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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10-07-2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 15-17 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20040118255A1, Peters in view of USPGPUB 20030024369, Dunn and in view of US 4091698, Obear.
Claim 15-17 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Dunn and US 4091698, Obear.
Regarding Claims 15 and 28 Peters discloses a woodworking machine comprising:
a workpiece table 60 with a horizontal workpiece support surface (top of table 60 in fig 1) and a saw slot (space on table 60 through which blade extends from under table, fig 1)
a saw unit (70, 72 and portions that drive the saw blade) with a circular saw blade 70 arranged to protrude from the saw slot (fig 1) and defining a horizontal saw line (line extending through long axis of the table and through the saw blade in fig 1);
a workpiece stop (80) movably arranged above the workpiece support surface (par. 0026), the workpiece stop having a vertically standing workpiece stop surface (surface of the part 80 that is closest to the blade, and which is made to contact the workpiece, see Par. 0026) disposed such that a plate-shaped workpiece (100) resting on the workpiece support surface in a support area arranged horizontally between the saw blade and the workpiece stop can be placed with a side edge against the workpiece stop surface (fig 4, Par. 0026-0028) wherein an actuator is mechanically coupled to the workpiece stop (86 and 61) (Claim 15);
Peters lacks (feature I): a sensor device wherein the sensor device is configured to generate a sensor signal, wherein the sensor signal characterizes a start of cut or an end of cut; wherein a control unit is in signal communication with the actuator and the sensor device in terms, and wherein the control unit is configured to receive the sensor signal and to generate an actuator control signal in dependence on the sensor signal and transmit the actuator control signal to the actuator, and wherein the actuator is adapted to move the workpiece stop upon receipt of the actuator control signal such that a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface, (claim 15) and (feature II) the sensor device generating a sensor signal, and the control unit receiving the signal in response to the detection of the presence or absence of a workpiece (claim 15) and the at least one workpiece sensor or the stop actuation sensor is selected from the group consisting of: optical sensors; capacitive sensors; inductive sensors; pneumatic sensors; linear longitudinal sensors; and ultrasonic sensors (Claim 28).
Regarding feature I the use of a sensor to generally move workpiece support stops upon a detection of a completion of cut: Dunn discloses a work stop abutment assisted cutter assembly (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the work stop abutment assisted cutter of the present invention and includes a sensor device (“a sensor for sensing when the cutting operation has been successfully completed” par 0071); wherein a sensor signal characterizes a start of cut or an end of cut (portion of sensor device which causes the automatic retraction of the picot support arms when a completion of cut has been detected, par 0071); wherein an actuator (152) is mechanically coupled to a workpiece stop (portions of parts 19 which press against and contact the workpiece during cutting, par 0065, which notes that “then the pivot arms 18 and guides 19 Swing inwardly about the pivot supports 20 [which are connected to the transverse members 156, 157] so that the tyre guides 19 move inside the rim of the tyre from either side of the frame and Support the tyre internally by bearing up upon the inner Surface of the tyre underneath the tread area “), and wherein the actuator is adapted to move the workpiece stop upon receipt of the actuator control signal such that a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface (par 0071, where it is noted that the pivot arms 18 and the supports 19 move away from the tyre after a detection of end of cut), in order to release a workpiece once an end of cut is detected and to allow for post cutting processing, par 0034.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters by including a sensor device, wherein a sensor signal characterizes a start of cut or an end of cut, wherein an actuator is mechanically coupled to a workpiece stop, and wherein the actuator is adapted to move the workpiece stop upon receipt of the actuator control signal such that a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface, in order to release a workpiece once an end of cut is detected and to allow for post cutting processing, as taught by Dunn.
Regarding Feature II, Dunn is silent as to how the sensors thereof sense when the cutting operation thereof has been completed, and thus lacks the sensing and signalling being in response to the detection of the presence or absence of a workpiece (emphasis added) (claim 15) and the at least one workpiece sensor or the stop actuation sensor is selected from the group consisting of: optical sensors; capacitive sensors; inductive sensors; pneumatic sensors; linear longitudinal sensors; and ultrasonic sensors (Claim 28).
Obear discloses a sawing device having an end of cut detector device (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the sawing device having an end of cut detector device of the present invention and discloses that the end of cut sensing device therein includes: a sensor device (transformer pickup loop 40, col. 2, 35 - 60) generating a sensor signal (“signal picked up in loop 40 and amplified in 42”), and a control unit (comparator 48/ “control circuit”) receiving the signal in response to the detection of the presence or absence of a workpiece (col. 2, 35 – 60, AND Col. 3, 55-68 through col 4, 1-25) (claim 15), and the at least one workpiece sensor or the stop actuation sensor being a pneumatic sensor (since the sensing of the motor current change is based on a contact or non contact with the workpiece, e.g. by sensing load differences between the blade and the workpiece) (Claim 28), in order to automatically control the device once an end of cut is detected (Col. 1 55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Peters by including the sensing device of Obear, to include the sensing and signalling of the end of cut (as included in view of Dunn) to be in response to the detection of the presence or absence of a workpiece, and to be perform via the pneumatic sensor of Obear, in order to perform the sensing of the end of cut in a manner known in the art to control the automatic functions of the Modified Peters machine, as taught by Obear.
Regarding Claim 16, in Peters the workpiece stop is configured as a parallel stop (since it is parallel to the saw line), wherein the workpiece stop surface of the parallel stop is aligned parallel to the circular saw blade (fig 5), and wherein the actuator is configured as a parallel stop actuator and is configured to move the parallel stop back and forth (along rail 61) to vary the distance (par 0027).
Regarding Claim 17, in Peters wherein the parallel stop is a right hand stop, (a least in the perspective shown in fig 5).
Regarding Claim 29, in Peters the woodworking machine has a first workpiece stop (80) and a second workpiece stop (combination of 90 and parts 32a and b), wherein the first workpiece stop is configured as a parallel stop (see fig 5), and the second workpiece stop is configured as a stop flap on an angle stop (since 32a and b pivot to bring part 90 against the workpiece, par 0047 and 0053).
Regarding Claim 30, in Peters the parallel stop comprises a right-hand stop (when facing the table from the 61 and D shown in fig 3).
Regarding Claim 31, Peters discloses a method for controlling a woodworking machine comprising the steps of:
cutting a plate-shaped workpiece (100) with a circular saw blade 70 that defines a saw line (line extending through long axis of the table and through the saw blade in fig 1), wherein one side of the workpiece is arranged at a workpiece stop surface (surface of rip fence 80 which is used to contact the stock) of a movable workpiece stop 80, by means of a cut having a start of cut and an end of cut (par0026, since a completed cut infers a start and an end of a cutting operation); and
moving the workpiece stop (Par. 0026).
Peters lacks (feature I) detecting and end of cut, and wherein depending on the detection of the end of cut a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface, by: moving the workpiece stop surface horizontally away from the circular saw blade; or pivoting the saw blade about a horizontal axis away from the workpiece stop, and (feature II) detecting the end of cut via a sensor that detects the presence or absence of a workpiece.
Regarding (feature I) Dunn discloses a work stop abutment assisted cutter assembly (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the work stop abutment assisted cutter of the present invention and includes a sensor device (“a sensor for sensing when the cutting operation has been successfully completed” par 0071); wherein a sensor signal characterizes an end of cut (portion of sensor device which causes the automatic retraction of the picot support arms when a completion of cut has been detected, par 0071); wherein depending on the detection of the end of cut a distance between a blade 17 and a workpiece stop surface (portions of parts 18/19 which press against and contact the workpiece during cutting, par 0065, which notes that “then the pivot arms 18 and guides 19 Swing inwardly about the pivot supports 20 [which are connected to the transverse members 156, 157] so that the tyre guides 19 move inside the rim of the tyre from either side of the frame and Support the tyre internally by bearing up upon the inner Surface of the tyre underneath the tread area”) is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface, by: moving the workpiece stop surface horizontally away from the saw blade (par 0071, where it is noted that the pivot arms 18 and the supports 19 move away from the tyre after a detection of end of cut), to release a workpiece once an end of cut is detected and to allow for post cutting processing (par 0071 and 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters by including a sensor device, detecting and end of cut, and wherein depending on the detection of the end of cut a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface, by: moving the workpiece stop surface horizontally away from the circular saw blade; or pivoting the saw blade about a horizontal axis away from the workpiece stop, in order to release a workpiece once an end of cut is detected and to allow for post cutting processing, as taught by Dunn.
Regarding Feature II, Dunn is silent as to how the sensors thereof sense when the cutting operation thereof has been completed, and thus lacks detecting the end of cut via a sensor that detects the presence or absence of a workpiece.
Obear discloses a sawing device having an end of cut detector device (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the sawing device having an end of cut detector device of the present invention and discloses that the end of cut sensing device therein includes: a sensor device (transformer pickup loop 40, col. 2, 35 - 60) generating a sensor signal (“signal picked up in loop 40 and amplified in 42”), and a control unit (comparator 48/ “control circuit”) receiving the signal in response to the detection of the presence or absence of a workpiece (col. 2, 35 – 60, and Col. 3, 55-68 through col 4, 1-25), thus detecting the end of cut via a sensor that detects the presence or absence of a workpiece (col 4, 1-40) in order to automatically control the device once an end of cut is detected (Col. 1 55-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Peters by including the sensing device of Obear, to include detecting the end of cut via a sensor that detects the presence or absence of a workpiece, in order to perform the sensing of the end of cut in a manner known in the art to control the automatic functions of the Modified Peters machine, as taught by Obear.
Claims 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Dunn and Obear and in further view of Newman.
Regarding Claims 26-27, the Peters device modified by Ung discloses all of the limitations of Claim, 15 as discussed above.
Modified Peters lacks wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a lowering signal (as modified) when the sensor signal is received, wherein the lowering signal controls an actuator configured as a lowering actuator such that the circular saw blade is moved below the workpiece support surface (Claim 26), wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a saw blade switch-off signal when the sensor signal is received, and wherein the saw blade switch-off signal controls a drive motor of the saw blade such that the drive of the circular saw blade is switched off (Claim 27).
Newman discloses a table saw (see par 0082 of Newman, where the safety system thereof is disclosed as being used in a table saw assembly) in the same field of endeavor as the table saw tool of Peters and of the present invention and discloses that such a tool includes a sensor device (sensor 218); wherein the sensor device is configured to generate a sensor signal (“signals”, par. 0084), wherein the sensor signal characterizes an end of cut (par 0078, 0082, and 0087); wherein an actuator 196 is mechanically coupled to a saw unit (124a); wherein a control unit is coupled to the actuator and the sensor device in terms (par 0082), and wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a retracting signal and wherein when the sensor signal is received the retracting signal controls an actuator configured as a retracting actuator such that the circular saw blade is moved below the workpiece support surface (end of par 0089) (Claim 26), wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a saw blade switch-off signal when the sensor signal is received, and wherein the saw blade switch-off signal controls a drive motor of the saw blade such that the drive of the circular saw blade is switched off (par 0090) (Claim 27), in order to retract the blade at an “appropriate time”, e.g. after an end of a cutting cycle as taught by Newman, which would also serve the benefit of having the blade at a safer retracted position between cutting operations (par 0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters by including a sensor device; wherein the sensor device is configured to generate a sensor signal, wherein the sensor signal characterizes a start of cut or an end of cut; wherein an actuator is mechanically coupled to the workpiece stop or the saw unit; wherein a control unit is in signal communication with the actuator and the sensor device in terms, and wherein the control unit is configured to receive the sensor signal and to generate an actuator control signal in dependence on the sensor signal and transmit it to the actuator wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a saw blade switch-off signal when the sensor signal is received, and wherein the saw blade switch-off signal controls a drive motor of the saw blade such that the drive of the circular saw blade is switched off (Claim 27) in order to retract the blade at an “appropriate time”, e.g. after an end of a cutting cycle as taught by Newman, which would also serve the benefit of having the blade at a safer retracted position between cutting operations, as taught by Newman.
With regard to claim 26, in modifying Peters to include the retracting features of Newman the retraction of the saw blade in Peters would be in a downward fashion, since Peters’s saw is designed to retract downward into the table thereof. As such, in modifying Peters to include the retraction features of Newman such a modification would include wherein the control unit is adapted to generate a lowering signal when the sensor signal is received, wherein the lowering signal controls an actuator configured as a lowering actuator such that the circular saw blade is moved below the workpiece support surface.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Dunn and Obear and in view of US 20140318342, Koegel.
Regarding Claim 18 the Peters in view of Ung discloses all the limitations of Claim 15 as discussed above.
Modified Peters lacks the apparatus having, wherein the sensor device is disposed to detect a start edge or an end edge of a plate-shaped workpiece at at least one predetermined position on the workpiece support surface and generates the sensor signal when the start edge or the end edge is detected at the at least one predetermined position, wherein the predetermined position is determined by one or more of: a saw blade diameter of the circular saw blade; a saw blade height of the circular saw blade above the workpiece support surface; a workpiece thickness; or a saw blade pivot angle.
Koegel discloses a table saw, in the same field of endeavor as the table saw tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a sensor device (112, 114) disposed to detect a start edge or an end edge of a plate-shaped workpiece at at least one predetermined position on a workpiece support surface 104 (par 0041) and generates the sensor signal when the start edge or the end edge is detected at the at least one predetermined position (par. 0042), wherein the predetermined position is determined by a workpiece thickness (since the presence of a workpiece in par 0042 includes a workpiece thickness) in order to be able to detect and monitor a workpiece during and after cutting (par 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Peters by replacing the pneumatic workpiece sensor thereof with an optical workpiece sensor device as disclosed in Koegel disposed to detect a start edge or an end edge of a plate-shaped workpiece at at least one predetermined position on the workpiece support surface and generates the sensor signal when the start edge or the end edge is detected at the at least one predetermined position, wherein the predetermined position is determined by one or more of: a saw blade diameter of the circular saw blade; a saw blade height of the circular saw blade above the workpiece support surface; a workpiece thickness; or a saw blade pivot angle (claim 18) , in order to not only detect a workpiece when the work is being cut, but to also be able to detect a workpiece after cutting, as taught by Koegel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/07/25, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawings were previously objected to for not showing the claimed matter of the stop flap. This language has been deleted from the claims, thus obviating that objection. The claims were also objected to as failing to show the subject matter of “pivoting the saw blade about a horizontal axis away from the workpiece stop”. Applicant has highlighted where this feature is shown, Fig. 6, thus obviating this objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/07/25, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims in accordance with the Examiner’s recommendations, thus obviating the previous claim objection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/07/25, with respect to the prior art rejections, as the claims have been currently amended, have been fully considered and are partially persuasive and partly not persuasive.
First Applicant argues that the combination of Peters, Dun and Ung lack the (newly included) feature of a control device configured to receive a sensor signal in response to an end of cut, via a sensor that detects the presence/absence of a workpiece (claim 31) nor of the sensor device configure to generate a signal in response to the detection of the presence or absences of a workpiece (claim 15). This is found persuasive. However, an updated search has uncovered Obear, which comprises this feature and is used in the rejection above.
Next, Applicant argues that the combination of Peters, Dun and Ung lacks “moving the workpiece stop such that, depending on the detection of the end of cut, a distance between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface is increased to eliminate a clamping of the workpiece between the circular saw blade and the workpiece stop surface.”. To support this, Applicant argues that “As for Peters, the rip stop typically stays in place after the end of the cut since a further workpiece or a series of workpieces are often cut with the same length adjustment. Thus, movement of the stop is in contradiction to the conventional usage of the table saw of Peters. Thus, Peters fails to disclose” the above recited function/features.
This is not found persuasive. First, Applicant does not show support for the assertion that in Peters “the rip stop typically stays in place after the end of the cut since a further workpiece or a series of workpieces are often cut with the same length adjustment”. This appears to be a conjecture in view of the perceived usage of Peters. However, even if this conjecture is correct, the teachings of Dunn, of moving a stop to release a workpiece once an end of cut is detected and to allow for post cutting processing, par 0034, would motivate an artisan to modify Peters to allow for this function, for instance in order to make it easier for a user to grasp a workpiece after cutting for post processing.
As such, the current/present rejections over Peters in view of Dunn and Obear are made in view of the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN’s/USPGPUB’s: 20210069849, 20130319980, 20040108052, 20130319980, 20170216943, 20130319980, 20150217472 and 20050120840 each show/disclose state of the art sawing or cutting machines having workpiece sensors and thus each disclose elements of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached on 571-270-3818. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights