and to the handle 31 (see Figs. 5-6 and paragraph 41), the linkage 34 connected to the handle 31 at a connection point that is spaced apart from the pivot point (see Figs. 5 and 6; the linkage 34 is connected to the handle 31 at a connection point of shaft 33 per paragraph 41), such that rotation of the handle 31 about the pivot point causes a cam movement of the linkage 34 (see Figs. 5 and 6; see also paragraph 42),
wherein the cam movement of the linkage 34 causes the movable locking pin 35 to move along the longitudinal axis (compare Figs. 5 and 6),
wherein with the handle 31 in the release position, the movable locking pin 35 is a first distance from the fixed locking pin 32 (the first distance being shown in Fig. 6) and the blade guard assembly 50 is removable from the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 6 and paragraph 49),
wherein with the handle 31 in the locked position, the movable locking pin 35 is a second distance from the fixed locking pin 32 and the blade guard assembly 50 is connected to the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 5 and paragraph 48), and
wherein the second distance is greater than the first distance (compare Figs. 5 and 6, with the former showing the second distance the latter showing the first distance).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka discloses that the riving knife 20 defining an attachment groove 20b having a first curved end (a left end of groove 20b relative to Fig. 3, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright) and an opposite second curved end (a right end of groove 20b relative to Fig. 3, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright), in the locked position of the handle 31, the linkage presses 34 the movable locking pin 35 toward the first curved end of the attachment groove 20b and the fixed locking pin 32 is pressed toward the second curved end of the attachment groove 20b to connect the blade guard assembly 50 to the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 5), and in the release position of the handle 31 the movable locking pin 35 and the fixed locking pin 32 are removable from attachment groove 20b through an attachment opening 20a of the attachment groove 20b (see Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 2025/0178233 A1 to Chang.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Tanaka discloses that the main body defines an internal space in which the riving knife, the fixed locking pin, and the movable locking pin are each at least partially located.
Tanaka fails to disclose:
that the main body defines a dust exit at a rear side of the main body along the longitudinal axis, and the handle is located at a front side of the main body along the longitudinal axis as required by claims 3 and 12;
a dust port connected to the main body at the dust exit and configured for connection to a dust collection system as required by claims 4 and 13; and
that the internal space is operably connected to the dust exit, such that an airflow at least partially generated by rotation of a sawblade of the table saw [or the sawblade for claim 14] passes from the internal space and through the dust exit as required by claims 5 and 14.
Chang, however, teaches a main body that defines a dust exit at a rear side of the main body along a longitudinal axis of the main body (see the annotated Fig. 7 below; see also Fig. 2,noting that fork 21 is considered as a structure in addition to the main body, rather than a part of the main body), and a handle 40 is located at a front side of the main body along the longitudinal axis (see the annotated Fig. 7 below; note that the main body can be divided approximately in half into a ‘front side’ and a ‘rear side’ as indicated by the dividing line in the annotated Fig. 7 below). [Claims 3 and 12] Chang teaches a dust port connected to the main body at the dust exit (see the annotated Fig. 7 below) and configured for connection to a dust collection system (see Fig. 7 and paragraph 36). [Claims 4 and 13] Chang also teaches an internal space that is operably connected to the dust exit (see Fig. 3; the internal space being a space within the main body), such that an airflow at least partially generated by rotation of a sawblade of the table saw passes from the internal space and through the dust exit (this feature is evident from Fig. 12, where Chang teaches this feature to the same extent as disclosed in the present application at Fig. 9 of the drawings of the present application – the same airflow arrows shown in Fig. 9 of the present drawings are applicable to Fig. 12 of Chang ). [Claims 5 and 14] Chang teaches that providing a dust port connected to the main body at a dust exit is advantageous to allow a user to connect the main body to a dust collector via a pipeline, such that dust produced by the saw blade can be suck into and collected by the dust collector, which prevents sawdust from accumulating inside the guard assembly and reducing the frequent need for maintenance and repairs (see paragraph 36).
PNG
media_image1.png
952
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Tanaka with a dust port at a rear side of the main body as taught by Chang, where the dust port is configured for connection to a dust collection system, and where an internal space of the main body is operably connected to the dust port to permit airflow to pass through the dust port in view of the teachings of Chang. This modification is advantageous to extract dust from the main body, such that dust is prevent from accumulating within the main body and such that the need for repairs and maintenance is reduced.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka as modified by US Pub. No. 2025/0178233 A1 to Chang as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 10,328,507 B2 to Koegel.
Tanaka, as modified, fails to disclose at least one rib located at least partially within the internal space, the at least one rib configured to direct the airflow from the internal space to the dust exit as required by claims 6 and 15.
Koegel teaches providing ribs 162 within an internal space of a main body 140 of a guard assembly 116 (see Fig. 8), the ribs 162 configured to direct airflow from the internal space to a dust exit (see Fig. 8, where the dust exit is at hose connection 156; see also col. 5, lines 39-42). [Claims 6 and 15]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide ribs within the internal space of Tanaka, as modified, where the ribs direct airflow to the dust exit, as taught by Koegel. This modification is advantageous in order to guide airflow in a desired direction to the dust exit, such that dust is less likely to escape the guard assembly at an undesired location.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pat. No. 7,210,386 B1 to Chang and US Pub. No. 2005/0188807 A1 to Parks et al.
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses a first cone bushing portion mounted on the movable locking pin 35 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below); and a second cone bushing portion mounted on the movable locking pin 35 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein a receiving space is defined between the first cone bushing portion and the second cone bushing portion to receive the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 4, where the ‘receiving space’ is the space indenting into the left side of the roller 35a – i.e., relative to the annotated Fig. 4 below, the receiving space is between the two cone-shaped surfaces; Fig. 4 illustrates the receiving space receiving a portion of the riving knife 20), and wherein the first cone bushing portion and the second cone bushing portion each have a corresponding cone-shaped surface configured with a smallest portion of the cone-shaped surface nearest to the receiving space (see Fig. 4, where the ‘smallest portions’ of the cone-shaped surfaces are where the two cone-shaped surfaces meet each other, which is also where the receiving space is located).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka discloses a first cone bushing portion mounted on the movable locking pin 35 and located on a first side of the riving knife 20 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below, relative to which the ‘first side’ is the upper side of the riving knife 20); and a second cone bushing portion mounted on the movable locking pin 35 and located on a second side of the riving knife 20 (see the annotated Fig. 4 below, relative to which the ‘second side’ is the lower side of the riving knife 20), wherein a receiving space is defined between the first cone bushing portion and the second cone bushing portion to receive the riving knife 20 (see Fig. 4, where the ‘receiving space’ is the space indenting into the left side of the roller 35a – i.e., relative to the annotated Fig. 4 below, the receiving space is between the two cone-shaped surfaces; Fig. 4 illustrates the receiving space receiving a portion of the riving knife 20), and wherein the first cone bushing portion and the second cone bushing portion each have a corresponding cone-shaped surface configured with a smallest portion of the cone-shaped surface nearest to the receiving space (see Fig. 4, where the ‘smallest portions’ of the cone-shaped surfaces are where the two cone-shaped surfaces meet each other, which is also where the receiving space is located).
PNG
media_image2.png
845
808
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tanaka discloses that the first cone bushing portion and the second cone bushing portion are defined by an integral roller 35a. Thus, Tanaka fails to disclose ‘a first cone bushing’ and ‘a second cone bushing’ as required by claims 7 and 16, since claims 7 and 16 are interpreted as requiring distinct structures for the first and second cone bushing (such that claims 7 and 16 are interpreted as not encompassing an integral structure forming both the first cone bushing and the second cone bushing).
Chang, though, teaches that two bushings 254 mounted on a locking pin 51 of a blade guard assembly 20 are distinct structures, rather than being integral (see Figs. 3 and 4). Moreover, Parks teaches a table saw having a bushing structure including a first cone bushing portion and a second cone bushing portion, similar to that of Tanaka, can be either integrally formed (see Fig. 6) or separately formed by first and second cone bushings (see Figs. 8 and 9).
Therefore, since Tanaka teaches the structures required by claims 7 and 16, with the exception of the two cone bushing portions being distinct from one another, and since it is known in the blade guard assembly to mount two distinct bushings on a locking pin (see Chang), and since it is also known in the table saw arts to construct a bushing having two cone bushing portions either integrally or from two distinct cone bearings (see Parks), it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the bushing portions of Tanaka as two distinct cone bushings. One of ordinary skill in the art is able to select from either an integral structure for the two cone bushing portions or a structure in which the two cone bushings are distinct. Just as making two distinct parts integral has been held to be obvious (see, e.g., In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)), the opposite is also true – making an integral component as two distinct parts is an obvious design choice, in particular in view of the evidence of Chang and Parks.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 2007/0163408 A1 to Buck et al.
Tanaka fails to disclose a front fork operably connected to the main body and extending away from the main body along the longitudinal axis as required by claims 8 and 17.
Buck, though, teaches a front fork (the fork including fingers 52 and 54; see Fig. 1) operably connected to a main body of a blade guard assembly 20 (see Fig. 1, where the main body is the body touched by the tip of the lead line for reference character ‘50’) and the fork extending away from the main body along a longitudinal axis defined by the main body (see Fig. 2, where the ‘longitudinal axis’ extends through the main body in a left-right direction along the plane of the page when the figure is oriented with the reference characters upright). Buck teaches that providing a front fork on the main body is advantageous in order to protect a user from contact with the saw blade, while still allowing a view of the workpiece as the workpiece is moved toward the saw blade, such that the user is able to view any alignment markings on the workpiece to precisely cut the workpiece (see paragraph 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the blade guard assembly of Tanaka with a front fork operably connected to the main body and extending away from the main body along the longitudinal axis in view of the teachings of Buck. This modification is advantageous to allow the user to view of the workpiece as the workpiece is moved toward the saw blade, such that the user is able to view any alignment markings on the workpiece to precisely cut the workpiece, while still protecting the user from contact with the saw blade.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2008/0223189 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0255745 A1 to Peot et al., as evidenced by US Pub. No. 2025/0178233 A1 to Chang.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Tanaka discloses that the main body defines a first elongated receiving slot and a second elongated slot each configured to receive the movable locking pin, the main body defines an internal space in which the movable locking pin is at least partially positioned.
Tanaka fails to disclose that the linkage is located outside of the internal space as required by claims 9 and 18.
Peot teaches a linkage 50 that is located outside an internal space of a main body 26 (see Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the linkage of Tanaka outside the internal space of the main body in view of the teachings of Peot. This modification is advantageous because the linkage can avoid becoming contaminated with dust, which inhibits operation of the linkage. Dust within the internal space is a known concern (see Chang at paragraph 36). By locating the linkage outside of the internal space rather than within the internal space, the rotational connections between the linkage and each of the movable locking pin and the handle can be positioned outside the internal space, such that these connections are not subject to contamination from dust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights