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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/09/2026 in which claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-16, 18-19 are pending, claim 1, 6, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are currently amended.
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, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 9,873,158) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publicaiton 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka and in further view of Laghate et al. (U.S. Patent 10,144,148), herein referred to as Laghate.
In regards to claim 1 and 16, Koegel discloses a table tool, comprising: a table (e.g. 11) with a work plane (work surface 104) on which a workpiece is placed; a saw blade (cutting blade 108), extending through a blade slot (saw blade opening 106) in the table, acting on the workpiece; a motor (118) for driving the saw blade to rotate; a controller (116) for controlling the motor;
a sensing device comprising a sensor (e.g. one of proximity sensors 112, 114, laser sensor 110; or material sensor 705) coupled to the controller (116) for sensing a state of the workpiece and outputting a signal to the controller corresponding to the state of the workpiece (e.g. the presence or absence of the workpiece; see col. 20, lines 48-68 and col. 21, lines 1-3):
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 comprise 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 (e.g. the work / motor output sensing mode), the motor (118) drives the saw blade to rotate to cut the workpiece, and the controller (116) is configured to determine that the table tool enters an unloading stage when both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(1) the signal outputted by the sensing device (e.g. current sensor) indicates that the workpiece is not detected; and
(“Thus, the controller will only rely upon the signal from sensor 714 to activate the automatic shut-off feature” col. 21, lines 1-3” )
(2) the controller acquires a working current (e.g. current sensor; col. 19, lines 7-15) and the rotational speed of the motor in real time,
and a difference between the working current and a load-free current is less than or equal to a second current threshold
(“In one aspect, the controller 116 may be configured to operate as a go/no-go gage, meaning that while the motor operating condition is at a predetermined level electrical power is supplied to the motor, but once the operating condition falls below that predetermined level electrical power to the motor is terminated” col. 19, lines 23-44)
and a difference between the rotational speed and a load-free rotational speed is less than or equal to 2000 rpm;
and in response to the controller determining that the table tool enters the unloading stage, adjust the rotational speed of the motor to be a first rotational speed of zero, (“electrical power to the motor is terminated”; col. 19, lines 23-44)
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 (118) drives the saw blade to rotate to cut the workpiece, the controller (116) is configured to not adjust the rotational speed of the motor to be the first rotational speed based on satisfaction of both the unloading signal conditions but to shut down the motor in response to an operation of the first switch or a shutoff switch.
Koegel only discloses the table saw works in an intelligent mode and does not set forth that the table saw can be switched into a normal 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 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 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 by Koegel) and 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).
The modified device of Koegel still does not disclose that in the intelligent mode that all three conditions relating to the workpiece detection, working current and rotational speed need to be met in order to shut down the motor, thereby adjusting the motor rotational speed to zero. Koegel sets forth that “another motor operating condition may include the motor voltage, which may change between load and no-load operation. A physical differentiation condition may be the mechanical and audio vibration of the drive assembly or motor that can differ between no-load and cutting operation of the tool” col. 19, lines 1-6. Thus, Koegel discloses that motor current, motor voltage, or motor vibration can be utilized to assess whether the workpiece is still being cut, but Koegel does not state one of those motor conditions is the rotational speed of the motor. Thereby Koegel does not positively disclose that the controller acquires a working rotational speed of the motor in real time and that when a difference between the rotational speed and the load free rotational speed is than or equal to 2000 rpm.
Laghate discloses a kickback detection process in a table saw in order to enable the saw to deactivate the motor. Laghate discloses that in some embodiments, a current sensor 416 detects a level of current from a power supply that drives the motor. Laghate sets forth that “During the process 100, the saw 400 continues to rotate the blade 404 during operation as long as either or both of the identified difference between the estimated rotational speed and measured rotational speed of the blade 404 and estimated torque force remain below predetermined thresholds (block 120). However, if the controller 428 identifies that both the difference between the estimated rotational speed and measured rotational speed of the blade 404 exceeds a first threshold and the estimated torque force on the drive shaft of the motor 408 exceeds a second threshold (block 120), then the controller 428 identifies that the saw 400 is experiencing kickback… The controller 428 also deactivates the motor 408” col. 4, lines 30-41 and 60-61).
Laghate therefore teaches monitoring rotational speed of the motor/blade and comparing the measured rotational speed to a stored or estimated rotational speed to determine an operating condition of the saw and initiate motor shutdown. While Laghte determines kickback by comparing rotational sped to a threshold indicative of a dangerous operating condition, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the same comparison technique could likewise be employed in Koegel to determine a different operating condition, namely completion of cutting. Once rotational speed was monitored and compared to a reference value to determine an operating condition of the saw, selection of an appropriate threshold for initiating the desired control action would have constituted routine optimization of a known results effective variable to obtain the desired balance between detection sensitivity and false detections.
Koegel teaches determining completion of a cutting operation by detecting the absence of the workpiece with multiple sensors and by monitoring motor current to determine whether the cutting operation is in progress or has been completed. Laghate teaches that rotational speed is likewise a known motor operating parameter that may be monitored in real time and compared to a refence rotational speed to determine a motor operating condition of the saw. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the rotational speed monitoring techniques of Laghate into the control system of Koegel so that the controller utilizes workpiece detection together with monitored operating conditions, including motor speed and rotational speed, to determine that the cutting operation has been completed. Utilizing multiple known operating parameters to corroborate completion of the cutting operation would have predicably increased the robustness and reliability of the automatic shutdown decision while reducing the likelihood of premature or erroneous motor shutoff.
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 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 adjust the rotational speed of the motor based on satisfying the two unloading conditions, 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.
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein as part of the two unloading conditions the controller acquies a working parameter of the motor and the working parameter of the motor comprises the working current and the rotational speed of the motor (as modified by Laghate).
Claim 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Patent 9,873,158) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publicaiton 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka and in further view of Laghate et al. (U.S. Patent 10,144,148), herein referred to as Laghate.
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 9,873,158) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publicaiton 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka and in further view of Laghate et al. (U.S. Patent 10,144,148), herein referred to as Laghate 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 9,873,158) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publicaiton 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka and in further view of Laghate et al. (U.S. Patent 10,144,148), herein referred to as Laghate. 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, 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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights