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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the status
identifier of claim 3 should be –Withdrawn, Currently Amended--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 1, 10-11, 14-15, 30, and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (CN 111093921 A), hereinafter Schmid, in view of Osborne et al. (2012/0036725 A1), hereinafter Osborne, and Gass (7,055,417 B1). Regarding claim 1, Regarding claim 1, Schmid teaches a method of detecting a kickback condition of a circular saw including a circular saw blade, comprising rotating the circular saw blade within a blade rotation plane and determining that a kickback condition exists based on a verification parameter that includes motion of the circular saw (as detected by sensor mechanism 2 measuring vector parameters such as acceleration, direction, and angular velocity, processed by controller 4; see Figs. 1-5). Schmid further teaches detecting: (i) a magnitude of acceleration and determining kickback when the magnitude exceeds a threshold; (ii) a direction of acceleration and determining kickback when the direction falls within a threshold range (ranges 14, 15); and (iii) an angular velocity and determining kickback when the angular velocity exceeds a threshold value.
Schmid does not explicitly teach that the detected motion corresponds to motion of a user-actuated assembly. However, Osborne teaches a kickback detection system in a handheld cutting tool (chainsaw) including sensors (accelerometers 412 and gyroscopes 414) configured to detect acceleration and rotational velocity of the tool body (housing/handle structure), which is manipulated by the user during operation (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4 and corresponding description). The detected motion is processed by a microprocessor to determine kickback and actuate a braking system. Accordingly, Osborne teaches detecting motion of a user-actuated assembly, as the tool body constitutes the portion of the device actuated by the user. It would have been obvious to apply Osborne’s teaching of detecting motion of the user-actuated assembly to the system of Schmid in order to improve detection of kickback based on actual movement of the user-manipulated structure of the tool. Schmid and Osborne do not explicitly teach that the user-actuated assembly is pivotally coupled to a workpiece support. However, Gass teaches a kickback safety detection system applied to saws including pivoting configurations such as miter saws (see, e.g., Fig. 20), wherein a user-actuated assembly (arm 274 including the blade and associated components) is pivotally coupled to a workpiece support (stand 272) and rotates about a pivot axis to perform cutting operations. Gass further teaches that such safety systems are applicable across different saw configurations. It would have been obvious to incorporate the pivoting arrangement of Gass into the circular saw of Schmid, as modified by Osborne, to enable the saw to operate in a pivoting configuration while employing kickback detection.
Regarding claim 10, Schmid teaches determining kickback when the magnitude of acceleration exceeds a threshold value. The recited threshold acceleration value of at least 1 m/s² represents a value within the range of thresholds suitable for detecting abnormal acceleration associated with kickback events.
Regarding claim 11, Schmid teaches determining kickback based on a direction of acceleration within a threshold direction range (see directional ranges 14 and 15). Osborne further teaches that kickback involves movement of the tool body rearward and/or away from the workpiece toward the operator. Thus, the claimed directional limitations correspond to known motion characteristics of kickback.
Regarding claim 14, Schmid teaches detecting angular velocity and determining kickback when the angular velocity exceeds a threshold value. The recited threshold of at least 1 degree per second represents a minimum threshold within the range of values suitable for detecting rotational motion associated with kickback.
Regarding claim 15, Schmid teaches detecting angular velocity associated with rotational movement of the saw during kickback. Osborne further teaches rotational movement of the tool body about axes during kickback events. Such motion inherently results in displacement of portions of the tool relative to the workpiece, corresponding to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 30, Schmid teaches a circular saw including a sensor mechanism (2) and controller (4) configured to detect motion parameters and determine kickback (see Figs. 1-5). Osborne teaches that motion sensors are configured to detect motion of the tool body (user-actuated assembly) and generate motion signals processed by a controller. Gass teaches a circular saw configuration including a pivotally coupled user-actuated assembly and workpiece support, wherein the assembly rotates about a pivot axis to perform cutting (Fig. 20). Accordingly, the combined references teach a circular saw including a user-actuated assembly with a motion sensor and controller, a workpiece support, and a pivot coupling the assembly and support.
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. In addition, Schmid teaches a controller operatively connected to sensing components, and Osborne teaches that sensors and processing circuitry (microprocessor) are integrated within the tool body and associated circuitry. Incorporating both the controller and motion sensor on a circuit board represents a known implementation of such systems.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s argument in regards to the amended claim 1 are moot, since as shown above Schmid in view of Osborne and Gass teaches all the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
6. 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
May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights