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 .
Detailed Action
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) On page 8, line 20, “611” should read --411--.
(2) On page 9, line 12, “22” should read --40--.
(3) On page 9, line 23, “42” should read --423--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 8, line 2, “the other end” is vague and should read --the other end of the fixed plate--.
(2) In claim 8, line 4, “the machining body” lacks clear antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the machine body--. Note line 2 of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation – 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
1. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that § 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
2. Claim limitation “a locking mechanism” (cited in claim 1) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it uses a generic placeholder “locking mechanism” coupled with functional language “for restricting the position of the arm” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “locking mechanism” is a generic placeholder and is not recognized as the name of a structure but is merely a substitute for the term "means".
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (see page 8, line 16 to page 9, line 4 of the specification) that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 1-7 are allowed.
2. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
3. Independent claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record. The most relevant prior art of record is U.S. Patent No. 6,971,297 which discloses a sawing machine (10, see Fig.1) comprising:
a machine body having a workbench (14), a machining module (18,20,22,24,26), and an arm (16) pivotally connected to the workbench (14) and the machining module (18,20,22,24,26);
a linking mechanism (46, see Fig.10a) pivotally connected to the machine body for adjusting an angle of the machining module (18,20,22,24,26) in correspondence with a position of the arm (16), the linkage mechanism (46) having a first link (48), a second link (50) pivotally connected to the first link (48); and
a lock mechanism (30) attached to the arm (16) for restricting the position of the arm (16, see column 4, lines 55-56 and Fig.1).
However, the lock mechanism (30) in the ‘297 document is not of the type disclosed on page 8, line 16 to page 9, line 4 in the specification and shown in Fig.6 of this instant application). There is no teaching or motivation to modify the locking mechanism (30) of the ‘297 document as the one (40, see Fig.6) disclosed in this instant application.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 5,203,245 shows a sawing machine (1) comprising a movable guard (25), a coil spring (see column 6, line 4) for urging the movable guard (25) to close.
U.S. Patent No. 5,791,224 shows a sawing machine (see Fig.1) comprising a workbench (2), a machining module (13,15), an arm (10) having one end pivotally connected with the workbench (2) through a lower shaft (9) and the other end thereof connected with the machining module (13,15) through an upper shaft (12).
U.S. Patent No. 9,844,822 is cited to show a sawing machine comprising a four-bar linkage mechanism (40) having a fist link (41), a second link (42) pivotally connected to the first link (41), a third link (43) pivotally connected to the second link (42) and a fourth link (44) pivotally connected to the third link (43, see column 2, lines 51-59).
U.S. Patent No. 11,192,195 shows a sawing machine (100, see Fig.1) comprising a machining module (110), a saw blade (175), a lower blade guard (185) for covering a lower portion of the saw blade (175), a linkage (310) for raising the lower blade guard (175) to expose the lower portion of the saw blade (175) as the machining module (110) is lowered toward the workbench (120).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0005752 shows a sawing machine comprising a workbench (13), a machining module (30), an arm (7) pivotally connected to the workbench (13) and the machining module (30), a link (2) having a guide groove (20), and a movable guard (5) having a pin (4) slidable within the guide groove (20) for adjusting an angle of the machining module (30) in correspondence with a position of the arm (7).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0361111 is cited to shows a sawing machine (10) comprising a workbench (18), a machining module (38), an arm (50) pivotally connected to the workbench (18) and the machining module (38), and a locking mechanism (48,60) attached to the arm (50) for restriction the position of the arm (50, see paragraph [0052], lines 1-13).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights