DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6-15-2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 6-15-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “each of claims 5- 11 includes the limitations of the elected species by virtue of their dependence on claims 5-11.” This is not found persuasive because the restriction of 4-16-2026 was a restriction requirement and not an election of species. As such, the group I-II includes limitations not found in Group III. Each of the groups claim patentably distinct features that would require unique and different searches. Group I requires unique gear stages and Group II requires a recessed region. These limitations require distinct searches from the search required for the claimed blade connection (Group III) which would result in a serios search and or examination burden.
The Examiner notes that 5-11 are withdrawn but depend from Claim 1. Should Claim 1 become allowable, Claims 5-11 will be revived.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia.
In re Claim 1, Frolov teaches a table saw comprising:
a base assembly (see Fig. 1, #120);
a table assembly supported by the base assembly and defining a support surface (see Fig.1, #160/168);
a saw blade (see Fig. 1, #204); and
a saw assembly supported by the table assembly (see Fig. 2, #112 in view of Fig. 1) and comprising:
a motor having a motor output shaft (see Fig. 2, #196 and #208);
a power train assembly comprising (see Fig. 2, #200):
an arbor shaft to which the saw blade is fixedly connected (see Fig. 2, #232);
an intermediate shaft (see Fig. 2, #224);
a first gear stage connecting the motor output shaft to the intermediate shaft with a first gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #220; see also Para. 0037/0046)and
a second gear stage connecting the intermediate shaft to the arbor shaft with a second gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #228; see also Para. 0038), the second gear ratio being less than 1.25 (see Para. 0048, which states “the second stage gear ratio may be between approximately 0.2 and approximately 0.8,” which is less than 1.25 – the examiner notes that “less than 1.25” was interpreted as between a very small value near “0” to 1.25).
While Frolov teaches a max distance the saw blade can be positioned above the table top, Frolov does not teach a blade diameter or provide max distance value. As such, Frolov does not teach wherein the saw blade has a diameter of 254 mm and the saw blade extends by up to 102 mm above the support surface in a maximum cutting height position of the saw assembly.
The Examiner notes that “the saw blade extends by up to 102mm” was interpreted as a range between 0 and 102mm.
However, Garcia teaches that it is known in the art of table saw to provide a 10 inch saw blade (see Garcia, Para. 0087) and do extend the full cutting height to 3.5 inches (the Examiner notes that 3.5 inches is equal to 88.9 mm which is within the range claimed in Claim 1). In the same field of invention, table saws it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the “standard 10 inch blade,” as taught by Garcia, with the saw of Frolov. Doing so allows the user to purchase standard blades at retail as opposed to having to purchase a non-standard size. This both reduces costs and increases the types of blade available to the user of the saw.
In re Claim 2, modified Frolov, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the saw assembly is pivotable relative to the table assembly to a bevel angle, the bevel angle having a range of between -2° and 47 (the examiner notes that Frolov teaches a bevel angle of 45 degrees with falls within the range of -2 degrees and 47 degrees).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia, and further in view of US 2009/0260498 to Imamura.
In re Claim 3, modified Frolov, in re Claim 1, is silent as to teaches wherein the intermediate shaft is arranged in a plane defined by the motor output shaft and the arbor shaft.
However, Imamura teaches that it is known in power train assemblies to provide the gearing set/shafts in a plane defined by the motor output shaft and the arbor shaft (see Imamura, Fig. 3 in view of Fig. 6).
In the same field of invention, drivetrains /gear sets of saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to arrange the power train in the same plane as taught by Imamura. Doing so combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result (see MPEP 2143, I, A). In other words, an arrangement of a two stage drivetrain as taught by Imamura is a known configuration of an orientation used to transmit power from a motor to a saw blade).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia, and further in view of US 7,707,920 to Gass.
In re Claim 4, modified Frolov, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the intermediate shaft is offset from a plane defined by the motor output shaft and the arbor shaft.
However, Gass teaches that it is known in the art of table saws to provide a two stage power train assembly where intermediate shaft is offset from a plane defined by the motor output shaft and the arbor shaft (see Gass, Fig. 11, showing #shaft #242 with pully #314 offset from pully #312 which is on the motor shaft and pully #316 which is on arbor shaft #251; see also Gass, Col. 14, ll. 22 – Col. 15, ll. 5).
In the same field of invention, drivetrains /gear sets of saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to arrange the power train in the same plane as taught by Imamura. Doing so combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable result (see MPEP 2143, I, A). In other words, an arrangement of a two stage drivetrain as taught by Gass is a known configuration of an orientation used to transmit power from a motor to a saw blade).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia, and further in view of US 8,776,657 to Menze.
In re Claim 12, modified Frolov, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein the power train assembly further comprises a saw blade connection arrangement (see connection between the arbor shaft and the saw blade); however, modified Frolov does not teach a threaded blind hole defined in an outer axial end of the arbor shaft; and an arbor screw configured to thread into the threaded blind hole so as to clamp the saw blade to the arbor shaft.
However, Menze teaches that it is known in the art of connecting circular saw blade to provide a connection arrangement comprising: a threaded blind hole (see Menze, Fig. 3, threaded bore #19) defined in an outer axial end of the arbor shaft; and an arbor screw (see Menze, Fig. 3, fastener #80) configured to thread into the threaded blind hole so as to clamp the saw blade to the arbor shaft (see Menze, Col. 3, ll. 37-46).
In the same field of invention, circular saw attachment structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide an attachment structure with a threaded fastener inserted into a threaded hole in the arbor shaft, as taught by Menze. Doing so is the substation of one known attachment structure for another known attachment structure to secure a circular saw to a rotating shaft/arbor shaft (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 13, modified Frolov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the saw blade connection arrangement further comprises:
an outer blade washer configured to be clamped between a head portion of the arbor screw and the saw blade (see Menze, Fig. 3, outside washer #71); and
an inner blade washer configured to be clamped between the saw blade and a shoulder of the arbor shaft (see Menze, Fig. 3, biasing element #90, which is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a washer).
In re Claim 14, modified Frolov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein a first axial end of the arbor shaft opposite the motor is arranged on a side of a plane defined by an outer end surface of the outer blade washer toward the motor (see Menze, Fig. 3, the end of #16 is on one side of the plane created by surface #79) .
In re Claim 15, modified Frolov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the axial end surface is clamped by the head portion of the arbor screw (see Menze, Fig. 3, #79 clamped by the head of the screw), the axial end surface having a conical taper at an outer radial portion that defines a taper angle relative to the plane defined by the axial end surface of the outer blade washer (see Fig. 3, reference number #71 is pointing to a conical taper at an outer radial portion that defines a taper angle relative to the plane defined by the axial end surface of the outer blade washer).
Modified Frolov does not teach the taper angle of between 15 degrees and 30 degrees. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the taper angle to adjust the surface area of engaging face #74 in Menze. A smaller angle provides for more surface area or contact with the blade but also increases the weight whereas a larger area provides for less surface area or contact with the blade which also reduces the weight. Balancing the necessary contact portion to secure the blade while not providing for large rotating mass would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia, and US 8,776,657 to Menze, and further in view of US 2006/0219076 to Gass.
In re Claim 16, modified Frolov, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the table assembly includes a throat plate defining a throat opening configured such that the saw blade extends through the throat plate during a cutting operation (see Frolov, Fig. 3, #164).
Modified Frolov does not teach the throat plate having a tapered portion adjacent to the throat opening that forms an angle of between 200 to 300 relative to a support plane defined at least partially by the support surface.
However, Gass teaches that it is known in the art of throat plates to provide a tapered portion adjacent to the throat opening that forms an angle relative to a support plane defined at least partially by the support surface (see Gass, Fig. 10, #192 – see also same surface on Fig. 8 and Para. 0036-0037).
In the same field of invention, table saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the throat plate of modified Frolov with the throat plate of Gass. Doing so provides a throat plate that is “zero clearance” and the chamfered wall reduces the material the needs to be cut when configuring the throat plate to receive the blade when the blade is angled relative to the plane of the table saw's table (see Gass, Para. 0036-37).
Gass is silent as to the angle of the chamfered wall being between 20 degrees to 30 degrees. However one of ordinary skill in the art understands that the larger the angle the more material needs to be cut, yet the sturdier or thicker the material. Balancing the angle and the thickness of the material would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of US 2004/0118261 to Garcia, and 8,776,657 to Menze, and US 2006/0219076 to Gass, and further in view of CN 109049149A.
In re Claim 17, modified Frolov, in re Claim 16, the tapered portion of the throat plate is spaced apart from the conical taper of the outer blade washer and the head portion of the arbor screw is spaced apart from an underside of the throat plate; however, modified Frolov, does not teach the bevel angle of 47 degrees.
However, CN 109049149A teaches that it is known in the art of table saws to provide a bevel angel of between (-2 degrees and 47 degrees; see CN 109049149A, translation which states “when the collision bead into third limiting groove 33, the limit angle limiting block 3 as shown in FIG. 8 cam 7 opposite to the limiting position, this may provide the angle combination is (-2 degrees, 47 degrees).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the range any known bevel range including -2 degrees to 47 degrees, as taught by CN 109049149A. Doing so allows the user to have a broad range of cuts available in one saw.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0255634 to Frolov in view of EP 3162483 B1.
In re Claim 18, Frolov teaches a table saw comprising:
a base assembly (see Fig. 1, #120);
a table assembly supported by the base assembly and defining a support surface (see Fig.1, #160/168);
a saw blade (see Fig. 1, #204); and
a saw assembly supported by the table assembly (see Fig. 2, #112 in view of Fig. 1) and comprising:
a motor having a motor output shaft (see Fig. 2, #196 and #208);
a power train assembly comprising (see Fig. 2, #200):
an arbor shaft to which the saw blade is fixedly connected (see Fig. 2, #232);
an intermediate shaft (see Fig. 2, #224);
a first gear stage connecting the motor output shaft to the intermediate shaft with a first gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #220; see also Para. 0037/0046)and
a second gear stage connecting the intermediate shaft to the arbor shaft with a second gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #228; see also Para. 0038), the second gear ratio being less than 1.25 (see Para. 0048, which states “the second stage gear ratio may be between approximately 0.2 and approximately 0.8,” which is less than 1.25 – the examiner notes that “less than 1.25” was interpreted as between a very small value near “0” to 1.25).
While Frolov teaches a max distance the saw blade can be positioned above the table top, Frolov does not teach a blade diameter or provide max distance value. As such, Frolov does not teach wherein the saw blade has a diameter of 210 mm and the saw blade extends by up to 80 mm above the support surface in a maximum cutting height position of the saw assembly.
The Examiner notes that “the saw blade extends by up to 80mm” was interpreted as a range between 0 and 80mm.
However, EP 3162483 B1 teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to provide a 210mm (8.25”) blade (see EP 3162483 B1, Para. 0035). In the same field of invention, saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to design the table saw of Frolov to utilize a known blade dimeter. Doing so allows the user to purchase blades off the shelf and gives the user a wide rage of tooth designs available to the user. For example, the blades in EP 3162483 B1 are optimized to enhance runtime when being used with a battery operated too. (see EP 3162483 B1, Para. 0004).
Garcia teaches that it is known in the art of table saw to provide a 10 inch saw blade (see Garcia, Para. 0087) and do extend the full cutting height to 3.5 inches. The Examiner notes that for a 8.25” inch saw blade this would be the equivalent of 2.875in inches or 73.025mm. 73.025mm is within the range of 0 to 80mm. In the same field of invention, table saws it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the depth proportion as taught by Garcia, with the blade of EP 3162483 B1 in the saw of Frolov. Doing so allows the user to cut through the workpiece larger than 2.75 inches. In other words, allows the user to have a saw that is versatile to cut both large and small workpieces.
In re Claim 19, Frolov teaches a table saw comprising:
a base assembly (see Fig. 1, #120);
a table assembly supported by the base assembly and defining a support surface (see Fig.1, #160/168);
a saw blade (see Fig. 1, #204); and
a saw assembly supported by the table assembly (see Fig. 2, #112 in view of Fig. 1) and comprising:
a motor having a motor output shaft (see Fig. 2, #196 and #208);
a power train assembly comprising (see Fig. 2, #200):
an arbor shaft to which the saw blade is fixedly connected (see Fig. 2, #232);
an intermediate shaft (see Fig. 2, #224);
a first gear stage connecting the motor output shaft to the intermediate shaft with a first gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #220; see also Para. 0037/0046)and
a second gear stage connecting the intermediate shaft to the arbor shaft with a second gear ratio (see Fig. 2, #228; see also Para. 0038), the second gear ratio being less than 1.25 (see Para. 0048, which states “the second stage gear ratio may be between approximately 0.2 and approximately 0.8,” which is less than 1.25 – the examiner notes that “less than 1.25” was interpreted as between a very small value near “0” to 1.25).
While Frolov teaches a max distance the saw blade can be positioned above the table top, Frolov does not teach a blade diameter or provide max distance value. As such, Frolov does not teach wherein the saw blade has a diameter of 216 mm and the saw blade extends by up to 83 mm above the support surface in a maximum cutting height position of the saw assembly.
The Examiner notes that “the saw blade extends by up to 83mm” was interpreted as a range between 0 and 83mm.
However, EP 3162483 B1 teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to provide a 216mm (8. 5”) blade (see EP 3162483 B1, Para. 0040). In the same field of invention, saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to design the table saw of Frolov to utilize a known blade dimeter. Doing so allows the user to purchase blades off the shelf and gives the user a wide range of blades available to the user. For example, the blades in EP 3162483 B1 are optimized to enhance runtime when being used with a battery operated too. (see EP 3162483 B1, Para. 0004).
Garcia teaches that it is known in the art of table saw to provide a 10 inch saw blade (see Garcia, Para. 0087) and do extend the full cutting height to 3.5 inches. The Examiner notes that for a 8.5” inch saw blade this would be the equivalent of 2.975in inches or 75.565mm. 75.565mm is within the range of 0 to 83mm. In the same field of invention, table saws it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to utilize the depth proportion as taught by Garcia, with the blade of EP 3162483 B1 in the saw of Frolov. Doing so allows the user to cut through the workpiece larger than 2.9 inches. In other words, allows the user to have a saw that is versatile to cut both large and small workpieces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights