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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A and Subspecies I and III in the reply filed on July 25, 2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on December 4, 2025 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.97(c) because it lacks the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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, 9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Patent 4,864,730) in view of Kamiya (US Publication 2019/0344461) and further in view of Linke et al (US Patent 4,942,795), herein referred to as Linke.
Regarding claim 1, Weiss discloses a handheld ring cutter (fig. 1) comprising: a body (elongated housing 10 and outer shell of electrical drive motor 20) extending in a longitudinal direction (annotated fig. 2) from a body front end (annotated fig. 2) to a body rear end (annotated fig. 2); a blade motor (20) housed in the body (col. 1, lines 56-57), the blade motor (drive motor 20) having a motor rotation axis (coaxial with drive shaft 23); a circular blade (22) drivingly connected to the blade motor via a drive shaft (col. 2, lines 15-16), the drive shaft defining a blade rotation axis extending in a lateral direction (annotated fig. 2), the lateral direction being horizontal (e.g., fig. 4) and transverse to the longitudinal direction (annotated fig. 2), the drive shaft (23) protruding in the lateral direction out of the body (i.e., from the border between blade cap and housing; annotated fig. 2), and the circular blade (22) being mounted to the drive shaft (23) outside of the body at a position spaced from the body in the lateral direction (i.e., to the left of the border between blade cap and housing, as shown in annotated fig. 2); and a safety guard (30) pivotably connected to the body (col. 1, lines 62-64) and rotatable about a guard rotation axis (rotational axis of pin 31), the guard rotation axis extending in the lateral direction (col. 1, lines 62-68), the safety guard being located outside of the body at a position spaced from the body in the lateral direction (fig. 3), and the safety guard being aligned with the circular blade (fig. 3), the safety guard (30) being rotatable about the guard rotation axis relative to the circular blade (col. 1, lines 64-68).
PNG
media_image1.png
685
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
• Weiss fails to disclose the motor rotation axis of the blade motor extends in the longitudinal direction. However, Kamiya teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting tools with a longitudinally extending body (main body part 4) and a small rotary blade (26) to driven by a motor (11) housed in the body (e.g., fig. 11), wherein the motor (11) has a motor rotation axis (M1) that extends in the longitudinal direction (i.e., perpendicular to the rotation axis M2 of rotary blade; para. 0106). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss with the teaching of Kamiya such that the motor rotation axis of the blade motor is rearranged so as to extend in the longitudinal direction in order to allow the handheld ring cutter to be narrower in the lateral direction. • The modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above fails to include an electro-mechanical safety guard actuator drivingly connected to the safety guard and controlling movement of the guard. Linke teaches it is known in the art of cutting devices to mechanically and automatically actuate a pivotably mounted lever (14) that supports a workpiece (chuck 16 is configured to hold a workpiece) relative to a circular blade (12). The lever (14) pivots about shaft (30) in the same way as the guard (30) disclosed by Weiss and is driveably connected (col. 4, lines 22-33) to a motor (42) that is controlled by signals from sensors to apply the correct amount of force through the lever (14) into the workpiece and against the blade (col. 6, lines 55-68). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss with the teaching of Linke such that an electro-mechanical safety guard actuator drivingly connected to the safety guard and controlling movement of the guard in order to mitigate operation inconsistencies that arise from the operator of the handheld ring cutter misjudging how much pressure should be applied to the guard actuator to most effectively cut through the ring. Regarding claim 9, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above one or more processors configured to collectively: direct the safety guard actuator to move the safety guard relative to the circular blade (as taught by Linke, col. 2, lines 7-15). Regarding claim 11, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above includes an electrical sensor (Linke, pulse pick up 60 which provides feedback to speed regulator 102 of saw blade motor) positioned to sense electrical readings associated with the blade motor (as taught by Linke). Regarding claim 12, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above includes one or more processors communicatively coupled to the safety guard actuator and the electrical sensor, and configured to collectively: receive, from the electrical sensor, an electrical reading associated with the blade motor (Linke, col. 7, lines 42-58); and direct the safety guard actuator to move the safety guard, based at least in part on the electrical reading, upwardly relative to the circular blade (Linke, col. 7, line 59 – col. 8 , line 2).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Patent 4,864,730), Kamiya (US Publication 2019/0344461) and Linke (US Patent 4,942,795), in further in view of Lovelass et al (US Publication 2013/0327552), herein referred toas Lovelass. Regarding claims 2-5, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above fails to include the following: In claim 2, a pistol grip handle extending upwardly from a handle lower end to a handle upper end, the handle upper end being connected to the body; In claim 3, a motor activation trigger connected to the pistol grip handle proximate the handle upper end; In claim 4, a resting base connected to the handle lower end and positioned below the handle, the resting base extending outwardly of the handle lower end; and In claim 5, an energy storage member positioned within the resting base and electrically connected to the blade motor. However, Lovelass teaches it is known in the art of handheld power tools to provide a pistol grip handle (14) extending upwardly from a handle lower end (e.g., 18) to a handle upper end (e.g., location of rotary switch assembly 32), the handle upper end being connected to a body (12). Lovelass teaches the handle upper end of the pistol grip handle includes a motor activation trigger (28). Loveless teaches a resting base (outer shell of battery pack 16) is connected to the handle lower end (para. 0044) and positioned below the handle (fig. 1), the resting base (16) extending outwardly of the handle lower end (fig. 1). Lovelass teaches an energy storage member (reference character 16 is referred to as “a rechargable batter pack”) positioned within the resting base and electrically connected to the blade motor (fig. 9B). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Lovelass such that the handheld ring cutter includes a pistol grip handle extending upwardly from a handle lower end to a handle upper end, the handle upper end being connected to the body (as per claim 2); a motor activation trigger connected to the pistol grip handle proximate the handle upper end (as per claim 3); a resting base connected to the handle lower end and positioned below the handle, the resting base extending outwardly of the handle lower end (as per claim 4); and an energy storage member positioned within the resting base and electrically connected to the blade motor (as per claim 5) because the pistol grip handle and associated features (i.e., trigger, resting base and battery) are useful for facilitating single handed operation of the handheld ring cutter and allows the operator to stand the handheld ring cutter in place in an upright orientation when not in use. Moreover, it would have been obvious to replace the power cable of Weiss with the energy storage member of Lovelass to facilitate wireless use of the handheld ring cutter without the need of a power cord.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Patent 4,864,730), Kamiya (US Publication 2019/0344461) and Linke (US Patent 4,942,795), and further in view of Obear (US Patent 4,091,698) and Anderson (US Patent 8,894,654) Regarding claim 6, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above fails to include a guard position sensor located to sense a rotational position of the safety guard about the guard rotation axis. However, the following references provide teaching pertinent to this limitation: A. Obear (US Patent 4,091,698) teaches it is known in the art of drives for moving workpieces and cutting tools relative to one another to include a position sensor (provided by position reference signal 116) to provide information to a control system which drives a motors that facilitate the relative movement between the workpieces and the cutting tools (col. 4, lines 30-39). Obear states in col. 3, lines 22-34, “[t]he invention also accommodates itself to automatic return of the cutting head by use of an auxiliary circuit that senses when the load has dropped below and is maintained below a predetermined level. For example, assuming that the full load reference signal has been adjusted by a potentiometer to maintain a current draw for the motor of two hundred amperes, then during the cutting operation the current will vary up and down around this 200 ampere line as an optimum. This optimum current would be governed by the instantaneous position of the piston 38 which is regulated to the servo valve 34. When the cut through the workpiece 24 is completed, the load on the saw drops sharply.” When considered with respect to safety guard (30) disclosed by Weiss, the teaching of Obear suggests a similar reference signal can be provided by a sensing means for the guard sensor to provide indication of when the blade has passed through the ring.
B. Anderson teaches it is known in the art of cutting tools, e.g., a surgical power tool, to provide an electronics package (236) and “instruments 10 described herein can instantaneously measure the axial motion and the depth the working tool 110 travels into the work by a transducer or encoder, such as an incremental rotary encoder, an absolute rotary encoder, mechanical, magnetic, electrical, or optical rotary encoder, or the like (see for example BEI Optical encoder; www.motion-control-info.com/encoder_design_guide.html). The depth the working tool 110 travels into the work can also be measured by a synchro, a resolver, a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT) or a rotary potentiometer, or the like” (col. 15, lines 16-25). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss with the teaching of Obear and Anderson so as to include a guard position sensor located to sense a rotational position of the safety guard about the guard rotation axis in order to help automate the function of driving the safety guard toward the ring and to mitigate operation inconsistencies that arise from the operator of the handheld ring cutter misjudging how much pressure should be applied to the guard actuator to most effectively cut through the ring. Regarding claim 7, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose a cutting progress indicator associated with the rotational position of the safety guard about the guard rotation axis. However, Lovelass teaches it is known in the art of operational parameter indicators to provide a plurality of LEDs (102, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112) form a display port (80) to provide a visual indication of a variety of working parameters of the power tool (e.g., para. 0058-0062) on a rear portion of the body and face rearwardly (e.g., fig. 8). Additionally, Obear teaches it is known in the art of drives for moving workpieces and cutting tools relative to one another to include a position sensor (provided by position reference signal 116) to provide information to a control system which drives a motors that facilitate the relative movement between the workpieces and the cutting tools (col. 4, lines 30-39). Obear states in col. 3, lines 22-34, “[t]he invention also accommodates itself to automatic return of the cutting head by use of an auxiliary circuit that senses when the load has dropped below and is maintained below a predetermined level.
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Lovelass and Obear such that a cutting progress indicator associated with the rotational position of the safety guard about the guard rotation axis in order to provide cutting progress information to the operator of the handheld ring cutter.
Regarding claim 8, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejections for claims 6 and 7 include a cutting progress indicator (as taught by Lovelass) associated with the rotational position of the safety guard about the guard rotation axis; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the guard position sensor and the cutting progress indicator, and configured to collectively: direct the safety guard actuator to move the safety guard relative to the circular blade, periodically receive position signals from the guard position sensor, and periodically direct the cutting progress indicator to update based on the position signals (as taught by Obear and Anderson).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Patent 4,864,730), Kamiya (US Publication 2019/0344461) and Linke (US Patent 4,942,795), and further in view of Zwirkoski et al (US Patent 9,168,188), herein referred to as Zwirkoski.
Regarding claim 10, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above includes a compact circular blade (Weiss, 22) but fails to disclose the circular blade has a diameter of between 10mm and 50mm. However, Zwirkoski teaches it is known in the art of handheld cutting devices (fig. 1) used for medical purposes (e.g., cast removal) to utilize a circular blade (e.g., 54, 56), wherein the circular blade can be formed in a variety of diameters (e.g., figs. 48A-48E; described in col. 5, lines 17-31), including diameters of 1.474 inches [37.4396 mm], 1.736 inches [44.0944 mm], 1.998 inches [50.7492 mm], 2.226 inches [56.5404 mm] and 2.365 inches [60 mm]. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Zwirkoski such that the circular blade has any reasonable diameter, including a diameter of between 10mm and 50mm, since Zwirkoski teaches blades in this size range are known in the art and because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US Patent 4,864,730), Kamiya (US Publication 2019/0344461) and Linke (US Patent 4,942,795), and further in view of Harris (US Patent 6,212,437). Regarding claim 13, the modified handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above fails to specifically include a user-operable guard adjustment input; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the safety guard actuator and the user-operable guard adjustment input, the one or more processors configured to collectively: direct the safety guard actuator to move the guard relative to the circular blade in response to user interaction with the user-operable guard adjustment input. However, Harris teaches it is known in the art of cutting devices to include a control assembly (39) for a band saw with user-operable adjustment inputs (e.g., “cutting force” dial 54 and “clamping force” dial 68) that allow the operator to control and adjust movement of the cutting tool during a cutting operation. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the handheld ring cutter of Weiss substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Harris so as to provide a user-operable guard adjustment input; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the safety guard actuator and the user-operable guard adjustment input, the one or more processors configured to collectively: direct the safety guard actuator to move the guard relative to the circular blade in response to user interaction with the user-operable guard adjustment input because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, lines 4-10 of the Applicant’s Reply, Applicant establishes the basis of their argument, stating, “a dotted line has been drawn arbitrarily through the unitary housing structure to designate one portion as a ‘blade cap’ and the remainder as the ‘housing.’ Based on this artificial division, the Examiner asserts that the drive shaft protrudes ‘out of the body’ (i.e., past the dotted line) and the blade is mounted ‘outside of the body.’ Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner’s interpretation is an impermissible reconstruction of the reference that contradicts the explicit disclosure of Weiss.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Weiss identifies the entire outer shell structure as “housing” 10. However, the outer shell structure (10) of Weiss is not “a unitary housing structure,” as suggested by Applicant. The dotted line identified as “border between blade cap and housing” by Examiner in annotated fig. 2 of Weiss marks a boundary between two distinct portions of an outer shell structure (10) that form a protective blade cap and a housing that at least partially encloses many of the working features of the hand-held ring cutter disclosed by Weiss. It should be clarified that the portion of Weiss’ hand-held ring cutter identified as “housing” in annotated fig. 2 corresponds to the claimed “body” (claim 1, line 2). Figure 1 of Weiss depicts a side view of the hand-held ring cutter with the blade cap removed, depicting an interior view of the housing. Additionally, the bottom portion of figure 2 depicts a cross-section of the outer shell structure (10), wherein each portion thereof (i.e., blade cap and housing, i.e., body) are provided with distinct cross-hatching, indicating that they are separate components. Weiss even depicts a screw in the cross-section portion of figure 2, indicating the presence of two parts as indicated by Examiner in the rejection. On page 6, lines 13-15, “[t]here is no teaching or suggestions in Weiss that the housing 10 comprises two separate components---a ‘blade cap’ and a “housing’--- as alleged by the Examiner. Rather, element 10 is a single unitary housing structure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, the bottom portion of figure 2 depicts a cross-section of the outer shell structure (housing 10), wherein each portion thereof (i.e., blade cap and body) are provided with distinct cross-hatching, indicating that they are two separate components. Weiss even depicts a screw in the cross-section portion of figure 2, indicating the presence of two parts as indicated by Examiner in the rejection. On page 6, lines 16-22 of the Reply, Applicant argues, ‘looking at Figure 2 of Weiss, it is clear that the circular saw blade 22 is positioned inside the housing 10. The housing 10 has an outer wall positioned laterally outward of the circular saw blade 22. Because the blade 22 is contained within the lateral bounds of the housing 10, the drive shaft 23 does not protrude ‘out of the body’ in a lateral direction. The drive shaft 23 and the circular saw blade 22 are both located entirely inside the body (housing 10). Consequently, the circular blade 22 is not mounted to the drive shaft ‘laterally outside the body’ at a position ‘spaced from the body,’ as claimed.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, housing (10) includes two separate components (blade cap and body). Circular saw blade (22) is positioned to the left of the boundary between the blade cap and the housing (again, this corresponds to the claimed “body”). Drive shaft (23) also protrudes through the aforementioned boundary. An end portion of drive shaft (23) is shown to be extending through the outer wall of the blade cap for allowing the user to fasten circular saw blade (22) onto drive shaft (23). On page 6, lines 23-28 of the Reply, Applicant argues, “the safety guard (identified as lever arm 30 in Weiss) is laterally aligned with the blade 22. Because the blade 22 is located inside the housing and is not laterally spaced from the body, the lever arm 30 (which is aligned with saw blade 22) is also not located ‘outside of the body at a position spaced from the body,’ as required by Claim 1. Instead, the lever arm 30 is pivotally fastened directly to the housing 10 (Col. 1, lines 63-65) and operates within the footprint of the device's main structure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, circular saw blade (22) is positioned to the left of the boundary between the blade cap and the housing as identified in annotated fig. 2 of Weiss, wherein safety guard (30) is aligned therewith. As such, safety guard (30) is also positioned to the left of the boundary between the blade cap and the body, thereby reading on the claim as currently written. On page 6, line 29 – page 7, line 5 of the Reply, Applicant argues, “[b]ecause Weiss fails to disclose a drive shaft protruding in the lateral direction out of the body, fails to disclose the circular blade being mounted to the drive shaft outside of the body at a position spaced from the body in the lateral direction, and fails to disclose a safety guard located outside of the body at a position spaced from the body in the lateral direction, Claim 1 is patentable over the cited combination…” Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons set forth above in response to the Applicants’ preceding arguments, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. • Briach (US Patent 4,972,588) discloses a cordless drywall saw with a rotary blade (13) mounted on a drive shaft (14) that protrudes laterally from a housing (11). • Wilson (US Publication 2005/0109176) discloses a method of cutting carbon and alloy steels including the ability to maintain constant speed and torque (para. 0030) on motor (316). • Patel (US Publication 2008/0244910) discloses a hand-held circular saw with a circular saw blade (150) positioned laterally outside of at least a portion of the housing (fig. 7).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 December 27, 2025
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724