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
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/25/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the driving part in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraphs 16-26, the language “an embodiment” should be –the embodiment—since it discusses the same embodiment of the disclosure (the cutting saw). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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.
The limitations in claim 1 “a cutting part; a driving part, a power supplying part, a lighting part…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because each uses a generic placeholder “means” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. See MPEP. 2181. Section A.
For an example, “a driving part”, First, "part" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "part" is modified by functional language including “supplying power to the cutting part ...”; and third, the "part" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "driving" preceding “part” describes the function, not the structure of the part.
Similar analysis with other limitations.
Since the claim limitation invokes under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure that achieves and performs the claimed function, and or 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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1, line 3 “the driving part supplying power to the cutting part” is unclear and confusing. The Figure is not shown the driving part; Applicant’s specification, Para. 55 “The driving part may be any conventional structure that can drive the saw blade piece to rotate. In this embodiment, the driving part includes a driving motor 900 and a transmission structure (not shown)”, therefore, the “supplying power” is unclear. Is it trying to claim –the driving part rotating the cutting part--, right?
Claim 1, the language “if” in the last paragraph “when the power supply switch is activated, a light of the power supply switch lights up, if the control board of the cutting saw does not receive a control signal input within a first time threshold, the light of the power supply switch starts to flash, and if there is still no control signal input within a second time threshold after flashing, the power supply switch enters an inactivated state and the light of the power supply switch is turned off” is unclear.
Since this invention is directly to a cutting saw (structural claim), the language “if” is unclear when, where, or how it is occurred the “if” condition and if it is not occurred.
If an art has a control board of the cutting saw and “when the power supply switch is activated, a light of the power supply switch lights up, if the control board of the cutting saw does receive a control signal input, the light is still light-up and meet the claimed invention, right? There is a difference, how could one discern what is or is not infringing?
Also, the last paragraph of claim 1 is written, it is unclear what cause and how the light of the power supply switch starts ON, flashes, and OFF since the limitations are not linked together, for examples, where the first and second time threshold are coming from; what cause and how is the light changed from ON, Flashing, and OFF?
Claim 12 “the shaft sleeve” lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether it refers a new shaft sleeve or inherently refers to previously introduced shaft sleeve. It appears claim 12 depends on claim 11.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenbush at al (US 2023/0398614) hereinafter Vandenbush in view of Watanabe (US 2021/0083543).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Vandenbush shows a cutting saw (Figure 1), comprising:
a cutting part (a saw blade 25);
a driving part (an electric motor 62, Figure 5), the driving part “supplying power to” or rotating the cutting part (Para. 4);
a power supplying part (battery pack 78, Figure 16), the power supplying part supplying power to the cutting saw;
a lighting part (1845, Para. 106), the lighting part providing light for the cutting saw;
a control board (1810), the control board electrically connected with the power supplying part, the driving part and the lighting part respectively (see a block diagram in Figure 18); and
a housing (15, Figure 1), the housing provided with an operating panel, the operating panel provided with:
a power supply switch (50), the power supply switch (1858) electrically connected with the control board and controlling a switch of the power supplying part (see the double arrow between the battery pack interface 1885 and the controller 1800 and see Para. 77),
a lighting switch (see Para. 76 “The indicators 1845 are also connected to the controller 1800 and receive control signals from the controller 1800 to turn on and off” that means it inherently has a switch to turn it on or off), the lighting switch electrically connected with the control board and controlling an on-off of the lighting part (Para. 76 “The indicators 1845 are also connected to the controller 1800 and receive control signals from the controller 1800 to turn on and off or otherwise convey information based on different states of the saw 10”), and
an alarm light, the alarm light electrically connected with the control board and receiving a corresponding alarm signal from the control board to give an alarm (Para. 76 “the indicators 1845 may also include a speaker or a tactile feedback mechanism to convey information to a user through audible or tactile outputs” and also, see Para. 111 “bright light…red light…blue light” that bases on a system performance level),
however, see the issue above (it appears that the control board configured to control the light ON, flashing, or OFF based on an actuating signal input from the power supply switch) which Vandenbush fails to discuss “when the power supply switch is activated, a light of the power supply switch lights up, “if” the control board of the cutting saw does not receive a control signal input within a first time threshold, the light of the power supply switch starts to flash, and if there is still no control signal input within a second time threshold after flashing, the power supply switch enters an inactivated state and the light of the power supply switch is turned off”.
Watanabe shows a power tool (a power saw, Para. 218) including a controller (24/26, Figure 7) and a light ( LED illuminator 41, Figure 1) and a trigger (8) for operating a motor (10) and the light,
when the trigger (8) is activated, a light of the power supply switch lights up or ON, “if” the controller does not receive a control signal input within a first time threshold, the light starts to flash or blink, and if there is still no control signal input within a second time threshold after flashing, the trigger enters an inactivated state and the light of the trigger is turned off (as discussed in Para,130 “The indicator circuit 30 turns on, blinks, or turns off the LED illuminator 41, the green LED 51, and the red LED 52 in accordance with a command from the control circuit 26.” And see the command as discussed in Paras. 137 “the amount of manipulation on the trigger 8…”. Please note that as this paragraph of Claim 1 is written, it is unclear how long duration of each first and second thresholds be and how the light is turned ON, flashing, and OFF, and it is unclear where the first and second time thresholds are from, therefore, Watanabe’s machine has the trigger working with the controller to change the light statues from ON, flashing, OFF which are inherently having time thresholds in order to see the light ON, flashing and OFF, therefore, it meets the limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller of Vandenbush to have a light when the trigger is activated, a light of the power supply switch lights up or ON, “if” the controller does not receive a control signal input within a first time threshold, the light starts to flash or blink, and if there is still no control signal input within a second time threshold after flashing, the trigger enters an inactivated state and the light of the trigger is turned off, as taught by Watanabe, in order to allow identifying rotating speed of the power tool as discussed in the specification of Vandenbush.
Regarding Claim 3, the modified saw of Vandenbush that the housing is provided with a battery cavity (80, Figure 2 of Vandenbush) to install the power supplying part, a first handle (45, Figure 2 of Vandenbush) is arranged on a side of the battery cavity away from the cutting part, the operating panel is arranged on an outer surface of the housing between the first handle and the battery cavity, and the operating panel (50, Figure 6A of Vandenbush) is recessed into the outer surface of the housing by 0 mm to 2 mm (see Figure 6A of Vandenbush, the trigger 50 is in a recess of the outer surface of the housing and extends to an outside. Since it is unclear how the range of 0-2mm is measured from, therefore, the trigger is in the recess and exposed outside and meets this range).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified saw of Vandenbush that a speed regulation switch, the speed regulation switch electrically connected with the control board and configured to control a rotating speed of a motor in the driving part (see Para. 84 of Vandenbush “The switches 1910-1920 may be driven by the controller 1800 using a pulse width modulated (“PWM”) control signal having a duty cycle. During each phase, the controller 1800 can set the current provided to the motor 1850 (and thus the speed and torque) by adjusting the duty ratio of the PWM control signal to one or both of the active switches”).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified saw of Vandenbush that the lighting part comprises an LED driving board and an LED light board, the LED driving board is electrically connected with the control board, and the LED light board is electrically connected with the LED driving board (see the LED bard, Para 106 of Vandenbush).
Regarding Claim 11, the modified saw of Vandenbush that a shaft sleeve (174a, 174b, Figure 8 of Vandenbush), sleeved on an output shaft (116 and a further part of Figure 8) of the driving part, wherein the shaft sleeve is provided with shaft surfaces of different diameters (see the174a, 174b having different sizes of central holes), and the shaft surfaces are arranged on two sides of a center plane of the shaft sleeve and are installed in cooperation with the cutting part (see Figure 8 of Vandenbush).
Regarding Claim 12, the modified saw of Vandenbush that a first shaft shoulder (see Figure 8 of Vandenbush below) is further arranged on a shaft sleeve (the174a, 174b) including a first shaft surface and a second shaft surface (right and left surfaces), the first shaft surface and the second shaft surface are arranged on two sides of the first shaft shoulder (see Figure 8 of Vandenbush below), an outer diameter of the first shaft shoulder is larger than diameters of the first shaft surface and the second shaft surface (see Figure 8 of Vandenbush below), and the diameter of the first shaft surface is larger than the diameter of the second shaft surface (see the 174b having a smaller central hole than the central hole of the 174a).
PNG
media_image1.png
688
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vandenbush at al (US 2023/0398614) hereinafter Vandenbush in view of Watanabe (US 2021/0083543) and Schmauder (US 2018/0147713).
Regarding Claim 10, the modified saw of Vandenbush shows all of the limitations as stated above except that a charger plugging base, wherein, the power supplying part is electrically connected with the control board, and the control board is electrically connected with the charger plugging base.
Schmauder shows a hybrid power tool (Figure 5) that can be used directly to either a charger plugging base (40) or a power source via a power cord (60) and a battery pack (50, Para. 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the saw of Vandenbush to have a charger plugging base for a power source via a power cord (60) and a battery pack, as taught by Schmauder, in order to improve the saw can be operated a power from battery pack and or directly power from a wall (see Para. 54 “ 110 VAC, 120 VAC, 220 VAC, 230 VAC, 240 VAC and others, typically at 50 or 60 Hz; and transform or reduce such inputs to lower voltages such as 12 VDC, 24 VDC, 36 VDC, or others”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: independent Claims 2, 4-7 are free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature of a cutting saw as stated in claim 1 including:
the power supply switch and the lighting switch are arranged at touchable positions of finger during cutting operation as set in claim 2;
surfaces of the power supply switch and the lighting switch protrude from a surface of the operating panel, and the surfaces of the power supply switch and the lighting switch are lower than the housing surrounding the operating panel as set in claim 4;
a wiring part and a plug-in connector, the plug-in connector is electrically connected to the power supply switch, the lighting switch, and the alarm light through the wiring part, and the power supplying part, the driving part, the lighting part, and the control board are electrically connected with the plug-in connector through other wires, as set in claim 5;
the power supply switch is centrally arranged on the operating panel and close to a direction of fingers during a cutting operation, and the lighting switch and the alarm light are located on two sides of the power supply switch, as set in claim 6; and
the lighting switch is provided with a lighting switch light capable of reflecting a state of the lighting switch, when the lighting switch is in an activated mode, the lighting switch light is white, and when the power supply switch is in an inactivated mode, the lighting switch light is off, as set in claim 7.
Therefore, there appears to be no justification to modify the above mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20180126538 A1 shows a power tool having a flashing light to indicating statues of a battery life.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 9/25/2026
Prosecution Insights