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 A (claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 14-15,
20, 26, 30, and 48-49) and Group A4 (claims 30, 48, and 49) in a reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is not persuasive because it does not explain how the differences among the groups fail to create a serious search or examination burden on the Examiner. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive. The Examiner clearly explains that, for Group A, the inventions require a different field of search, including different classes/subclasses or different search queries such as B27G 19/04. For Group B, the inventions also require a different field of search, including different classes/subclasses or different search queries such as B23D 59/005. See page 4, lines 7–12 of the restriction requirement.
Additionally, the Examiner explains that, for Groups A1–A4, each individual group of inventions requires a different field of search, including different classes/subclasses or employing different search queries that are not needed for the remaining groups. See page 6, lines 6–8 of the restriction requirement.
It should be noted that the invention relates to three different embodiments, all of which are claimed in independent claim 1. A first embodiment requires detecting a magnitude of acceleration of the circular saw; a second embodiment requires detecting a direction of acceleration of the circular saw; and a third embodiment requires detecting an angular velocity of the circular saw. Independent claims which depend from claim 1 are directed to these three embodiments. Each embodiment requires different fields of search. It should further be noted that each group and subgroup is distinct and has acquired a separate status in the art due to its divergent subject matter. As stated in the restriction requirement, each group includes at least one feature not present in the others. Although the searches for individual groups may overlap to some extent, they do not coincide identically. Therefore, a search for the elected Group A and subgroup A4 would not be sufficient to cover the features of the non-elected groups and subgroups. Furthermore, the text and subclass search required to locate the specific features of the elected group and subgroup would not necessarily reveal the distinct features of the non-elected groups and subgroups. In other words, each group and subgroup, having at least one distinct feature, occupies a separate status in the art and requires a different field of search. Accordingly, examination of all distinct groups within a single application would impose a substantial burden on the Examiner and could adversely affect examination quality given the time constraints for examination of each application.
The requirement is therefore still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
2. Claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 20, 26, 39, 40, 42-43, and 46 are withdrawn from further
consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 10, 11, 14, 15, 30, 48, and 49 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 claim 1, a series of nested “at least one of” clauses in the motion-detection and determination steps creates ambiguity. In particular, claim 1 includes the following sets of alternative limitations:
“detecting motion of the circular saw, wherein the detecting motion includes at least one of (a-i) detecting a magnitude of an acceleration…, (a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration…, and (a-iii) detecting an angular velocity…”; and
“determining that the kickback condition exists…, wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists, in case of (b-i) detecting the magnitude…, (b-ii) detecting the direction…, and/or (b-iii) detecting the angular velocity….”
The use of multiple nested “at least one of” formulations, in combination with “in case of” conditions that correspond to the earlier alternatives, renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not clearly identify which specific combinations of (a-i), (a-ii), or (a-iii) are required. The phrase “at least one of” allows any single element, any pair of elements, or all three elements to satisfy the limitation, producing seven different possible scope variations. The subsequent “in case of” clauses (b-i / b-ii / b-iii) appear to map to the earlier (a-i / a-ii / a-iii) clauses, but the claim does not specify whether the determination step applies only when a corresponding detection step is performed or whether it applies independently, thereby creating overlapping and conflicting conditions. In addition, it is unclear whether the determination step must satisfy at least one, exactly one, or all of the threshold comparisons (threshold acceleration value, threshold direction range, or threshold angular velocity value). The use of “and/or” further contributes to ambiguous scope, preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining the boundary of the claim with reasonable certainty. For example, if the scope of the claim can be narrowed to only “(a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration of the circular saw within the acceleration detection plane,” then it is unclear how the method could determine a kickback condition based on “(b-i) detecting the magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw” or “(b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the circular saw.” These inconsistencies demonstrate that the various possibilities presented in the claim create ambiguity regarding how the kickback determination is to be made. Therefore, the multiple overlapping alternatives render the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 1, the terms “motion of the circular saw,” “acceleration of the circular saw,” and “angular velocity of the circular saw” are confusing. It is unclear whether these references pertain to the circular saw as a whole or specifically to the circular saw blade. A circular saw machine itself does not rotate so as to produce angular velocity or rotational acceleration; only the circular saw blade does. Accordingly, the claimed terminology lacks clarity as to which component is intended.
Regarding claim 1, “(a-i) detecting a magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw within an acceleration detection plane that is at least one of parallel to the blade rotation plane and coextensive with the blade rotation plane” is unclear. The phrase “coextensive with the blade rotation plane” is ambiguous. It is not clear apparent what is meant by a plane being “coextensive” with the blade rotation plane, since the blade rotation plane itself already defines the plane in which the blade rotates. Therefore, the term is redundant or indistinguishable from the blade rotation plane itself.
Regarding claim 1, “detecting an angular velocity of the circular saw about at least one rotation detection axis that extends within the acceleration detection plane” is confusing. It is not clear how many rotation axes extend within the acceleration detection plane, other than the rotation axis of the circular saw blade. It appears that the claim implies that more than one rotation axis within the acceleration detection plane could be used to determine the angular velocity of the circular saw. However, the claim requires only the circular saw blade to rotate within a blade rotation plane. Therefore, it is not clear what other rotation axes exist whose angular velocity could be detected.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “determining that the kickback exists based, at least in part, on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the circular saw” is unclear. The claim appears to imply that the verification parameter includes not only the motion-related metrics (e.g., magnitude of acceleration, direction of acceleration, angular velocity) but possibly additional parameters. However, claim 1 does not specify any such additional parameters that would be used to detect the existence of a kickback condition.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation: “determining that the kickback exists based, at least in part, on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the circular saw, wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists in case of: (b-i) detecting the magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw (a-i), when the magnitude of the acceleration of the circular saw is greater than a threshold acceleration value; (b-ii) detecting the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw (a-ii), when the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw is within a threshold direction range; and/or (b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the circular saw (a-iii), when the angular velocity of the circular saw is greater than a threshold angular velocity value,” is unclear. It is not apparent how many determination steps are there or required to determine the existence of a kickback condition, nor which of the steps (a-i), (a-ii), (a-iii), (b-i), (b-ii), and (b-iii) are intended to form part of the determination. Additionally, steps (b-i), (b-ii), and (b-iii) are redundant, as they merely restate the detecting steps which already recited in steps (a-i), (a-ii), and (a-iii).
Regarding claim 30, the recitation: “A circular saw, comprising: a user-actuated assembly including: (i) a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the user-actuated assembly and to generate a motion signal indicative of the motion of the user-actuated assembly; and (ii) a controller programmed to control operation of the circular saw based, at least in part, on the motion signal, wherein the controller is programmed to perform the method of claim 1,” is unclear. First, the term “user-actuated assembly” is indefinite. It is not clear whether this term refers to a power trigger, a pivoting arm, a handle, or some other component. The claim does not specify what elements constitute such an assembly. Second, the claim indicates that the user-actuated assembly includes both a motion sensor and a controller. However, it is unclear how a sensor located within the user-actuated assembly would detect the motion of that same assembly. This arrangement is ambiguous and requires clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
It should be noted that numerous issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, impede a clear understanding of the claimed invention and therefore prevent proper examination of the claims. The claim are rejected below as best understood.
6. Claims 1, 11 and 15, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmid et al. (CN 111093921 A), hereinafter Schmid. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Schmid discloses a method of detecting a kickback condition of a circular saw (10, 20, 30) that includes a circular saw blade 1, the method comprising: rotating the circular saw blade 1 within a blade rotation plane; detecting (with the sensor mechanism 2 which detects the mechanical/vector parameter 3 such as force, acceleration, and velocity of the blade 1; Figs. 1-2) motion of the circular saw, wherein the detecting motion includes at least one of:(a-i) detecting a magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw (which is defined by the acceleration of the blade detected by sensor mechanism 2) within an acceleration detection plane (defined by the plane of the vector parameter of machine 3 which is parallel to the plane of the blade 1; Fig. 2) that is at least one of parallel to the blade rotation plane and coextensive with the blade rotation plane; (a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration of the circular saw within the acceleration detection plane (as the sensor mechanism 2 continuously detects the parameter 3 of the machine and thereby direction changes of the of the parameter 3; Fig. 2); and (a-iii) detecting an angular velocity of the circular saw about at least one rotation detection axis that extends within the acceleration detection plane; and determining (by controller 4) that the kickback condition exists based, at least in part, on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the circular saw, wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists, in case of:(b-i) detecting the magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw (a-i): when the magnitude of the acceleration of the circular saw is greater than a threshold acceleration value (when the ;(b-ii) detecting the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw (a-ii):when the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw is within a threshold direction range; and/or(b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the circular saw (a-iii): when the velocity of the circular saw is greater than a threshold angular velocity value. See Figs. 1-5 in Schmid.
It should be noted that control mechanism 4 can be configured to determine how much the machine’s vector parameter 3 changes over a given time window. It compares this change in angle with a preset threshold to identify a potential kickback event. The first range of directions 14 (Fig. 2) is linked to a first identification function. This function checks whether the machine’s vector parameter falls within the first range of directions 14. The second range of directions 15 (Fig. 2) is used by a second identification function. The second identification function compares the direction of the machine’s vector parameter 3 with the second range of directions 15, which indicates that kickback is highly likely or about to occur. The first range of directions 14 extends from 5° to 100°. When the control mechanism 4 uses the first identification function and the machine’s vector parameter 3 falls within the first range of directions 14, a kickback event is identified. This corresponds to detecting the acceleration direction of the circular saw when it is within the threshold range. In this case, the power tool 10 or workpiece 11 has not yet undergone significant acceleration, and no kickback or collision has occurred. The control mechanism can also be configured to detect a kickback event 50–100 ms before the actual acceleration of the power tool 10 relative to the workpiece 11 by using the second range of directions 15. The controller identifies the absence of a kickback event when the machine’s vector parameter 3 lies outside both the first and second direction ranges. See the last three paragraphs of the page 6 and also paragraphs 1-5 of page 7 of the attached translation.
Regarding claim 11, Schmid teaches everything noted above including that the threshold direction range is at least one of: directed rearward relative to a direction-of-cut of the circular saw (defined by the first direction 14, which is in the cutting direction of the circular saw blade 1 and pointing rearward) ; and directed away from a workpiece (defined by the second direction 15, which points way from the workpiece 11 being by the circular saw blade 1; Figs, 1-2) that the circular saw is being utilized to cut.
Regarding claim 15, Schmid teaches everything noted above including that
he threshold angular velocity value includes angular velocities that urge a blade-proximate side of a workpiece support of the circular saw away from a workpiece.
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 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.
8. Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid. Regarding claim 10, Schmid teaches everything noted above except that the threshold acceleration value is at least 1 meter per second squared (m/s2). 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 acceleration value more than 1 meter per second squared, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Schmid teaches everything noted above except that the threshold angular velocity value is at least 1 degree per second (°/s). 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 angular velocity value as at least 1 degree per second, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
9. Claims 30 and 48-49, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid in view of Gass (7,055,417 B1). Regarding claim 30, Schmid teaches everything noted above including a circular saw (as a handheld circular saw), comprising: a user-actuated assembly (2, 4) including: (i) a motion sensor 2 configured to detect motion of the user-actuated assembly and to generate a motion signal (as the signal related to the parameter 3 is send to the controller 4) indicative of the motion of the user-actuated assembly; and (ii) a controller 4 programmed to control operation of the circular saw based, at least in part, on the motion signal, wherein the controller is programmed to perform the method of claim 1; a workpiece support (as the support 9 for the workpiece 11; Fig. 5) configured to position a workpiece 11 and the circular saw relative to one another when the workpiece is cut by the circular saw. See Figs. 1-5 in Schmid. Schmid does not explicitly teach a pivot, wherein the user-actuated assembly is pivotally coupled to the workpiece support via the pivot, and further wherein the user-actuated assembly and the workpiece support are configured to operatively rotate, relative to one another, about a pivot axis of the pivot. Schmidt teaches that the circular saw is a table saw and the kickback is detected on the table saw. However, Gass teaches a kickback safety detection system (col. 35, lines 42-38), including a sensor for detecting rotation of deflection of a circular saw blade, and applies this system to both a miter saw 270 (Fig. 18) and a miter saw (Fig. 20). Gass further teaches that the miter saw 270 includes a pivot (pivotally connecting a stand 272 to an arm or a user-actuating assembly 274), wherein a user-actuated assembly 270 (which includes sensors and detection mechanism of the safety mechanism 30) is pivotally coupled to a workpiece support 272 via the pivot, and further wherein the user-actuated assembly 274 and the workpiece support 272 are configured to operatively rotate, relative to one another, about a pivot axis of the pivot (Fig. 20). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Schmid’s circular saw with the pivoting mechanism, as taught by Gass, in order to alternatively enable the circular saw to function as a miter saw capable of making angled cuts.
Regarding claim 48, Schmid, as modified by Gass, teaches everything noted above including that the motion sensor (2, in Fig. 1 in Schmid) is positioned a distance from the pivot axis (since the motion sensor 2 is positioned near the arbor or rotating shaft of the saw blade in Schmid, the sensor would be spaced a distance from the pivoting axes of the user-actuating assembly and workpiece support in the miter saw configuration disclosed in Gass; Fig. 20 in Gass), wherein the motion sensor is oriented such that an acceleration detection axis extends substantially perpendicular to the pivot axis.
Schmid, as modified by Gass, does not expressly disclose that the distance is between 1 cm and 20 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the distance between the sensor and the pivot axis between 1 cm and 20 cm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 49, Schmid, as modified by Gass, teaches everything noted above including that the user-actuated assembly comprises a circuit board, wherein the circuit board includes both the controller and the motion sensor. It should be noted that Gass teaches that the sensors (as capacitor plates) and controller (as detection circuitry could be positioned or mounted on electronics board.
To the extend it could be argued that Schmid and Gass do not expressly teach that the circuit board includes the controller and the motion sensor, the rejection below is applied.
10. Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid in view of Guss and in further view of Yabuguchi (2021/0370455 A1). Regarding claim 49, Schmid, as modified by Gass, teaches everything noted above including that the user-actuated assembly comprises a circuit board, wherein the circuit board includes both the controller and the motion sensor. It should be noted that Gass teaches that the sensors (as capacitor plates) and controller (as detection circuitry could be positioned or mounted on electronics board. To the extend it could be argued that Schmid and Gass do not expressly teach that the circuit board includes the controller and the motion sensor, Yabughchi teaches a detection system for detecting kickback of a circular saw 1. Yabughchi teaches that the system includes a sensor (as an accelerometer) and a controller (as CPU 22a) which are mounted on a same circuit board. See paragraph [0190] in Yabuguchi. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place the controller and the motion sensor of Schmid’s circular saw, as modified by Guss, on the same circuit board, in order to facilitate electronic connection between the sensor and the controller.
11. Claim 1, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (4,848,001), hereinafter Clark, in view of Osborne et al. (2012/0036725 A1), hereinafter Osborne. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Clark discloses a method of detecting a kickback condition of a circular saw 10 that includes a circular saw blade 44, the method comprising: rotating the circular saw blade 44 within a blade rotation plane. See Figs. 1-2 in Clark. Clark does not disclose the step of detecting motion of the circular saw, wherein the detecting motion includes at least one of:(a-i) detecting a magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw within an acceleration detection plane that is at least one of parallel to the blade rotation plane and coextensive with the blade rotation plane; (a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration of the circular saw within the acceleration detection plane; and (a-iii) detecting an angular velocity of the circular saw about at least one rotation detection axis that extends within the acceleration detection plane; and determining that the kickback condition exists based, at least in part, on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the circular saw, wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists, in case of:(b-i) detecting the magnitude of an acceleration of the circular saw (a-i); when the magnitude of the acceleration of the circular saw is greater than a threshold acceleration value; (b-ii) detecting the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw (a-ii); when the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw is within a threshold direction range; and/or(b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the circular saw (a-iii); when the velocity of the circular saw is greater than a threshold angular velocity value.
However, Osborne teaches a method of detecting a kickback condition of a saw machine 300 that includes a saw blade (314, 318(, the method comprising: rotating the saw blade (314, 318) within a blade rotation plane; detecting motion of the saw 300, wherein the detecting motion includes at least one of:(a-i) detecting a (by an accelerometer 412) magnitude of an acceleration of the saw machine within an acceleration detection plane (in a planes that are parallel to one or more axes of the saw; step 604 in Fig. 6) that is at least one of parallel to the blade rotation plane and coextensive with the blade rotation plane (which could be defined by Y-axis or X-axe, since the accelerometer detects the motion of the saw along multiple axis; see paragraph [0034] and Fig. 3) ; (a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration of the circular saw within the acceleration detection plane; and (a-iii) detecting an angular velocity of the circular saw about at least one rotation detection axis that extends within the acceleration detection plane; and determining that the kickback condition exists based, at least in part, on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the saw machine, wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists, in case of:(b-i) detecting the magnitude of an acceleration of the saw machine (a-i); when the magnitude of the acceleration of the circular saw is greater than a threshold acceleration value (paragraph [0037] and step 616 in Fig. 7); (b-ii) detecting the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw (a-ii); when the direction of the acceleration of the circular saw is within a threshold direction range; and/or(b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the circular saw (a-iii); when the velocity of the circular saw is greater than a threshold angular velocity value.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Clark’s circular saw with the safety system, including the kickback detection system taught by Osborne, in order to stop rotation of the saw blade and prevent potential injury to the user in an event of a kickback.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Anderson et al. (2010/0037739 A1), Wittke (2004/0181951 A1), Markus et al. (WO 2021/004679 A1), and Butler et al. (2011/0226105 A1) teach a circular saw with a kickback detection system.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications 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) 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
November 9, 2025