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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 20-24, 29 and 31-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 3, 2025.
Specification
The amendment filed February 19, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: Claim 1 recites, “wherein the bridge circuit includes a reference branch free of a direct connection to ground [line 8], which is configured to generate a reference branch signal at a reference branch voltage, a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch, a detection branch free of a direct connection to ground” (line 12).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.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.
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”) 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. • In claim 1, lines 21-22, “a mechanical reaction mechanism configured to insulate the individual from the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal.” This limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “mechanism” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “insulate the individual from the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a mechanical reaction” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). • In claim 1, lines 10-11, the recitation of “a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch” invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “driver” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a reference branch” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). In claim 1, lines 14-15, “a second circuit driver configured to provide a detection branch excitation voltage to the detection branch” invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “driver” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “provide a detection branch excitation voltage to the detection branch”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a detection branch” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). • In claim 6, “the reference branch includes a tuning structure configured to be utilized to tune the reference branch such that at least one of:(i) a magnitude of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold voltage difference of a magnitude of the detection branch voltage; and (ii) a phase of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold phase difference of a phase of the detection branch voltage” [emphasis added]. This limitation invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “structure” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “be utilized to tune the reference branch such that at least one of:(i) a magnitude of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold voltage difference of a magnitude of the detection branch voltage; and (ii) a phase of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold phase difference of a phase of the detection branch voltage”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a tuning” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). • In claim 8, “the sensor assembly further includes a reference branch buffer configured to buffer the reference branch signal to produce a buffered reference branch signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered reference branch signal.” This limitation invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “buffer” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “buffer the reference branch signal to produce a buffered reference branch signal”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a reference branch” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). • In claim 9, “… a detection branch buffer configured to buffer the detection branch signal to produce a buffered detection branch signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered detection branch signal.” This limitation invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “buffer” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “buffer the detection branch signal to produce a buffered detection branch signal”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a detection branch” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function). • In claim 11, “wherein the sensor assembly includes a converter configured to receive the amplifier output current and to generate a converter output voltage, wherein the converter output voltage is based, at least in part, on the amplifier output current, and further wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the converter output voltage.” This limitation invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “converter” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “receive the amplifier output current and to generate a converter output voltage”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. • In claim 13, the recitation of “a cutting tool isolation structure configured to electrically isolate the cutting tool from at least one other component of the power tool” invokes 112(f) because (A) the claim limitation uses the term “structure” as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “electrically isolate the cutting tool from at least one other component of the power tool”) linked by the transition phrase, “configured to”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., the words “a cutting tool isolation” do not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function).
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.
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 1 and 5-14 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. Claim 1, lines 7-15 recite, “wherein the bridge circuit includes a reference branch free of a direct connection to ground, which is configured to generate a reference branch signal at a reference branch voltage, a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch, a detection branch free of a direct connection to ground, which is configured to generate a detection branch signal at a detection branch voltage, and a second circuit driver configured to provide a detection branch excitation voltage to the detection branch” [emphasis added]. There is no support in Applicant’s disclosure for the reference and detection branches of the bridge circuit being free of a direct connection to ground. According to page 9, lines 32-36 of Applicant’s disclosure, “power tools 10, according to the present disclosure, may not include, or may not be in direct electrical communication with, an earth ground. With this in mind, signal ground 106 may not be, or may not be equivalent to, the earth ground, may be a floating ground, and/or may be a negative terminal of bridge circuit drivers l12, of a power supply structure for the power tool, and/or of a battery of the power tool, such as battery 54 of Fig. 1”[emphasis added]. Moreover, every circuit depicted in Applicant’s drawings appear to be grounded (as indicated by reference character “106” or “GND”). While Applicant’s disclosure states power tools may not be in direct electrical communication with an earth ground, there is no support for the reference branch being free of a direct connection to ground altogether and the detection branch being free of a direct connection to ground altogether.
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 and 5-14 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 recites, “wherein the bridge circuit includes a reference branch free of a direct connection to ground [line 8], which is configured to generate a reference branch signal at a reference branch voltage, a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch, a detection branch free of a direct connection to ground” (line 12). It is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “free of a direct connection to ground.”
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, 5-14 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US Patent 9,724,840) in view of Basir et al (US Publication 2004/0119484), herein referred to as Basir, and further in view of Watson (US Publication 2008/0068008). Regarding claim 1, Gass discloses a power tool (e.g., table saw 1400) comprising: a motor (col. 99, lines 31-32; fig. 149) including a motor shaft (1407) configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis (col. 99, lines 50-52), wherein the motor is configured to actuate a cutting tool (1402) to cut a workpiece (col. 99, lines 43-44); a sensor assembly (22) configured to generate a differential voltage signal (* col. 13, line 64 – col. 14, line 5) that is indicative of a distance between an individual and the cutting tool (1402) being less than a threshold distance and to produce a sensor assembly output (“contact detection signal”) that is based upon the differential voltage signal; an analysis circuit (50) configured to receive the sensor assembly output (col. 25, lines 31-61) and to generate a trigger signal responsive to the sensor assembly output being outside a nominal sensor assembly output range (e.g., col. 9, lines 64-67; col. 25, lines 21-30); and a mechanical reaction mechanism (24) configured to insulate the individual from the cutting tool (1402) responsive to receipt of the trigger signal (col. 10, lines 11-24; col. 100, lines 40-48). * Gass discloses the sensor assembly generates a differential voltage signal (col. 13, line 56 – col. 14, line 26), i.e., Gass states, “the input signal [from oscillator circuit of excitation system 101] is coupled from charge plate 44 to charge plate 46 via blade 40… the signal received on charge plate 46 is then fed via a shielded cable 112 to monitoring system 102. The monitoring system is configured to detect a change in the signal due to contact between the user’s body and the blade… In the exemplary embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, monitoring system 102 compares the amplitude of the input signal received at charge plate 46 to a determined reference voltage. In the event that the input signal received at charge plate 46 falls below the reference voltage for a determined time, the monitoring system produces an output signal to reaction subsystem 24. The reaction subsystem is configured to receive the output signal and immediately act to stop the blade.” • Gass fails to specifically disclose the sensor assembly includes a bridge circuit configured to generate the differential voltage. However, Basir teaches it is known in the art of capacitance based human touch activation for electrical systems to include a bridge circuit (48) in a detection circuit (27), wherein detection and reference inputs of capacitance sensing unit (fig. 2) are connected to respective arms on bridge circuit (48). The bridge circuit (48) allows the electrical system to compare the detection voltage to the reference voltage. Basir states in para. 0021, lines 5-11, “[e]ach arm of the bridge circuit 48 is essentially a low pass filter. The product RC determines the characteristic of each low pass filter. When RC changes, the phase and the amplitude of the output of the filter changes. The RC value for the reference low pass filter is chosen so the bridge circuit is balanced when no hand is present near the electrode 34. When there is a hand present near the electrode 34, Cv increases and the RC value changes in only one arm of the bridge circuit 48. The outputs of the two low pass filters are no longer the same. The unbalance of the bridge circuit 48 is detected by amplifying the differences between the two signals. The amplified signal is an AC signal representing the voltage differences between the two signals… The AC signal is then passed through the AC-DC conversion circuit 42 to produce a DC signal that is then compared to a predetermined threshold in threshold detection circuit 46 to determine the presence or absence of a user hand” [emphasis added]. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the power tool of Gass with the teaching of Basir such that the sensor assembly includes a bridge circuit configured to generate the differential voltage because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results, i.e., Basir specifically teaches bridge circuits are known in the art of detecting the presence of a user by facilitating the comparison of voltage differentials. The modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes the bridge circuit includes a reference branch (e.g., Basir 52), which is configured to generate a reference branch signal at a reference branch voltage (Basir, para. 0021), and a detection branch (e.g., Basir 54), which is configured to generate a detection branch signal at a detection branch voltage (Basir, para. 0021), and further wherein the differential voltage signal includes a difference between the reference branch voltage and the detection branch voltage (Basir, para. 0021, lines 9-16). Here, Basir teaches the bridge circuit (Basir 38) includes a bridge circuit oscillator (Basir 50) configured to provide a bridge circuit excitation voltage to the reference branch and also to the detection branch (Basir, para. 0019, lines 12-21). Thus, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch and a second circuit driver configured to provide a detection branch voltage excitation voltage to the detection branch. However, Watson et al (US Publication 2008/0068008) teaches it is known in the art of sensing systems in user protection actuation systems to provide a first circuit driver (28) configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch and the detection branch includes a second circuit oscillator (56) configured to provide a detection branch excitation voltage to the detection branch (see para. 0115 and 0121). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Watson so as to include a first circuit driver configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch and a second circuit driver configured to provide a detection branch voltage excitation voltage to the detection branch in order to facilitate the use of different frequency signals and waveforms (Waston, para. 0121, lines 17-21) and to allow for greater adjustability in the bridge circuit to account for varying conditions and operating parameters.
Regarding claim 5, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the first circuit driver is a reference branch oscillator (Watson 28) and the second circuit driver is a detection branch oscillator (Watson 56).
Regarding claim 6, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the reference branch includes a tuning structure (i.e., for adjusting detection subsystem 22) configured to be utilized to tune the reference branch such that at least one of: (i) a magnitude of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold voltage difference of a magnitude of the detection branch voltage; and (ii) a phase of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold phase difference of a phase of the detection branch voltage (Gass col. 26, lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 7, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the detection branch includes a capacitive coupling structure (col. 25, lines 31-38) configured to capacitively couple to the individual such that the detection branch voltage is based, at least in part, on the distance between the individual and the cutting tool (i.e., upon contact therewith).
Regarding claim 8, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes the sensor assembly further includes a reference branch buffer (Gass, col. 17, lines 20-41) configured to buffer the reference branch signal to produce a buffered reference branch signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered reference branch signal (col. 22, line 63- col. 23, line 8).
Regarding claim 9, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes the sensor assembly (Gass 22) 9further includes a detection branch buffer (Gass, col. 19, lines 11-34) configured to buffer the detection branch signal to produce a buffered detection branch signal (Gass, col. 20, lines 13-15), wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered detection branch signal (Gass, col. 20, lines 18-19).
Regarding claim 10, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes an amplifier circuit (e.g., Gass, col. 22, lines 27-38) configured to amplify the differential voltage signal to produce an amplified differential voltage signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the amplified differential voltage signal (Gass, col. 22, lines 49-62).
Regarding claim 11, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes wherein the amplifier circuit is configured to generate an amplifier output current (Gass, col. 22, lines 63-64), and further wherein the sensor assembly includes a converter configured to receive the amplifier output current and to generate a converter output voltage, wherein the converter output voltage is based, at least in part, on the amplifier output current, and further wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the converter output voltage (Gass, col. 23, lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 12, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes wherein the amplifier circuit further includes a filter (Gass, col. 22, lines 54-58) configured to receive the converter output voltage and to generate a filtered converter output voltage (Gass, col. 22, lines 58-60), wherein the filtered converter output voltage is based, at least in part, on the converter output voltage, and further wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the filtered converter output voltage (Gass, col. 22, lines 33-38).
Regarding claim 13, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes wherein the power tool further includes a cutting tool isolation structure configured to electrically isolate the cutting tool from at least one other component of the power tool (Gass, col. 27, lines 44-67).
Regarding 14, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes. the mechanical reaction mechanism is configured to at least one of: (i) selectively cease actuation of the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal (Gass, col. 14, lines 3-5 and col. 109, lines 62-63); (ii) selectively cease actuation of the cutting tool by the motor responsive to receipt of the trigger signal; (iii) selectively retract the cutting tool into the power tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal (Gass, col. 11, lines 22-40); (iv) selectively sever the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal (Gass, col. 54, lines 39-42); and (v) selectively position a protective structure between the individual and the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal (Gass, col. 16, lines 10-12 and col. 109, lines 66-67). Regarding claim 35, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 5 includes a power tool comprising: a motor including a motor shaft configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis, wherein the motor is configured to actuate a cutting tool to cut a workpiece; a sensor assembly including a bridge circuit configured to generate a differential voltage signal that is indicative of a distance between an individual and the cutting tool being less than a threshold distance and to produce a sensor assembly output that is based upon the differential voltage signal, wherein the bridge circuit includes[:] a reference branch which is configured to generate a reference branch signal at a reference branch voltage, a reference branch oscillator configured to provide a reference branch excitation voltage to the reference branch, a detection branch which is configured to generate a detection branch signal at a detection branch voltage, and a detection branch oscillator configured to provide a detection branch excitation voltage to the detection branch[;] wherein the differential voltage signal includes a difference between the reference branch voltage and the detection branch voltage; an analysis circuit configured to receive the sensor assembly output and to generate a trigger signal responsive to the sensor assembly output being outside a nominal sensor assembly output range; and a mechanical reaction mechanism configured to insulate the individual from the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal. Regarding claim 36, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the reference branch includes a tuning structure (i.e., for adjusting detection subsystem 22) configured to be utilized to tune the reference branch such that at least one of: (i) a magnitude of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold voltage difference of a magnitude of the detection branch voltage; and (ii) a phase of the reference branch voltage is within a threshold phase difference of a phase of the detection branch voltage (Gass col. 26, lines 2-4). Regarding claim 37, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the detection branch includes a capacitive coupling structure (col. 25, lines 31-38) configured to capacitively couple to the individual such that the detection branch voltage is based, at least in part, on the distance between the individual and the cutting tool (i.e., upon contact therewith). Regarding claim 38, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes the sensor assembly further includes a reference branch buffer (Gass, col. 17, lines 20-41) configured to buffer the reference branch signal to produce a buffered reference branch signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered reference branch signal (col. 22, line 63- col. 23, line 8). Regarding claim 39, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes the sensor assembly (Gass 22) 9further includes a detection branch buffer (Gass, col. 19, lines 11-34) configured to buffer the detection branch signal to produce a buffered detection branch signal (Gass, col. 20, lines 13-15), wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered detection branch signal (Gass, col. 20, lines 18-19).
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (US Patent 9,724,840), Basir (US Publication 2004/0119484), Watson (US Publication 2008/0068008) and Bruce et al (US Publication 2005/0254552), herein referred to as Bruce.
Regarding claim 40, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above as set forth in the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 10 include a power tool comprising: a motor including a motor shaft configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis, wherein the motor is configured to actuate a cutting tool to cut a workpiece; a sensor assembly configured to generate a differential voltage signal that is indicative of a distance between an individual and the cutting tool being less than a threshold distance; the sensor assembly comprising an amplifier circuit (Gass, col. 22, lines 27-38) configured to amplify the differential voltage signal to produce an amplified differential voltage signal, and a capacitor configured to receive the amplified differential voltage signal on a first end thereof, wherein the sensor assembly output is connected to a second end of the capacitor and based, at least in part, on the amplified differential voltage signal; an analysis circuit configured to receive the sensor assembly output and to generate a trigger signal responsive to the sensor assembly output being outside a nominal sensor assembly output range; and a mechanical reaction mechanism configured to insulate the individual from the cutting tool responsive to receipt of the trigger signal. The modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the sensor assemblies is configured to produce an alternating current (AC) sensor assembly output that is based upon the differential voltage signal. However, Bruce (US Publication 2005/0254552) teaches it is known to utilize an AC generator (e.g., 560) in a detector array (1040), wherein if an AC generator inputs an alternating current signal into a sensor, the corresponding output will be an alternating current sensor assembly output. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Bruce such that the sensor assemblies is configured to produce an alternating current (AC) sensor assembly output that is based upon the differential voltage signal because utilizing alternating current detection methods helps to eliminate noise inherent in electronic devices (Bruce, para. 0091).
Regarding claim 41, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes wherein the amplifier circuit is configured to generate an amplifier output current (Gass, col. 22, lines 63-64), and further wherein the sensor assembly includes a converter configured to receive the amplifier output current and to generate a converter output voltage, wherein the converter output voltage is based, at least in part, on the amplifier output current, and further wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the converter output voltage (Gass, col. 23, lines 2-8).
Regarding claim 42, the modified power tool of Gass substantially disclosed above includes wherein the sensor assembly further includes wherein the amplifier circuit further includes a filter (Gass, col. 22, lines 54-58) configured to receive the converter output voltage and to generate a filtered converter output voltage (Gass, col. 22, lines 58-60), wherein the filtered converter output voltage is based, at least in part, on the converter output voltage, and further wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the filtered converter output voltage (Gass, col. 22, lines 33-38).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. On pages 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “that at least the terms ‘branch,’ ‘oscillator,’ ‘buffer,’ ‘circuit,’ ‘converter,’ ‘filter,’ and ‘structure’ do not appear to be formally recognized as a ‘generic’ or other ‘non-structural placeholder,’ nor is any citation provided in support of the same.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to A11 on page 21, lines 28-34 of Applicant’s disclosure, “[t]he power tool of any of paragraphs A3-A10, wherein the sensor assembly further includes a detection branch buffer configured to buffer the detection branch signal to produce a buffered detection branch signal, wherein the sensor assembly output is based, at least in part, on the buffered detection branch signal, optionally wherein the detection branch buffer includes at least one of a detection branch emitter-follower circuit, a detection branch high pass filter, a detection branch low pass filter, and the detection branch high pass filter in series with the detection branch low pass filter” [emphasis added]. Thus, for at least the claim limitations associated with the word “buffer,” 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.
On page 15, lines 18-20 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “the claim terms of the present Application are to be analyzed based on whether they convey to those of skill in the art a variety of structures for providing the recited functions, and not whether or not they specifically invoke a particular structure.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language at hand generally falls into the grammatical structure of invoking 112(f) and Applicant’s disclosure lists out a variety of examples of what types of structures correspond to the claim limitations listed above. As such, the examiner seeks to give the claim language their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of the claims 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Abert et al (US Publication 2010/0050787) discloses an anti-pinch sensor. Maharyta et al (US Patent 9,176,636) discloses a bridge circuit (300) with a sensor branch (310) and a reference branch (320).
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 SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 July 25, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights