DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 13 is currently cancelled and claims 20-22 are new. Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-22 are pending and are rejected.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/05/2025.
Claims 10-12 and 14-19 are amended. Accordingly, the amended claims are being fully considered by the examiner.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claims 12 and 15-18, all the claim objections to claims 12 and 14-18 as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn. In response to cancellation of claim 13, claim objections of claim 13 as set forth in the previous office action are moot.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claim 11, 16, and 19, all the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claims 11, 16, and 18-19 as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn. In response to cancellation of claim 13, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections of claim 13 as set forth in the previous office action are moot.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 20 and 22:
Claims are missing a comma “,” after “The method as recited in claim 10” and before the wherein clause.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10, 15-16, 18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker (US20210323189A1) [hereinafter Wiker], and further in view of Steurer et al. (US20140216773A1) [hereinafter Steurer].
Regarding claim 10 (amended):
Wiker discloses, A method for recognizing an operating mode of a machine tool, the method comprising: [¶5: “safeguard device is configured for detecting crashing of the portable circular saw into the workpiece, at least as arises in a sawing procedure, and upon detecting any crashing into the workpiece is configured for decelerating and/or switching off the drive unit.”];
detecting axial accelerations and angular accelerations of the machine tool using a sensor; and [¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100” “can be detected ”… ¶46: “at least one gyro sensor, or an electronic angular acceleration sensor, respectively,” “as a further sensor element so as to additionally detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100” (¶46)];
using the detected axial accelerations and angular accelerations as a basis for determining a deflection of the machine tool, [¶5: “detecting crashing of the portable circular saw into the workpiece, at least as arises in a sawing procedure, and upon detecting any crashing into the workpiece is configured for decelerating and/or switching off the drive unit.”… ¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100”… ¶46: “at least one gyro sensor, or an electronic angular acceleration sensor, respectively,” “as a further sensor element so as to additionally detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100”… ¶85: “In order for the detection of the crashing of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200 to be further optimized, the sensor elements of the various embodiments of the safeguard devices mentioned in the context of the preceding description, in particular the linear acceleration sensors, the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another in any number and/or in any arbitrary manner.”];
wherein the deflection determined is assigned to… either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode…of the machine tool. [Examiner notes that one of the optional features separated by “or” is given the patentable weight.
Wiker discloses, manual operation operating mode.
¶45: “the drive unit 120 of FIG. 1,” “can be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated when exceeding a predefined limit value for the acceleration gz, on account of which the operational safety for the user of the portable circular saw 100 in the event of crashing can be considerably increased.”… ¶52: “In order for the accident-prone kickback of the portable circular saw toward the user to be avoided in such a situation, the safeguard device can likewise initiate the immediate switching off and/or at least partial deceleration of the drive unit of the portable circular saw.”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode.
However, Steurer discloses, the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode. [¶27: “deflections of machine tool 100 in the hammer drill operating mode may be assessed with much greater tolerance. Thus, for example, the acceleration threshold value above which a deflection of machine tool 100 is assessed as a critical operating case may be set higher in the hammer drill mode than in the mere drill mode.”… ¶39: “FIG. 4 shows an example of two different operating cases which have different deflection angle threshold values φS1, φS2.” “In contrast, a higher deflection angle threshold value φS2 is associated with the second operating mode.”];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the technique of using manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode to initiate appropriate safety measures in order to reduce the risk to the user from deflection or kickback during operation taught by Steurer with the method taught by WIKER as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to initiate appropriate safety measures in order to reduce the risk to the user from deflection or kickback during operation [Steurer: ¶28: “deflection angle threshold value, above which a kickback event is assessed as a critical operating case and as the result of which appropriate safety measures are initiated, may be increased.”…¶37: “to reduce the risk to the user in the second operating mode”].
Regarding claim 15 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Wiker further disclose, the sensor is a gyro sensor [¶85: “the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another”].
Regarding claim 16 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Wiker further disclose, The machine tool comprising: the sensor for detecting the axial accelerations and the angular accelerations for carrying out the method as recited in claim 10. [¶85: “in particular the linear acceleration sensors, the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another in any number and/or in any arbitrary manner.”… ¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100” “can be detected ”… ¶46: “at least one gyro sensor, or an electronic angular acceleration sensor, respectively,” “as a further sensor element so as to additionally detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100”].
Regarding claim 18 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claims 10 and 16, and
Wiker further disclose, the sensor is a gyro sensor [¶85: “the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another”].
Regarding claim 22 (new):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10,
Steurer further disclose, wherein the machine tool has operating parameters for the manual operation operating mode and different operating parameters for the stand operation operating mode. [¶27: “deflections of machine tool 100 in the hammer drill operating mode may be assessed with much greater tolerance. Thus, for example, the acceleration threshold value above which a deflection of machine tool 100 is assessed as a critical operating case may be set higher in the hammer drill mode than in the mere drill mode.”… ¶39: “FIG. 4 shows an example of two different operating cases which have different deflection angle threshold values φS1, φS2.” “In contrast, a higher deflection angle threshold value φS2 is associated with the second operating mode.”];
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker and Steurer, and further in view of Sheynblat et al. (US20070214886A1) [hereinafter Sheynblat].
Regarding claim 11 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Wiker further disclose, wherein the machine tool has the sensor [¶5: “portable circular saw” “A safeguard device having at least one sensor element is provided, wherein the safeguard device is configured for detecting crashing of the portable circular saw into the workpiece”];
the axial accelerations include first, second and third axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis respectively of…coordinate system, [¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of a z-axis of a rectangular coordinate system 220, or in the direction of the floor 208, can be detected ”… ¶45: “detect the further linear acceleration components gxy of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of an x-axis and/or a y-axis of the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system 220, and by means of the safeguard device 170 enable an even more precise detection of a crashing procedure of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200.”];
the angular accelerations include first, second and third angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes respectively of the… coordinate system, and
determining a first angle of rotation, a second angle of rotation and a third angle of rotation about the first, second and third axes from the axial and angular accelerations, respectively; and [¶46: “detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100 about at least one of the three axes of the coordinate system 220 and thus tilting movements of the portable circular saw 100 and evaluate said angular accelerations by way of the safeguard device 170.”…
Examiner notes that Wiker teaches, angular accelerations are determined in x, y, and z axes such that the angle of rotation is determined in those 3 axes, for example, one of ordinary skilled in the art will understand that each angular acceleration must have corresponding angle of rotations determined that is used for calculation of the angular acceleration], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, imaginary coordinate system…where… first, second and third axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis respectively of an imaginary coordinate system, first, second and third angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes respectively of the imaginary coordinate system.
However, Sheynblat discloses, imaginary coordinate system…where… first, second and third axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis respectively of an imaginary coordinate system, [¶27: “Referring again to FIG. 5, the two 3D accelerometers or sensors 20, 20′, each has three axes of sensitivity (x,y,z).” “If there is a linear movement along the z-axis 40 only, then both sensors 20, 20′ report accelerations of 0 g, 0 g, and az+1 g, where az represents the acceleration due to the movement along the z-axis 40. Linear motion and accelerations relative to the other x- and y-axes are analyzed in the same conceptual framework.”… ¶24: “FIG. 5 suggests that two 3D accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense linear movement,” “the two accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense orientation (for example, respecting any given imaginary axis of rotation”… ¶25: “the three sensors 20, 20′ and 23′ are within the same imaginary plane,”];
first, second and third angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes respectively of the imaginary coordinate system. [¶28: “Angular movement is also detected and evaluated.” “Rotation about axis S-S will cause sensor number one 20 to experience and report accelerations, relative to the sensor's axes of sensitivity, of 0 g, 0 g, and az+1 g, respectively. Contrariwise, sensor number two 20′ experiences and reports accelerations, relative to that sensor's axes of sensitivity, of 0 g, 0 g, and -az+1 g, respectively, where the acceleration along the z-axis is subtracted from the gravitational acceleration.” “the device indicates a combination of rotation and linear motion. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art will immediately appreciate that the same concept applies to rotation about other orthogonal axes.”… ¶24: “FIG. 5 suggests that two 3D accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense linear movement,” “the two accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense orientation (for example, respecting any given imaginary axis of rotation”… ¶25: “the three sensors 20, 20′ and 23′ are within the same imaginary plane,”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the axial and angular/rotation accelerations in x, y, and z axes in an imaginary coordinate system to be able to monitor and process movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object taught by Sheynblat with the method taught by Wiker and Steurer as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to be able to monitor and process movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object [Sheynblat: ¶7: “process and apparatus for measuring movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object”].
Regarding claim 14 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Wiker further disclose, the first axis represents an x- axis of the…coordinate system, the second axis represents a y-axis, and the third axis represents a z-axis.; [¶44 “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of a z-axis of a rectangular coordinate system 220, or in the direction of the floor 208, can be detected ”… ¶45: “detect the further linear acceleration components gxy of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of an x-axis and/or a y-axis of the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system 220, and by means of the safeguard device 170 enable an even more precise detection of a crashing procedure of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200.”];
Sheynblat further discloses, imaginary coordinate system…the first axis represents an x- axis of the imaginary coordinate system, the second axis represents a y-axis, and the third axis represents a z-axis. [¶27: See imaginary coordinate system with x, y, and z axis (e.g.; any imaginary coordinate system): “Referring again to FIG. 5, the two 3D accelerometers or sensors 20, 20′, each has three axes of sensitivity (x,y,z).” “If there is a linear movement along the z-axis 40 only, then both sensors 20, 20′ report accelerations of 0 g, 0 g, and az+1 g, where az represents the acceleration due to the movement along the z-axis 40. Linear motion and accelerations relative to the other x- and y-axes are analyzed in the same conceptual framework.”… ¶24: “FIG. 5 suggests that two 3D accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense linear movement,” “the two accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense orientation (for example, respecting any given imaginary axis of rotation”… ¶25: “the three sensors 20, 20′ and 23′ are within the same imaginary plane,”].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker and further in view of Sheynblat.
Regarding claim 19 (amended):
Wiker discloses, A method for recognizing an operating mode of a machine tool, the method comprising: [¶5: “safeguard device is configured for detecting crashing of the portable circular saw into the workpiece, at least as arises in a sawing procedure, and upon detecting any crashing into the workpiece is configured for decelerating and/or switching off the drive unit.”];
a) providing a machine tool with a sensor for recording axial accelerations or angular accelerations, [¶85: “in particular the linear acceleration sensors, the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another in any number and/or in any arbitrary manner.”… ¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100” “can be detected ”… ¶46: “at least one gyro sensor, or an electronic angular acceleration sensor, respectively,” “as a further sensor element so as to additionally detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100”];
b) determining axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis of… coordinate system, [¶44: “With the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of a z-axis of a rectangular coordinate system 220, or in the direction of the floor 208, can be detected ”… ¶45: “detect the further linear acceleration components gxy of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of an x-axis and/or a y-axis of the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system 220, and by means of the safeguard device 170 enable an even more precise detection of a crashing procedure of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200.”];
c) determining angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes of …coordinate system, [¶46: “detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100 about at least one of the three axes of the coordinate system 220 and thus tilting movements of the portable circular saw 100 and evaluate said angular accelerations by way of the safeguard device 170.”];
d) determining a first angle of rotation, a second angle of rotation and a third angle of rotation about the first, second and third axes, respectively, from the axial and the angular accelerations [¶46: “detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100 about at least one of the three axes of the coordinate system 220 and thus tilting movements of the portable circular saw 100 and evaluate said angular accelerations by way of the safeguard device 170.”…
Examiner notes that Wiker teaches, angular accelerations are determined in x, y, and z axes such that the angle of rotation is determined in those 3 axes, for example, one of ordinary skilled in the art will understand that each angular acceleration must have corresponding angle of rotations determined that is used for calculation of the angular acceleration];
e) deriving either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool from the first, second and third angles of rotation. [Examiner notes that one of the optional features separated by “or” is given the patentable weight.
Wiker discloses, manual operation operating mode.
¶45: “the drive unit 120 of FIG. 1,” “can be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated when exceeding a predefined limit value for the acceleration gz, on account of which the operational safety for the user of the portable circular saw 100 in the event of crashing can be considerably increased.”… ¶52: “In order for the accident-prone kickback of the portable circular saw toward the user to be avoided in such a situation, the safeguard device can likewise initiate the immediate switching off and/or at least partial deceleration of the drive unit of the portable circular saw.”… ¶46: “detect potential angular accelerations of the portable circular saw 100 about at least one of the three axes of the coordinate system 220 and thus tilting movements of the portable circular saw 100 and evaluate said angular accelerations by way of the safeguard device 170.”… ¶85 “In order for the detection of the crashing of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200 to be further optimized, the sensor elements of the various embodiments of the safeguard devices mentioned in the context of the preceding description, in particular the linear acceleration sensors, the angular acceleration sensors (gyro sensors),” “can be combined with one another in any number and/or in any arbitrary manner.”
Examiner notes that, as described above, Wiker teaches, each angular accelerations may include corresponding angle of rotation, Wiker further teaches, angular accelerations in x, y, and z axes, where angular acceleration in each axis include corresponding angles of rotation; such that the deflection/kickback/crashing condition determined from rotational angles in x, y, z axis as described above], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, imaginary coordinate system…b) determining axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis of an imaginary coordinate system, c) determining angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes of the imaginary coordinate system,
However, Sheynblat discloses, imaginary coordinate system…where…b) determining axial accelerations along a first, second and third axis of an imaginary coordinate system, [¶27: “Referring again to FIG. 5, the two 3D accelerometers or sensors 20, 20′, each has three axes of sensitivity (x,y,z).” “If there is a linear movement along the z-axis 40 only, then both sensors 20, 20′ report accelerations of 0 g, 0 g, and az+1 g, where az represents the acceleration due to the movement along the z-axis 40. Linear motion and accelerations relative to the other x- and y-axes are analyzed in the same conceptual framework.”… ¶24: “FIG. 5 suggests that two 3D accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense linear movement,” “the two accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense orientation (for example, respecting any given imaginary axis of rotation”… ¶25: “the three sensors 20, 20′ and 23′ are within the same imaginary plane,”];
c) determining angular accelerations along the first, second and third axes of the imaginary coordinate system, [¶28: “Angular movement is also detected and evaluated.” “Rotation about axis S-S will cause sensor number one 20 to experience and report accelerations, relative to the sensor's axes of sensitivity, of 0 g, 0 g, and az+1 g, respectively. Contrariwise, sensor number two 20′ experiences and reports accelerations, relative to that sensor's axes of sensitivity, of 0 g, 0 g, and -az+1 g, respectively, where the acceleration along the z-axis is subtracted from the gravitational acceleration.” “the device indicates a combination of rotation and linear motion. Again, one of ordinary skill in the art will immediately appreciate that the same concept applies to rotation about other orthogonal axes.”… ¶24: “FIG. 5 suggests that two 3D accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense linear movement,” “the two accelerometers 20, 20′ can sense orientation (for example, respecting any given imaginary axis of rotation”… ¶25: “the three sensors 20, 20′ and 23′ are within the same imaginary plane,”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the axial and angular/rotation accelerations in x, y, and z axes in an imaginary coordinate system to be able to monitor and process movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object taught by Sheynblat with the method taught by Wiker as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to be able to monitor and process movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object [Sheynblat: ¶7: “process and apparatus for measuring movement in all six degrees of freedom for practically any moveable object”].
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker and Steurer, and further in view of Alft et al. (US20030111268A1) [hereinafter Alft].
Regarding claim 12 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, but they do not explicitly disclose, displaying different objects on a display device of the machine tool as a function of the derived operating mode of the machine tool.
However, Alft discloses, displaying different objects on a display device of the machine tool as a function of the derived operating mode of the machine tool, [¶81: “machine/tool status information is acquired and displayed on a graphics display”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the display device in order to display information of tool operating status to have the advantage of visually monitoring machine status and machine deviations taught by Alft with the method taught by Wiker and Steurer as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to have the advantage of visually monitoring machine status and machine deviations [Alft: ¶77: “Any such course deviation is communicated visually and/or audibly to the operator”].
Regarding claim 17 (amended):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10,
Alft further discloses, the machine tool includes a display device, [¶81: “machine/tool status information is acquired and displayed on a graphics display”].
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker and Steurer, and further in view of Goble (US20170361449A1) [hereinafter Goble].
Regarding claim 20 (new):
Wiker and Steurer disclose all the elements of claim 10, but they do not explicitly disclose, the determination of the deflection of the machine tool occurs when switching on the machine tool.
However, Globe disclose, the determination of the deflection of the machine tool occurs when switching on the machine tool. [¶33: “Referring to FIG. 3A, an exemplary method 50 for determining the onset of valid kickback condition” “at step 52, the microcontroller determines whether the trigger switch is closed to determine if the tool is operating.” “if the switch is closed, then power is being supplied to the motor as indicated at step 54.”… ¶35: “if the value exceeds the threshold, then the microcontroller determines that a kickback condition has occurred, and, at step 60, initiates one or more protective operations.”];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the determination of the deflection of the machine tool occurs when switching on the machine tool to prevent undesirable/unsafe operation of the tool by implementing the protective operations to preventing kickbacks when the tool starts taught by Globe with the method taught by Wiker and Steurer as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to prevent undesirable/unsafe operation of the tool by implementing the protective operations to preventing kickbacks when the tool starts [Globe: ¶4: “the control system initiates one or more protective operations to avoid undesirable rotation of the power tool.”].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker, Globe and Steurer, and further in view of Lovelass et al. (US20130327552A1) [hereinafter Lovelass].
Regarding claim 21 (new):
Wiker, Globe and Steurer disclose all the elements of claims 10 and 20, but they do not explicitly disclose, displaying the assigned manual operation operating mode or the stand operation operating mode.
However, Lovelass disclose, displaying the assigned manual operation operating mode or the stand operation operating mode. [¶66: “FIG. 11B depicts an alternative display interface 1100 for selecting between a drill mode and a drive mode. In this embodiment, the buttons for selecting the operating mode are integrated into the top surface of the drill driver housing. A drill icon 1102 is used to represent the drill mode; whereas, a screw icon 1104 is used to represent the drive mode although other types of indicia may be used to represent either of these two operating modes.”… ¶62: “Additional modes of operation for drill driver 10 can be displayed on display port 80 as follows.” “either forward or reverse direction of operation for chuck 20 can be indicated as follows. When the forward operating mode is selected, first, fifth, and sixth LEDs 102, 110, 112 will be illuminated. When a reverse or counterclockwise rotation of chuck 20 is selected, fourth, fifth, and sixth LEDs 108, 110, 112 will be illuminated. The color selected for indication of rotational direction can vary from the color selected for the battery status check.”];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the capability of displaying the assigned manual operation operating mode or the stand operation operating mode in order to provide the user visual information about the current operating mode that gives the user convenience of verifying that the desired operating mode of the machine tool is selected taught by Lovelass with the method taught by Wiker, Globe and Steurer as discussed above to have reasonable expectation of success such as to provide the user visual information about the current operating mode that gives the user convenience of verifying that the desired operating mode of the machine tool is selected [Lovelass: ¶64: “the selected one of either drill selector switch 170 or drive selector switch 172 may illuminate upon depression by the user. This provides further visual indication of the mode selected by the user.”].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 and 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.
Applicant responds
(a)
Claim 10 has been amended…..Wiker does not teach or show assigning any deflection values to a manual operation mode or a stand operation mode, nor would there be any reason to do so given Wiker’s teachings.
Claim 19 has been amended…Wiker does not teach or disclose “deriving either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool from the first, second and third angles of rotation.”
In view of the above, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC 102 is respectfully requested.
(Page(s): 3)
With respect to (a) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
In response to applicant’s amendments to the claims, a new grounds of rejections in view of Steurer has been introduced.
Combination of Wiker and Steurer teach all the limitations of claim 10 as described in the current office action. Thus, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as described in the current office action.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are moot; therefore, claims 10-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant responds
(b) Claim 19 has been amended…Wiker does not teach or disclose “deriving either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool from the first, second and third angles of rotation.”
(Page(s): 3)
With respect to (b) above, Examiner appreciates the interpretative description given by Applicant in response.
As described in the current office action, regarding the limitation, “deriving either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode,” examiner noted that one of the optional features separated by “or” is given the patentable weight and Wiker discloses, manual operation operating mode as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection section.
Examiner further notes that, the limitations, manual operation operating mode is broad and can be any manual or hand operated operation mode where the user operated the tool. As described in the current office action Wiker discloses, machine tool is operated in user operated operation mode, and deriving this operation mode from the rotational angles in the 3 axes as described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection section above.
Applicant’s arguments are fully considered, but for the above described reasons, the arguments are not persuasive; therefore, claims 10-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the references as presented in the current office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed in the PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited document mailed on 05/06/2025.
Jeffryes et al. (US20200157930A1) - Systems and methods to determine rotational oscillation of a drill string:
Determine a threshold value associated with an axial acceleration oscillation amplitude at a drill bit that is part of a drilling system. The instructions further may cause the one or more processors to receive an operating parameter value of the drilling system, compare the operating parameter value with the threshold value, and adjust an operation of the drilling system in response to comparing the operating parameter value with the threshold value (¶8).
Steurer (US20140216773A1) - Electric machine tool and method for controlling the electric machine tool:
the instantaneous rotational acceleration or rotational rate of the machine tool is detected as the parameter. In addition, the protective function is activated when the rotational acceleration of the electric machine tool exceeds an acceleration threshold value associated with the particular operating mode, or the rotational rate exceeds a rotational rate threshold value associated with the particular operating mode. The activation of the protective function in an acceleration mode characterized by acceleration of the electric motor from a standstill to a predefined rotational speed is thus suppressed. In this way, the situation may be prevented that an increase in torque which occurs solely due to the acceleration of the electric motor or due to the increasing friction between the insertion tool and the workpiece is erroneously recognized as a critical operating situation (¶10).
Goldt et al. (WO2019206667A1) - Drilling device:
The offset mechanism includes a controller movable between first and second positions to switch an outward displacement distance of the second axis with respect to the first axis between first and second distances, a first adjusting element moveable with respect to the supporting stand, wherein the first adjusting element defines the first position and stops the controller from moving beyond the first position in a first direction away from the second position, and a second adjusting element moveable with respect to the supporting stand, wherein the second adjusting element defines the second position and stops the controller from moving beyond the second position in a second direction away from the first position, wherein the second adjusting element includes a longitudinal through hole that allows the first adjusting element to pass therethrough (¶6).
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 MOHAMMED SHAFAYET whose telephone number is (571)272-8239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights