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
Claims 2-3, 8, 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, species A1, claims 1, 4-7, 9-11 in the reply filed on 8/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the phase “disclosed herein” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wittke et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0064532), herein referred to as Wittke. In regards to claim 1, Wittke discloses a system for controlling operation of a chain saw comprising: a chain saw (1); a sensor (proximity sensors 64 or accelerometers; optical system; paragraph [0080; 0088]) for detecting a condition; and a control system (60 CPU; fig. 14) programmed to take an action upon detection by the sensor of a programmed condition (e.g. turn of the chain saw motor; paragraph [0090]).
In regards to claim 4, Wittke discloses wherein the sensor comprises an image sensor (laser sensor; Optical Signal Measurement Module 22; paragraph [0018; 0080; 0093])
In regards to claim 5, Wittke discloses wherein the condition detected by the sensor comprises a position of the chain saw (“Also shown in FIG. 22 are the concepts that the CPU 47 monitors the three-dimensional (3D) position of the chainsaw in relation to its user and if it exceeds the threshold--in other words comes too close to the user the safety measures are engaged.” Paragraph [0100]).
In regards to claim 6, Wittke discloses wherein the programmed condition is a location of a chain saw being a designated distance from a structure (the user of the chainsaw) desired not to be cut (“Also shown in FIG. 22 are the concepts that the CPU 47 monitors the three-dimensional (3D) position of the chainsaw in relation to its user and if it exceeds the threshold--in other words comes too close to the user the safety measures are engaged.” Paragraph [0100]).
In regards to claim 7, Wittke discloses wherein the action that the control system is programmed to take upon detection of the programmed condition by the sensor is to stop movement of the chain of the chain saw.
Likewise the three dimensional angular speed and acceleration are determined by the CPU 47 using measurements made and these numbers are compared to predetermined thresholds which if exceeded the CPU will trigger/engage safety measures--meaning the CPU 47 will signal the actuators 39, and the Electromechanical Device 58.(paragraph [0100])…
Also shown in FIG. 17 where the central processing unit 47 and the electro-mechanical device move the brake lever 6 forward to turn off the chain saw motor, other aspects of the invention are also used to stop the cutting action of the chain saw in the event that the saw the cutting arm gets within predetermined hazardous distances from body parts of the user” (paragraph [0091]).
In regards to claim 9, Wittke discloses, wherein the action that the control system is programmed to take upon detection of the programmed condition by the sensor is to produce a signal.
“As the saw gets within a predetermined hazardous distance off a body-resident receiver 16, it emits signals to discontinue movement of the cutting endless chain. The signal processor 47 mounted on the chain saw receives the signals of hazardous closeness(s) and signals an electro-mechanical device to apply the proper electrical and/or mechanical measures to discontinue movement of the cutting endless chain” paragraph [0091].
In regards to claim 11, Wittke discloses wherein the sensor is located on the chain saw (proximity sensor 64; fig. 23).
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 Wittke et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0064532), herein referred to as Wittke in view of Sorensen (U.S. Patent 5,942,975), herein referred to as Sorensen.
In regards to claim 10, Wittke discloses the claimed invention except wherein the signal is a visual or audio signal. Attention is further directed to the Sorensen chain saw that discloses a device for sensing the distance between a dangerous tool portion of a chain saw and a portion of a human body. Sorensen discloses that the control unit can then be used to control the braking or power cut off of the motor of the chain saw. Additionally, a warning means such as an audible, visual or tactile alarm can be implemented to warn the user. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have additionally incorporated an audible, visual or tactile alarm as demonstrated by Sorensen on the Wittke chain saw to warn the user when chain saw was getting too close to the operator in addition to employing a breaking or motor stopping mechanism.
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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