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 of Group III (claims 21-22) in the reply filed on
03/37/2026 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 Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a detection system” recited in claim 25; and
“a reaction system” set forth in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gass (2010/0180739 A1). Regarding claim 21, Gass teaches a power tool comprising: an arbor (42, 268; the arbor including shaft 42 and insulating tube 268 disposed along a common axis), the arbor being configured to rotate about the axis, as Gass expressly teaches that shaft 42 is rotatably driven by motor 16 to rotate about the axis (Fig. 1), and tube 268 is arranged on and supported by shaft 42 as part of the arbor structure such that it is capable of rotation with the shaft; where the arbor has a first end and a second end; a blade (40) mounted on the first end of the arbor; a motor (16) configured to rotate the arbor about the axis to spin the blade (40); circuitry (26, 44, 46) configured to generate and monitor an electrical signal; and a connection between the circuitry and the arbor, where the connection includes a chamber (see Fig. 7, the region receiving plates 44, 46) adjacent the second end of the arbor, and where the connection further includes a component (44, 46) disposed within the chamber. See Figs. 1-9 in Gass.
It is noted that claim 21 recites that the arbor is “configured to rotate,” which does not require that all portions of the arbor rotate in unison or at all times, but rather that the arbor is capable of rotation about the axis. Gass clearly teaches such capability via shaft 42, and further teaches tube 268 as part of the arbor assembly arranged on the shaft, thereby satisfying the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 22, Gass teaches the subject matter of claim 21, wherein the connection is an electrical connection (1000, including a sensing arrangement such as a Hall Effect sensor), the component (44, 46) is conductive (e.g., conductive plates), and the circuitry is configured to impart the electrical signal to the blade through the connection.
Regarding claim 23, Gass teaches the subject matter of claim 21, wherein the chamber (Fig. 7) is cylindrical, as evidenced by the geometry of the region receiving plates 44, 46.
Regarding claim 24, Gass teaches the subject matter of claim 21, wherein the chamber is positioned axially within the arbor, as the chamber is aligned with and extends along the axis defined by shaft (42) and tube (268).
Regarding claim 25, Gass teaches the subject matter of claim 21, further including a detection system (22) configured to detect a dangerous condition between a person and the blade (40), wherein the circuitry is part of the detection system and is configured to monitor the electrical signal for changes indicative of the dangerous condition.
Regarding claim 26, Gass teaches the subject matter of claim 25, further including a reaction system (24) configured to be triggered to perform an action to mitigate injury upon detection of the dangerous condition.
Regarding claim 27, Gass teaches everything noted above including the connection is an electrical connection, where the component is conductive, and where the circuitry imparts the electrical signal to the blade through the connection. See rejection of claim 22 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claim 21 can be alternatively interpreted and rejected as set forth below.
7. Claims 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gass (2010/0180739 A1) in view of Albrecht et al. (5,523,638), hereinafter Albrecht. Regarding claim 21, Gass teaches a power tool comprising: an arbor (42) configured to rotate around an axis, where the arbor has a first end and a second end; a blade (40) mounted on the first end of the arbor; a motor to rotate (16) the arbor around the axis to spin the blade; circuitry to generate and monitor an electrical signal (via the arbor 42); and a connection between the circuitry and the arbor (paragraphs [0054] and [0054]). See Figs. 1-9 in Gass. It should be noted that Gass teaches circuitry configured to generate and monitor an electrical signal, including an excitation system and detection subsystem (22), wherein the electrical signal is imparted to the blade (40) via the arbor (42) (see paragraphs [0054] and [0061]). Gass also discloses a connection between the circuitry and the arbor, including capacitive coupling structures such as charge plates (44, 46) positioned adjacent the arbor (42) to transfer the electrical signal thereto (see paragraphs [0054] and [0061]).
Gass does not explicitly teach that the connection includes a chamber adjacent the second end of the arbor, and where the connection further includes a component in the chamber.
However, Albrecht teaches a rotary electrical connector (57) for transmitting electrical current between stationary circuitry and a rotating member (15; Fig. 1). Albrecht also teaches that the connector includes an annular chamber (145; Fig. 3) defined within the connector (57) and positioned adjacent the rotating member (Fig. 3). Albrecht further teaches that the chamber (145) contains a conductive component, namely conductive fluid (149), which directly contacts conductive elements such as rotary contact ring (117) and stationary contact ring (131) to pass electrical current therebetween (see description of chamber 145 and conductive fluid 149). Thus, Boggs discloses a connection including a chamber containing a conductive component for transmitting electrical current to a rotating member.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gass to include the rotary electrical connector of Albrecht in order to provide a reliable electrical connection between stationary circuitry and the rotating arbor (42). Gass already teaches transmitting an electrical signal to a rotating arbor and blade assembly, and Albrecht teaches a known solution for transmitting electrical current to a rotating member using a connector having a chamber (145) containing a conductive component (149). Incorporating the connector of Albrecht into Gass would have predictably resulted in an improved electrical connection capable of reliably transmitting electrical signals to the rotating arbor while accommodating rotation, which is a well-known and established use of rotary electrical connectors.
Regarding claim 22, Gass, in view of Albrecht, teaches everything noted above including that the connection is an electrical connection, where the component is conductive, and where the circuitry imparts the electrical signal to the blade through the connection.
Regarding claim 23, Gass, in view of Albrecht, teaches everything noted above including that the chamber (145; Fig. 3 in Albrecht) is cylindrical.
Regarding claim 23, Gass, in view of Albrecht, teaches everything noted above including that the chamber is positioned axially in the arbor.
It should be noted that Albrecht discloses a rotary electrical connector (57) including an annular chamber (145) defined within the connector and extending circumferentially about a central axis (17) (see Fig. 3). The chamber (145) is concentrically aligned with the axis of the rotating member (15) and positioned within the connector at the interface with the rotating member. Thus, Albrecht teaches a chamber that is axially aligned (i.e., coaxial) with the rotating member, and therefore positioned axial with respect to the shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Gass to include the rotary electrical connector (57) of Albrecht in order to provide a reliable electrical connection between stationary circuitry and the rotating arbor (42). Because Boggs teaches positioning the chamber (145) concentrically about the axis of the rotating member, incorporation of the connector into Gass would have resulted in the chamber being positioned axial (i.e., along and aligned with the longitudinal axis) of the arbor, particularly at the second end of the arbor where electrical connection to rotating components is conventionally made (e.g., near pulley (261)). Such modification represents a predictable use of a known rotary electrical connector to transmit electrical signals to a rotating shaft.
Regarding claim 25, Gass teaches everything noted above including a detection system (22) to detect a dangerous condition between a person and the blade (40), where the circuitry is part of the detection system, and where the circuitry is configured to monitor the electrical signal for changes indicative of the dangerous condition.
Regarding claim 25, Gass teaches everything noted above including a reaction system (24) triggerable to perform an action to mitigate injury upon detection of the dangerous condition.
Regarding claim 27, Gass, in view of Albrecht, teaches everything noted above including that the connection is an electrical connection, where the component is conductive, and where the circuitry imparts the electrical signal to the blade through the connection.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Orlowski et al. (2010/0187946 A1) and Holmes et al. (4,529,370) teach a recessed on an arbor to receive an electric component.
9. 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) 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/ /GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 April 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights