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
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/916,867, filed on 4 October 2022.
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. Each of claims 1, 16, and 19 recites, “wherein the sawing tool passes through the machine housing along the longitudinal axis”. This recitation appears to be a typographic error as discussed in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below. However, to the extent that this recitation is not a typographical error, the sawing tool “15” is not shown passing through the machine housing “17” in the present drawings. Therefore, the feature of “the sawing tool passes through the machine housing” as recited in claims 1, 16, and 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. To the extent that ‘in front’ as recited in claim 4 must be interpreted as referring to the same direction as ‘in front’ as used in claim 1, which issue is discussed in the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below, the present drawings do not illustrate any part of the machine guide surface as protruding in front of the suction device. Therefore, to the extent that ‘in front’ as used in claim 4 refers to the same direction as ‘in front’ as used in claim 1, the feature of “another part of the machine guide surface protrudes in front of the suction device” as recited in claim 4 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because an informality. In particular, page 22 at line 10 (using the Applicant’s numbering; it is unclear why the first line number is 5) recites, “the suction hose 95”. This recitation should read – the suction hose 91 –. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. Correction of the following is required: the specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for “a longitudinal main housing part” as recited in claims 3, 16, and 19. The specification should be amended to provide an antecedent basis for the longitudinal main housing part, including indicating the longitudinal main housing part with a reference character in the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at lines 22-24 (using the Applicant’s numbering) recites, “the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour”. This recitation should read – the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface – to more clearly communicate that the guiding is by the guide contour instead of the machine guide surface. That is, “instead of the machine guide surface” is describing the guiding by the guide contour, not the guiding on the workpiece.
Claim 5 recites, “the guide contour” twice. Each such recitation should read – the at least one guide contour – for consistency with claim 1. (Alternatively, the Applicant may elect to amend claim 1 to introduce “a guide contour” rather than “at least one guide contour”.)
This issue is present in other claims, too. As one non-exhaustive example, claim 7 also recites, “the guide contour”. The Applicant should correct this issue throughout the claims.
Claim 8 recites, “which basic body” at the fourth line of the claim. This recitation should replace “which” with a phrase including “the” or “said”, and also includes a typographical error due to reciting ‘basic’ instead of ‘base’ that should be corrected. The examiner suggests reciting – wherein the base body – in place of “which basic body”.
Claim 15 at lines 7-9 of page 4 (using the Applicant’s numbering) recites, “the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour”. This recitation should read – the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface – to more clearly communicate that the guiding is by the guide contour instead of the machine guide surface. That is, “instead of the machine guide surface” is describing the guiding by the guide contour, not the guiding on the workpiece.
Claim 18 at lines 9-11 of page 5 (using the Applicant’s numbering) recites, “the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour”. This recitation should read – the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface – to more clearly communicate that the guiding is by the guide contour instead of the machine guide surface. That is, “instead of the machine guide surface” is describing the guiding by the guide contour, not the guiding on the workpiece.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”), including “fastening means” as recited in claims 1, 15, and 18, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a support part” as recited in claim 2 (first, “part” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a part is not understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as having a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for some particular type of structure – i.e., any mechanical feature can be considered a “part”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for support on the machine guide surface” and “support” preceding “part” – i.e., in order for a part to be considered a “support part”, the part must perform a supporting function; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “support” preceding part appears to be describing the function of the part, rather than the structure of the part, since “support” is a usable as a verb).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that “by means of” at claim 1, line 23; claim 15, line 8 (of page 4); and claim 18, lines 10-11 does not result in any limitation being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because in this phrase “means” is not used as a generic structural term.
Note also in regard to claim 12 that “a bearing device” requires the structure of a bearing, such as a linear bearing, such that “bearing device” is not interpreted under 35 UCS 112(f).
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 1-14, 16, and 19 is/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.
Claim 1 at line 25 recites, “wherein the sawing tool passes through the machine housing”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification, since as best as can be determined the recitation includes a typographical error. For example, as can be seen in Fig. 1 of the present drawings, the machine housing ‘17’ has a front end ‘17A’, and the tool holder ‘14’ is in front of the front end ‘17A’ of the machine housing ‘17’. As such, as illustrated in Fig. 1 of the present drawings, the sawing tool ‘15’ does not pass through the machine housing ‘17’. However, the sawing tool ‘15’ does pass through other structures, such as machine guide body ‘22’, the machine guide surface ‘23’, and the at least one guide contour ‘55’. Thus, as best as can be determined, claim 1 includes a typographical error where ‘through the machine housing’ is intended to refer to through some other structure. However, the intended structure cannot be determined. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear how to interpret the claim in a manner that is consistent with the present specification.
Claim 4 recites, “the support part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 4, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 4 intends to depend from claim 2, rather than claim 1, in order to provide an antecedent basis for “the support part”.
Claim 4 recites, “another part of the machine guide surface protrudes in front of the suction device”. This recitation is indefinite in view of the present specification because it is unclear how to interpret this recitation in a manner consistent with the present specification. Claim 1 at lines 20-22 recites, “wherein the suction device has at least one guide contour which ... protrudes in front of the machine guide surface”. This feature is visible in Fig. 3 of the present drawings, where ‘in front’ refers to a rightward direction. However, if “in front” must be interpreted as referring to a same direction in claims 1 and 4, then no portion of the machine guide surface as illustrated in the present drawings protrudes in front of the suction device. The present specification at page 22, lines 20-24 discloses, “When the machine guide body 22 is inserted into the receptacles 61, 62, a part 24B of the machine guide body 22 assigned to the sawing tool 15 protrudes in front of the suction device, in particular the support leg 46.” However, in view of Fig. 1 of the present drawings, the part 24B does not protrude in front of the suction device when “in front” is interpreted as the same direction as used in claim 1. Thus, it is unclear how to interpret claim 4 in a manner consistent with the present specification. Can “in front” refer to different directions throughout the claims? Does the Applicant intend claim 4 to describe a different embodiment of the saw and suction device than illustrated in the present drawings? Does “in front” refer to the same direction, with claim 4 being satisfied so long as some portion of the machine guide surface protrudes in front of even a portion of the suction device?
Claim 5 recites, “the narrow side or front side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the narrow side or front side” in claim 5, rendering the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear whether claim 5 requires the side wall to have a narrow side or a front side.
Claim 16 at the final two lines recites, “wherein the sawing tool passes through the machine housing”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 19 at the final two lines recites, “wherein the sawing tool passes through the machine housing”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
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(s) 1-6, 9, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2001/0011420 A1 to Osada in view of EP 0 347 631 A2 to Karl M. Reich, Maschinenfabrik (hereinafter “Reich”; an English translation of Reich is provided in the file wrapper of parent application 17/916,867).
Regarding claim 1, Osada discloses a handheld reciprocating saber saw (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein a drive motor 1 is arranged within the machine housing (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 29-30), and the reciprocating saber saw has a tool holder 28 which can be driven by the drive motor 1 in a linearly oscillating manner along an axis of movement (see Figs. 10-12, where the ‘axis of movement’ is indicated by the double headed arrow, and see also paragraph 46), wherein the tool holder 28 is for a sawing tool 27 having an elongate design (see Fig. 3, where the sawing tool 27 is elongated), and the sawing tool 27 extending along a longitudinal axis for making a saw cut in a workpiece (see Fig. 3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine guide body 25, the machine guide body having a machine guide surface facing away from the machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 below), wherein the sawing tool 27 protrudes in front of the machine guide surface when mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw (see the annotated Fig. 3 below indicating the front direction), the machine guide surface for guiding the handheld reciprocating saber saw on the workpiece (see Figs. 1-2, showing the machine guide surface guiding on respective workpieces 36; see also paragraph 40), and wherein the sawing tool 27 passes through the machine housing along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3; the sawing tool 27 passes through an opening at the front end of the machine housing along the longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
945
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Osada discloses that the machine housing has a longitudinal main housing part and a handle 3 (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), the longitudinal main housing part containing the drive motor 1 and extending along the longitudinal axis (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), and the handle 3 extending away from the main housing part at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis (the handle 4 extends rearward and rightward relative to the annotated Fig. 3 above, which are directions away from the main housing part).
Regarding claim 14, Osada discloses that the drive motor 1 is coaxial to the sawing tool 27 and/or the tool holder 28 (see Fig. 3; a horizontal axis passing along the sawing tool 27 also passes through the drive motor 1; that is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14 merely requires that an axis passes through both the drive motor and the sawing tool and/or tool holder).
Osada fails to disclose that the saber saw is with a suction device, wherein the suction device has fastening means for detachable fastening on the handheld reciprocating saber saw and has a suction connection for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from the machine guide body through the suction connection, and wherein the suction device has at least one guide contour which, when the suction device is mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw, protrudes in front of the machine guide surface such that the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour, as required by claim 1. Osada also fails to disclose: a support part for support on the machine guide surface as required by claim 2; that the support part is designed to receive part of the machine guide surface in such a way that another part of the machine guide surface protrudes in front of the suction device as required by claim 4; that the suction device has at least one side wall, the narrow side or front side of which forms the guide contour or a component of the guide contour as required by claim 5; at least two side walls at a distance from one another, the distance being designed and provided to receive the sawing tool and/or forms part of a flow channel leading to the suction connection as required by claim 6; and that the guide contour spans a guide plane or lies in a guide plane in a region provided for the sawing tool, and wherein a longitudinal axis of the suction connection extends at an angle with respect to the guide plane as required by claim 9.
Reich teaches a saw with a suction device (see Fig. 1 showing the saw and the suction device, where the saw includes housing 1 and drives movement of blade 3, and where the suction device includes at least element 6 and 10 and alternatively also includes element 12 and 14), wherein the suction device has fastening means 7 and/or 15 for detachable fastening on the saw (see the paragraph beginning “To connect the point of attack of the jigsaw blade 3 with a suction device…” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich; see also the Abstract disclosing the ‘”detachable” feature; the fastening means 7 of Reich correspond to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification as structures corresponding to the ‘fastening means’, since the claws are projections that form fit over a top surface of the machine guide body 4 as can be seen in Fig. 2 and also are projections that latch the machine guide body 4 by ‘hold withing or as if with hands or arms’ as also can be seen in Fig. 2; in regards to element 15, see the paragraph beginning, “The jigsaw blade 3 is enclosed …” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich, and the element 15 likewise corresponds to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification) and has a suction connection 10 for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from a machine guide body 4 of the saw through the suction connection 10 (see the paragraph beginning, “As also Fig. 3 shows” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich), and wherein the suction device has at least one guide contour (a contour defined by the bottom surface of the shoe 6 of the suction device relative to Fig. 1) which, when the suction device is mounted on the saw, protrudes in front of a machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 (the machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 is a workpiece contact surface of the machine guide body 4, approximately orthogonal to an extension direction of the saw blade 3; relative to Fig. 1 of Reich, the ‘in front’ direction is a downward direction; see also Fig. 2 of Reich, relative to which ‘in front’ is a downward direction) such that the saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour (see Figs. 1 and 2). [Claim 1]
Continuing, Reich teaches a support part 8 for support on the machine guide surface (see Fig. 2, showing part 8 as a sidewall that supports the machine guide surface by limiting movement of the machine guide surface; note also that a sidewall of the suction device corresponds to the ‘support part 41’ disclosed in the present application). [Claim 2] Reich teaches that the support part 8 is designed to receive part of the machine guide surface (see Fig. 2) in such a way that another part of the machine guide surface protrudes in front of the suction device (see Fig. 2; as best understood, this limitation is satisfied with ‘in front’ being interpreted as referring to the same direction as used in claim 1, with claim 4 only requiring that some part of the machine guide surface is in front of some part of the suction device – in this case, the machine guide surface protrudes in front of elements 7 of the suction device as can be seen in Fig 2, relative to which ‘in front’ is a downward direction). [Claim 4] Reich also teaches that the suction device has at least one side wall 8, the narrow side or front side of which forms the guide contour or a component of the guide contour (see Fig. 2, where the front side of the side wall forms a component of the guide contour, with the guide contour defining a bottom surface of the suction device relative to Fig. 2). [Claim 5] Reich also teaches at least two side walls at a distance from one another (see the annotated Fig. 3 below), the distance being designed and provided to receive the sawing tool 3 (see Figs. 1-2) and/or forms part of a flow channel leading to the suction connection 10 (see Fig. 3, with ducts 9 being continuations of the flow channel from the side walls to the suction connection 10). [Claim 6] Reich also teaches that the guide contour spans a guide plane or lies in a guide plane in a region provided for the sawing tool 3 (see Fig. 1, where a guide plane extends along a bottom surface of the suction device), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the suction connection 10 extends at an angle with respect to the guide plane (see Fig. 1, where the longitudinal axis of the suction connection 10 extends approximately parallel with the flow line illustrated as passing through he suction connection, such that the longitudinal axis of the suction connection is angled upward relative to the guide plane relative to Fig. 1). [Claim 9]
PNG
media_image2.png
351
987
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reich teaches that the suction device is advantageous because the suction device is able to convert a saw without suction into a saw with suction in a simple manner by attaching the suction device to the machine guide body (see the first and third paragraphs of page 2 of the English translation of Reich), thus extracting sawdust during cutting (see the penultimate paragraph of page 1 of the English translation of Reich ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the saber saw of Osada with a suction device having the above discussed features of Reich. This modification is advantageous to convert the saber saw of Osada, when desired, in a simple manner into a saw having a suction device, which aids in the extraction of sawdust during cutting and thus helps maintain a clean work environment and reduces the environmental hazards of sawdust.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada as modified by Reich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2011/0083330 A1 to Steele.
Osada, as modified, fails to disclose that at least part of the guide contour is arranged on a guide element which is detachably fastened or fastenable to a base body of the suction device as required by claim 7.
Steele, though, teaches at last part of a guide contour 54 is arranged on a guide element 74 that is detachably fastened to a base body 30 (see Figs. 1-4 and paragraph 51). Steele teaches that providing the guide element that is detachably fastened to the base body is advantageous in order to provide multiple guide elements usable with a saw depending on the intended cutting purpose (see paragraph 59).
Therefore, in view of the suction device of Osada, as modified, defining a workpiece contact surface, and in view of the guide element of Steele covering a workpiece contact surface, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the suction device of Osada, as modified, with a guide element that is detachably fastened to a base body of the suction device in view of the teachings of Steele. This modification is advantageous in order to allow a user to select a guide element having a characteristic that matches a desired cutting purpose, such as selecting a guide element having teeth when gripping of a workpiece is desired consistent with paragraph 50 of Steele. Moreover, attaching the guide element as taught by Steele to a base body of the suction device of Osada, as modified, is obvious because this allows the guide element to be used in conjunction with the suction device. That is, providing suction remains advantageous even when using a guide element, and thus by providing the guide element to be detachably fastened to a base body of the suction device the suction ability is retained (contrasted with a hypothetical situation in which the guide element of Steele were only usable with the machine guide body – in this case, no suction would be achievable, removing the benefits of Reich).
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada as modified by Reich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 4,747,179 to Berfield.
Regarding claim 8, Osada, as modified, discloses that the suction connection (see connection 10 of Reich) has a connection piece (at a left end of connection 10 relative to Fig. 1 of Reich, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright) which is designed for connecting a suction hose (see Reich at the paragraph beginning ‘As also Fig. 3 shows...’ at page 2 of the English translation of Reich) and which is mounted to a base body of the suction device (see the base body 6 in Fig. 1 of Reich), which basic body [sic, the base body] (base body 6 in Fig. 1 of Reich) is provided and designed for connection to the machine guide body (see Figs. 1 and 2 of Reich).
Regarding claim 11, Osada, as modified, discloses that the suction connection (connection 10 of Reich) is mounted with respect to a base body having the guide contour (see base body 6 of Reich having the guide contour at its bottom surface relative to Fig. 1 of Reich).
Osada, as modified fails to disclose that the connecting piece is rotatably mounted with respect to the base body as required by claim 8, and similarly Osada, as modified, fails to disclose that the connection is pivotably mounted about at least one pivot axis by means of at least one pivot bearing with respect to the base body as required by claim 11.
Berfield is in the field of endeavor of suction devices and is also pertinent to the problem of connecting a suction hose. Moreover, Berfield teaches that its connector is usable in a variety of hose-connecting applications, not limited only to vacuum cleaners (see col. 2, lines 64-66). Turning to claimed features, Berfield teaches a connecting piece 17 (see col. 3, lines 15-17 describing that the connecting piece 17 receives a hose end) that is rotatably mounted with respect to a base body 10 (see Fig. 2, the Abstract, and col. 4, lines 19-21) [claim 8], and that the connection 17 is pivotably mounted about at least one pivot axis (a horizontal axis through a center of bearing 33 relative to Fig. 2, with the figure oriented with the reference characters upright) by means of at least one pivot bearing 33 with respect to the base body 10 (see Fig. 2 and col. 4, lines 19-21) [claim 11]. Berfield teaches that making the connection pivotably mounted relative to the base body of the suction device is advantageous because it allows the suction device to be oriented at a desired position, enhancing freedom of movement (see col. 1, lines 16-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the connecting piece (also referred to as the connection) as a pivotably mounted connection relative to the base body in view of the teachings of Berfield. This modification is advantageous to enhance freedom of movement, since the pivotable connection with the hose enhances the ability of the suction device, and thus of the saber saw, to move with respect to the vacuum source at an opposing end of the hose.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada as modified by Reich as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 11,331,761 B2 to Bek et al.
Osada, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the magnitude of the angle at which the longitudinal axis of the suction connection extends with respect to the guide plane, and thus fails to disclose that the angle is between 15° and 85° as required by claim 10.
Bek, though, teaches that an angle at which a longitudinal axis of a suction connection extends relative to a bottom plane of a base body is between 40° and 70° (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 52-55; the 40° and 70° range of Bek is calculated from subtracting the 20° to 50° range from 90° to calculate the angle relative to the horizontal rather than the vertical). Bek teaches that the angle range results in an improved possibility for connecting the suction device to a suction apparatus (see col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angular range of between 40° and 70° for the angle between the longitudinal axis of the suction connection and the guide plane of Osada, as modified, in view of the teachings of Bek in order to provide an improved possibility for connecting the suction device to a suction apparatus. Alternatively, since Bek teaches that the angle of the suction connection is a result effective variable that determines an ease of connecting a suction device to a suction apparatus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select any desired angle of the connection of Osada, as modified, relative to the base body because discovering an optimum angle would have been a mere design consideration based on facilitating connection of to a suction apparatus. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Here, since Bek teaches that the angle can be selected to facilitate attachment to a suction apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art can experiment with the angle of the connection of Osada, as modified, to determine an optimal angle for the particular type of cutting tool (i.e., saber saw) of Osada, as modified.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osada as modified by Reich as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 5,421,091 to Gerritsen, Jr.
Regarding claim 13, Osada, as modified, discloses that the machine housing is arranged behind the suction device along the longitudinal axis (this feature is evident from Fig. 3 of Osada, where upon modification of Osada in view of Reich the suction device is provided at an opposing side of the machine guide body 25 from the machine housing, such that the machine housing is behind the suction device along the longitudinal axis).
Still, at least for purposes of this rejection (in view of Osada failing to explicitly disclose the machine guide body moving relative to the machine housing, Fig. 3 of Osada notwithstanding), Osada, as modified, fails to disclose that the machine guide body is adjustably mounted on the machine housing by means of a bearing device, such that the machine guide surface can be adjusted between at least two mutually different relative positions in relation to the longitudinal axis with respect to the machine housing as required by claim 12.
Gerritsen teaches a machine guide body 25 that is adjustably mounted on a machine housing 12 & 14 by means of a bearing device 28 (see Fig. 1 and the Abstract; device 28 of Gerritsen is slidably received in slot 20, and is thus a ‘bearing device’ at least to the same extent as the inventive bearing device 21V shown in Fig. 1 of the present drawings), such that a machine guide surface at a front of the machine guide body 25 can be adjusted between at least two mutually different positions relative to a longitudinal axis with respect to the machine housing 12 & 14 (see Fig. 1 and col. 3, lines 37-54). [Claim 12] Gerritsen teaches that making the machine guide body adjustable is advantageous to control the depth of cut (see col. 4, lines 34-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the machine guide body of Osada, as modified, with the adjustable bearing device as taught by Gerritsen in order to control the depth of cut.
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2001/0011420 A1 to Osada in view of EP 0 347 631 A2 to Reich and US Pat. No. 11,331,761 B2 to Bek et al.
Regarding claim 15, Osada discloses a handheld reciprocating saber saw (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1), wherein a drive motor 1 is arranged within the machine housing (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 29-30), and the reciprocating saber saw has a tool holder 28 which can be driven by the drive motor 1 in a linearly oscillating manner along an axis of movement (see Figs. 10-12, where the ‘axis of movement’ is indicated by the double headed arrow, and see also paragraph 46), wherein the tool holder 28 is for a sawing tool 27 having an elongate design (see Fig. 3, where the sawing tool 27 is elongated), and the sawing tool 27 extending along a longitudinal axis for making a saw cut in a workpiece (see Fig. 3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine guide body 25, the machine guide body having a machine guide surface facing away from the machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1), wherein the sawing tool 27 protrudes in front of the machine guide surface when mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1 indicating the front direction), the machine guide surface for guiding the handheld reciprocating saber saw on the workpiece (see Figs. 1-2, showing the machine guide surface guiding on respective workpieces 36; see also paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 16, Osada discloses that the machine housing has a longitudinal main housing part and a handle 3 (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), the longitudinal main housing part containing the drive motor 1 and extending along the longitudinal axis (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), and the handle 3 extending away from the main housing part at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis (the handle 4 extends rearward and rightward relative to the annotated Fig. 3 above, which are directions away from the main housing part), wherein the sawing tool 27 passes through the machine housing along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3; the sawing tool 27 passes through an opening at the front end of the machine housing along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 17, Osada discloses that the drive motor 1 is coaxial to the sawing tool 27 and/or the tool holder 28 (see Fig. 3; a horizontal axis passing along the sawing tool 27 also passes through the drive motor 1; that is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14 merely requires that an axis passes through both the drive motor and the sawing tool and/or tool holder).
Osada fails to disclose that the saber saw is with a suction device, wherein the suction device has fastening means for detachable fastening on the handheld reciprocating saber saw and has a suction connection for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from the machine guide body through the suction connection, and wherein the suction device has at least one guide contour which, when the suction device is mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw, protrudes in front of the machine guide surface such that the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour, and wherein the guide contour spans a guide plane or lies in a guide plane in a region provided for the sawing tool, and wherein a longitudinal axis of the suction connection extends at an angle between 30° and 80° with respect to the guide plane, as required by claim 15.
Reich teaches a saw with a suction device (see Fig. 1 showing the saw and the suction device, where the saw includes housing 1 and drives movement of blade 3, and where the suction device includes at least element 6 and 10 and alternatively also includes element 12 and 14), wherein the suction device has fastening means 7 and/or 15 for detachable fastening on the saw (see the paragraph beginning “To connect the point of attack of the jigsaw blade 3 with a suction device…” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich; see also the Abstract disclosing the ‘”detachable” feature; the fastening means 7 of Reich correspond to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification as structures corresponding to the ‘fastening means’, since the claws are projections that form fit over a top surface of the machine guide body 4 as can be seen in Fig. 2 and also are projections that latch the machine guide body 4 by ‘hold withing or as if with hands or arms’ as also can be seen in Fig. 2; in regards to element 15, see the paragraph beginning, “The jigsaw blade 3 is enclosed …” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich, and the element 15 likewise corresponds to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification) and has a suction connection 10 for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from a machine guide body 4 of the saw through the suction connection 10 (see the paragraph beginning, “As also Fig. 3 shows” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich), and wherein the suction device has at least one guide contour (a contour defined by the bottom surface of the shoe 6 of the suction device relative to Fig. 1) which, when the suction device is mounted on the saw, protrudes in front of a machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 (the machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 is a workpiece contact surface of the machine guide body 4, approximately orthogonal to an extension direction of the saw blade 3; relative to Fig. 1 of Reich, the ‘in front’ direction is a downward direction; see also Fig. 2 of Reich, relative to which ‘in front’ is a downward direction) such that the saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour (see Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the guide contour spans a guide plane or lies in a guide plane in a region provided for the sawing tool 3 (see Fig. 1, where a guide plane extends along a bottom surface of the suction device), and wherein a longitudinal axis of the suction connection 10 extends at an angle with respect to the guide plane (see Fig. 1, where the longitudinal axis of the suction connection 10 extends approximately parallel with the flow line illustrated as passing through he suction connection, such that the longitudinal axis of the suction connection is angled upward relative to the guide plane relative to Fig. 1). [Claim 15] Reich teaches that the suction device is advantageous because the suction device is able to convert a saw without suction into a saw with suction in a simple manner by attaching the suction device to the machine guide body (see the first and third paragraphs of page 2 of the English translation of Reich), thus extracting sawdust during cutting (see the penultimate paragraph of page 1 of the English translation of Reich ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the saber saw of Osada with a suction device having the above discussed features of Reich. This modification is advantageous to convert the saber saw of Osada, when desired, in a simple manner into a saw having a suction device, which aids in the extraction of sawdust during cutting and thus helps maintain a clean work environment and reduces the environmental hazards of sawdust.
Still, Osada, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose the magnitude of the angle at which the longitudinal axis of the suction connection extends with respect to the guide plane, and thus fails to disclose that the angle is between 30° and 80° as required by claim 15.
Bek, though, teaches that an angle at which a longitudinal axis of a suction connection extends relative to a bottom plane of a base body is between 40° and 70° (see Fig. 4 and col. 3, lines 52-55; the 40° and 70° range of Bek is calculated from subtracting the 20° to 50° range from 90° to calculate the angle relative to the horizontal rather than the vertical). Bek teaches that the angle range results in an improved possibility for connecting the suction device to a suction apparatus (see col. 2, lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angular range of between 40° and 70° for the angle between the longitudinal axis of the suction connection and the guide plane of Osada, as modified, in view of the teachings of Bek in order to provide an improved possibility for connecting the suction device to a suction apparatus. Alternatively, since Bek teaches that the angle of the suction connection is a result effective variable that determines an ease of connecting a suction device to a suction apparatus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select any desired angle of the connection of Osada, as modified, relative to the base body because discovering an optimum angle would have been a mere design consideration based on facilitating connection of to a suction apparatus. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Here, since Bek teaches that the angle can be selected to facilitate attachment to a suction apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art can experiment with the angle of the connection of Osada, as modified, to determine an optimal angle for the particular type of cutting tool (i.e., saber saw) of Osada, as modified.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2001/0011420 A1 to Osada in view of EP 0 347 631 A2 to Reich.
Regarding claim 18, Osada discloses a handheld reciprocating saber saw (see Figs. 1-3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1), wherein a drive motor 1 is arranged within the machine housing (see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 29-30), and the reciprocating saber saw has a tool holder 28 which can be driven by the drive motor 1 in a linearly oscillating manner along an axis of movement (see Figs. 10-12, where the ‘axis of movement’ is indicated by the double headed arrow, and see also paragraph 46), wherein the tool holder 28 is for a sawing tool 27 having an elongate design (see Fig. 3, where the sawing tool 27 is elongated), and the sawing tool 27 extending along a longitudinal axis for making a saw cut in a workpiece (see Fig. 3), wherein the handheld reciprocating saber saw has a machine guide body 25, the machine guide body having a machine guide surface facing away from the machine housing (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1), wherein the sawing tool 27 protrudes in front of the machine guide surface when mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw (see the annotated Fig. 3 provided above with respect to claim 1 indicating the front direction), the machine guide surface for guiding the handheld reciprocating saber saw on the workpiece (see Figs. 1-2, showing the machine guide surface guiding on respective workpieces 36; see also paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 19, Osada discloses that the machine housing has a longitudinal main housing part and a handle 3 (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), the longitudinal main housing part containing the drive motor 1 and extending along the longitudinal axis (see the annotated Fig. 3 above), and the handle 3 extending away from the main housing part at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis (the handle 4 extends rearward and rightward relative to the annotated Fig. 3 above, which are directions away from the main housing part), wherein the sawing tool 27 passes through the machine housing along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 3; the sawing tool 27 passes through an opening at the front end of the machine housing along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 20, Osada discloses that the drive motor 1 is coaxial to the sawing tool 27 and/or the tool holder 28 (see Fig. 3; a horizontal axis passing along the sawing tool 27 also passes through the drive motor 1; that is, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 14 merely requires that an axis passes through both the drive motor and the sawing tool and/or tool holder).
Osada fails to disclose that the saber saw is with a suction device, wherein the suction device has fastening means for detachable fastening on the handheld reciprocating saber saw and has a suction connection for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from the machine guide body through the suction connection, and wherein the suction device has at least one U-shaped guide contour which, when the suction device is mounted on the handheld reciprocating saber saw, protrudes in front of the machine guide surface such that the handheld reciprocating saber saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour, as required by claim 18.
Reich teaches a saw with a suction device (see Fig. 1 showing the saw and the suction device, where the saw includes housing 1 and drives movement of blade 3, and where the suction device includes at least element 6 and 10 and alternatively also includes element 12 and 14), wherein the suction device has fastening means 7 and/or 15 for detachable fastening on the saw (see the paragraph beginning “To connect the point of attack of the jigsaw blade 3 with a suction device…” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich; see also the Abstract disclosing the ‘”detachable” feature; the fastening means 7 of Reich correspond to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification as structures corresponding to the ‘fastening means’, since the claws are projections that form fit over a top surface of the machine guide body 4 as can be seen in Fig. 2 and also are projections that latch the machine guide body 4 by ‘hold withing or as if with hands or arms’ as also can be seen in Fig. 2; in regards to element 15, see the paragraph beginning, “The jigsaw blade 3 is enclosed …” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich, and the element 15 likewise corresponds to at least one of the form-fitting projection and the latching projections disclosed in the present specification) and has a suction connection 10 for connecting a suction hose such that particles produced when the workpiece is being machined can be suctioned away from a machine guide body 4 of the saw through the suction connection 10 (see the paragraph beginning, “As also Fig. 3 shows” at page 2 of the English translation of Reich), and wherein the suction device has at least one U-shaped guide contour (a contour defined by the bottom surface of the shoe 6 of the suction device relative to Fig. 1; see the annotated portion of Fig. 3 provided below indicating a portion of the guide contour that is U-shaped; note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of U-shaped includes any shape that resembles a letter ‘U’, even if the shape is not curved at junctions of segments of the U-shape) which, when the suction device is mounted on the saw, protrudes in front of a machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 (the machine guide surface of the machine guide body 4 is a workpiece contact surface of the machine guide body 4, approximately orthogonal to an extension direction of the saw blade 3; relative to Fig. 1 of Reich, the ‘in front’ direction is a downward direction; see also Fig. 2 of Reich, relative to which ‘in front’ is a downward direction) such that the saw can be guided on the workpiece instead of the machine guide surface by means of the at least one guide contour (see Figs. 1 and 2). [Claim 18] Reich teaches that the suction device is advantageous because the suction device is able to convert a saw without suction into a saw with suction in a simple manner by attaching the suction device to the machine guide body (see the first and third paragraphs of page 2 of the English translation of Reich), thus extracting sawdust during cutting (see the penultimate paragraph of page 1 of the English translation of Reich ).
PNG
media_image3.png
754
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the saber saw of Osada with a suction device having the above discussed features of Reich. This modification is advantageous to convert the saber saw of Osada, when desired, in a simple manner into a saw having a suction device, which aids in the extraction of sawdust during cutting and thus helps maintain a clean work environment and reduces the environmental hazards of sawdust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
