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 with traverse of Group A in the reply filed on 7-17-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no distinction between the claims. After the search, the Examiner agreed with Applicant. The Restriction requirement is withdrawn. However, the election of species is upheld. Species A is patentably distinct form Species B. Species A requires a reciprocating blade and species B requires a blade that rotates about a chain saw bar. These distinctions are not patentably indistinguishable. A chain saw could not be used to reject a jig saw. The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a tool with a blade that reciprocates (and therefore are directed to Species “A”). As such, Claims 1-20 are pending and examined in this action.
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 2 and 11 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.
In re Claims 2 and 11, “and wherein the pressure is user adjustable,” is indefinite. As best understood, claims 2 and 11 introduced a wheel. It is unclear how the wheel allows the user to adjust the pressure. No structure is found in the claims that allow the user to adjust the pressure. In other words, it is unclear what structure is being claimed that allows the user to adjust the pressure. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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, 4-6, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,213,242 to Partington.
In re Claim 1, Partington teaches panel saw (see Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing supporting a motor-driven spindle that reciprocates (see Fig. 1, #1/#9);
a blade coupled to the spindle (see Figs. 1-3, #4);
a stabilizer extending away from the housing and spaced apart from the blade (see Figs. 13, #20);
a terminal guide structure coupled to a distal end the stabilizer (see Figs. 1-2, #21/22), wherein the terminal guide structure comprises:
one or more lateral guide surfaces configured to support the blade in a desired cutting plane (see Figs. 1-2, #21/22);
a rear support configured to support a rear edge of the blade (see Figs. 1-2, surfaces between #21/22 which support the rear end of the blade); or a combination thereof (see Figs. 1-2).
In re Claim 4, Partington wherein the stabilizer has a tapered profile with a widest dimension proximate to the housing and a narrowest dimension proximate to the terminal guide structure (see Fig. 1, #20, which has a tapered profile with a widest dimension proximate to the housing and a narrowest dimension proximate to the terminal guide structure).
In re Claim 5, Partington teaches wherein the stabilizer includes a front edge oriented generally parallel with the rear edge of the blade and a canted rear edge that is angularly offset from the front edge by at least 100.
PNG
media_image1.png
606
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re Claim 6, Partington teaches wherein the stabilizer is removable from the housing with the terminal guide structure remaining coupled to the stabilizer (see Col. 2, ll. 37-52, teaching #11 removable from the tool where the terminal guide structure and stabilizer are one piece).
In re Claim 16, Partington teaches a method of using a panel saw, the method comprising :positioning a blade of the panel saw at a cut location of an object (see Figs. 1-3);
moving the panel saw across the object such that the blade moves within the object to form a kerf (see Figs. 1-3);
causing a stabilizer disposed behind the blade to enter the kerf, wherein the stabilizer extends fully through the object such that a distal end of the stabilizer is exposed from the object (see Figs. 1-3, #20); and supporting the blade using a terminal guide structure coupled to the distal end of the stabilizer (see Figs. 1-2, #21-22).
In re Claim 17, Partington teaches wherein the panel saw comprises a housing supporting a motor-driven spindle moving in reciprocation (see Figs. 1-3, #1-4), wherein the blade is coupled to the spindle, and wherein the stabilizer is statically coupled to the housing such that a distance between the terminal guide structure and the housing remains relatively fixed while the blade reciprocates (see Figs. 1-3).
In re Claim 20, Partington teaches further comprising removing the stabilizer from the panel saw while the blade remains attached to a motor driving the blade (see Col. 2, ll. 37-52, teaching #11 removable from the tool where the terminal guide structure and stabilizer are one piece).
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 3, 9, 12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,213,242 to Partington.
In re Claim 3, Partington is silent as to wherein the housing and the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade. The examiner notes that the blade length determines the size of the workpiece that can be cut. It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of Partington to correspond with a longer blade in order to cut a thicker workpiece. For example the structure of Partington for use with a 10 inch blade would read on the housing and the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade.
In re Claim 9, Partington teaches an attachment for a panel saw configured to cut thick objects (see Figs. 1-3, #11) , the attachment comprising:
a stabilizer defining a proximal end and a distal end (see Figs. 1-3, #20 has an end closer to the housing and an end near #21/22), the stabilizer comprising a proximal attachment protocol disposed at the proximal end and a distal protocol disposed at the distal end (see Figs. 1-3, #22/21), wherein the proximal attachment protocol is configured to attach the stabilizer to a housing of the panel saw (see Figs. 1-3, structure of #11 that attaches to the tool assembly), the housing containing a motor configured to drive a spindle to reciprocate a blade (see Figs. 1-3, #1/2/#4);
a terminal guide structure (see Figs. 1-3, #22/21) coupled to the stabilizer at the distal protocol, wherein the terminal guide structure comprises: a lateral guide surface (see Figs. 1-3, #21/22) configured to support a lateral aspect of the blade of the panel saw in a desired cutting plane; a rear support configured to support a rear edge of the blade (see Figs. 1-2,surfaces between #21/22); or a combination thereof.
Does not teach the distal protocol attached, i.e. made of different material.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the tabs #21/22 separable (see MPEP 2144.04, V, C). Doing so would allow the user to replace the surfaces of the tabs when they wear out.
In re Claim 12, modified Partington in re Claim 9 is silent as to wherein the housing and the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade. The examiner notes that the blade length determines the size of the workpiece that can be cut. It has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. It would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to change the size of Partington to correspond with a longer blade in order to cut a thicker workpiece. For example the structure of Partington for use with a 10 inch blade would read on the housing and the terminal guide structure are spaced apart from one another by at least five inches, as measured in a direction parallel to a length of the blade.
In re Claim 14, modified Partington in re Claim 9, teaches wherein the stabilizer includes a front edge configured to be oriented generally parallel with the rear edge of the blade and a canted rear edge that is angularly offset from the front edge by at least 100 (see annotated Fig. 1, above).
In re Claim 15, modified Partington, in re Claim 9, teaches wherein the attachment is removable from the housing without removing the blade from the housing see Col. 2, ll. 37-52, teaching #11 removable from the tool where the terminal guide structure and stabilizer are one piece).
Claims 2, 8, 11, 13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,213,242 to Partington in view of US 5,644,847 to Odendahl.
In re Claim 2, Partington does not teach wherein the rear support comprises a wheel configured to exert pressure against the rear edge of the blade, and wherein the pressure is user adjustable.
However, Odendahl teaches that it is known in the art of reciprocating blade saws to provide a rear support comprising a wheel (see Odendahl, Fig. 5, #248) wheel configured to exert pressure against the rear edge of the blade, and wherein the pressure is user adjustable (see Col. 3, ll. 50-68 teaching the sward #230 can pivot relative to the blade which thereby the user press on #234 in Fig. 5 to adjust the pressure against the blade). In the same field of invention, reciprocating blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing to add a wheel with a track to the device of Partington as taught by Odendahl. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade contacting structure for another known blade contacting structure to achieve the result of guiding the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 8, Partington teaches wherein the one or more lateral guide surfaces comprises a left guide surface (see Fig. 2, #22) and a right guide surface (see Fig. 2, #21), wherein the blade is disposed between the left and right guide surfaces (see Fig. 2), wherein the terminal guide structure comprises both the lateral guide surfaces and the rear support (see Fig. 2); however, Partington does not teach wherein the rear support comprises a wheel having a track to receive the blade.
Odendahl teaches a wheel having a track to receive the blade (see Odendahl, Fig. 5, #248). In the same field of invention, reciprocating blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing to add a wheel with a track to the device of Partington as taught by Odendahl. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade contacting structure for another known blade contacting structure to achieve the result of guiding the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 11, modified Partington, in re Claim 9, does not teach wherein the rear support comprises a wheel configured to exert pressure against the rear edge of the blade, and wherein the pressure is user adjustable.
However, Odendahl teaches that it is known in the art of reciprocating blade saws to provide a rear support comprising a wheel (see Odendahl, Fig. 5, #248) wheel configured to exert pressure against the rear edge of the blade, and wherein the pressure is user adjustable (see Col. 3, ll. 50-68 teaching the sward #230 can pivot relative to the blade which thereby the user press on #234 in Fig. 5 to adjust the pressure against the blade). In the same field of invention, reciprocating blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing to add a wheel with a track to the device of Partington as taught by Odendahl. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade contacting structure for another known blade contacting structure to achieve the result of guiding the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 13, modified Partington, teaches wherein the one or more lateral guide surfaces comprises a left guide surface (see Fig. 2, #22) and a right guide surface (see Fig. 2, #21), wherein the blade is disposed between the left and right guide surfaces (see Fig. 2), wherein the terminal guide structure comprises both the lateral guide surfaces and the rear support (see Fig. 2); however, modified Partington does not teach wherein the rear support comprises a wheel having a track to receive the blade.
Odendahl teaches a wheel having a track to receive the blade (see Odendahl, Fig. 5, #248). In the same field of invention, reciprocating blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing to add a wheel with a track to the device of Partington as taught by Odendahl. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade contacting structure for another known blade contacting structure to achieve the result of guiding the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 18, Partington teaches wherein supporting the blade using the terminal guide structure comprises supporting a lateral side of the blade using a guide surface of the terminal guide structure (see Figs. 1-3, #21/22); however, Partington does not teach and supporting a rear edge of the blade using a wheel of the terminal guide structure.
Odendahl teaches a wheel having a track to receive the blade (see Odendahl, Fig. 5, #248). In the same field of invention, reciprocating blades, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing to add a wheel with a track to the device of Partington as taught by Odendahl. Doing so is the substitution of one known blade contacting structure for another known blade contacting structure to achieve the result of guiding the blade (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
In re Claim 19, modified Partington, in re Claim 18, teaches wherein a blade pressure generated between the wheel and the rear edge of the blade is adjustable (the structure of Odendahl allows the pressure between the wheel and the blade to be adjusted as it is pivotable).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,213,242 to Partington in view of US 4,615,247 to Berkeley.
In re Claim 7, Partington does not teach wherein the stabilizer has a thickness less than a thickness of the blade. However, Berkeley teaches that it is known in the art of saw blades and structures behind the blade to make the structure thinner than the blade (see Berkeley, Col. 1, ll. 45-52; see also Fig. 1, #10). In the same field of invention, cutting workpieces with blades. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to make the stabilizer thinner than the blade in order to prevent binding during the cut (see Berkeley, Col. 1, ll. 45-52).
In re Claim 10, modified Partington, in re Clam 9, does not teach wherein the stabilizer has a thickness, as measured perpendicular to a direction of travel during a cutting operation, less than a thickness of the blade. However, Berkeley teaches that it is known in the art of saw blades and structures behind the blade to make the structure thinner than the blade (see Berkeley, Col. 1, ll. 45-52; see also Fig. 1, #10). In the same field of invention, cutting workpieces with blades. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date to make the stabilizer thinner than the blade in order to prevent binding during the cut (see Berkeley, Col. 1, ll. 45-52).
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