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 . This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 06/04/2026 in which claims 1-21 are pending, claims 1-7, 20-21 are withdrawn, and claims 8, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are currently amended.
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.
Claims 8-9, 11-12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masse (U.S. Patent 4,938,111) in view of Zilio (EP0796707)
In regards to claim 8, Masse discloses a sawing device (fig. 1) comprising a saw blade 18) for separating parts from workpieces, a retaining device (e.g. finger 32,33,34) for preventing a kick-back of the separated parts, and a sensor-controlled drive device (e.g. hydraulic cylinder 40) for driving at least one retaining element (32) of the retaining device (32,33,34) between an inactive position (e.g. Fig. 3) and an active position (Fig. 2); wherein the sensor-controlled drive device (40) comprises a first sensor unit (15), wherein the first sensor unit is arranged on the sawing device 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.
Masse discloses a set of fingers (32, 33, and 34) that are pivotally moutned on respective shafts, with hydraulic cylinders 40 and 41 assisting movemebt fot eh fingers. Ther fingers are adapted to slide along the lumber as its processed and to engage the lumber should rearward movement of the lumber occur (col. 4, line 62- col. 5, line 4). Masse does not disclose that the hydraulic drive device includes a sensor unit to detect an end face of a workpiece before the saw blade fully separates a part from the workpiece. Zilio discloses a first sensor unit comprising photoelectric cell 15 arranged to detect rear end face 23 of workpiece 1. Zilio teaches that rear end face 23 crosses the reading line of photoelectric cell 15, thereby initiating operation of pneumatic cylinder 21 and movement of the pusher cleat 5, which subsequently advances workpiece 1 through saw blade 4. Because the end face is detected before the workpiece is thereafter pushed through the saw blade to complete the cutting operation, photoelectric cell 15 is arranged to detect end face 23 before saw blade 4 fully separates part 20 from workpiece 1.
It would have been obvious to modify Masse’s hydraulically actuated anti-kickback device to include the sensor and control arrangement taught by Zilio such that the detection of the workpiece end face causes the control device to instruct the hydraulic cylinder 40 to move retaining fingers 32 into its active position. Zilio demonstrates that detecting the end face of a workpiece, and in response actuating a fluid power workpiece engaging member provides automated coordination of the member with the position of the workpiece during cutting. Applying that known control arrangement to Masse’s hydraulically movable anti-kickback finger would predicable ensure that the finger is place in its active retaining position at the appropriate stage of the cutting operation.
In regards to claim 9, the modified device of Masse discloses wherein the retaining device (32) viewed in a machining direction of the sawing blade is located in the area of a front side of the sawing device (18; fig. 1), and wherein the first sensor unit (15 as modified by Zilio) viewed in the machining direction of the sawing blade is located between the retaining device (32) and the saw blade (18).
In regards to claim 10, the modified device of Masse discloses wherein the first sensor unit (15 as modified by Zilio) uses a distance measurement (photoelectric cell ) between the first sensor unit and a surface of the workpiece.
In regards to claim 11, the modified device of Masse discloses wherein the first sensor unit (15 as modified by Zilio) operates contactless (photocell)
In regards to claim 12, the modified device of Masse discloses wherein the sawing device further comprises a control device (control circuit Zilio) for controlling the sensor- controlled drive device (40), and wherein the control device is adapted to instruct the sensor-controlled drive device to drive (via pneumatic cylinder 40) the at least one retaining element (32) into the active position (fig. 2), when the first sensor unit (15 Zilio) has detected the end face of the workpiece.
In regards to claim 18, the modified device of Masse 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, the modified device of Masse discloses wherein the CNC machining center (preamble not considered a limitation) is a multifunction bridge (element 14 bridges the saw blade).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masse (U.S. Patent 4,938,111) in view of Zilio (EP0796707) in view of Theunissen et al. (U.S. Patent 7,586,279), herein referred to as Theunissen.
In regards to claim 13, Masse discloses the claimed invention except wherein the sensor- controlled drive device (as modified by Zilio]) 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. 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 Masse provides for the movement of the retaining element (finger 32) 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 as taught by Theunissen 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 Masse 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 Masse 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 Masse (U.S. Patent 4,938,111) in view of Zilio (EP0796707) in further 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 Masse discloses the claimed invention except for the limitations “wherein the sensor- controlled drive device (40) further comprises a status monitoring device for the retaining device (32) for monitoring, whether the retaining element (32) is in the active position (fig. 2) or the inactive position (fig. 3), 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 (40) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8-18 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights