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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng as in view of Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446) further in view of Malackowski (US 2008/0269755) as previously discussed (See Non-Final action dated 5/21/2025) and in view of Schwaiger (US 2014/0047961) and Missler (US 2003/0167894).
Previously the claim limitations relating to display of ejection information on a screen were believed to be patentable. Applicant submitted new evidence in Schwaiger, which results in the following rejection.
Regarding claim 1, Jeng discloses A band saw comprising: a frame; a guide wheel (40 Figure 1); a blade disposed around the guide wheel (60 figure 3); a guide wheel chassis movably disposed on the frame (see bearing 52, inter alia, figure 3), the guide wheel rotatably disposed on the guide wheel chassis (as discussed in [0007] ‘driving wheel’ and ‘driven wheel’ being the terms used to discuss the movement of the system).
Jeng further discloses a blade tension adjustment assembly including: a tensioning motor (The device of Jeng uses a hydraulic motor—“The tension regulation device includes a slide member, a hydraulic cylinder, a storage member, and an oil tube.” [0007]), wherein operation of the tensioning motor produces movement of the guide wheel chassis and the guide wheel relative to the frame (As in Jeng: “[0021] The tension regulation device 70 includes a slide member 71, a hydraulic cylinder 72, a storage member 73, and an oil tube 74. The slide member 71 is slidably mounted in the slot 26 and connected with the rotary shaft 52. The hydraulic cylinder 72 includes a cylinder body 722 and a piston rod 724, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4. The cylinder body 722 is fixed to a backside of the driven-wheel holder 24. The piston rod 724 includes two ends, one of which is mounted into the cylinder body 722 and the other can elongate to push against the slide member 71 to make the driven wheel 50 move along the slot 26 relative to the driving wheel 40 via the slide member 71 for tightening or loosening the band saw 60 in the process of movement of the driven wheel 50. “) to adjust the tension of the blade (ibid).
Jeng discloses also a tension gauge positioned to determine a tension in the blade (80 figure 3 is a force sensor—used to determine and control the blade tension, and therefore is per se a tension gauge as claimed; “[0022] The force sensor 80 is a load cell in this preferred embodiment and stopped against the slide member 71. The force sensor 80 includes a bearing hole 82, as shown in FIG. 2, sleeved onto the piston rod 724 to make the force sensor 80 located between the slide member 71 and the piston rod 724 for sensing forced deformation of the slide member 71 and emitting a sensing signal.”). Jeng further discloses a controller communicated with the tensioning motor and the tension gauge, the controller operable to receive tension data from the tension gauge and control operation of the tensioning motor based on the tension data to control the tension of the blade (See Jeng at [0024] and [0025] inter alia; NOTE that in para 23-25 sometimes the sensor 80 is mislabled as a control/ and 70 is misnamed as a sensor; the meaning however is clear, Jeng shows control 90, sensor 80 etc.).
Jeng does not disclose the use of a screen for input related to the control of the device. This indicates that the discussion of input devices and the computers / controller/ electronics which control Jeng would have been so routine as to not require any comment for those of ordinary skill to understand they were implicit. In that context, we seek evidence of the types of inputs and controls which would have been ordinary to implement based on the called for functioning of Jeng (to control the blade tension by automatically monitoring and adjusting blade tension by moving the block upon which the guide wheel is mounted in a frame—as discussed above with respect to claims 1-2)
In similar band saw control setups, with CNC, for example, it is well known to include a user interface for receiving tension input commands from a user. See Tokiwa, at 151, 251, 337, 439 “input unit” with a visible screen in Figure 3. Tokiwa does not refer specifically to a ‘display’.
Additional evidence for routine input device and control systems for band saw devices is seen in Ishikawa, at, e.g. figure 1, showing “display” “input circuit” and “control circuit.” Ishigawa discloses that these are used to control the device, and provide respective input to the machine: “The robot 4 is controlled by a control circuit 8. The control circuit 8 can be configured by processing circuitry, such as a processor, which executes control program of the robot 4. Moreover, an input circuit 8A and a display 8B are connected to the control circuit 8, as needed.” In short- the device is being controlled by controller, but the input is present to show and interact with a user what the selections and controls should be doing. This includes examples, such as accepting inputs of corrected position from a reference point, driving additional tool types, using ‘predetermined’ angles for particular cuts, etc. in a cutting pattern.
Matsuo (US 11,338,446) similarly discusses the use of display and input to control a band saw robot to do the needed cutting patterns:
“(38) The control system 3 may include a computer 12 to which an input device 10 and a display device 11 are connected. An arithmetic unit, such as a CPU (central processing unit) of the computer 12, serves as a load-acquiring unit 13, a control-signal-generating unit 14, a control-information-storing unit 15, and a warning-information-generating unit 16 by reading and executing programs for controlling the robot 2.”
“(114) For example, while the above embodiments each concern a case where the work W is machined with the rotational tool T attached to the arm 4 of the robot 2 with the rotating mechanism 7 interposed therebetween, the work W may be machined with an unrotational tool attached to the arm 4 of the robot 2. Specifically, the work W may be cut with a saw, such as a band saw or a wire saw, attached to the arm 4 of the robot 2. In that case as well, copying can be performed with a copying mold placed on the work W and a copying guide attached to the arm 4. Furthermore, automatic control of the arm 4 is also possible in accordance with respective reaction forces from the work W and the copying mold that are measured by the force sensor 9.”
In Jeng, the controller (noted above) is operable to control the tensioning motor based on a priori tension dictates—but the use of inputted commands is not discussed, therefore Jeng does not control based on “the received tension input commands from the user” as claimed here.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to add the routine components of display and input devices to Jeng, in order to provide for the control of the Jeng device, in the same manner it is routinely done, as shown in Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446).
Schwaiger discloses that the problem of user error with respect to knowing the state of tension on a blade, as well as specifically multiple positions (1- full tension, 2- partial/relaxed tension (for storage) and 3- least tension, for blade removal position) were known in the art, and a visual indicator of the state was provided to the user: as shown at figure 3 in a diagram.
Schwaiger relevantly motivates, therefore, or suggests the display of the same claimed information about the tension state of a blade in a band saw as seen below:
[0016] FIG. 3 shows a portion of the upper housing 14 of the band saw 10 from the opposite side of that shown in FIG. 1. Extending from the housing 14 is a rotatable control 42 that is connected to an elongated lever 44. The lever 44 has a hand grip 46 at its free end. The lever 44 can be moved to three different positions in this illustrated embodiment. The first position A, as shown, with the lever 44 in a substantially horizontal position is a position that provides full tension on the band saw blade 20. In the full tension position A, the saw 10 is ready for use. A second position B is indicated by a sign 48 or other indicator on the housing 14. The second position B for the illustrated lever 44 is a position extending downward yet still to the front of the band saw. The second position B provides a partial release of the tension on the band saw blade 20, such as by moving the upper wheel 30 toward the lower wheel 32 by a distance sufficient to relieve tension on the blade 20 and reduce deforming of the rubber rim 34 on the wheel. By moving the lever 44 to the second position B between uses of the band saw 10, particularly if the band saw 10 will not be used for an extended time, the blade 20 and the rubber rim 34 on the wheels 30 and 32 are not subject to being deformed. Vibration and other operational issues are reduced.
[0017] A third position C is indicated by the sign 48 on the housing 14. The third position C is a full release position at which the tension on the blade 20 is release sufficiently that the blade 20 can be removed and a different blade installed on the band saw device 10. The wheels 30 and 32 are moved toward one another sufficiently to place the blade 20 in a full slack state. The partial tension position B is between the full tension position A and the full release position C of the tension lever 44.
As known from other cited art, and supported also in newly cited Missler—the use of displays is well known in the art:
PNG
media_image1.png
686
996
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to add a display of information about the state or condition of a band saw tension—as suggested in Schwaiger, to be routinely implemented in a display such as that shown in Missler—which would be more sensible in an automated band saw problem area.
Regarding claim 2, Jeng discloses the controller is operable to cause the tensioning motor to adjust the tension of the blade during operation of the band saw. See e.g. [0024] : “…the control system 90 can control the storage member 73 for supplying the hydraulic oil to the cylinder body 722 to force the piston rod 724 to elongate gradually to further push the slide member 71 to make the driven wheel 50 move away from the driving wheel 40. When the tension of the band saw 60 is adjusted properly, the control system 90 can control the storage member 73 for stopping the supply of the hydraulic oil.”
Regarding claim 4, Jeng does not disclose a controller includes a plurality of preset blade profiles, each blade profile including a blade width and a blade thickness, and the controller is operable to control the tension of the blade based on a user selecting one of the plurality of preset blade profiles.
Malackowski discloses the use of a control and computer which recognizes and understands that different blades interact with the world in different ways, and uses computer software to adjust cutting patterns in response to this information about the cutters that might be selected: “ [0046] Once the curve 108 is defined, in a step 96, the processor determines to which one of a plurality of stored blade distal end curve geometries the curve defined in step 95 corresponds. These blade curve geometries are stored in the processor memory 31. Each stored blade curve geometry is associated with a blade definition file in the memory that is unique to a specific type of blade. Each file, one represented by block 109 of FIG. 7, contains a curve definition data field 110 with data that mathematically defines the curve integral with the blade 22. Curve definition field 110 includes a secondary divot count field 111. Divot count field 111 contains data indicating the number of divots that are used to define the curve.”
While Malackowski is different type of cutting the solution it provides to computer controlled blades is broadly applicable and is applicable here to Jeng. In a Jeng (as modified) system where a controller is controlling blade tension in order to know the position and control the position of a band saw cut—the adjustments being undertaken will naturally be impacted by the blade being used. Thinker or smaller blades will be more or less responsive to tension, because of their size and or material or other composition details (grooves, laminations, for instance). As a result, the known solution provided in Malackowski (to provide the control computer with information about different blade characteristics in its storage) would result in a system having multiple blade profiles loaded for the blades which Jeng was adapted to be used with, so that the system could be used with multiple different blades.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng in view of Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446) further in view of Malackowski (US 2008/0269755) in view of Schwaiger (US 2014/0047961) and Missler (US 2003/0167894as discussed above and as explained below.
Regarding claim 11, the positioning of the motor of the Jeng saw is not explicit that it is “tensioning motor extends outward through the frame of the band saw.” But is apparently within or near the frame as a whole as assembled as shown in the figures. The nature of the adjustment of position, where it does not change the nature of the device is one of ordinary skill and is prima facie obvious in the absence of reasons the person of ordinary skill would be unable or unwilling to move or reposition the component. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to make the motor be extending out through the frame—since an exposed motor is easier to service, and since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng in view of Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446) further in view of Malackowski (US 2008/0269755) in view of Schwaiger (US 2014/0047961) and Missler (US 2003/0167894) as discussed above and in further view of Applicant’s admission (See Specification) .
Jeng does not disclose the use of a “load cell” per se, however applicant admits in the present specification that “Prior art devices can include a load cell coupled to the movable chassis and operable to effectively measure the force.”
As Jeng is monitoring and adjusting the tension on the blade, the use of a load cell, as applicant admits is old and well known, would be performing the same function in the same manner as the device of Jeng for the same purpose, and as such is prima facie obvious.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng in view of Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446) further in view of Malackowski (US 2008/0269755) in view of Schwaiger (US 2014/0047961) and Missler (US 2003/0167894) as discussed above and in further view of Guynn (US 2019/0234559).
Regarding claim 13, Jeng does not disclose “operable to detect an emergency condition in the tensioning of the blade and stop the band saw when such emergency condition is detected.” However, systems which are automatic and contain blades routinely and as a matter of safety contain shutoff conditional control programming—where the designer knows conditions that will be unsafe and creates the control mechanism to shutoff the device in a presumptively unsafe condition. For example, Guynn discloses “[0151] If at least one of the safeties of the safety saw system 400 is not OK, the saw monitor system 410 causes a normal stop of the saw 100 and all outputs are reset (step 606). Otherwise, normal operation continues. The saw may function normally until stopped with a shutoff such as, for example, pressing of a stop button of the buttons 150, as illustrated in FIG. 1, or kicking of an emergency kick stop.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to set appropriate turn-off conditions for the motor in Jeng including an over-tension condition, since preventing self destruction (by over tightening) is self- evidentally good. In the case of Guynn it is discussed as providing for emergency shutoff when a button is pressed- but also suggests automatic shutoff for conditions where a monitored output is ‘not OK.”
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeng in view of Tokiwa (US 2006/0144202) and Ishikawa (US 11,440,110) and Matsuo (US 11,338,446) further in view of Malackowski (US 2008/0269755) in view of Schwaiger (US 2014/0047961) and Missler (US 2003/0167894) in view of Guynn (US 2019/0234559) as applied to claim 13 above in further view of LEE (US 5,657,257).
Regarding claim 14, Jeng does not use a control to determine that the band saw has been idle for a predetermined period of time and release a portion of the tension on the blade until the band saw is operated again.
In general, when a tool is primed to be used but is not being used, there is a benefit in putting it to an idle or OFF mode to conserve energy, or in the case of a blade under tension—to release the tension and make it rest in an unstrained (and less dangerous) state. Lee notes “(21) In the case that a signal input for the power-supply is at a high voltage when the system is idle for a predetermined period during the turning on of a sleep-mode, power-control means (10) changes to a power-off mode and stops the application of the DC voltage to each peripheral device by power-supply (30).”
It is appreciated that this is a different technology than Jeng, but the reasoning stands anyway—a system which is in active mode will exert more energy than one turned off—and where a system has been in an active or ready state people of ordinary skill in the powered system art would know to save power by adding a control feature to permit placing a tool from idle into off mode to conserve power. Applied to Jeng- this would power off the device as a whole, including the tensioner and the drive and the control to some degree, and therefore the claim is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims not rejected supra (6-10, 17-19 and 21-24) remain as previously allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights