Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, corresponding claims 1-8 and 11-13 in the reply filed on 11/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“these features do not make a contribution over the cited art, specially Wiker”,
”the Examiner has not met the burden of proof to establish a lack of unity of invention…. The Examiner does not identify any specific differences in the fields of search, prior art classification or search strategies that would make a combined search impracticable”.
This is not found persuasive because in the argument a, according to MPEP Appendix Al, Annex B, Section (C) (ii), Unity of Invention, if an independent claim does not avoid the prior art, then the question whether there is still an inventive link between all the claims dependent on that claim needs to be careful considered. Since there is no inventive link established by the independent claim a restriction between the special technical features of the dependent claims is proper. See Wiker shows novel and nonobvious features in pages 4-5 of the restriction/election mailed on 10/08/2025.
Further, see MPEP 1893.03 (d), in the middle paragraph “When making a lack of unity requirement, the examiner must (1) list the different groups of claims and (2) explain why each group lacks unity with each other group (i.e., why there is no single general inventive concept) specifically describing the unique special technical feature in each group…”.
In the restriction/election mailed on 10/08/2025, pages 3-4, it is clearly addressed the (1) list the different groups of claims (see section 2 of the restriction/election) and (2) explain why each group lacks unity with each other group (see section 3 of the restriction/election that has two-way distinction).
With regards to the argument b “…the burden of proof…”, the argument is acknowledged, however, this is requirement for unity of invention; The groups of inventions listed do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. See MPEP Appendix Al, Annex B, Section (C) (ii), Unity of Invention. Since each of the groups has two-way distinction, it would implicitly pose a serious search burden to the Examiner.
If the independent claim is later determined to be allowable, claims properly dependent therefrom will be reconsidered and rejoined per MPEP 821.04.
Thus, claims 1-8 and 11-13 are elected and examined below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2025, 10/08/2025, 06/24/2025, 05/19/2025, 08/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “circular saws” should be amended to –circular saw— since it discloses only one circular saw (.e.g. a blade…a stationary base…). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification (30 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 8, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 5, 10, 15 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
Claim 1, lines 6 and 8, the language “operatively” should be deleted since it does not provide any more clarification or it is making more confusion.
Claim 2, line 2 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
Claim 5, line 2 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
Claim 7, line 3 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
Claim 8, line 3 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
Claim 13, line 3 the language “further” should be deleted since it is not necessary and it does not provide any more clarification or further limitation.
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 1-8 and 10-13 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 1, line 1 recites “a stationary base”…later recites “a base structure” that is unclear whether the base structure refers to the stationary base or an additional base structure. See Applicant’s specification both the stationary base and the base structure are the same. Clarification is required.
Claim 1, line 1, 6-8 “a blade…a circular saw blade” is unclear whether the saw blade refers to the blade in line 1 or an additional blade. Clarification is required.
Claim 5, line 5 “a least substantially aligned with gravity” is unclear what the gravity refers to? How is an axis aligned with gravity (a force of a weight or mass).
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issue above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiker et al (US 2021/0323189) hereinafter Wiker.
Regarding claim 1, Wiker shows a circular saw (Figure 1) having a circular saw blade (130) that moves relative to a stationary base (122) during operative use of the circular saw to cut a workpiece (160), the circular saw comprising:
a base structure (see the sole plate 122 has many structures as seen in Figure 1) including a saw support (114) and a workpiece support (124);
a user-actuated assembly (100, Figure 1) including a motor (120), an arbor (144, Para. 38. Please note that this art does not implicitly use the language “arbor”, however, it has one arbor since the saw blade is an interchangeable saw blade as discussed in para. 38; it must have a fastener or mount for mounting the saw blade to the motor shaft), and a motion sensor (acceleration sensor 216, Paras. 44-45), wherein the motor includes a motor shaft (see it where has the rotation axis 142, Figure 1) configured to rotate about a shaft rotational axis (142), and wherein the arbor is operatively attached to the motor shaft (Figure 1) and is configured to receive the circular saw blade and to rotate the circular saw within a blade rotation plane (see a plane along the blade 130, Figure 1);
an attachment structure (116), wherein the user-actuated assembly is attached to the base structure via the attachment structure such that the workpiece support faces toward the user-actuated assembly (see Figure 6 shows the sole plate 122 facing toward the saw blade 130), and
wherein the attachment structure is configured to permit constrained relative motion between the base structure (see an arrow 364 of the blade 130 in Figure 5) and the user-actuated assembly in a motion direction and during operative use of the circular saw to cut the workpiece (Figures 1 and 5), and
a controller (Para. 16 “a control apparatus of the safeguard device”), wherein the motion sensor is configured to detect motion of the user-actuated assembly along the motion direction and to generate a motion signal indicative of the motion of the user-actuated assembly along the motion direction (see Para. 44 “On account of the crashing of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200, a significant acceleration gz which is detectable by means of the acceleration sensor 216 and which for evaluation is transmitted to the safeguard device 170 is created primarily in the direction of the z-axis of the coordinate system 220”), and
wherein the controller is programmed to receive the motion signal and to initiate a kickback response of the circular saw responsive to the motion signal being indicative of a kickback condition of the circular saw (see Para. 42 “a crashing of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 160 inter-alia is able to be detected … wherein the jamming of the saw blade 130 can lead to a dangerous so-called kickback” and Para. 45 “By way of the safeguard device 170, the drive unit 120 of FIG. 1, … can be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated when exceeding a predefined limit value for the acceleration gz, on account of which the operational safety for the user of the portable circular saw 100 in the event of crashing can be considerably increased. Moreover, the safeguard device 170 can contain further acceleration sensors (not illustrated) so as to also detect the further linear acceleration components gxy of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of an x-axis and/or a y-axis of the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system 220, and by means of the safeguard device 170 enable an even more precise detection of a crashing procedure of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200”).
Regarding claim 2, Wiker shows that the motion direction includes a single linear motion component (Para. 44 recites “the aid of the acceleration sensor 216, at least the linear acceleration of the portable circular saw 100 in the direction of a z-axis of a rectangular coordinate system 220”) that is along a linear motion axis (z axis, Figure 2), and
wherein the attachment structure includes a linear guide (a passage 306 of the sole plate 122 for the saw blade exposed, Figures 4-5) configured to facilitate limited linear motion of the user-actuated assembly relative to the base structure along the linear motion axis.
Regarding claim 3, Wiker shows that the motion sensor includes a linear detection axis that is at least “substantially” aligned with the linear motion axis (see X, Y, Z directions in Figure 2 and see the discussion in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 5, Wiker shows that the linear detection axis is a first linear detection axis (Z-axis, Figure 2), and wherein the motion sensor (Para. 45 “further acceleration sensors (not illustrated) so as to also detect the further linear acceleration components … in the direction of an x-axis and/or a y-axis of the three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system 220, and by means of the safeguard device 170 enable an even more precise detection of a crashing procedure of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 200”) includes a second linear detection axis (X or Y axis, Figure 2) that is at least one of at least substantially perpendicular to the first linear detection axis (see X or Y directions in Figure 2, since it is substantially perpendicular to the first linear detection axis).
Regarding claim 7, Wiker shows that the circular saw includes a linear motion axis braking structure (as the claim is written, it is unclear what the braking structure is , therefore, Abstract, the last line “…to brake and/or switch off the drive unit” and Para. 42 “a safeguard device 170, …a crashing of the portable circular saw 100 into the workpiece 160 inter-alia is able to be detected and the drive unit 120 is able to be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated in a timely manner, or immediately, respectively” which means it has a mechanical means or a braking structure that the drive unit 120 is able to be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated in a timely manner, or immediately) configured to selectively resist motion of the user-actuated assembly along the linear motion axis (see the discussion in Para. 42 above), and wherein the controller is programmed to actuate the linear motion axis braking structure as the kickback response (Para. 42 “…jamming of the saw blade 130… a dangerous so-called kickback”).
Regarding claim 8, Wiker shows that the motion direction includes a single rotary motion component (Para. 9 “…The crashing of the portable circular saw into a workpiece explained above can be detected by way of a rapid increase in the rotating speed, for example, and the drive unit can be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated”) that is about a rotary motion axis, and wherein the attachment structure includes a rotary element (Para. 9 “at least one rotating speed sensor”) configured to facilitate limited rotary motion of the user-actuated assembly, relative to the base structure, about the rotary motion axis (see a whole of Para. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Wiker shows that the motion sensor is disposed on a linear motion axis (see the sensor 216, Figure 2, disposed on a linear motion axis or the arrow Z).
Regarding claim 12, Wiker shows that a battery pack (Para. 39 “a mains connector 118, but additionally or alternatively could also be equipped with a rechargeable battery pack for the mains-independent supply of power”) is attached to at the user-actuated assembly (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Wiker shows that the circular saw includes a rotary motion axis braking structure (see the discussion in claim 7 above) configured to selectively resist motion of the user-actuated assembly about the rotary motion axis (see the discussion in claim 7 above), and wherein the controller is programmed to actuate the rotary motion axis braking structure as the kickback response (see the discussion in claim 8 above and both Paras. 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 4 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature that the controller is programmed to imtiate the kickback response when the motion signal indicates that linear acceleration along the linear detection axis is greater than a threshold linear acceleration magnitude (see Wiker’s Para. 45 “… the safeguard device 170, the drive unit 120 of FIG. 1, …can be switched off and/or at least partially decelerated when exceeding a predefined limit value for the acceleration gz, on account of which the operational safety for the user of the portable circular saw 100 in the event of crashing can be considerably increased” and Para. 46 that detects by “tilting movements of the circular saw”, however, none of arts found to teach linear acceleration along the linear detection axis is greater than a threshold linear acceleration magnitude) and
Claim 6 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not teach or suggest the feature that the controller is programmed to initiate the kickback response when the motion signal indicates: a vector sum of linear acceleration along the first lmear detection axis and linear acceleration along the second linear detection axis is greater than a threshold linear acceleration magnitude, or
a scalar sum of an absolute value of linear acceleration along the first linear detection axis and an absolute value of linear acceleration along the second linear detection axis is greater than a threshold linear acceleration magnitude.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20210370544; US 20210154819; US 7290472; US 7055417; US 20050178259 teach controllers with motion sensors for detecting kickback, however, these motion sensors are not linear motion component along a linear motion axis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 12/13/2025