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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered, claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-19 are pending and claims 1, 2, and 16 are currently amended.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites, “wherein the first rotational speed is set to 0.” The rotational speed cannot be both larger than 0 as set forth in claim 1 and also set to 0.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 12,202,062) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka.
In regards to claim 1 and 16, Koegel discloses a table tool (table saw; 100), comprising: a table (104) with a work plane (top of the table surface) on which a workpiece is placed; a saw blade (108), extending through a blade slot (109) in the table, acting on the workpiece;
a motor (M) for driving the saw blade (108) to rotate; a controller (115) for controlling the motor (M); a first switch for a user to select a working mode from at least two working modes of the table tool, wherein the at least two working modes comprises a first working mode and a second working mode for cutting the workpiece; and wherein when the table tool is in the first working mode of the at least two working modes, the table tool is in an intelligent mode, the motor drives the saw blade to rotate to cut the workpiece, and the controller is configured to adjust a rotational speed of the motor to be a first rotational speed larger than zero based on an unloading signal of the workpiece (at position C identified below), the first rotational speed being a maintained, stable operational speed,
(The motor control parameters may include: a) regulating and/or correcting the speed of the cut shortly before approaching the material as well as during the cut; b) once the teeth are engaged into the workpiece increasing the speed to a predetermined value until the cutting operation is almost complete; c) once the workpiece has moved to a predetermined position relative to the sensor detection area (i.e., when the cut is nearly complete) gradually reducing the motor speed to the end of the cut; and d) once the workpiece has moved entirely out of the sensor area, meaning that the cut is complete (i.e., when the material sensor signal 121 is a null value), de-energizing the motor. Col. 4, lines 47-57 ).
and wherein when the table tool is in the second working mode of the at least two working modes, the table tool is in a normal mode, the motor drives the saw blade to rotate to cut the workpiece, the controller is configured to not adjust the rotational speed of the motor to be the first rotational speed based on the unloading signal but to shut down the motor in response to an operation of the first switch or a shutoff switch.
Koegel discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose the highlighted claims concerning a second working mode. Attention is further directed to the Slamka table saw. Slamka is concerned with control systems for table saws with active injury mitigation systems such as systems that detect contact or proximity between a user and the saw blade and stop the blade from rotating and/or retract the blade beneath the table (see paragraphs [0040-0041]). Slamka acknowledges that there are several operations in which the user may wish to disable or the mitigation systems. A bypass switch 334 is incorporated which allows the user to operate the saw without the use of the mitigation systems being employed (see paragraphs [0083-0087]. As Koegel’s first working intelligent mode that controls the operational speed of the motor is also an active risk mitigation system, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have also incorporated a bypass switch as taught by Slamka such that the user had the option to either utilize the mitigation system of Koegel or instead be operated without the mitigation system. In that regard, the motor would be maintained at a constant speed until the power was removed manually by the operator instead of relying on an automatic control system to adjust the motor speed or remove power based upon sensed conditions.
Thus, the modified device of Koegel discloses a first switch (bypass switch 334 Slamka) for a user to select a working mode from at least two working modes of the table tool, wherein the at least two working modes comprises a first working mode (as taught y Koegel) and a second working mode (without the sensing system) for cutting the workpiece;
a second working mode (with the bypass switch engaged as demonstrated by Slamka) and wherein when the table tool is in the second working mode of the at least two working modes, the table tool is in a normal mode, the motor drives the saw blade to rotate to cut the workpiece, the controller is configured to not adjust the rotational speed of the motor to be the first rotational speed based on the unloading signal but to shut down the motor in response to an operation of the first switch or a shutoff switch (332 Slamka) (e.g. by the user pressing start/stop switch 332 or main power switch 330; fig. 6 Slamka).
In regards to claim 2, the modified device of Koegel further comprising a third switch (330 Slamka) operable by the user, wherein the third switch comprises an activation switch for the user to operate (see Slamka Fig. 6).
In regards to claim 3, the modified device of Koegel discloses a third switch (330 Slamka) operable by the user, wherein when the table tool is in the first working mode or the second working mode, the controller is configured to, when the third switch is in an on state, output a control signal (330 Slamka is the main power switch) to a driver circuit to drive the motor to rotate.
In regards to claim 4, the modified device of Koegel wherein when the table tool is in the second working mode (not-smart mode), the controller is configured to, when the third switch (330 Slamka) is in an off state, control the motor to stop.
In regards to claim 8, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein the unloading signal is related to a working parameter of the motor (reducing motor speed).
(once the workpiece has moved to a predetermined position relative to the sensor detection area (i.e., when the cut is nearly complete) gradually reducing the motor speed to the end of the cut… The position of the workpiece W may be verified by proximity sensors (not shown), and/or the engagement of the workpiece by the cutting blade may be verified by sensors associated with the blade and/or motor.; col. 4, lines 51-62);
In regards to claim 9 and 18, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein the working parameter of the motor comprises a working current or the rotational speed of the motor (once the workpiece has moved to a predetermined position relative to the sensor detection area (i.e., when the cut is nearly complete) gradually reducing the motor speed to the end of the cut… The position of the workpiece W may be verified by proximity sensors (not shown), and/or the engagement of the workpiece by the cutting blade may be verified by sensors associated with the blade and/or motor.; col. 4, lines 51-62);
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein the controller controls the motor to stop when the first switch (bypass switch 334 Slamka) is in a gear of turning off the motor, and the first switch is configured to be operated by the user to switch the table tool in the first working mode or the second working mode.
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Koegle discloses wherein the controller does not perform corresponding processing on the unloading signal of the workpiece in the second working mode (not intelligent mode), and the first switch (bypass switch 334 Slamka) is configured to be operated by the user to switch the table tool in the first working mode or the second working mode.
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 12,202,062) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka
In regards to claim 6, the modified device of Koegel discloses a sensing device (120) used for sensing a state of the workpiece and outputting a first signal to the controller, wherein the unloading signal is related to the first signal, wherein the sensing device comprises at least a sensor (120) disposed on a front side of the saw blade (fig. 2), and a distance between the sensor and the saw blade is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20 mm. Koegel discloses the sensor 120 is in front of the blade, and not on the blade but does not state that the distance from the blade to the sensor is less than 20mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have positioned the sensor as needed relative to the blade, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In regards to claim 7, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive proximity switch, an inductive proximity switch, or a photoelectric switch. (“The material sensor may incorporate one or more of a variety of sensor technologies, as explained above. In the realm of optical sensors, the sensor may be an infrared sensor or a charge-coupled device (CCD) with a known sensing range. Sound-based sensors may include an ultrasonic range sensor or a Doppler effect sensor. Electrical or magnetic sensors can include capacitive (such as a wall stud sensor), capacitive displacement, Hall effect or eddy current sensors.” Col. 6, lines 9-17.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 12,202,062) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka and in further view of Gass et al. (U.S. Publicaiton 2015/0283630), herein referred to as Gass. In regards to claim 11, the modified device of Koegel discloses the claimed invention for a power supply device detachably mounted onto the table tool and used for supplying power to the table tool. Attention is further directed to the Gass table saw. Gass discloses that it is well known to use either an external power source or an internal power source such as a battery for powering the table saw or different portions of the table saw. As both internal and external sources are known for use with table saws, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated battery power on the Koegel table saw for powering the saw blade and/or the control system rather than an external power supply to allow the table saw to be utilized in a job site away from a power source as taught by Gass.
Claims 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 12,202,062) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka
In regards to claims 12-13, and 19, the modified device of Koegel discloses the wherein the controller is configured to adjust the rotational speed of the motor to be a first rotational speed but does not disclose that it is after a preset time of acquiring the unloading signal of the workpiece. Rather, Koegel discloses that the position of the workpiece can be verified by proximity sensors and/or the engagement of the workpiece of the blade may be verified by sensors associated with the blade and motor (see col. 6, lines 57-61). As the speed of the motor is controlled based upon the sensors verifying the location of the workpiece, it would have been obvious to have programmed the controlled to adjust the speed of the motor once the predetermined condition was verified. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have set the time to 400-600ms or as needed from when the signal is sent to when the motor is powered down as dependent on the location of the sensor and speed of movement of the saw blade such that the workpiece as able to pass through the entire blade before the blade lost power.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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 at 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724