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 .
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-22 are pending and are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the RCE filed on 05/15/2026.
Claims 10 and 19 are amended in the RCE filled 05/15/2026 and claims 20 and 22 were amended in the amendments filled on 03/16/2026. Accordingly, the amended claims are being fully considered by the examiner.
In response to applicant’s amendments to claims 20 and 22 as amended in the amendments filled on 03/16/2026, all the claim objections to claims 20 and 22 as set forth in the previous office action has been withdrawn.
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) Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103: Wiker, Steurer:
Claim 10 has been amended
Neither Wiker or Steuer show the stand operation operating mode as now claimed.
It is respectfully submitted that the subject matter of claim 10 is non-obvious in view of Wiker and Steurer and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103: Wiker, Sheynblat:
Claim 19 has been amended
Neither Wiker or Sheynblat show the stand operation operating mode as now claimed.
In view of the above arguments with respect to independent claim 10, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of these dependent claim is respectfully requested.
(Page(s): 1-2)
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 Giurgi has been introduced.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites, “the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode, wherein in the stand operation operating mode, the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated” and further recites, “wherein the deflection determined is assigned to either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool”
The above described limitation describes that “stand operation operating mode” has lower deflection than “the manual operation operating mode,” where determined deflection is assigned to either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool such that claim describes that it first determines the deflection, and then assigns it to either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool and the assignment is done based on the criteria that stand operation operating mode has lower deflection than the manual operation operating mode.
Specification, describes the manual operation mode as an operating mode where the machine tool is operating while holding the machine tool by hand. See specification ¶19: For example, the machine tool can be operated so as to be guided by a stand or by hand; and ¶29: The objects displayed can be different images, modes and/or (operating) parameters that are relevant to one of the two operating modes, i.e. hand-guided or stand-guided.
Further, application ¶16 describes, The inventor has recognized that due to the inertia of the drilling system, which preferably comprises a motor, a shaft, a gear and a tool, a deflection when starting the motor in the manual operation is significantly greater than the deflection in the drill stand.
Claim 10 relies on unclear, subjective criteria (determined deflection that can be deflections values) of manual/hand operating mode or stand guided operating mode rather than distinct boundaries of the deflection. The claim unclearly defines the two operating modes based on an unpredictable variable (human stability) rather than structural elements and a concrete deflection threshold for assigning the determined deflection to correct operation mode. It is unclear how to classify a scenario where a human with a very stable hand operates the machine (manual/hand operating mode), potentially producing a very low deflection value that blurs the line between "manual" and "stand" operating modes. In such scenarios, just knowing the well-known possibility that stand guided operating mode might have lower deflection than manual/hand operating mode is not enough for a system to correctly assign the determined deflection to the correct operating mode, because in that scenario when a human operator with very stable hand (very low deflection value) operates the machine tool (manual/hand operating mode), the system may ambiguously determine that it is stand guided operating mode and erroneously may assign the low deflection to “stand” operating mode. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
For the examination purpose, in broadest reasonable interpretation, the above described limitation cannot be construed due to the ambiguity exist in the scope of claim as described above.
Appropriate correction is required.
11-12, 14-18 and 20-22:
Based on their dependencies in claim 10, claims 11-12, 14-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites, “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, wherein in the stand operation operating mode, the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated.”
The above described limitation describes that first angles of rotations are determined, and from the determined angles of rotations, the method derives either a manual operation operating mode or a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool.
Specification, describes the manual operation mode as an operating mode where the machine tool is operating while holding the machine tool by hand. See specification ¶19: For example, the machine tool can be operated so as to be guided by a stand or by hand; and ¶29: The objects displayed can be different images, modes and/or (operating) parameters that are relevant to one of the two operating modes, i.e. hand-guided or stand-guided.
Claim 10 relies on unclear, subjective criteria (determined angles of rotation values) to derive whether machine tool operated in manual/hand operating mode or stand guided operating mode rather than distinct boundaries. The claim unclearly derives either of the two operating modes based on the determined angles of rotations that were determined from detected angular and axial accelerations, but it isn’t clear what is the bar/threshold to derive either of those operating modes from these determined angles of rotation. Because, the system/method can randomly derive “manual” or “stand” operating mode just by looking at the determined angles of rotations. It is unclear how to classify a scenario where a human with a very stable hand operates the machine (manual/hand operating mode), potentially producing undistinguishable angles of rotations compared to “stand” guided operating mode. In such scenarios, just knowing the angles of rotations are not enough for a system to correctly derive an operating mode out of those two operating modes. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
For the examination purpose, in broadest reasonable interpretation, the above described limitation cannot be construed due to the ambiguity exist in the scope of claim as described above.
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, 12, 15-18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker (US20210323189A1) [hereinafter Wiker] in view of Steurer et al. (US20140216773A1) [hereinafter Steurer], and further in view of Giurgi et al. (US20120123418A1) [hereinafter Giurgi].
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…of the machine tool. [¶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, and
Steurer discloses, the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection... [¶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 in order 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”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Giurgi discloses, wherein in the stand operation operating mode, the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated [¶5: “tool stabilizer, comprising: a support configured to engage at least a portion of a surgical tool”];
wherein the deflection determined is assigned to either…a stand operation operating mode…of the machine tool, [¶6: “tool stabilizer, comprising: a support configured to engage at least a portion of a surgical saw”…
¶33: “it is desirable to devise an apparatus that can be used with a surgical saw and can provide means to decrease flexure of the saw blade during the bone cutting procedure…so as to increase cut accuracy.”…
¶34: “retractable blade stabilizer that decreases flexure of the saw blade during a cutting procedure, while allowing the blade to cut freely.”
Examiner notes the 35 USC 112(b) rejections as set forth in the current office action.];
the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode, [¶32: “During a cut, the surgeon will apply forces (intentional and unintentional) and torques to the saw. The saw blade is necessarily thin (and therefore flexible), and the interface that locks the blade to the saw may have significant play in it. Furthermore, the markers are typically rigidly attached to the saw body. These forces deflect the oscillating saw blade with respect to the markers and may introduce error in the navigation tracking system. Such errors may result in cuts that are over or under the target cutting surface and lead to substandard fit of the implant on the bone.”
¶33: “it is desirable to devise an apparatus that can be used with a surgical saw and can provide means to decrease flexure of the saw blade during the bone cutting procedure…so as to increase cut accuracy.”…
¶34: “retractable blade stabilizer that decreases flexure of the saw blade during a cutting procedure, while allowing the blade to cut freely.”
Examiner notes the 35 USC 112(b) rejections as set forth in the current office action.
As discussed above, Giurgi discloses, when the tool operated in manual operating mode (operated by hand), there is higher deflection than when the tool is operated in stand operating mode (using tool stabilizer)].
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 stand operation operating mode, where the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated, and deflection determined is assigned to either a stand operation operating mode of the machine tool, where the manual operation operating mode having larger values of the deflection than the stand operation operating mode in order to achieve greater accuracy by decreasing deflection of the tool during operation of the tool taught by Giurgi with the method taught by WIKER and Steurer as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to achieve greater accuracy by decreasing deflection of the tool during operation of the tool [Giurgi: ¶28: “decrease flexure and increase control provided to the surgeon in order to achieve greater accuracy in planar cuts”].
Regarding claim 12:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Giurgi further discloses, displaying different objects on a display device of the machine tool as a function of the derived operating mode of the machine tool, [¶59: “The saw 25 also may be tracked, and therefore the computer can calculate the deviation from the desired plane of the current saw blade 26 position. Simple navigation encodes this difference in a graphical user interface (for example, the display screen 16 illustrated in FIG. 1),”].
Regarding claim 15:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi 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:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi 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 17:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi disclose all the elements of claim 10,
Giurgi further discloses, the machine tool includes a display device, [¶45: “The display software can be used to project the geometry of the object 14 being tracked (that is, the surgical saw 25) on the display screen 16”].
Regarding claim 18:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi 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:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi disclose all the elements of claim 10, and
Steurer further disclose, wherein the machine tool has operating parameters for the manual 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.”], and
Giurgi further disclose, and different operating parameters for the stand operation operating mode. [¶55: “The springs 44 may allow the slotted stabilizer 32 to return to its original position when the pressure on the slotted stabilizer 32 (that is in immediate contact with the bone surface) is removed (for example, when the surgeon retracts the saw 25 from the bone). The springs 44 may be made of metallic or plastic material and may be selected as per desired tension and extension requirements under operating conditions.”].
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi, and further in view of Sheynblat et al. (US20070214886A1) [hereinafter Sheynblat].
Regarding claim 11:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi 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, and
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, Steurer and Giurgi 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:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi 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.”]; and
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 in view of Sheynblat and further in view of Giurgi.
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, and
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”], but doesn’t explicitly disclose, and
Giurgi discloses, e) deriving…stand operation operating mode of the machine tool…
wherein in the stand operation operating mode, the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated. [¶6: “tool stabilizer, comprising: a support configured to engage at least a portion of a surgical saw”…
¶33: “it is desirable to devise an apparatus that can be used with a surgical saw and can provide means to decrease flexure of the saw blade during the bone cutting procedure…so as to increase cut accuracy.”…
¶34: “retractable blade stabilizer that decreases flexure of the saw blade during a cutting procedure, while allowing the blade to cut freely.”
Examiner notes the 35 USC 112(b) rejections as set forth in the current office action.].
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 deriving stand operation operating mode of the machine tool, wherein in the stand operation operating mode, the machine tool is held by a stand guide while the machine tool is being operated in order to achieve greater accuracy by decreasing deflection of the tool during operation of the tool taught by Giurgi with the method taught by WIKER and Sheynblat as discussed above in order to have reasonable expectation of success such as to achieve greater accuracy by decreasing deflection of the tool during operation of the tool [Giurgi: ¶28: “decrease flexure and increase control provided to the surgeon in order to achieve greater accuracy in planar cuts”].
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi, and further in view of Goble (US20170361449A1) [hereinafter Goble].
Regarding claim 20:
Wiker, Steurer and Giurgi disclose all the elements of claim 10, but they do not explicitly disclose, and
Globe discloses, 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, Steurer and Giurgi 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.”].
Regarding claim 21:
Wiker, Steurer, Giurgi and Globe disclose all the elements of claims 10 and 20, and
Giurgi discloses, displaying the assigned manual operation operating mode or the stand operation operating mode. [¶59: “The saw 25 also may be tracked, and therefore the computer can calculate the deviation from the desired plane of the current saw blade 26 position. Simple navigation encodes this difference in a graphical user interface (for example, the display screen 16 illustrated in FIG. 1),”].
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).
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).
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/M.S./
Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights