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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 have been 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 “points of the table assembly and the first tube define a substantially vertical plane” of claim 11 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.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-6 of prior U.S. Patent No.12,168,258. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 11-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claim 11, the phrase “wherein points of the table assembly and the first tube define a substantially vertical plane” is unclear. It is unclear what the “points” of the table assembly are intended to be. Are the points different portions of the table assembly, “points” of note above the table assembly, different markers or something else? How do the points “align” such that the points and the tube are capable of defining a substantially vertical plane?
Claims 12-13 dependent from claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charlton (US 5,379,816).
Regarding claim 1, Charlton teaches a table saw (Figures 1-2) comprising:
a base assembly (10,28,26,40ab)(Figures 1-2);
a table assembly (12,20,25) supported by the base assembly, the table assembly defining a workpiece support plane (Plane of the table top surface); and
a saw assembly supported by at least one of the table assemblies and the base assembly, the saw assembly including a saw blade extending through the table assembly (Figures 1-2; Col. 2, Lines 19-39); wherein the base assembly comprises a first tube connected to the table assembly (28,26,28), the first tube being substantially coplanar with or below the workpiece support plane (Figures 1-2; noting the tube element (28,26,28 to be below the workpiece support plane (top surface)).
Regarding claim 3, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein the base assembly further comprises a second tube (32) connected to the table assembly (Figure 2; Col. 3, Lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 4, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 3, wherein the first and second tubes are connected (Figure 2; Col. 3, Lines 15-21).
Regarding claim 6, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein the first tube has an adjustable foot assembly (28)(Figure 2; Lines 1-9 noting the foot assembly to be hinged, thus adjustable).
Regarding claim 8, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein the first tube is connected to a molded base (Figure 2; Noting the tube is connected to the base, and the base is capable of being “molded” via a process).
Regarding claim 9, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 8, and wherein the molded base is blow-molded (Figure 2; Examiner notes the base 10 is capable of being created through a variety of processes, including molding or blow molding).
Regarding claim 10, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein the first tube is connected to a second tube (Figure 2) via an injection molded junction (Figure 2; Examiner notes the first and second tubes are connected via a junction as shown in Figure 2 and the injunction is capable of being created through a variety of processes, including injection molding).
Regarding claim 11, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein points of the table assembly (left portions of table element 25) and the first tube define a substantially vertical plane (Figure 2 noting the vertical plane defined by the first tube (28,26,28) and other portions of the table assembly 25).
Regarding claim 12, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 11, wherein the table saw is disposable on the points of the table assembly and the first tube defining the substantially vertical plane (Figure 2 noting the table saw is disposed on the tubing portions and table portions as provided above).
Regarding claim 14, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, having at least one panel (25) attached to the first tube (Figure 2).
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 5,619,896).
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses a table saw (10, 30, 61; Figs. 1-3) comprising:
a base assembly (10) having first and second holders (12, 131, 132) extending therefrom (Figures 1-3);
a table assembly (30) supported by the base assembly (10) (Figure 1);
a saw assembly supported by the base assembly (Figures 1-3), the saw assembly including a saw blade (61) extending through the table assembly (30; Figs. 1-3); and
a pushstick (60; Fig. 1) having first and second slots thereon (defined at each end of 60 as seen in Fig. 1), wherein the first and second slots are insertable respectively through the first (12 & 132; Figs. 1-3) and second (131) holders (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches the table saw of Claim 21, wherein the first holder has a post (14) extending from the base assembly, and a flange disposed on the post (See Figure 2 noting the curved flange on post 14).
Regarding claim 23, Chen teaches the table saw of Claim 22, wherein the first slot has a wide area and a narrow area (Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 24, Chen teaches the table saw of Claim 21, wherein distance between the first and second holders is about the same as distance between the first and second slots (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 25, Chen teaches the table saw of Claim 21, wherein the holder is integrally formed with the base assembly (Figure 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton (US 5,379,816) in view of Smith (US 4,976,251).
Regarding claim 2, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, wherein the first tube is substantially U-shaped (Figure 2 noting the tube (28,26,28 making an inverted U shape as shown).
Smith teaches it is known in the art of saws to provide a single tube (20) in a substantially U-Shape (Figure 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have good reason to pursue single elements or multiple elements (tubes) which are known to be useful for a particular structural base function. There are a finite number of possible combinations (singular or multiple) which pertain to a support bases for saws and allow for appropriate support function. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try any reasonable number of tube(s) in an attempt to provide an improved base function for the saw device, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR Int' l Co. V. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton (US 5,379,816) in view of Encontre (US 4,662,591).
Regarding claim 5, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, but does not provide wherein a flexible gasket is disposed between the table assembly and the first tube.
Encontre teaches that a flexible gasket 16 is disposed between a table assembly 12 and a tube18 (Figures 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Charlton to incorporate the teachings of Encontre to provide a gasket. Doing so mitigates or dampen tool vibration.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton (US 5,379,816) in view of Wiley (US 4,516,612).
Regarding claim 7, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 1, but does not provide wherein the saw assembly has at least one of a height adjustment crank and a bevel lock handle, the at least one of the height adjustment crank and the bevel lock handle not extending forwardly from the first tube.
Wiley teaches it is known in the art of saws to provide a saw assembly (16) including at least one of a height adjustment crank and a bevel lock handle (246), the at least one of the height adjustment crank and the bevel lock handle 246 not extending forwardly from a first tube (124) (Figures 1 and 5-7; Col. 8, Lines 60-68 and Col. 9, Lines 1-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Charlton to incorporate the teachings of Wiley to provide for height and angle adjustment. Doing so allows for the saw to be positioned as desired to make the appropriate cuts.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charlton (US 5,379,816).
Regarding claim 13, Charlton teaches the table saw of Claim 12, wherein the table saw has a center of gravity (Figure 2; Examiner notes the device as a whole must have a center of gravity, although the prior art is silent to the exact location)
Charlton does not specifically provide w the table saw has a center of gravity disposed between the points of the table assembly and the first tube defining the substantially vertical plane, when the table saw is disposed on the points of the table assembly and the first tube defining the substantially vertical plane.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the center of gravity in various positions throughout the saw because the center of gravity would have been a mere design consideration based on the desired balancing of the device. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) as Charlton has set forth a plurality of movable components that would change the overall center of gravity depending upon the desired table and leg setup. In doing so, it allows for the desired adjustment of the table saw assembly, including table assembly portions and base portions, throughout a desired range of placements, to avoid unbalancing the device as a whole.
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-M on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of table saws with various base and leg arrangements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 06/25/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights