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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s 8-6-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 4-5, 9, and 15 were amended. Claims 2-3 were cancelled. Claims 15-20 were withdrawn. Claims 1, and 4-14 are pending and examined in this action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15-20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 20020144405 A1 to Moore.
In re Claim 1, Moore teaches a circular saw comprising:
a base (see Figs. 2-5, #24) including a first opening therethrough (see Figs. 2-5, opening in base #24 in which the lower guard/blade and blade pass through);
a blade guard coupled to the base (see Figs. 1-4, #22);
a saw blade (#14) at least partially positioned within the blade guard and extending through the first opening (see Figs. 1-5), the saw blade and the blade guard pivotable relative to the base to adjust a cutting depth of the saw blade relative to the base (see Para. 0038);
a housing supported by the blade guard (see Figs. 2-5, housing surrounding motor #12);
a motor positioned within the housing (motor #12), the motor operable to rotate the saw blade about a rotational axis (see Para. 0030);
a cutting depth guide (see Fig. 4, #36/34)) coupled to the base and positioned adjacent the blade guard (see Fig. 4); and
a battery receptacle configured to receive a battery pack (see Fig. , battery attachment portion which receives battery #16; see also Para. 0036) for providing power to the motor,
a handle interconnecting the housing and the battery receptacle (see Fig. 4, #18 is between the structure that receives the battery #16 and the housing surrounding motor #12); and
wherein the battery receptacle is spaced from the housing to define a second opening therebetween (see annotated Fig. 4, below,) for viewing the cutting depth guide along a line of sight that is parallel with the rotational axis (see annotated Fig. 4, below).
the second opening defining a continuous perimeter defined at least partially by the housing, the handle, and the battery receptacle (see annotated Fig. 4, below, showing second opening is a continuous opening defined, partially by the housing, the handle and the battery receptacle);
wherein more than half of the cutting depth guide is visible through the second opening (see Fig. 4 – The Examiner notes that the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979); here, the drawings of Moore reasonable disclose that the majority – more than half - of the cutting depth guide is visible through the second opening in Fig. 4). The Examiner interpreted the claim such that it requires that more than half of the cutting depth guide is visible through the second opening at one point, that illustrated in Applicant’s Fig. 3. This is because when the housing is pivoted to the highest point the a majority of the cutting depth guide is not visible.
PNG
media_image1.png
484
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide a second opening in which more than half of the cutting depth guide is visible along a line of sight that is parallel with the rotational axis. Doing so is a change in size (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). Providing a larger opening allows the user to view the depth guide at different angles. Additionally providing a lager opening allows individuals with larger hands to grip the saw, while providing a view to the depth guide.
In re Claim 4, Moore teaches wherein the second opening is collectively defined by the housing, the handle, and the battery receptacle (see annotated Fig. 4, above, showing the second opening defined by the housing, the handle and the battery receptacle)
In re Claim 5, Nakashima teaches further comprising a second handle extending from the first handle (see annotated Fig. 4, above).
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 6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020144405 A1 to Moore in view of US 5,101,651 to Techter.
In re Claim 6, Moore is silent as to wherein the cutting depth guide includes a first scale indicating cutting depth of the saw blade relative to the base. As such, Moore does not teach wherein the first scale is visible through the second opening along the line of sight that is parallel with the rotational axis of the saw blade.
Techter teaches that it is known to provide a scale on the depth adjustment bracket (see Techter, Fig. 3a; see also Col. 4, ll. 55 – Col. 5, ll. 45). In the same field of invention, circular saws that can be adjusted to provide different cutting depths, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a scale to the bracket of Moore. Doing so provides the user with the depth of cut of the saw, thereby ensuring that the depth of cut intended is the depth of cutting being used. Further, this allows the user to adjust between different depths with accuracy to ensure that they have the correct cut.
Adding the markings of Techter to the bracket or Moore would provide wherein the first scale is visible through the second opening along the line of sight that is parallel with the rotational axis of the saw blade (see annotated Fig. 4, above).
In re Claim 10, Moore teaches wherein the opening in the base includes a first portion through which the saw blade extends (see Moore, Figs. 2-5, showing the saw blade extending through the base); however, Nakashima does not teach a contiguous second portion that defines a viewing window configured to allow a user to see the blade during a cutting operation.
However, Techter teaches a contiguous second portion that defines a viewing window configured to allow a user to see the blade during a cutting operation (see annotated Figs. 1-2, below).
PNG
media_image2.png
742
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the bevel structure of Moore with that of Techter. Doing so is the substation of one known bevel angle structure for another known bevel angle structure to achieve the result of providing a circular saw that can produce a bevel cut (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 11, Moore is silent as to a bevel angle guide configured to indicate the bevel angle at which the saw blade is adjusted. However, Techter teaches that it is known in the art of handheld circular saws to provide a bevel angle bracket / guide (see Fig. 4, #56 and Figs. 6A-B and 9; see also Col. 2, ll. 8-28). In the same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the bevel system of Techter to the saw of Moore. Doing so allows the user to cut the workpiece at an angle (a bevel cut) which makes the saw more versatile allowing it to cut various cuts with one saw as opposed to requiring different saws for different cuts.
In re Claim 12, Moore is silent as to a bent edge between the base and the bevel angle guide, wherein the bent edge is contiguous with both the base and the bevel angle guide . However, Techter teaches that it is known to provide a bevel angle guide with a bent edge along the base (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In re same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to replace the bevel structure of Moore with that of Techter. Doing so is the substation of one known bevel angle structure for another known bevel angle structure to achieve the result of providing a circular saw that can produce a bevel cut (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020144405 A1 to Moore in view of US 5,101,651 to Techter, and further in view of US 2011/0203121 to Hartmann.
In re Claim 7, modified Moore, in re Claim 6, does not teach wherein the cutting depth guide includes a second scale indicating cutting depth of the saw blade relative to the base, and wherein the second scale is visible through a third opening between the handle and the blade guard along a second line of sight that is perpendicular to the rotational axis.
However, Hartmann teaches the it is known in the circular saw art to provide two scales on the same circular saw (see Hartmann, Fig. 4, #30 and Fig. 4, #44; see also Fig. 5-6; see also Para. 0006 and 0021-0022).
In the same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to provide two scales on a circular saw as taught by Hartman. Doing so provides a scale that is visible on a line of sight above the saw allowing the operator to view the scale while the saw is resting on the workpiece (see Hartmann, Para. 0021) and prevents misreading of the scale (see Hartmann, Para. 0006).
Adding the second scale, as taught by Hartmann, to the device of Moore would provide for wherein the second scale is visible through a third opening between the handle and the blade guard along a second line of sight that is perpendicular to the rotational axis (see Nakashima, Fig. 5, illustrating that the “side” of #34 is between the handle and the blade guard and along a light of sight perpendicular to the axis of rotation).
In re Claim 8, modified Moore, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the first and second scales are located on orthogonal surfaces of the cutting depth guide (see Hartmann, Figs. 1-5, #30/44/84 in view of Figs. 1-4 of Nakashima)
In re Claim 9, modified Moore, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the first and second scales include identical depth markings (In Hartman, the scale #30 and #44 read the same depth of cut).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20020144405 A1 to Moore in view of US 5,101,651 to Techter in view of CN 201102267Y.
In re Claim 13, modified Nakashima, in re Claim 12, does not teach wherein the bent edge between the base and the bevel angle guide is formed by bending the bevel angle guide from a first orientation, in which the bevel angle guide is parallel or co-planar with the base, to a second orientation, in which the bevel angle guide is perpendicular to the base.
However, CN201102267Y teaches that it is known the art of manufacturing saws to provide a base with a bent edge between the base and the bevel angle guide (see bent edge created at #11 and #10 in Fig. 1),
wherein the bent edge between the base and the bevel angle guide is formed by bending the bevel angle guide from a first orientation, in which the bevel angle guide is parallel or co-planar with the base, to a second orientation, in which the bevel angle guide is perpendicular to the base (in CN201102267Y, see Para. 0008 teaching the arch-shaped adjustment ruler formed by a punching die, see also the cut out of #10, matching the perimeter of #11; #11 is integrally formed with #10 - see also Para. 0008 teaching the arch-shaped adjustment ruler formed by a punching die) - this limitation is a product-by-process limitation, and the examiner notes that when the reference teaches a product that appears to be the same as, or an obvious variant of, the product set forth in a product-by-process claim although produced by a different process. See In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113. Here, CN201102267Y teaches the same process, i.e. using a die- press/punch, as the process disclosed by Applicant).
In the same field of invention, circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the manufacturing process of CN201102267Y in the device of modified Nakashima. Doing so is the substitution of one known manufacturing method for another known manufacturing method to achieve the result of producing a saw plate without a second step of assembling the adjustment plate. (see MPEP 2143, I, B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the welding, riveting or bolting, taught by modified Nakashima (see Techter, Col. 5, II. 10-20), with the stamping process taught by CN201102267Y. Doing so eliminates the additional step required (welding, riveting, or bolting) by Techter thus saving time in the manufacturing process.
In re Claim 14, modified Nakashima teaches wherein the bevel angle guide occupies a portion of the opening in the base when in the first orientation. The examiner notes that making the base of modified Nakashima with the process of CN201102267Y would provide for wherein the bevel angle guide is positioned in the second portion of the opening in the base when in the first orientation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination fo references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In re the 35 USC 102 rejection to US 2019043555 to Nakashima, Applicant argues that Nakashima does not teach more than half of the cutting depth guide is visible through the second opening. The Examiner agrees; however, as noted above US 20020144405 A1 to Moore teaches this limitation.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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