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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 8-19 in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-7, 20-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/02/2025
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, line 7, “is such a way” should be -- in such a way--.
Claim 11, lines 1-2 should be amended from “wherein the first sensor operates contactless” to --wherein the first sensor operates in a contactless manner--.
Claim 13, line 3 should be amended from “whether the retaining element” to –whether the at least one retaining element—
Claim 16, line 3 should be amended from “whether the retaining element” to –whether the at least one retaining element--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one component for a light barrier”. It is ambiguous as a light barrier is a system, so it is unclear if the claims covers the emitter, the receiver, both or some unspecified part?
Claim 15 recites, “”or for at least one electrical contact in a guideway”. It is not clear if the guideway is part of the sawing device. It is ambiguous whether the retaining element contacts something in the guideway, or is the sensor detecting a contact event or is the contact located in the guideway?
Claim 15, last line recites, “or for a contact measurement probing”. It is not clear what is intended by this limitation. What is doing the contacting and what is being probed?
Claim 15 is ambiguous as it has multiple “or” statements that vary between structure (e.g. contacts and retaining elements) and intended use (acoustic distance measurements). The “or” statements are confusing if the sensor unit has structure and also performs optional function or if the sensor unit only needs to comprise one of the structure or one of the intended functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9, 11-12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altendorf (U.S. Publication 2002/0134464)
In regards to claim 8, Altendorf discloses a sawing device (10) comprising a saw blade (2) for separating parts from workpieces, a retaining device (guard device 10) for preventing a kick-back of the separated parts, and a sensor-controlled drive device (motor; paragraph [0018]) for driving at least one retaining element (guard hood 12) of the retaining device (10) between an inactive position and an active position
(“In accordance with the invention height wise adjustment of the guard hood can also be actuated by motor means.” Paragraph [0018]),
wherein the sensor-controlled drive device (motor 18) comprises a first sensor unit (sensor; paragraph [0018]), wherein the first sensor unit is arranged on the sawing device (10) in such a way, that the first sensor unit is able to detect an end face of a workpiece before the saw blade is able to fully separate a part from the workpiece (“That sensor can detect the presence of an object, in particular a workpiece, and thereupon give the control means a signal for appropriate actuation of the motor.” Paragraph [0018]).
In regards to claim 9, Altendorf discloses wherein the retaining device (10) viewed in a machining direction of the sawing blade is located in the area of a front side of the sawing device (the guard device is located infront of and behind the saw blade), and wherein the first sensor unit (sensor; paragraph [0018]) viewed in the machining direction of the sawing blade is located between the retaining device (10) and the saw blade (2; see Fig. 1)
In regards to claim 11, Altendorf discloses wherein the first sensor unit operates contactless (video camera; paragraph [0018])
In regards to claim 12, Altendorf discloses wherein the sawing device further comprises a control device (control means; paragraph [0018]) for controlling the sensor- controlled drive device (motor), and wherein the control device is adapted to instruct the sensor-controlled drive device to drive (lifting movement; paragraph [0018]) the at least one retaining element into the active position, when the first sensor unit has detected the end face of the workpiece.
In regards to claim 18, Altendorf discloses a CNC machining center (preamble not considered a limitation) for wood, metal, plastics or glass materials comprising a sawing device according to claim 12 (Fig. 1).
Claims 8-9, 11-12, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zilio (EP0796707)
In regards to claim 8, Zilio discloses a sawing device (fig. 1) comprising a saw blade (3) for separating parts from workpieces, a retaining device (stirrup 7) for preventing a kick-back of the separated parts, and a sensor-controlled drive device (guide 22) for driving at least one retaining element (cleat 5) of the retaining device (7) between an inactive position (e.g. Fig. 3) and an active position (Fig. 4); wherein the sensor-controlled drive device (guide 22) comprises a first sensor unit (15), wherein the first sensor unit is arranged on the sawing device (fig. 1) in such a way, that the first sensor unit(15) is able to detect an end face of a workpiece before the saw blade is able to fully separate a part from the workpiece
(“characterized in that, when, following the manual movement of thrust carried out by the operator, the rear external face (23) of the workpiece or cutting board (1) crosses the reading line of the photoelectric cell (15), said photoelectric cell provides an impulse to actuate the pneumatic cylinder (21), which, respectively driving the crosspiece (18) and the stirrup (7), causes the rectilinear displacement of the pusher cleat (5) in the opposite direction to the direction of advance of said part, said cleat then being in an inclined position.).
In regards to claim 9, Zilio discloses wherein the retaining device (7) viewed in a machining direction of the sawing blade is located in the area of a front side of the sawing device (fig. 1), and wherein the first sensor unit (15) viewed in the machining direction of the sawing blade is located between the retaining device (7) and the saw blade 3)
In regards to claim 11, Zilio discloses wherein the first sensor unit (15) operates contactless (photocell)
In regards to claim 12, Zilio discloses wherein the sawing device further comprises a control device (control circuit) for controlling the sensor- controlled drive device (22), and wherein the control device is adapted to instruct the sensor-controlled drive device to drive (via pneumatic cylinder 21) the at least one retaining element (7) into the active position (fig 5), when the first sensor unit (15) has detected the end face of the workpiece.
In regards to claim 18, Zilio discloses a CNC machining center (preamble not considered a limitation) for wood, metal, plastics or glass materials comprising a sawing device according to claim 12 (Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 19, Zilio discloses wherein the CNC machining center (preamble not considered a limitation) is a multifunction bridge (element 19 bridges the saw blade).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altendorf (U.S. Publication 2002/0134464) in view of Neufeld et al. (U.S. Publication 2025/0187225). In regards to claim 10, Altendorf discloses the claimed invention except wherein the first sensor unit uses a distance measurement between the first sensor unit and a surface of the workpiece. Neufeld teaches a panel saw having a safety device for preventing cutting injuries, wherein a guard height sensor is adapted to determine the height of the guard above the workpiece support surface. Altendorf further teaches that the guard is heigh adjustable and that the height adjustment of the guard can be actuated by motor means (Altendorf paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate a sensor as taught by Neufeld to detect the height of the guard relative to the workpiece to ensure that the guard is positioned appropriately for safe operation. Such modification would have involved the predictable use of known sensing technology to improve the safety monitoring of a known saw system.
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altendorf (U.S. Publication 2002/0134464) in view of Theunissen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,586,279), herein referred to as Theunissen.
In regards to claim 13, Altendorf discloses the claimed invention except wherein the sensor- controlled drive device (motor paragraph [0018]) further comprises a status monitoring device for the retaining device for monitoring, whether the retaining element is in the active position or the inactive position. Rather, Altendorf further teaches that the guard is heigh adjustable and that the height adjustment of the guard can be actuated by motor means such that the guard or retaining device is movable between an active and inactive position. (Altendorf paragraph [0018]). Theunissen sets forth the use of a position sensor, which may be a potentiometer, an optical or magnetic sensor, or any other suitable position sensor (col. 6, lines 39-46), to sense the position of the actuated part. This allows feedback to the controller that the actuated part is in the correct position. As Altendorf provides for the movement of the retaining element (guard) upon the sensing of the workpiece to an active or inactive position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a status monitoring device to provide feedback to the controller that the guard was in the correct position relative to the workpiece to ensure that the guard is positioned appropriately for safe operation.
In regards to claim 14, the modified device of Altendorf discloses wherein the status monitoring device (position sensor 40 as modified by Theunissen) is a second sensor unit (col. 6, lines 39-46).
In regards to claim 15, the modified device of Altendorf discloses wherein the second sensor unit comprises at least one component for a light barrier, for an acoustic distance measurement, for an optical distance measurement or for at least one electrical contact in a guideway for the at least one retaining element or for a contact measurement probing (a potentiometer, an optical or magnetic sensor, or any other suitable position sensor as modified (col. 6, lines 39-46 Theunissen).
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altendorf (U.S. Publication 2002/0134464) in view of Schell et al. (U.S. Patent 10,870,216), herein referred to as Schell.
In regards to claim 16 and 17, the modified device of Altendorf discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations “wherein the sensor- controlled drive device (motor; paragraph [0018]) further comprises a status monitoring device for the retaining device (10) for monitoring, whether the retaining element (guard 12) is in the active position or the inactive position (e.g. open/closed), and wherein the control device (control circuit) is further adapted to stop a relative movement between the sawing device and the workpiece, when the status monitoring device has detected that the retaining device is not properly working. Schell sets forth a table saw with an integrated control system that detects the position of the splitting/riving knife utilizing one or more sensors to determine whether any of the guarding components are missing or not properly assembled on the cutting saw. Moreover, Schell teaches a guard control system that temporarily shuts down the saw from further operation or requires activation of a bypass switch prior to starting the motor if any of the guarding components (e.g. the riving knife of the guard assembly) are missing or adjusted into a compromised position. (col. 9, lines 38-54). Schell thereby teaches that it is known to monitor the position of the guard components and to shut down power to the saw until either a bypass switch is selected or the guard position is corrected. As Altendorf provides for the movement of the retaining element (guard 12) towards and away from the face of the workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a status monitoring device (e.g. sensor) to provide feedback to the controller indicating that the retaining element (guard) was in the correct position relative to the workpiece and cutting operation. Thereby ensuring that the retaining element (guard) was properly positioned for safe operation and would provide the ability for automatic shut down power to the saw blade if a dangerous condition was detected.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zilio (EP0796707) in view of Schell et al. (U.S. Patent 10,870,216), herein referred to as Schell.
In regards to claim 16 and 17, the modified device of Zilio discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations “wherein the sensor- controlled drive device (guide 22) further comprises a status monitoring device for the retaining device (7) for monitoring, whether the retaining element (5) is in the active position (fig. 5) or the inactive position (fig. 4), and wherein the control device (control circuit) is further adapted to stop a relative movement between the sawing device and the workpiece, when the status monitoring device has detected that the retaining device is not properly working.”
Rather, Zilio further teaches that the sensor-controlled drive device (guide 22) moves across the span of the saw blade such that the retaining element is moved from the inactive position onto of the workpiece to the active position, thereby supporting the end of the workpiece and providing a push to advance the workpiece through the saw blade. Schell sets forth a table saw with an integrated control system that detects the position of the splitting/riving knife utilizing one or more sensors to determine whether any of the guarding components are missing or not properly assembled on the cutting saw. Moreover, Schell teaches a guard control system that temporarily shuts down the saw from further operation or requires activation of a bypass switch prior to starting the motor if any of the guarding components (e.g. the riving knife of the guard assembly) are missing or adjusted into a compromised position. (col. 9, lines 38-54). Schell thereby teaches that it is known to monitor the position of the guard components and to shut down power to the saw until either a bypass switch is selected or the guard position is corrected. As Zilio provides for the movement of the retaining element (5) via the movement of the guide 22 upon the sensing of the workpiece to direct the retaining element into the active position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a status monitoring device (e.g. sensor) to provide feedback to the controller indicating that the retaining element was in the correct lateral end supporting position relative to the workpiece. Thereby ensuring that the retaining element is properly positioned for the intended pushing operation and would provide the ability for automatic shut down power to the saw blade if a dangerous condition was detected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724