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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment accompanying the Request for Continued Examination filed 27 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 19-38 are pending. Applicant's cancellation of all previously pending claims has rendered moot all claim objections and claim rejections under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 4 December 2025.
Moreover, the examiner encourages the Applicant to make claim amendments in the manner set forth in 37 CFR 1.121(c) via text markups including underlined text to show claim additions and striking through text to show claim deletions, rather than presenting entirely new claims. The presentation of entirely new claims makes it difficult to determine how the claim scope has changed. Conventional practice is to markup previously pending claims to illustrate amendments. While the examiner appreciates having a ‘clean’ copy of the claims, such a clean copy can alternatively be provided as an additional appendix attachment to the amendment accompanied by a marked-up version.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because a host of reference characters (including “10”, “30”, and “50” as non-exhaustive examples) have been used to designate different structures, such as “10” indicating each of a miter saw, a table saw, and a handheld joiner, “30” indicating each of a miter saw blade and a table saw blade, and “50” indicating a base of a miter saw, a top surface of a table saw, and a support of a joiner. Applicant’s use of the same reference characters to indicate different parts of different embodiments is problematic because it raises confusion regarding which structure or structures are being described in the present application. For example, it is unclear whether a reference to “workpiece support 50” in the present application describes all embodiments, or only at least one of the embodiments. The Applicant should review the entire application to ensure that no reference characters are repeated between the different embodiments, noting that the specification will require corresponding amendments.
Related to the objection above, the drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because various different reference characters have both been used to designate the same part. For example, in Fig. 2, both of reference characters “10” and “12” indicate the exact same miter saw. As another example, in Fig. 6, both of reference characters “10” and “14” indicate the exact same table saw. Applicant should not use two reference characters for the miter saw and two reference characters for the miter saw. The examiner suggests simply using reference character “12” in Fig. 2 and “14” in Fig. 6, since “10” is unnecessary, redundant, and used to indicate multiple different parts.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 at line 12 recites, “each sensor”. This recitation should refer to “the” or “said” sensors, such as by reciting – each of the plurality of sensors –.
Claim 19 at lines 13-14 introduces “physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface”. Each later recitation of “physical contact” (see at least lines 19 and 20) should read – the physical contact – to refer to the same physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface.
Claim 20 at line 11 recites, “each sensor”. This recitation should refer to “the” or “said” sensors, such as by reciting – each of the plurality of sensors –.
Claim 20 at lines 10-11 introduces “physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface”. Each later recitation of “physical contact” (see at least lines 12, 15, and 16) should read – the physical contact – to refer to the same physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface.
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.
Claims 19, 30, and 38 is/are 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 19 at line 22 recites, “a memory location actuator”. This recitation is indefinite. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(a), the meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent. In this case, the meaning of the term “memory storage actuator” is not clear because the term appears to be made up by the Applicant, without any definition being provided. First, the phrase “memory location actuator” is not a known term in the art. For example, the examiner has conducted keyword searching across a host of CPC areas1 and has been unable to locate any other use of the term. Thus, the term “memory location actuator” appears to be a new term derived by the Applicant. Second, the present specification fails to define the term or otherwise provide clarity regarding what structure(s) is/are considered as memory location actuators. Fig. 1 of the present drawings illustrates the actuator as element ‘130’, which is shown only schematically as a box. No structure of the memory location actuator is illustrated in the present drawings because the box illustrating the memory storage actuator could be any conceivable structure. Moreover, the written description does not describe any structure of the memory location actuator. For example, paragraph 167 of the US publication of the present application states, “a memory location actuator configured be selectively actuated, optionally by a user of the power tool”. It is unclear what, other than a user, is able to actuate the memory location actuator. Thus, since a “memory storage actuator” is a term that appears to have been created by the Applicant without providing any definition of the term, the term is indefinite.
Claim 30 at paragraph (i) recites, “a memory location actuator”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons discussed above.
Claim 38 at line 17 recites, “a memory location actuator”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons discussed above.
For examination purposes, any structure, inclusive of computer programming, that causes a location to be stored is considered as “a memory location actuator”. This interpretation is not an acknowledgement that the Applicant has demonstrated possession under 35 USC 112(a) of all such structures.
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.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al.
Regarding claim 19, Reese discloses a power tool 10 (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an implement holder (the implement holder being the structure that secures implement 218 to the circular saw 200 portion of the tool 10, where the implement holder connects the implement 218 to the motor 204 in accordance with col. 2, lines 40-41) configured to hold an implement 218 that performs an operation on a workpiece (the implement 218 is a blade that performs a cutting operation on a workpiece since the tool 10 is a miter saw per col. 2, lines 28-31);
a motor 204 configured to receive an electric current (since power supply 206 may be an alternating or direct cutter power supply per col. 3, lines 28-32) and to actuate the implement holder to move the implement 218 responsive to receipt of the electric current (see col. 2, lines 40-41 and col. 3, lines 26-28);
a workpiece support 100 including a vertical support surface (defined by fence 124; see Figs. 1-2) configured to support a vertical face of the workpiece (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 3, lines 9-12), wherein the workpiece support is configured to maintain a fixed orientation of the workpiece relative to the vertical support surface when the vertical face of the workpiece is in face-to-face contact with at least a threshold region of the vertical support surface (see Figs. 1-2 and col. 3, lines 9-12; the vertical support surface is configured as recited because a user is able to press the workpiece against the vertical support surface of the fence 124 so that the workpiece is pressed into a fixed orientation on account of friction between the workpiece and fence; the ‘at least a threshold region’ of the vertical support surface can be any region of the vertical support surface against which the workpiece is pressed, such as a region including the sensor 20 in Fig. 1);
a sensor array disposed along the vertical support surface (while Fig. 1 only illustrates a single sensor 20, col. 4 at lines 8-10 expressly contemplates an array of sensors, with col. 4 at lines 14-20 further contemplating a plurality of sensors 20), the sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors (see col. 4, lines 8-10, where the ‘array’ includes a plurality of sensors, and also col. 4, lines 14-20), each sensor configured to generate a corresponding individual output indicative of whether the sensor detects physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59 describing that the output is indicative of physical contact; also per col. 5, lines 8-10, each of the sensors 20 includes an optical proximity sensor 60, which is able to detect physical contact consistent with the present application – e.g., the present application at paragraphs 125 and 214 of the US publication of the application disclose optical sensors as being configure to detect physical contact and orientation of a workpiece, noting that paragraph 214 teaches that optical sensors can perform the functions recited in paragraphs A1-A32 of the present application; there is no disclosed structural difference between the optical sensors disclosed in the present application and the optical sensors of Reese, such that the optical sensors of Reese have the same ‘configuration’ as the sensors disclosed in the present application);
a controller 22 programmed to receive the individual sensor outputs and to determine whether the workpiece is in the fixed orientation (see col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15; the controller 22 determines that the workpiece is not in the fixed orientation when too many erroneous readings are received – i.e., if the operator pivots or seesaws the workpiece such that the workpiece becomes spaced from the fence, and such that the workpiece is not in the fixed orientation relative to the vertical support surface, the controller 22 causes a display, speaker, or status LED to present an error message or warning; thus, the controller 22 is able to determine that all sensors detect contact of the workpiece with the fence 124 and the workpiece is in the fixed orientation);
wherein the controller 22 includes an orientation memory location configured to store an initial sensor output comprising information indicative of which of the plurality of sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the plurality of sensors do not detect physical contact (first, per col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15, the sensor output is indicative of which of the sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the sensors do not because the sensor output can indicate a pivoting or seesawing of the workpiece that results in the workpiece being spaced from, rather than in contact with, the vertical support surface; second, the controller 22 includes a memory orientation location that stores a prior measurement data per col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7 and also per col. 8, lines 1-6, and the prior measurement data is an ‘initial’ sensor output at least in comparison with a latter sensor output – i.e., there is necessarily some ‘initial sensor output’ among the various outputs stored by the tool, such that if there are two measurements taken at different times that are being compared, an earlier one of the measurements is ‘initial’ relative to the later one of the measurements; put another way, any earlier data relative to which newly received data is compared can be considered as an ‘initial sensor output’ because the output is ‘initial’ at least for the purposes of the comparison);
wherein the controller 22 is programmed to store the initial sensor output responsive to actuation of a memory location actuator or supply of the electric current to the motor (see col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7; this data is ‘initial sensor output’ because the data is usable for future determinations, such as the determination of the workpiece pivoting or seesawing at line 44 to col. 8, line 15; since a future comparison may be made using the data stored at col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7, this data is ‘initial sensor output’ for the purposes of that later comparison); and
wherein the controller 22 is further programmed to compare the initial sensor output to a current sensor output to determine whether the workpiece has moved relative to the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54-59 and col. 8, line 1-12).
Regarding claim 20, Reese discloses a method of operating a power tool 10 (see Figs. 1 and 6), the method comprising:
holding an implement 218 (the tool 10 has an implement holder that holds the implement 218 as can be seen in Figs. 1-3 and as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above);
supplying electric current to a motor 204 to actuate an implement holder (since power supply 206 may be an alternating or direct cutter power supply per col. 3, lines 28-32; see also col. 2, lines 40-41);
supporting a workpiece on a vertical support surface (the vertical support surface defined by fence 124; see Figs. 1-2) that supports a vertical face of the workpiece (see col. 7, lines 54-59; since the sensors 40 may ‘lose contact with the workpiece’, and since the sensors 40 are in the vertical support surface, the workpiece is supported on the vertical support surface prior to contact being lost);
maintaining a fixed orientation of the workpiece relative to the vertical support surface when the vertical face of the workpiece is in face-to-face contact with at least a threshold region of the vertical support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59; the fixed orientation is maintained when the workpiece does not lose contact with the displacement sensors 40; the threshold region is a region including the displacement sensors);
detecting, with a sensor array disposed along the vertical support surface and comprising a plurality of sensors (while Fig. 1 only illustrates a single sensor 20, col. 4 at lines 8-10 expressly contemplates an array of sensors, with col. 4 at lines 14-20 further contemplating a plurality of sensors 20), physical contact between the workpiece and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59), each sensor generating an individual sensor output indicative of whether the sensor detects physical contact (see col. 8, lines 1-6, where the output is indicative of contact per col. 7, lines 54-59);
receiving the individual sensor outputs at a controller 22 (see col. 7, lines 44-48 and col. 8, lines 1-6);
storing, in an orientation memory location, an initial sensor output comprising information indicative of which of the plurality of sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the plurality of sensors do not detect physical contact (first, per col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15, the sensor output is indicative of which of the sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the sensors do not because the sensor output can indicate a pivoting or seesawing of the workpiece that results in the workpiece being spaced from, rather than in contact with, the vertical support surface; second, the controller 22 includes a memory orientation location that stores a prior measurement data per col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7 and also per col. 8, lines 1-6, and the prior measurement data is an ‘initial’ sensor output at least in comparison with a latter sensor output – i.e., there is necessarily some ‘initial sensor output’ among the various outputs stored by the tool, such that if there are two measurements taken at different times that are being compared, an earlier one of the measurements is ‘initial’ relative to the later one of the measurements; put another way, any earlier data relative to which newly received data is compared can be considered as an ‘initial sensor output’ because the output is ‘initial’ at least for the purposes of the comparison); and
comparing the initial sensor output to a current sensor output to determine whether the workpiece has moved relative to the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12).
Regarding claim 38, Reese discloses a power tool 10 (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an implement holder (the implement holder being the structure that secures implement 218 to the circular saw 200 portion of the tool 10, where the implement holder connects the implement 218 to the motor 204 in accordance with col. 2, lines 40-41) configured to hold an implement 218 (see Fig. 1-3);
the implement 218 configured to performs an operation on a workpiece (the implement 218 is a blade that performs a cutting operation on a workpiece since the tool 10 is a miter saw per col. 2, lines 28-31);
a motor 204 configured to actuate the implement holder (see col. 2, lines 40-41 and col. 3, lines 26-28);
a workpiece support 100 including a support surface (the support surface being either of the vertical support surface of fence 124 and the horizontal support surface of horizontal support 120);
a sensor array disposed along the support surface (while Fig. 1 only illustrates a single sensor 20, col. 4 at lines 8-10 expressly contemplates an array of sensors, with col. 4 at lines 14-20 further contemplating a plurality of sensors 20), the sensor array comprising a plurality of sensors (see col. 4, lines 8-10, where the ‘array’ includes a plurality of sensors, and also col. 4, lines 14-20), each sensor configured to generate a corresponding individual output indicative of whether the sensor detects physical contact between the workpiece and the support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59 describing that the output is indicative of physical contact; also per col. 5, lines 8-10, each of the sensors 20 includes an optical proximity sensor 60, which is able to detect physical contact consistent with the present application – e.g., the present application at paragraphs 125 and 214 of the US publication of the application disclose optical sensors as being configure to detect physical contact and orientation of a workpiece, noting that paragraph 214 teaches that optical sensors can perform the functions recited in paragraphs A1-A32 of the present application; there is no disclosed structural difference between the optical sensors disclosed in the present application and the optical sensors of Reese, such that the optical sensors of Reese have the same ‘configuration’ as the sensors disclosed in the present application);
a controller 22 programmed to receive the individual sensor outputs and to control operation of the power tool 10 based at least in part on the individual sensor outputs (see col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15; the controller 22 causes a display, speaker, or status LED to present an error message or warning, which is a control of an operation of the power tool 10 that is based on the sensor outputs);
wherein the controller 22 includes an orientation memory location configured to store an initial sensor output comprising information indicative of which of the plurality of sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the plurality of sensors do not detect physical contact (first, per col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15, the sensor output is indicative of which of the sensors detect physical contact with the workpiece and which of the sensors do not because the sensor output can indicate a pivoting or seesawing of the workpiece that results in the workpiece being spaced from, rather than in contact with, the vertical support surface; second, the controller 22 includes a memory orientation location that stores a prior measurement data per col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7 and also per col. 8, lines 1-6, and the prior measurement data is an ‘initial’ sensor output at least in comparison with a latter sensor output – i.e., there is necessarily some ‘initial sensor output’ among the various outputs stored by the tool, such that if there are two measurements taken at different times that are being compared, an earlier one of the measurements is ‘initial’ relative to the later one of the measurements; put another way, any earlier data relative to which newly received data is compared can be considered as an ‘initial sensor output’ because the output is ‘initial’ at least for the purposes of the comparison);
wherein the controller 22 is programmed to store the initial sensor output responsive to actuation of a memory location actuator or supply of the electric current to the motor (see col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7; this data is ‘initial sensor output’ because the data is usable for future determinations, such as the determination of the workpiece pivoting or seesawing at line 44 to col. 8, line 15; since a future comparison may be made using the data stored at col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7, this data is ‘initial sensor output’ for the purposes of that later comparison); and
wherein the controller 22 is further programmed to compare the initial sensor output to a current sensor output to determine whether the workpiece has moved relative to the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54-59 and col. 8, line 1-12).
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 21-23 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al.
Regarding claim 21, Reese discloses a power tool 10 (see Fig. 1), comprising:
an implement holder (the implement holder being the structure that secures implement 218 to the circular saw 200 portion of the tool 10, where the implement holder connects the implement 218 to the motor 204 in accordance with col. 2, lines 40-41) configured to hold an implement 218, that performs an operation on a workpiece (the implement 218 is a blade that performs a cutting operation on a workpiece since the tool 10 is a miter saw per col. 2, lines 28-31);
a motor 204 configured to receive an electric current (since power supply 206 may be an alternating or direct cutter power supply per col. 3, lines 28-32) and to actuate the implement holder (see col. 2, lines 40-41 and col. 3, lines 26-28);
a workpiece support 100 including a horizontal support surface and a vertical support surface (see Fig. 1; the vertical support surfaces including a surface of fence 124 and the horizontal support surface including a surface of base 120, which support the workpiece in vertical and horizontal directions, respectively, as is evident from Fig. 1),
a first threshold region defined on the horizontal support surface and a second threshold region defined on the vertical support surface (the threshold regions being the regions of the support surfaces that support a workpiece when the workpiece is detected by the sensor arrays, which sensor arrays are discussed below);
a second sensor array disposed along the vertical support surface (see col. 4, lines 3-10, noting in particular the disclosure of an array across the fence 124), the second sensor array including a plurality of second sensors distributed across the vertical support surface to detect movement in a left-right direction and an up-to-down direction within a plane of the vertical support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59 and see also col. 4, lines 3-10; the sensors are ‘to detect movement’ in the manner recited by the claim because the sensors are optical sensors that include both displacement and proximity sensors per col. 5, lines 8-10; note that no particular structure of a sensor is required to detect movement in one direction compared to another in view of the present specification);
where the plurality of second sensors are configured to detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the second threshold region (see col. 7, lines 54-59; see also col. 5, lines 8-10; since the second sensors include optical displacement and proximity sensors, these sensors are configured in the manner recited by the claim; indeed, the present application discloses optical sensors as one option for detecting direct physical contact, and no particular unique configuration of the optical sensors is disclosed as being required to detect contact – in other words, nothing distinguishes Applicant’s optical sensors from those of Reese) to generate second sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface (see col. 8, lines 1-6 and col. 5, lines 27-63);
wherein the second sensor outputs are indicative of contact with the second threshold region and of displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6 and col. 5, lines 8-10 & 27-63; outputs from optical sensors are ‘indicative’ of the contact and displacement consistent with the present specification, since the outputs of optical sensors are considered by the present application to be indicative of contact and displacement); and
a controller 22 programmed to receive the second sensor outputs from the second sensor array (see col. 3, lines 61-64 and col. 5, lines 58-63), to determine displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface from changes in the first sensor output and the second sensor outputs (see col. 4, lines 60-67, col. 5, lines 58-63, and col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12).
At least for purposes of this rejection, Reese is considered as failing to disclose that the power tool comprises, in addition to the second sensor array, a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Reese is considered as failing to disclose: a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface, the first sensor array including a plurality of first sensors distributed across the horizontal support surface to detect movement in a left-to-right direction and a forward-to-backward direction within a plane of the horizontal support surface; where the plurality of first sensors are configured to detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region to generate first sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface; wherein the first sensor outputs are indicative of contact with the first threshold region; and that the controller is programmed to receive the first sensor outputs from the first sensor array, as required by claim 21.
While Reese’s disclosure of providing the second sensor array in the fence 124 is relied upon above, Reese also teaches a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface (see col. 4, lines 3-10, noting in particular the disclosure of an array across the base 100), the first sensor array including a plurality of first sensors distributed across the horizontal support surface to detect movement in a left-to-right direction and a forward-to-backward direction within a plane of the horizontal support surface (see col. 4, lines 3-10; the sensors are ‘to detect movement’ in the manner recited by the claim because the sensors are optical sensors that include both displacement and proximity sensors per col. 5, lines 8-10; note that no particular structure of an optical sensor is required to detect movement in one direction compared to another in view of the present specification); where the plurality of first sensors are configured to detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12 and also col. 5, lines 8-10; since the first sensors include optical displacement and proximity sensors, these sensors are configured in the manner recited by the claim; indeed, the present application discloses optical sensors as one option for detecting direct physical contact, and no particular unique configuration of the optical sensors is disclosed as being required to detect contact – in other words, nothing distinguishes Applicant’s optical sensors from those of Reese) to generate first sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12); wherein the first sensor outputs are indicative of contact with the first threshold region (see col. 7, lines 54-59); and that the controller 22 is programmed to receive first sensor outputs from the first sensor array (since the col. 4, lines 27-31; this passage is applicable regardless of whether the base 100 or fence 124 includes the sensor array because in either situation the sensors 20 are used to provide data to the controller 22; alternatively, see the modification of Reese below) [claim 21]. Reese teaches that providing a plurality of sensors is advantages to ensure accuracy of obtained measurements by measuring the workpiece in multiple places (see col. 4, lines 14-18 and col. 7, line 46-48), and also that different operators may prefer measurement devices in different locations (see col. 4, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the power tool of Reese with both the first and second sensor arrays in order to ensure accuracy of obtained measurements by measuring the workpiece in multiple places and also to provide a power tool that is able to meet the preferences of the greatest number of operators. By providing the power tool with two sensor arrays – a first array in the base and a second array in the fence – the power tool is able to compare positions of the workpiece measured along different perspectives and more accurately determine the location of the workpiece. For example, an operator often uses his or her hand to hold the workpiece against the fence, and in this case the hand may be detected by a sensor on the fence. However, a sensor in the base could then detect that the workpiece is not directly on the base, and therefore provide additional information to the controller to determine that the workpiece may not be the structure detected by the sensor in the fence. As such, the controller would better understand the position of the workpiece with less potential for erroneous readings based on the presence of the operator’s hand. As another example, this configuration allows a determination of if the workpiece is held against the fence at a height above the base (i.e., with the workpiece spaced above the base). The controller could then recommend to a user that the user position the workpiece against the base so that the workpiece is better secured. Moreover, since different operators have different preferences for sensor locations as acknowledged by Reese, providing sensors in multiple locations allows for satisfying a greater number of potential operators. This modification includes programming the controller to receive the sensor outputs from both sensor arrays, since the motivation for the modification includes the power tool being able to more accurately determine the position of the workpiece, which necessitates processing the outputs from both sensor arrays to improve the accuracy.
Regarding claim 22, Reese, as modified, discloses that the controller 22 is programmed to determine an orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface from the first sensor outputs and the second sensor outputs (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12, noting that the pivoting or seesawing of the workpiece is relative to both support surfaces); the controller 22 is programmed to generate an orientation output from the orientation of the workpiece (see col. 8, lines 8-12); the controller 22 is programmed to compare the orientation of the workpiece to a target orientation of the workpiece (see col. 8, lines 1-6) and to generate the orientation output from the comparison (see col. 8, lines 7-12); and the target orientation of the workpiece includes at least one of: (i) direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region of the horizontal support surface; (ii) face-to-face contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region of the horizontal support surface; (iv) direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the second threshold region of the vertical support surface; and (v) face-to-face contact between the workpiece and at least the second threshold region of the vertical support surface (the target orientation includes contact between the workpiece and the sensors per col. 7, lines 54-59 and col. 8, lines 1-6; that is, the controller 22 compares the sensor outputs to a prior measurement, where the prior measurement includes contact with the sensors).
Regarding claim 23, Reese, as modified, discloses that the power tool 10 further includes one of a display 24, a digital display, an optical indicator 30, and an acoustic indicator (see col. 8, lines 7-12) configured to receive the orientation output from the controller 22 and to: (i) notify a user when the orientation output indicates that the orientation of the workpiece differs from the target orientation of the workpiece (see col. 8, lines 7-12); and wherein the controller is further programmed to: (ii) selectively permit flow of the electric current to the motor when the orientation of the workpiece corresponds to the target orientation of the workpiece (see col. 2, lines 33-36 and col. 3, lines 25-32; the flow is ‘selective’ because the flow occurs when selected by the user, such as via actuation of a switch or trigger, as opposing to the flow being constant; the power tool 10 permits the flow when the workpiece is oriented so as to not be detected as mis-aligned).
Regarding claim 29, Reese, as modified, discloses that the power tool 10 is a miter saw (see Fig. 1 and col. 2, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 30, Reese, as modified, discloses that the controller 22 includes an orientation memory location configured to store an initial set of the first sensor outputs and the second sensor outputs indicative of an initial orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (first, per col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15, the sensor output is indicative of the orientation of the workpiece relative to the support surfaces because the sensor output is usable by the controller 22 to determine whether the workpiece is pivoted or seesawed; second, the controller 22 includes a memory orientation location that stores a prior measurement data per col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7 and also per col. 8, lines 1-6, and the prior measurement data is an ‘initial’ sensor output at least in comparison with a latter sensor output – i.e., there is necessarily some ‘initial sensor output’ among the various outputs stored by the tool, such that if there are two measurements taken at different times that are being compared, an earlier one of the measurements is ‘initial’ relative to the later one of the measurements; put another way, any earlier data relative to which newly received data is compared can be considered as an ‘initial sensor output’ because the output is ‘initial’ at least for the purposes of the comparison), and wherein the controller is programmed to store the initial set of the first sensor outputs and the second sensor outputs responsive to: (i) actuation of a memory location actuator (see col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 5; the recorded data as disclosed by this passage is usable as a baseline set of data for the comparison disclosed at col. 8, lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 31, Reese, as modified, discloses that the controller 22 is further programmed to store, in an orientation memory location, an initial set of the first sensor outputs and an initial set of the second sensor outputs (first, per col. 7, line 44 to col. 8, line 15, the sensor output is indicative of the orientation of the workpiece relative to the support surfaces because the sensor output is usable by the controller 22 to determine whether the workpiece is pivoted or seesawed; second, the controller 22 includes a memory orientation location that stores a prior measurement data per col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 7 and also per col. 8, lines 1-6, and the prior measurement data is an ‘initial’ sensor output at least in comparison with a latter sensor output – i.e., there is necessarily some ‘initial sensor output’ among the various outputs stored by the tool, such that if there are two measurements taken at different times that are being compared, an earlier one of the measurements is ‘initial’ relative to the later one of the measurements; put another way, any earlier data relative to which newly received data is compared can be considered as an ‘initial sensor output’ because the output is ‘initial’ at least for the purposes of the comparison); wherein the initial set of the first sensor outputs indicates which of the plurality of first sensors detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and the first threshold region and which of the plurality of first sensors do not detect direct physical contact (see col. 7, linee54 to col. 8, line 6); wherein the initial set of the second sensor outputs indicates which of the plurality of second sensors detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and the second threshold region and which of the plurality of second sensors do not detect direct physical contact (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6); and wherein the controller 22 is further programmed to compare a current set of the first sensor outputs and a current set of the second sensor outputs to the initial set of the first sensor outputs and the initial set of the second sensor outputs to determine displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6; noting that the prior displacement data is, at a time immediately following the disclosure of col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 5, the initial set of outputs).
Claims 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0276680 A1 to Green et al.
Regarding claim 24, Reese, as modified, discloses that the controller 22 is programmed to detect motion of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface from the first sensor outputs and the second sensor outputs (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12; the detection motion is movement of the workpiece into a skewed or seesaw position) by: (i) detecting a change in the first sensor outputs or the second sensor outputs (see col. 8, lines 1-6); and/or (ii) detecting a change in the orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface.
Reese, as modified, does not explicitly state when the controller detects the motion of the workpiece (although arguably the controller of Reese, as modified, is always detecting the motion of the workpiece when the power tool is powered on, inclusive of when the implement is performing the operation). Therefore, at least for purposes of this rejection, Reese, as modified, is considered as failing to disclose that the motion is detect when the implement performs the operation as required by claim 24; and wherein the controller is programmed to generate a motion output from motion of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface, and wherein the controller is further programmed to: (i) selectively prevent flow of the electric current to the motor responsive to receipt of the motion output; and/or (ii) selectively stop motion of the implement responsive to receipt of the motion output as required by claim 25.
Green’s teachings are applicable to miter saws (see paragraph 34), and Green teaches that kickback is a concern during operation of power tools (see paragraph 3). Green further teaches a controller 114 that is programmed to detect any abnormal motion of a workpiece (see paragraphs 60-65). Green that the controller 114 is programmed to detect the motion of the workpiece, relative to a workpiece support when an implement performs an operation on the workpiece, based at least in part on sensor outputs (see paragraph 55 describing an example related to a table saw; see also paragraphs 60-65), wherein the controller 114 is programmed to at least one of: (i) detect the motion of the workpiece via a change in the sensor outputs (see paragraphs 55 and 60-65); and (ii) detect the motion of the workpiece via a change in the orientation of the workpiece relative to the workpiece support. [Claim 24] Green also teaches that the controller 114 is programmed to generate a motion output based, at least in part, on motion of the workpiece relative to the workpiece support (see paragraphs 55 and 60-65), wherein the power tool is configured to use the motion output from the controller to at least one of: (i) selectively prevent flow of the electric current to the motor responsive to receipt of the motion output from the controller 114 (see paragraph 57 at the last ten lines of the left column of page 5); and (ii) selectively stop motion of the implement responsive to receipt of the motion output from the controller (see paragraph 89). [Claim 25] Green teaches that programming the controller 114 to detect abnormal motion of a workpiece is advantageous because the controller 114 can activate a reactive device 115 to stop, slow, or inhibit the abnormal motion (see paragraph 11 and Fig. 1), which improves operator safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to program the controller of Reese, as modified, to detect any abnormal motion of the workpiece when the blade of the power is performing cutting, as well as to provide Reese, as modified, with a reactive device that is able to stop, slow, or inhibit the abnormal motion, in view of the teachings of Green. This modification is advantageous because it improves operator safety by reducing the risks associated with kickback that may occur during cutting.
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al. as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0226800 A1 to Pierga et al.
Regarding claim 26, Reese, as modified, discloses that the workpiece support includes a horizontal support 120 that defines the horizontal support surface and a vertical support 124 that defines the vertical support surface (see Figs. 1-3); the first sensor array comprises the plurality of first sensors along the horizontal support surface (see col. 4, lines 8-10); the second sensor array comprises the plurality of second sensors along the vertical support surface (see col. 4, lines 8-10); and the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors each include at least one of: (ii) optical sensors (see col. 5, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 27, Reese, as modified, discloses that the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors include a plurality of sensors (see col. 4, lines 8-10), and wherein at least a subset of the plurality of sensors is: (i) operatively coupled to the workpiece support (see Fig. 1 and col. 4, lines 8-10).
Regarding claim 28, Reese, as modified, discloses that each sensor of the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors generates an individual sensor output indicative of physical contact between the workpiece and a corresponding region of the workpiece support (see col. 7, lines 54-59 and col. 8, lines 1-6), and wherein the controller 22 is programmed to control operation of the power tool 10 (this recitation encompasses any operation of the power tool, including an error message or warning operation described at col. 8, lines 8-12) from: (i) the individual sensor outputs; (ii) a number of the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors indicating physical contact; (iii) a change in the number of the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors indicating physical contact; and/or (iv) a change in at least one individual sensor output (see col. 7, line 63 to col. 8, line 12).
Reese, as modified, fails to explicitly disclose that the plurality of first sensors are spaced apart and that the plurality of second sensors are spaced apart as required by claim 26 and that the plurality of sensors is spaced apart as required by claim 27.
Pierga, though, teaches a power tool (see the embodiment of Fig. 24, as one example) having a plurality of sensors 250 that are spaced apart along a support surface (see Fig. 24, where the support surface is an upward facing surface relative to the figure). Pierga teaches that providing a plurality of spaced apart sensors allows for detection of incremental information about an object (see paragraph 60), and also allows for detecting the direction and speed of movement of a detected object (see paragraph 63). Furthermore, providing a plurality of spaced apart sensors rather than a plurality of non-spaced apart sensors allows for detecting the workpiece over a larger area – e.g., consider Fig. 24 of Pierga, where the detection area defined by all sensors 250 in the aggregate would be much smaller if the sensors 250 were not spaced apart. Alternatively, for detection over a constant area, spacing apart the sensors reducing the costs of the power tool compared to the sensor being non-spaced apart, since fewer sensors can be provided when the sensors are spaced apart.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide each of the plurality of sensors of Reese, as modified, in spaced apart fashion along each of the support surfaces in view of the teachings of Pierga. This modification is advantageous for multiple reasons. This modification allows for detecting the workpiece over a larger area with a same number of sensors compared to the sensors being non-spaced apart. Furthermore, for a constant detection area, this modification is advantageous because it allows for providing fewer sensors compared to the sensors being non-spaced apart, which reduces manufacturing costs by reducing the number of required sensors.
Claims 32-35 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al.
Regarding claim 32, Reese discloses a method of operating a power tool 10 (see Figs. 1 and 6), the method comprising:
holding, with an implement holder, an implement 218 that performs an operation on a workpiece (the tool 10 has an implement holder that holds the implement 218 as can be seen in Figs. 1-3 and as discussed in the rejection of claim 19 above; the implement performs a cutting operation on a workpiece);
actuating, with a motor 204 configured to receive electric current, the implement holder (since power supply 206 may be an alternating or direct cutter power supply per col. 3, lines 28-32; see also col. 2, lines 40-41);
supporting the workpiece on a workpiece support 100 that including a horizontal support surface (of element 120) and a vertical support surface (the vertical support surface defined by fence 124; see Figs. 1-2);
defining a first threshold region on the horizontal support surface and a second threshold region on the vertical support surface (see Fig. 1; by placing a workpiece on the workpiece support in contact with the horizontal and vertical support surfaces, an operator defines the first and second threshold regions as regions in contact with the workpiece; alternatively, the first and second threshold regions are regions of the respective support surfaces provided with sensor arrays);
detecting, with a second sensor array disposed along the vertical support surface and comprising a plurality of second sensors distributed across the vertical support surface (see col. 4, lines 7-10, in particular relying on the disclosure of an array of sensors 20 in an array on the fence 124) to detect movement in a left-to-right direction and an up-to-down direction within a plane of the vertical support surface (see col. 5, lines 8-10, noting that the sensors are optical displacement and proximity sensors, and col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12), direction physical contact between the workpiece and at least the second threshold region (see col. 7, lines 54-59) and generating second sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the vertical support surface (see col. 8, lines 1-6);
determining displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface from changes in the second sensor outputs (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6; note that the pivoting or seesawing is displacement of the workpiece relative to both support surfaces); and
determining whether the workpiece is in a fixed orientation relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6; the controller 22 determines that the workpiece is not in the fixed orientation when too many erroneous readings are received – i.e., if the operator pivots or seesaws the workpiece such that the workpiece becomes spaced from the fence, and such that the workpiece is not in the fixed orientation relative to the vertical support surface, the controller 22 causes a display, speaker, or status LED to present an error message or warning; thus, the controller 22 is able to determine that all sensors detect contact of the workpiece with the fence 124).
At least for purposes of this rejection, Reese is considered as failing to disclose that the power tool comprises, in addition to the second sensor array, a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface. As such, at least for purposes of this rejection, Reese is considered as failing to disclose: that the detecting is with a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface and comprising a plurality of first sensors distributed across the horizontal support surface to detect movement in a left-to-right direction and a forward-to-back direction within a plane of the horizontal support surface, direct physical contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region and generating first sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface; that the displacement of the workpiece is also determined from changes in the first sensor outputs, as required by claim 32.
While Reese’s disclosure of providing the second sensor array in the fence 124 is relied upon above, Reese also teaches a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface (see col. 4, lines 3-10, noting in particular the disclosure of an array across the base 100). Reese teaches, when the first sensor array is provided, detecting, with a first sensor array disposed along the horizontal support surface and comprising a plurality of first sensors distributed across the horizontal support surface (see col. 4, lines 7-10, in particular relying on the disclosure of an array of sensors 20 in across the base 100) to detect movement in a left-to-right direction and an forward-to-back direction within a plane of the horizontal support surface (see col. 5, lines 8-10, noting that the sensors are optical displacement and proximity sensors, and col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12), direction physical contact between the workpiece and at least the first threshold region (see col. 7, lines 54-59) and generating first sensor outputs that change in response to displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface (see col. 8, lines 1-6); and that the displacement of the workpiece is determined from changes in the first sensor outputs (see col. 8, lines 1-6). [Claim 32] Reese teaches that providing a plurality of sensors is advantages to ensure accuracy of obtained measurements by measuring the workpiece in multiple places (see col. 4, lines 14-18 and col. 7, line 46-48), and also that different operators may prefer measurement devices in different locations (see col. 4, lines 18-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the method of Reese with both the first and second sensor arrays in order to ensure accuracy of obtained measurements by measuring the workpiece in multiple places and also to provide a power tool that is able to meet the preferences of the greatest number of operators. By providing the power tool with two sensor arrays – a first array in the base and a second array in the fence – the power tool is able to compare positions of the workpiece measured along different perspectives and more accurately determine the location of the workpiece. For example, an operator often uses his or her hand to hold the workpiece against the fence, and in this case the hand may be detected by a sensor on the fence. However, a sensor in the base could then detect that the workpiece is not directly on the base, and therefore provide additional information to the controller to determine that the workpiece may not be the structure detected by the sensor in the fence. As such, the controller would better understand the position of the workpiece with less potential for erroneous readings based on the presence of the operator’s hand. As another example, this configuration allows a determination of if the workpiece is held against the fence at a height above the base (i.e., with the workpiece spaced above the base). The controller could then recommend to a user that the user position the workpiece against the base so that the workpiece is better secured. Moreover, since different operators have different preferences for sensor locations as acknowledged by Reese, providing sensors in multiple locations allows for satisfying a greater number of potential operators. This modification includes programming the controller to receive the sensor outputs from both sensor arrays to determine whether the workpiece is pivoted or seesawed, since the motivation for the modification includes the power tool being able to more accurately determine the position of the workpiece, which necessitates processing the outputs from both sensor arrays to improve the accuracy.
Regarding claim 33, Reese, as modified, discloses detecting, with the controller 22 and based on the sensor outputs from the plurality of first sensors and the plurality of second sensors, an initial orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (the initial orientation of the workpiece being the orientation corresponding to the prior data of col. 8, lines 1-6; i.e., the initial orientation is the orientation represented by the data used as a reference for comparing newly received data); detecting, with the controller and based at least in part on the sensor outputs, a current orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, lines 54-59 and col. 8, lines 1-6); comparing the current orientation to at least one of the initial orientation and a target orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 8, lines 1-6); and controlling operation of the power tool based at least in part on the comparison (see col. 8, lines 8-12, where the ‘operation’ that is controlled is the providing of the error message or warning).
Regarding claim 34, Reese, as modified, discloses that controlling includes: (ii) permitting supply of electric current to the motor when the current orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface corresponds to the target orientation; and (iv) permitting motion of the implement when the current orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface corresponds to the target orientation (see the controller 22 permits a next cutting operation when the workpiece is not determined to be pivoted or seesawed; see col. 8, lines 12-21).
Regarding claim 35, Reese, as modified, discloses that controlling includes notifying a user whether the current orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface differs from or corresponds to the target orientation (see col. 8, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 37, Reese, as modified, discloses storing, in an orientation memory location, an initial set of the first sensor outputs and an initial set of the second sensor outputs (the initial set of outputs corresponding to the ‘prior’ data described at col. 8, lines 1-6; this ‘prior’ data is initial with respect to the currently sensed data due to being detected earlier than the currently sensed data); wherein the initial set of the first sensor outputs indicates which of the plurality of first sensors detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and the first threshold region and which of the plurality of first sensors do not detect direct physical contact (see col. 7, lines 54-58 and col. 8, lines 1-6); wherein the initial set of the second sensor outputs indicates which of the plurality of second sensors detect direct physical contact between the workpiece and the second threshold region and which of the plurality of second sensors do not detect direct physical contact (see col. 7, lines 54-58 and col. 8, lines 1-6); and comparing, with the controller, a current set of the first sensor outputs and a current set of the second sensor outputs to the initial set of the first sensor outputs and the initial set of the second sensor outputs to determine displacement of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12).
Claims 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 9,810,524 B2 to Reese et al. as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2020/0276680 A1 to Green et al.
Regarding claim 36, Reese, as modified, discloses performing the operation on the workpiece (see col. 4, lines 63-65); and detecting motion of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6; the motion that is detected is a pivoting or seesawing of the workpiece from the position contacting the sensors), wherein detecting the motion includes detecting a change in the orientation of the workpiece relative to the horizontal support surface and the vertical support surface from an initial orientation (see col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 6).
Reese, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the detecting of the motion occurs during the performing of the operation on the workpiece as required by claim 36 (although arguably the controller of Reese, as modified, is always detecting the motion of the workpiece when the power tool is powered on, inclusive of when the implement is performing the operation).
Green’s teachings are applicable to miter saws (see paragraph 34), and Green teaches that kickback is a concern during operation of power tools (see paragraph 3). Green further teaches a controller 114 that is programmed to detect any abnormal motion of a workpiece (see paragraphs 60-65). Green that the controller 114 is programmed to detect the motion of the workpiece, relative to a workpiece support when an implement performs an operation on the workpiece, based at least in part on sensor outputs (see paragraph 55 describing an example related to a table saw; see also paragraphs 60-65), wherein the controller 114 is programmed to at least one of: (i) detect the motion of the workpiece via a change in the sensor outputs (see paragraphs 55 and 60-65); and (ii) detect the motion of the workpiece via a change in the orientation of the workpiece relative to the workpiece support. [Relevant to claim 36] Green teaches that programming the controller 114 to detect abnormal motion of a workpiece is advantageous because the controller 114 can activate a reactive device 115 to stop, slow, or inhibit the abnormal motion (see paragraph 11 and Fig. 1), which improves operator safety.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to program the controller of Reese, as modified, to detect any abnormal motion of the workpiece when the blade of the power is performing cutting, as well as to provide Reese, as modified, with a reactive device that is able to stop, slow, or inhibit the abnormal motion, in view of the teachings of Green. This modification is advantageous because it improves operator safety by reducing the risks associated with kickback that may occur during cutting.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s Remarks filed 27 February 2026 have been considered but are not persuasive. First, regarding objections to the drawings, the Applicant argues that “the reuse of reference numerals across different embodiments is intentional”. This argument is not persuasive because the issue is not whether the reuse of reference number is intentional or unintentional. Instead, the issue is whether the drawings comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4), which requires, “The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.” Thus, Applicant’s intent is not relevant to the issue at hand, which is whether or not the same reference character designates different parts. In this case, a miter saw and a table saw (as one example) are different parts, and therefore should not be indicated with the same reference character. As such, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Applicant does not argue that the drawings comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4).
Regarding claims 21 and 32, Applicant’s argument that Reese does not disclose a dual-plane sensing configuration is not persuasive. Reese discloses a vertical sensor array and a horizontal sensor array, and Reese is modified herein to include both a vertical sensor array and a horizontal sensor array. However, Applicant’s arguments fail to address Reese as modified to include vertical and horizontal sensor arrays, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the Applicant argues that prior applied art (which includes Reese) does not disclose storing an initial sensor output comprising information identifying which of a plurality of sensors detect physical contact and which do not detect physical contact and comparing that stored contact-state pattern to a current sensor output to determine movement relative to the vertical support surface. This argument is not persuasive because it fails to address the most relevant portion of the disclosure of Reese with respect to this feature, in particular the disclosure of col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 12. As such, Applicant’s argument amounts to a mere allegation of patentability.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 38 is also not persuasive for the same reason discussed above with respect to claims 19 and 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
1 including B23Q17/002,003,005,006,22,2291,2428,2447,2471,2476; B23D59/001,002,008; B26D5/007,32,34; B23D33/10; and B23Q11/06
Prosecution Insights