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
1. Applicant’s election of Group D (claims 20-23) and Species I (Fig. 1) in the reply filed on 01/30/2026 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)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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.
3. Claims 32-33 and 37-38 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.
Regarding claims 32-33, “a threshold range” is confusing because it is unclear whether this refers to the threshold range previously introduced in claim 20.
Regarding claims 37-38, “a threshold range” is confusing because it is unclear whether this refers to the threshold range previously introduced in claim 34.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim 20, 30-31, and 34-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gass (8,087,438 B2), hereinafter Gass ‘438 Regarding claim 20, Gass ‘438 teaches an active injury mitigation, AIM, enabled power tool comprising: a blade 40, where the blade moves to cut a workpiece; a motor 16 coupled to move the blade; an electrical circuit 22 (which includes suitable electrical circuitry to transmit input signal through , lines plate 44 and detect the input signal through plate 46; col. 7, lines 46-67 and col. 8, lines 01-68); and a conductive coupling (44, 46) electrically connecting the blade 40 with the electrical circuit, where the conductive coupling has an electrical impedance (monitored by the electrical circuitry; col. 7, lines 46-67 and col. 8, lines 1-65); where the electrical circuit is configured to generate a step signal (defined by an electrical induced signal on the blade 40, col. 7, lines 47-67, which is a step signal, because monitoring signal changes including time-rate-of-change, dV/dt, and integrated signal values, this step change in signal level constitute a step signal) to transmit the step signal to the blade 40 through the conductive coupling (44, 46), to analyze the step signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range (col. 8, lines 65-67 and col. 9, lines 1-26), and to disable the motor (col. 3, lines 50-60) if the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is outside the threshold range (Gass ‘438 teaches the safety system monitors electrical impedance of the blade, and that amplitude, phase, current, or other variables proportional to impedance may be tracked and compared to threshold values); or alternatively, where the electrical circuit is configured to generate an AC signal with a phase (Gass ‘438 expressly discloses monitoring phase of the signal on the blade and describes that impedance monitoring may be based on phase; such monitoring necessarily employes an AC signal) to transmit the AC signal to the blade through the conductive coupling, to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range (Gass ‘436 explicitly teaches phase-based impedance monitoring and comparison to thresholds), and to disable the motor if the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is outside the threshold range (Gass ‘438 teaches the step of triggering mitigation when thresholds are exceeded).
Regarding claim 30, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade when the motor is not moving the blade; or alternatively, where the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade when the motor is moving the blade. It should be noted that Gass ‘438 discloses that detection may occur continuously and may be performed when the blade is moving or not moving. Gass ‘438 further teaches that detection schemes may operate sequentially and independently of blade motion. It would be inherently necessary to perform detection when the blade is stationary (e.g., prior to contact) and when moving (during operation). Therefore, analyze the step signal when the motor is not moving the blade is inherent in pre-operation detection. Alternatively, Gass ‘438 discloses the step of analyze the phase of the AC signal when the motor is moving the blade during cutting operation.
Regarding claim 31, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the blade 44 is on an arbor 42, and where the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade 44 with the electrical circuit through the arbor 42. It should be noted that it is inherent in any conductive path from blade to the detection circuitry 22, the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade through arbor. This is evidenced in Gass ‘204.
Regarding claim 34, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the step signal impedance monitoring, and AC phase impedance monitoring. Gass expressly teaches a “multifaceted” detection system in which multiple detection schemes operate in parallel or sequentially, including: monitoring phase of the signal, and monitoring voltage characteristics and other impedance-related variables. See col. 14, lines 21-54 in Gass ‘438. Gass ‘438 teaches that any variable related to impedance may be monitored, and that multiple schemes may operate in parallel to detect a contact event. Gass ‘438 also discloses: generating signals applied to the blade, monitoring impedance-related characteristics including phase, comparing to thresholds, and triggering mitigation when thresholds are exceeded. Because Gass ‘438 teaches multiple detection schemes operating together and analyzing impedance via different signal characteristics, it discloses both step-type signal change monitoring (dV/dt, integrated change) and AC phase monitoring within a single system.
Regarding claim 35, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade when the motor is not moving the blade; and where the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade when the motor is moving the blade. It should be noted that Gass ‘438 discloses that detection may occur continuously and may be performed when the blade is moving or not moving. Gass ‘438 further teaches that detection schemes may operate sequentially and independently of blade motion. It would be inherently necessary to perform detection when the blade is stationary (e.g., prior to contact) and when moving (during operation). Therefore, analyze the step signal when the motor is not moving the blade is inherent in pre-operation detection. Alternatively, Gass ‘438 discloses the step of analyze the phase of the AC signal when the motor is moving the blade during cutting operation.
Regarding claim 36, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the blade 44 is on an arbor 42, and where the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade 44 with the electrical circuit through the arbor 42. It should be noted that it is inherent in any conductive path from blade to the detection circuitry 22, the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade through arbor. This is evidenced in Gass ‘204.
6. Claims 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gass (2008/0041204 A1), hereinafter Gass ‘204. Regarding claim 20, Gass ‘204 teaches an active injury mitigation, AIM, enabled power tool comprising: a blade 40, where the blade moves to cut a workpiece; a motor 16 coupled to move the blade; an electrical circuit 22 (which includes suitable electrical circuitry, e.g., in Provisional Patent Application No. 60/225,200, to transmit input signal through plate 44 and detect the input signal through plate 46; paragraph [0040]); and a conductive coupling (44, 46) electrically connecting the blade 40 with the electrical circuit, where the conductive coupling has an electrical impedance (conductive path which includes brushes, slip rings, or other conductive structure associated with the blade/arbor assembly, Fig. 5-6, inherently possesses electrical impedance); where the electrical circuit is configured to generate a step signal (defined as the input signal to the plate 44; paragraph [0040]) to transmit the step signal to the blade 40 through the conductive coupling (44, 46), to analyze the step signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range (by monitoring electrical characteristics of the blade and detecting changes in impedance/capacitance of a dangerous condition; monitoring whether detected characteristics crosses a predefined threshold necessarily involves determining whether the impedance is within or outside a threshold range), and to disable the motor (paragraph [0028]) if the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is outside the threshold range; or alternatively, where the electrical circuit is configured to generate an AC signal with a phase. to transmit the AC signal to the blade through the conductive coupling, to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range, and to disable the motor if the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is outside the threshold range.
Regarding claim 31, Gass ‘204 teaches everything noted above including that the blade 44 is on an arbor 42, and where the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade 44 with the electrical circuit through the arbor 42. See Fig. 7 in Gass ‘204.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 32-33 and 37-38, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass ‘438. Regarding claims 32 and 37, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade. Gass does not explicitly teach that electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade when the motor is not moving the blade; or alternatively, where the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade when the motor is moving the blade. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the electrical circuitry of Gass ‘438 to analyze the step signal when it occurs whether the motor is on or motor is off, since this is merely a predictable design choice which reduce electrical noise during non-rotation conditions, or permit real-time monitoring during rotation.
Regarding claims 33 and 38, Gass ‘438 teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to inherently analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass ‘438 does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 190 ohms to 384 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
9. Claims 30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass ‘204. Regarding claim 30, Gass ‘204 teaches everything noted above including that electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade. Gass ‘204 does not explicitly teach that electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade when the motor is not moving the blade; or alternatively, where the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade when the motor is moving the blade. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable the electrical circuit of Gass ‘204 to analyze the step signal when it occurs whether the motor is on or motor is off, since this is merely a predictable design choice which reduce electrical noise during non-rotation conditions, or permit real-time monitoring during rotation.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, Gass ‘204 teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass ‘204 does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 133 ohms to 267 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, as best understood, Gass 204 teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to inherently analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 190 ohms to 384 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
To the degree that it could be argued Gass ‘438 and Gass ‘204 do not explicitly teach that the impedance of the conductive coupling is being determined to be within a threshold range, the rejection below is applied.
10. Claim 20 and 30-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gass et al. (WO 2017/210091 A1), hereinafter Gass ‘091, which incorporates by reference US 7,210,383 B2 (Gass ’383), in view of Bohm et al. (10,610,141 B2), hereinafter Bohm. Regarding claim 20, Gass ‘091 teaches an active injury mitigation, AIM, enabled power tool comprising: a blade 40, where the blade moves to cut a workpiece; a motor 218 coupled to move the blade; an electrical circuit (defined by the circuit board 272 and by the suitable electrical circuitry, e.g., such as described in U.S. Patent No. 7,210,383, which has been incorporated by reference); and a conductive coupling (defined as brushes and wires in Figs. 22-36) electrically connecting the blade 40 with the electrical circuit , where the conductive coupling has an electrical impedance (as a low electrical impedance) monitored by the electrical circuitry; where the electrical circuitry is configured to generate step signal to transmit the signal to the blade 40 through the conductive coupling, to analyze the signal on the blade to determine whether the signal is within a threshold range, and to disable the motor if the signal is outside the threshold range.
However, Gass ‘091 (including Gass ’383) does not explicitly teach generating a step signal or an AC signal and analyzing the response to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. While Gass ‘091 discloses monitoring impedance-like electrical properties of the blade to detect contact, the method of using a discrete step signal or phase-analyzed AC signal for impedance measurement is not described. Bohm teaches applying a voltage step signal to a conductor (defined by a sensor) and measuring the transient response (measured response current) to calculate impedance (calculated from peak current to transient response), and further comparing the measured impedance against predetermined thresholds to determine a condition. It should be noted that the measurement used to determine condition relative to expected values (used in typical impedance test algorithms). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to apply the step-signal-based (or phase-analyzed AC signal) impedance measurement technique of Bohm to the conductive coupling and detection system of Gass ‘091 in order to provide a precise method for monitoring electrical impedance and triggering the motor disable function.
Regarding claim 30, Gass ‘091, teaches a contact detection system using an AC signal applied to the blade. The AC signal is analyzed to detect human contact and stop the motor. However, Gass ,091 does not specifically disclose analyzing the signal only when the motor is not moving or analyzing it while the motor is moving. In other words, WO ’091 does not teach: step-signal analysis under static or dynamic motor conditions, or selective analysis of AC signals only during motor motion. Bohm teaches: step-signal generation and monitoring of the electrical response, which can be performed while the device is at rest or in operation. It also discusses distinguishing signals under different operational conditions of the motor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adapt Gass ’091’s AC monitoring system to include step-signal monitoring from Bohm, applying the step-signal analysis when the motor is not moving and/or applying AC-phase analysis while the motor is moving, in order to increase detection reliability and maintain safety during both static and active motor conditions.
Regarding claim 31, Gass ‘091 teaches everything noted above including that the blade 40 is on an arbor 42, and where the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade 40 with the electrical circuit through the arbor 42.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, Gass ‘091, as modified by Bohm, teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass ‘091, as modified by Bohm, does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 133 ohms to 267 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 33, as best understood, Gass 091, as modified by Bohm, teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to inherently analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 190 ohms to 384 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 34, Gass 091, as modified by Bohm, teaches everything noted above including both the step signal and the AC signal with phase, each applied to a conductive blade. Bohm explicitly teaches analyzing the response of the step signal to determine the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling, and comparing it to a threshold to disable the motor if the impedance is outside the range. Bohm also teaches generating an AC signal with a phase, transmitting it to the blade, and analyzing the phase shift to determine whether the impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range, again disabling the motor if the impedance is outside the range. The step signal is a discrete voltage signal applied to the blade to detect impedance changes, while the AC signal with phase is an oscillating signal whose phase response indicates changes in the conductive coupling’s impedance.
Regarding claim 35, Gass ‘091, teaches a contact detection system using an AC signal applied to the blade. The AC signal is analyzed to detect human contact and stop the motor. However, Gass ,091 does not specifically disclose analyzing the signal only when the motor is not moving or analyzing it while the motor is moving. In other words, WO ’091 does not teach: step-signal analysis under static or dynamic motor conditions, or selective analysis of AC signals only during motor motion. Bohm teaches: step-signal generation and monitoring of the electrical response, which can be performed while the device is at rest or in operation. It also discusses distinguishing signals under different operational conditions of the motor. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to adapt Gass ’091’s AC monitoring system to include step-signal monitoring from Bohm, applying the step-signal analysis when the motor is not moving and/or applying AC-phase analysis while the motor is moving, in order to increase detection reliability and maintain safety during both static and active motor conditions.
Regarding claim 36, Gass ‘091 teaches everything noted above including that the blade 40 is on an arbor 42, and where the conductive coupling electrically connects the blade 40 with the electrical circuit through the arbor 42.
Regarding claim 37, as best understood, Gass ‘091, as modified by Bohm, teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to analyze the step signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass ‘091, as modified by Bohm, does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 133 ohms to 267 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 38, as best understood, Gass 091, as modified by Bohm, teaches everything noted above including that the electrical circuit is configured to inherently analyze the phase of the AC signal on the blade to determine whether the electrical impedance of the conductive coupling is within a threshold range. Gass does not explicitly teach that the threshold range is 190 ohms to 384 ohms. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the threshold range as specified above, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Gass et al. (2014/0331833 A1) teach an AIM-enabled power tool.
Pollenc et al. (FR 3073773 A1) and Grasselli (2018/0098550 A1) teach a safety mechanism including an electronic circuitry for monitoring an impedance.
Gass et al. (7,971,613 B2), Gass (2011/0061769 A1), and He et al. (2016/0121512 A1) teach a safety mechanism including an electronic circuitry for monitoring an impedance and also phase of a signal on a blade.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications phase from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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 on (571) 27. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 February 24, 2026