DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “counter wheel force,” which is recited in claims 36 and 45 is not used in the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 36-39, 41, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson (US 2012/0328370, previously cited) in view of Perkins (US 2014/0028077, previously cited).
Regarding claim 36, Gustafsson teaches a floor saw for sawing in a concrete surface segment (note that the desired workpiece does not limit the structure of the claimed floor saw), the floor saw comprising a control unit (described [0047]) and a circular cutting blade (2) arranged transversally offset from a centrum line of the floor saw (as shown in fig 1), the centrum line being aligned with a forward direction of the floor saw (centrum line is imaginary line central to the floor saw and parallel with a plane of the blade), where the circular cutting blade is configurable in an engaged mode of operation where the circular cutting blade is in position to engage the concrete surface segment, and in a disengaged mode of operation where the circular cutting blade is withdrawn from the concrete surface segment (cutting position and “transport mode” described [0029]), the floor saw further comprising a first drive wheel (28a) and a second drive wheel (28b) separated by the centrum line (as shown in fig 6) and arranged to support the floor saw on the concrete surface segment (shown on workpiece fig 4), wherein the control unit is arranged to apply a counter wheel force to the first drive wheel or the second drive wheel to limit a current yaw motion by the floor saw ([0054]; wheels are forced to different angular positions for steering, including to a position with minimal or limited yaw), wherein the control unit is arranged to control a turning of the saw dependent upon a desired yaw motion by the floor saw, where the control unit is arranged to limit a yaw motion of the floor saw to be below a configurable maximum yaw motion amount when the circular cutting blade is in the engaged mode of operation ([0054]; limited to +- 10 degrees in engaged mode), and to allow a yaw motion amount larger than the configurable maximum yaw motion amount when the circular cutting blade is in the disengaged mode of operation ([0054]; +- 90 degrees in disengaged mode).
Gustafsson does not teach the drive wheels are arranged to be driven by respective first and second electric machines, or controlling the turning of the saw by controlling a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels by controlling a respective torque or speed of the first or second electric machines. However, Gustafsson does recite that any known motors or propulsion can be used to drive the drive wheels ([0028]). Furthermore, Perkins teaches a floor saw including the drive wheels (wheels 60 on left and right propulsion tracks) arranged to be driven by respective first and second electric machines (motors 28, 32 described in [0038] may be electric as described [0036]), and controlling a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels by controlling a respective torque and/or speed of the first and/or second electric machines, in dependence of a desired yaw motion of the floor saw ([0036], [0038]). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use separate electric machines to individually control a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels of Gustafsson by controlling a respective torque or speed thereof, as this is a known control technique for achieving the predictable result of steering a floor saw as taught by Perkins ([0036], [0038]).
Regarding claims 37-39 and 41, Gustafsson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 36 as described above. Gustafsson further teaches a control input device (“joystick”) connected to the control unit arranged to receive an operator input indicative of the desired yaw motion by the floor saw ([0054]; the control input device comprises any of a remote control and/or an input device arranged on the floor saw ([0027]); wherein the configurable maximum yaw motion amount is arranged to be automatically configured in dependence of a floor saw cutting blade specification ([0054]; maximum yaw depends on blade depth); and further comprising a sensor arrangement connected to the control unit and configured to determine a current yaw motion of the floor saw (described [0052]).
Regarding claim 45, Gustafsson teaches a floor saw for sawing in a concrete surface segment (note that the desired workpiece does not limit the structure of the claimed floor saw), the floor saw comprising a control unit (described [0047]) and a circular cutting blade (2) arranged transversally offset from a centrum line of the floor saw (as shown in fig 1), the centrum line being aligned with a forward direction of the floor saw (centrum line is imaginary line central to the floor saw and parallel with a plane of the blade), where the circular cutting blade is configurable in an engaged mode of operation where the circular cutting blade is in position to engage the concrete surface segment, and in a disengaged mode of operation where the circular cutting blade is withdrawn from the concrete surface segment (cutting position and “transport mode” described [0029]), the floor saw further comprising a first drive wheel (28a) and a second drive wheel (28b) separated by the centrum line (as shown in fig 6) and arranged to support the floor saw on the concrete surface segment (shown on workpiece fig 4), wherein the control unit is arranged to apply a counter wheel force to the first drive wheel or the second drive wheel to reduce a difference between a current yaw motion of the floor saw and a desired yaw motion setting ([0054]; wheels are forced to different angular positions for steering in order to match the desired yaw motion input by the user), wherein the control unit is arranged to control a turning of the saw dependent upon a desired yaw motion by the floor saw, where the control unit is arranged to limit a yaw motion of the floor saw to be below a configurable maximum yaw motion amount when the circular cutting blade is in the engaged mode of operation ([0054]; limited to +- 10 degrees in engaged mode), and to allow a yaw motion amount larger than the configurable maximum yaw motion amount when the circular cutting blade is in the disengaged mode of operation ([0054]; +- 90 degrees in disengaged mode).
Gustafsson does not teach the drive wheels are arranged to be driven by respective first and second electric machines, or controlling the turning of the saw by controlling a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels by controlling a respective torque or speed of the first or second electric machines. However, Gustafsson does recite that any known motors or propulsion can be used to drive the drive wheels ([0028]). Furthermore, Perkins teaches a floor saw including the drive wheels (wheels 60 on left and right propulsion tracks) arranged to be driven by respective first and second electric machines (motors 28, 32 described in [0038] may be electric as described [0036]), and controlling a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels by controlling a respective torque and/or speed of the first and/or second electric machines, in dependence of a desired yaw motion of the floor saw ([0036], [0038]). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use separate electric machines to individually control a difference between wheel forces of the drive wheels of Gustafsson by controlling a respective torque or speed thereof, as this is a known control technique for achieving the predictable result of steering a floor saw as taught by Perkins ([0036], [0038]).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson and Perkins as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Huber (US 2019/0263015, previously cited).
Regarding claim 40, Gustafsson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 36 as described above. Gustafsson does not teach the first and second electric machines are arranged to be powered by an on-board electrical storage device. Huber teaches a floor saw including an on-board electrical storage device (battery 125) for powering an electric machine ([0014]). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an on-board electrical storage device to power the first and second electric machines of Gustafsson, as electrical storage devices are known for achieving the predictable result of powering electric motors and provide the additional benefit of being rechargeable as taught by Huber ([0014], [0019]).
Claim(s) 42-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafsson and Perkins as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of Mehra (US 2019/0250605, previously cited).
Regarding claim 42, Gustafsson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 36 as described above. Gustafsson further teaches the control unit is arranged to receive a desired yaw motion setting indicative to the desired yaw motion (as described [0054]) via a wireless link from a remote control device ([0027]; operation may be controlled by a remote control device). Gustafsson does not explicitly teach the remote control device has a radio link to the control unit. However, it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Mehra teaches a saw device including a wireless interface for transmitting data to a control unit, wherein the wireless interface uses a radio link ([0028]). As radio links are widely known devices for remote communication, and Mehra explicitly teaches using a radio link for control of a saw, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a radio link in the remote control device of Gustafsson, achieving the predictable result of providing wireless communication between the remote control and the control unit.
Regarding claim 43, Gustafsson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 42 as described above. Gustafsson further teaches the remote control device is configured to transmit a desired yaw motion setting corresponding to sawing along a straight line, or corresponding to sawing along an arcuate curve having a configurable radius, or corresponding to a path with a deviation defined by a number of degrees from a set course after a controlled turning maneuver (controllable steering between 0 and 90 degrees is described [0054]).
Regarding claim 44, Gustafsson, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 36 as described above. Gustafsson does not teach the control unit is arranged to determine whether an operator is in position to perform manual control of floor saw steering and to trigger a warning signal or halt in response. Mehra teaches a sawing machine including a control unit arranged to determine whether an operator is in position to perform manual control of floor saw steering, and to trigger a warning signal and/or halt the floor saw in response to determining that an operator is not performing manual control of the floor saw steering (described [0039-0040]; triggers a warning or turns of power when it is determined that a user’s is in an inattentive position which may cause damage). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the control unit of Gustafsson to trigger a warning signal or halt the floor saw in response to determining an operator is not performing manual control of the floor saw steering, as this precautionary measure prevents unintended damage as taught by Mehra ([0039-0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 36, its dependents, and claim 45, applicant argues that the prior art of Gustafsson and Perkins do not teach the control unit arranged to apply a counter wheel force to the first drive wheel or second drive wheel to limit a current yaw motion of the floor saw, or to reduce a difference between a current yaw motion and a desired yaw motion. However, as broadly claimed, any force applied to the wheels which reduces yaw, or steers the saw to a desired yaw direction meets these limitations. In Gustafsson, this is done by pivoting the wheels to move the saw in a straight direction or to a desired steering angle ([0054]). In Perkins this is done by individually controlling wheel speed to move in a straight direction or in a left or right direction ([0037]). As broadly claimed, either of these can be considered application of “a counter wheel force” to limit yaw motion or reduce a difference between current yaw and desired yaw. Applicant argues that Gustafsson and Perkins do not describe countering drift by applying force in response to a measured yaw motion indicative of undesired drift. However, this particular limitation is not recited in the claims.
Applicant’s terminal disclaimer has overcome the previous double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights