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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
-Regarding claim 12, the phrase “wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the distance information over the motion tracking information within a predefined distance from the operator to the power tool, and prioritize the motion tracking information over the distance information outside the predefined distance, and wherein the predefined distance is only measured using the distance information from the plurality of distance sensors” is new matter. Examiner notes that the predefined distance “from the operator to the power tool” as well as “wherein the predefined distance is only measured using distance information from the plurality of distance sensors” is new matter and does not appear to be supported in the specification. Examiner notes the specification does not appear to provide support that the predefined distance is specifically from the operator to the power tool” such that the predefined distance can only be measured using distance information gathered from the distance sensors.
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 1-3 and 12-17 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.
-Regarding claim 1, the phrase “wherein the motion tracking information provides high precision tracking of motion via directly inferred linear acceleration and angular velocity data in three dimensions at the operator prior to processing by the controller” is unclear. It is unclear how the information gathered at the operator is required for processing, as opposed to the information gathered through the sensors themselves. As currently claimed, it appears the language requires processing of information at the operation which does not appear to be supported within the specification. Examiner notes it is the sensors that gather the information, and the system is capable of use without being at the operator. For the purposes of examination, the tracking information will be treated as capable of use with an operator, or any other reasonable means. Examiner also notes the phrase “prior to processing by the controller” to be unclear. It is unclear how the information is gathered without processing by the controller elements. Are the sensors gathering data and storing said data locally without commincation to the controller? How do the sensors work to allow the controller to determine based on the motion tracking information if there is no processing by the controller? When do they sensors and controller communicate?
-Regarding claim 12, the phrase “wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the distance information over the motion tracking information within a predefined distance from the operator to the power tool, and prioritize the motion tracking information over the distance information outside the predefined distance, and wherein the predefined distance is only measured using the distance information from the plurality of distance sensors” is unclear. Examiner notes that the predefined distance “from the operator to the power tool” as well as “wherein the predefined distance is only measured using distance information from the plurality of distance sensors” is unclear as it appears the operator is a required component within the system to allow for the claimed calculations to be measured, which does not appear to be supported by the specification. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated on the structural components of the system, and not solely based on the operator.
-Regarding claim 17, the phrase “varying transmission signal power of the reader to determine an average power at which the distance sensor is no longer detected by the reader disposed at the power tool to determine an operation range between the operator and the power tool” is unclear. Examiner notes the refers to “an operation range between the operator and the power tool”. As currently claimed, it appears the operator is a required component within the system to allow for the claimed calculations to be made, which does not appear to be supported by the specification. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be treated on the structural components of the system, and not solely the operator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wittke (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0064532).
Regarding claim 1, Wittke teaches a system for protecting an operator (9) (Figure 23), the system comprising:
a power tool configured to be held by the operator
a first set of wearable sensors (16) configured to be worn by the operator (9);
a second set of wearable sensors (16) configured to be worn by the operator (9);
a first tool sensor (61) disposed at the power tool, the first tool sensor (61) being configured to communicate with the first set of wearable sensors (16) to determine motion tracking information (Examiner notes the terminology of motion tracking to includes movement of the sensors with variable distances (See Figure 15 noting possible distance differences, and movement of a user’s hand, head, leg or arm, to reposition would change the distance, thus reading upon “motion tracking”);
a second tool sensor (64) disposed at the power tool, the second tool sensor (64) being configured to communicate with the second set of wearable sensors (16) to determine distance information (Paragraphs 0099-00101); and
a controller (47) configured to determine, based on the motion tracking information and the distance information, whether to initiate a protective action with respect to the power tool (Paragraphs 0098-0101 and Figures 22-23);
wherein the motion tracking information provides high precision tracking of motion via directly inferred linear acceleration and angular velocity data in three dimensions at the operator prior to processing by the controller (Paragraph 0088 and 0100-0101; Examiner notes the data points are measured via the sensors, at the operator if worn, prior to the sensors signaling and sending information to be processed by a controller element).
Regarding claim 2, Wittke teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw (Figure 22) or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain , and wherein the protective action comprises activating a chain brake of the chainsaw when one of the first set of wearable sensors (16) or the second set of wearable sensors (16) is within a threshold distance of a respective one of the first tool sensor or the second tool sensor, or when velocity of the power tool relative to the operator's (9) body is above a threshold velocity, or when acceleration of the power tool relative to the operator's body is above a threshold acceleration (Figure 22 and (Paragraphs 0089-0092).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0064532) in view of Howland (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0273374)
Regarding claim 3, Wittke teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain (Figure 23) but does not provide wherein the protective action comprises providing an audible or visual warning to the operator when one of the first set of wearable sensors or the second set of wearable sensors is within a threshold distance of a respective one of the first tool sensor or the second tool sensor.
Howland teaches it is known in the art of wearable safety warning systems to incorporate an audible, visual, tactile and or interruption of power to a working tool as a protective response (Abstract, Figure 1 and Paragraphs 0010-0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Wittke to incorporate the teachings of Howland to provide various protective action notifications to a user regarding warnings. In doing so, it allows for a variety of protective responses to be utilized to notify the user of a potentially harmful situation, thereby providing a safer working environment.
Thus, the modified device of Wittke teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw ( or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain (Figure 23) wherein the protective action comprises providing an audible or visual warning to the operator when one of the first set of wearable sensors or the second set of wearable sensors is within a threshold distance of a respective one of the first tool sensor or the second tool sensor (Wittke Paragraphs 0089-0092 and Howland Paragraph 0013).
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0064532) in view of Krapf (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0180740)
Regarding claim 12, Wittke teaches system for protecting an operator (9),(Figure 23, the system comprising;
a power tool configured to be held by the operator, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw (Figure 23) or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain (Figure 23);
a plurality of inertial measurement unit (IMU)-based sensors (16) configured to be worn by the operator (9)(Figures 17 and 23, Paragraph 0089-0092);
a tool position sensor (61, 64) disposed at the power tool (Figure 23); and
a plurality of distance sensors (16) also worn by the operator (Figure 23; Examiner notes the top sets of receivers to be the IMU sensors and the bottom set of receivers to be the distance sensors);
a reader (17) disposed at the power tool (Figure 23; Paragraph 0088);
a controller (47) configured to determine, based on measurements between the IMU- based sensors (16) and the tool position sensor (64), whether to initiate a protective action with respect to the power tool, wherein the INU-based sensors and the tool position sensor are periodically calibrated based on predefined poses of the operator and corresponding positions of the power tool (Paragraphs0091-0094, 0099 and 0100);
wherein the controller is configured to obtain distance information from the plurality of distance sensors and the reader, and to obtain motion tracking information from the IMU-based sensors and the tool position sensor, wherein the motion tracking information provides high precision tracking of motion via directly inferred linear acceleration and angular velocity data in three dimensions, and wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the distance information over the motion tracking information within a predefined distance, and prioritize the motion tracking information over the distance information outside the predefined distance (Paragraph 0088-0090, 0098 and 0100-0101; Examiner notes the distance and motion data to be prioritized depending upon the safety situation that is observered while tracking distance and motion information (Paragraphs 0018—20, 0036-0039, 0098-0101).
Wittke does not specifically provide wherein the IMU-based sensors and the tool position sensors are periodically calibrated based on predefined poses of the operator and corresponding positions of the power tool.
Krapf teaches it is known in the art of safety systems for handheld tools to incorporate a tool (10) with a safety device (26,32,34,42) and calibration unit (44,30) to determine a variety of work environment variables, such as an operator’s hand near the tool (Figures 3-5 and Paragraphs 0006, 0027-0029, 0031-0032, 0035-0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Wittke to incorporate the teachings of Krapf to provide the controller with a safety and calibration unit. In doing so, it allows for variable calibration of the tool and sensors to update data from factory calibration or previous use of the system (Paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Wittke teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the controller (34) stores baseline data corresponding to known distances from each of the IMU-based sensors (16) to the tool position sensor (64) in each of the predefined poses , wherein the controller is configured to perform a comparison of the baseline data to current data gathered in the predefined poses, and wherein the controller is configured to reset errors associated with the INIU-based sensors based on the comparison (Wittke Figures 22-24 and Paragraphs, 0088 00100-101; Krapf Paragraphs 0035-0040).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Wittke teaches the system of claim 13, further comprising a plurality of distance sensors (16) also worn by the operator, and a reader (17) disposed at the power tool (Wittke Paragraph 0088 and 100-101).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Wittke teaches the system of claim 14, wherein the controller (47) is configured to obtain distance information from the plurality of distance sensors and the reader, and to obtain motion tracking information from the IMU-based sensors and the tool position sensor , and wherein the controller is configured to prioritize the distance information over the motion tracking information within a predefined distance, and prioritize the motion tracking information over the distance information outside the predefined distance (Wittke Paragraph 0088, ,0093, 0098-101).
Regarding claim 16, the modified device of Wittke teaches the system of claim 12, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain, wherein the protective action comprises activating a chain brake (6) of the chainsaw when one of the first set of wearable sensors or the second set of wearable sensors is within a threshold distance of a respective one of the first tool sensor of the second tool sensor (Paragraph 0091-0093 and 100) and/or wherein the protective action comprises providing an audible or visual warning to the operator (110) when one of the first set of wearable sensors (120) or the second set of wearable sensors (130) is within the threshold distance of a respective one of the first tool sensor (122) of the second tool sensor (132), or when velocity of the power tool relative to the operator's (110) body is above a threshold velocity, or when acceleration of the power tool relative to the operator's (110) body is above a threshold acceleration.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittke (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0064532) in view of Barr (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/011316) in view of Chawla (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0146934).
Regarding claim 17, Wittke teaches a system for protecting an operator (9) (Figure 23) the system comprising;
a power tool, wherein the power tool is a chainsaw or other power equipment such as power cutters with blade or chain (Figure 23).
a plurality of distance sensors (16) configured to be worn by the operator (9);
a reader disposed (17) at and powered by the power tool; and a controller (47) configured to determine, based on distances between each of the distance sensors (16) and the reader (17), whether to initiate a protective action with respect to the power tool, wherein the controller is configured to perform an adaptive power control cycle to determine the distances between each of the distance sensors and the reader (Paragraph 0091 and 0098 and 100);
Wittke does not provide wherein the adaptive power control cycle comprises varying transmission signal power of the reader to determine an average power at which the distance sensor is no longer detected by the reader disposed at the power tool to determine an operation range between the operator and the power tool; or wherein the controller is configured to determine the distances based on a comparison of the average power with previous power mapping information stored at the controller.
Barr teaches it is known in the art of handheld power tools to incorporate one or more sensors in or on the power tool that have the ability to control the strength of the signal to determine distance from the sensor (Paragraph 0049-0058).
Chawla teaches it is known in the art of sensors to incorporate one or more sensors that measure variable signal power to estimate distance and the controller is configured to determine the distances based on a comparison (operational range) of the average power with previous power mapping information stored at the controller (Paragraph 0016-0018, 0089-0094, 104,113; See Figure 2 noting different sensors with the distribution of different power to distance combinations. Examiner notes Paragraph 0088-0089 provide the structural components of the controller and the storage mediums while further paragraphs note the capability to measure power levels at varied distances and power levels that is most optimal to the user. Such varied distances and measurements are treated as an “operation range”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Wittke to incorporate the teachings of Barr and Chawla to provide the sensors with the ability to control signal/power strength to estimate a distance. In doing so, it allows for a more accurate signal locating of an object a distance from the sensors.
Thus, Wittke in view of Barr and Chawla provides wherein the adaptive power control cycle comprises varying transmission signal power of the reader to determine an average power at which the distance sensor is no longer detected by the reader disposed at the power tool to determine an operation range between the operator and the power tool (Wittke Paragraph 0091 and 0098 and 100; Barr Paragraphs 0049-0058 and Chawla Paragraph 0104; Examiner notes that as the sensors of WIttke are connected to the controller, the ability of the sensors of Barr and Chawla to use variable sensor signal power and strength may be sent to the controller to control such variables acquired by said sensors);
the controller is configured to determine the distances based on a comparison of the average power with previous power mapping information stored at the controller (Chawla Paragraphs 089-0094, 103-104).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Page 2) with respect to the prior art of Wittke and the ability to determine motion tracking information via directly inferred linear acceleration and angular velocity data in three dimensions is noted, but not persuasive. Examiner notes prior art of Wittke teaches monitoring three-dimensional positioning of the working tool in relation to the operator specifically noting angular speed and acceleration and Paragraphs 0089 and 0091 provide monitoring in real time and CPU processing the necessary data in “real time”. The prior art does not appear to state the changes are indirectly inferred not in real time.
Applicant’s further arguments provided on page 10 noting that the data provided by Wittke introduces delay and lacks precision is noted but not persuasive. As currently claimed, the device of Wittke calculates all of the required data points within a time frame. Examiner notes any time component during use could be considered “in real time” as there is no discernible time range applied. As such, the prior art reads upon the current claim limitations.
-Applicant’s arguments concerning the language of claim 12 is noted but not persuasive (Page 11). Examiner notes there are a plurality of different sets of two sensors (16) capable of being worn by the user (Ex. Two shoulder, two hand, to leg, two feet) and multiple tool sensors (61 accelerometers, 64 proximity sensors) that work in combination with transmitters 17 to relay information that read upon the current claim limitations. Paragraph 0098 specifically notes that while distance may be prioritized in some instances, there are a plurality of safety checks monitored with the data provided by the sensors and relays to independently and interdependently relay appropriate proximity checks (See Paragraph 0090 noting unsafe angular movements (motion tracking) and Paragraphs 0091 and 0100 noting distance. Examiner notes paragraph 0100 specifically provides “the three dimensional (3D) position of the chainsaw in relation to its user and if it exceeds the threshold--in other words comes too close to the user the safety measures are engaged” Thus, the prior art appears to provide that the motion tracking of the saw is prioritized within predetermined boundaries to automatically engage safety features to avoid potential safety issues, as the prior art also notes (Paragraph 0008) the safety events occur within less than one second.
-In response to applicant's arguments of claim 17 (Page 12) and the prior art of Chawla, Examiner notes that the prior art of Wittke provides specific structural components of a reader powered by the power tool. The prior art of Chawla specifically provides the system in use with a power tool, with elements such as a processors/controller, and storage devices to cooperate with one or more data sets and instructions (Paragraphs 0089-0090). Paragraphs 0103-104 provide specific details on how measurements may be performed at varying and different power levels and distances to optimally locate moving and stationary objects within a 3D environment (Abstract). Thus, Chawla in combination with the remaining prior art of Wittke and Barr provide for the specifics of the current claim, including localized information then being stored within the controller to determine an operation range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 01/09/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724