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 .
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 of this title, 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, 3-4, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20210384741, Douglas (date of priority Jun 9, 2020) in view of USPGPUB 20190063679A1, Merenger, and evidenced by USPGPUB 20170236061, Laborie.
Regarding Claim 1, Douglas discloses a: (currently amended):
A power tool (system 100, and device par 0046), comprising: a cutter (“saw” par. 0021, par. 0032, par. 0043 and par. 0052),
adapted to cut a workpiece when moving (par 0020 par. 0032);
a motor and configured to move the cutter (“motor device” of par. 0041 and par 0042); and
a control system (combined: “tool-agnostic device” 4 and “computing device” 16, of par. 0029) configured to control at least one function of the power tool (par. 0043) and including a control circuit (par. 0024, “the tool-agnostic device may include one or more sensing devices and circuitry”), where the control circuit includes a first processor ([one of the processors 36), par 0034 “The computing device 16 may additionally include one or more processor[s] 36 and memory 34, configured to collect, store, process, or direct communication of information and data gathered by the tool-agnostic device 4”) with information identifying the power tool (par. 0030; tool type sensor “42”), and
where the control system includes an AIM system (combination of the “safety module” 44, par. 0043, and the sensor 22) having a detection system (sensor 22 and VR module 26) configured to detect a dangerous (“unsafe condition” of par 0044 and 0045) and a reaction mechanism (“signal or instruction” sent by the module 44 “to disconnect or otherwise stop a flow of electricity from a removable battery 6 to the handheld tool 2”, par 0045) configured to perform an action to mitigate the dangerous condition when the dangerous condition is detected by the detection system (par. 0045);
and a module (safety module 44, par 0043), configured to be installed (via installation of the agnostic device 4, par 0064) in the power tool by an operator of the power tool (via installation of the agnostic device 4), where the control circuit is configured to operably connect to the module when an operator of the power tool installs the module in the power tool (par 0045);
where the first processor is configured to communicate the information identifying the power tool to the second processor when the control circuit is operably connected to the module (par 0029); and
where the module is configured to use the information identifying the power tool in the AIM system (par 0029 and par 0041).
Douglas lacks
Feature I: where dangerous condition is between a person and the cutter, and,
Feature II: the module including a second processor where the control circuit is configured to operably connect to the second processor when an operator of the power tool installs the module in the power tool.
Regarding Feature I Merenger discloses: a control system for a power tool (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the control system for a power tool of the present invention, and includes: where the control system includes an AIM system (sensors 218 indicators 220) having a detection system (sensors of par. 0050, which detect shaking) configured to detect a dangerous condition between a person and the cutter (Par. 0050 [e.g. when flesh is detected]) and a reaction mechanism (par 0050, “inhibit” power to the motor) configured to perform an action to mitigate the dangerous condition when the dangerous condition is detected by the detection system (par 0050, “inhibit power to the motor”); in order to stop the power tool when flesh is present near the cutter tool (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglas by having the safety device thereof include a dangerous condition where the condition is between a user and the cutter in order to stop the power tool when flesh is present near the cutter tool as taught by Merenger.
Regarding Feature II, Douglas contemplates the system thereof including multiple processors to complete the functions of the modules (see: par 0034).
Laborie discloses that in a system where multiple processes are designed to work at the same time and together, such as in the system of Douglas and of the present invention that it is known to include first and second processors to perform the said functions in order to perform processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglas by having the safety device thereof include the module including a second processor where the control circuit is configured to operably connect to the second processor when an operator of the power tool installs the module in the power tool, since the use of multiple processors is already disclosed via Douglas and in order to derive the known to derive the benefit of parallel processing via the use of multiple processors, as taught by Laborie.
Regarding Claim 3, in Douglas, the control system is configured to control at least one function of the power tool in response to an output from the module when the control circuit is operably connected to the module (par 0043).
Thus, in Douglas as modified above, (to include the module including a second processor) the control system is configured to control at least one function of the power tool in response to an output from the second processor when the control circuit is operably connected to the second processor (see modification in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, in Douglas, the control system is configured to stop the motor (par 0043, by stopping the flow of current to the battery, in par. 0043) in response to an output from the module (par 0043).
Thus, in Douglas as modified above, (to include the module including a second processor) the control system is configured to stop the motor in response to an output from the second processor (since as modified above, the module includes the second processor).
Regarding Claim 10, in Douglas the module includes at least a portion of the reaction mechanism (par 0043).
Regarding Claim 11 Douglas discloses a: power tool (system 100, and device par 0046), comprising: a cutter (par 0020 par. 0032),
adapted to cut a workpiece when moving (par 0020 par. 0032);
a motor and configured to move the cutter (“motor device” of par. 0041 and par 0042)
an AIM system (combination of the “safety module” 44, par. 0043, and the sensor 22) having a detection system (sensor 22 and VR module 26) configured to detect a dangerous (“unsafe condition” of par 0044 and 0045) and a reaction mechanism (“signal or instruction” sent by the module 44 “to disconnect or otherwise stop a flow of electricity from a removable battery 6 to the handheld tool 2”, par 0045) configured to perform an action to mitigate the dangerous condition when the dangerous condition is detected by the detection system (par. 0045);
a control circuit (combined: “tool-agnostic device” 4 and “computing device” 16, of par. 0029) including a first processor (([one of the processors 36), par 0034 “The computing device 16 may additionally include one or more processor[s] 36 and memory 34, configured to collect, store, process, or direct communication of information and data gathered by the tool-agnostic device 4”); and
a module (safety module 44, par 0043), configured to be installed (via installation of the agnostic device 4, par 0064) in the power tool by an operator of the power tool (via installation of the agnostic device 4), where the first processor is part of the detection system (par 0034).
Douglas lacks:
Feature I: where dangerous condition is between a person and the cutter, and,
Feature II: the module including a second processor where the control circuit is configured to operably connect to the second processor when an operator of the power tool installs the module in the power tool and second processor are part of the detection system.
Regarding Feature I Merenger discloses: a control system for a power tool (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the control system for a power tool of the present invention, and includes: where the control system includes an AIM system (sensors 218 indicators 220) having a detection system (sensors of par. 0050, which detect shaking) configured to detect a dangerous condition between a person and the cutter (Par. 0050 [e.g. when flesh is detected]) and a reaction mechanism (par 0050, “inhibit” power to the motor) configured to perform an action to mitigate the dangerous condition when the dangerous condition is detected by the detection system (par 0050, “inhibit power to the motor”); in order to stop the power tool when flesh is present near the cutter tool (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglas by having the safety device thereof include a dangerous condition where the condition is between a user and the cutter in order to stop the power tool when flesh is present near the cutter tool as taught by Merenger.
Regarding Feature II, Douglas contemplates the system thereof including multiple processors to complete the functions of the modules (see: par 0034).
Laborie discloses that in a system where multiple processes are designed to work at the same time and together, such as in the system of Douglas and of the present invention that it is known to include first and second processors to perform the said functions in order to perform processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Douglas by having the safety device thereof include the module including a second processor where the control circuit is configured to operably connect to the second processor when an operator of the power tool installs the module in the power tool and second processor are part of the detection system, since the use of multiple processors is already disclosed via Douglas since the use of multiple processors is already disclosed via Douglas and in order to derive the known to derive the benefit of parallel processing via the use of multiple processors, as taught by Laborie.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11-24-2025, with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112f have been fully considered and are persuasive. First, as to the terms “support structure”, “mounting component” of previous Claim 1, these terms have been removed from the claims, rendering the interpretation thereof moot. As to the term, replaceable module, Applicant argues that the phrase “replaceable” limits the structure to a module that can be installed or unmounted. This is found persuasive. The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112f of the term has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 11-24-2025, with respect to the prior art claim rejections, as the claims have now bene amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Douglas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20030062485 20070001879 20200361087, 11674642 11085582, 20200068757 20200361087 20090000437 20090263212 and 20190063679 disclose state of the art multiprocessor devices, and thus each contain elements of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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 on 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights