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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6-17-2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 4-5, 9 and 12: are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 20060096425, Keller, in view of USPN 9873158, Koegel, USPGPUB 20150000492, Boseman, and USPN 6418829, Pilchowski.
Regarding Claim 1, Keller discloses a sawing device (saw, abstract) comprising: a sawing machine having a worktable (table through which blade extends, fig 1), a saw blade box (128), the worktable having a work plane (plane on which work is placed to be sawed by blade), the saw blade being able to be driven by the motor to operate (par. 0021); and
a safety module (110, 106 104) having a sensor (110) and the sensor defining a safety zone (zone outside of danger zones) and a danger zone (105) for the work plane (fig 1, and par. 0023), , and when the image sensor captures that an object is located in the danger zone, the image sensor transmits a brake signal to make the motor stop operating (par. 0023).
Keller lacks:
Feature (I) controller transmitting a signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating.
Feature (II): the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade.
Feature (III) wherein when a specific target is recognized by the image sensor, the image sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up.
Regarding Feature (I): Koegel discloses a table saw (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes a controller which is connected to control a motor in response to a detected state (col. 19, 5-20) and includes the step of transmitting a signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating. (col. 19, 5-20) in order to stop the motor when the condition is complete (col. 19, 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by including a controller to activate the braking function already included in Keller to have the controller transmit a signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating in order to stop the motor when the condition is complete, as taught by Koegel.
Regarding Feature (II) Boseman discloses table saw (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes a saw assembly (113 and 300) pivotably disposed on a worktable (fig. 2, 111, par. 0030-0033), a motor (310) installed on the saw blade box (fig. 8A), and a saw blade connected with the motor (par 0030-0033) and partially accommodated in the saw blade box (fig. 8A), and said saw blade able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane (par. 0030-0032), in order to control a height of the blade in a table saw in an automated manner (par 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by having the device have the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane in order to have to cut or control a height of the blade in a table saw in an automated manner as taught by Boseman.
Regarding feature (III) Pilchowski discloses a table saw in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes wherein when a specific target (guard 70) is recognized by a sensor (136/138), the sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up (col. 6, 40-65), in order to allow for automatic starting of the motor when the guard is detected to be in place for safety (col. 2, 50-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by having the image sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up, and when the image sensor captures that an object is located in the danger zone in order allow for automatic starting of the motor when the guard is detected to be in place for safety, as taught in Pilchowski.
Regarding Claim 2, in Keller the specific target is a biometric (since a “hand”, abstract, is a biometric).
Regarding Claim 9, in Keller, the sawing device as claimed in claim 1, includes wherein the danger zone 104 is defined around the saw blade and right in front of the saw blade by the sensor (fig 1), and the sensor (camera 110) is an image sensor (camera).
Regarding Claims 4, Keller as modified by Koegel and Boseman discloses all of the features of Claim 3 as discussed below.
Modified Keller lacks wherein when a specific target is recognized by the image sensor, the image sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up.
Pilchowski discloses a table saw in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes wherein when a specific target (guard 70) is recognized by a sensor (136/138), the sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up (col. 6, 40-65), in order to allow for automatic starting of the motor when the guard is detected to be in place for safety (col. 2, 50-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by having the image sensor transmits a start signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to start up, and when the image sensor captures that an object is located in the danger zone in order allow for automatic starting of the motor when the guard is detected to be in place for safety, as taught in Pilchowski.
Regarding Claim 5, in Keller the specific target is a biometric (since a “hand”, abstract, is a biometric).
Regarding Claim 12, in Keller the image sensor (110) is disposed on a supporting frame (fig 1-5).
Claims 3, 7, and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, in view of Koegel and Boseman.
Regarding Claim 3, Keller discloses a sawing device (abstract) comprising: a sawing machine (abstract) having a worktable (table through which the saw extends, fig 1), a saw blade box (102/128), the worktable having a work plane (top of table in fig. 1), the saw blade being able to be driven by the motor to operate (par. 0021); and a safety module (110, 100, 102, 106) having an image sensor 100, the image sensor being disposed above the worktable and defining a safety zone and a danger zone for the work plane, , wherein when the image sensor determines that an object is about to enter the danger zone according to a movement trajectory of the object, the image sensor transmits a brake signal to make the motor to stop operating (par 0023).
Keller lacks
Feature (I) the safety module including a controller, and the controller being electrically connected with the motor and the image sensor, and the image sensor transmits a brake signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating.
Feature (II) the saw blade box pivotably disposed on the worktable, and a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and [the saw blade] able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane.
Regarding Feature (I): Koegel discloses a table saw (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes a controller which is connected to control a motor in response to a detected state (col. 19, 5-20) and includes the step of transmitting a signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating. (col. 19, 5-20) in order to stop the motor when the condition is complete (col. 19, 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by including a controller to activate the braking function already included in Keller to have the controller transmit a signal to the controller to make the controller control the motor to stop operating in order to stop the motor when the condition is complete, as taught by Koegel.
Regarding Feature (II) Boseman discloses table saw (abstract) in the same field of endeavor as the table saw of Keller and discloses that such a system includes a saw assembly (113 and 300) pivotably disposed on a worktable (fig. 2, 111, par. 0030-0033), a motor (310) installed on the saw blade box (fig. 8A), and a saw blade connected with the motor (par 0030-0033) and partially accommodated in the saw blade box (fig. 8A), and said saw blade able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane (par. 0030-0032), in order to control a height of the blade in a table saw in an automated manner (par 0004-0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by having the device have the saw blade and box pivotably disposed on the worktable, a motor installed on the saw blade box, and a saw blade connected with the motor and partially accommodated in the saw blade box, and able to be driven by the saw blade box to approach or leave the work plane in order to have to cut or control a height of the blade in a table saw in an automated manner as taught by Boseman.
Regarding Claim 7, in Keller the danger zone (102/105) is defined around the saw blade and right in front of the saw blade (fig 1) by the image sensor (100, par 0023).
Regarding Claim 13, in Keller the image sensor (110) is disposed on a supporting frame (fig 1-5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, in view of Koegel and Boseman, as applied to Claim 3 above and further in view of USPGPUB 20090165615, Nishimiya.
Regarding Claim 6, Keller as modified above includes the safety module and controller. And the controller acting to stop the motor see claim 3 rejection above.
Keller lacks wherein the safety module further has a brake; the brake is disposed on the motor and the brake makes the motor stop operating.
Nishimiya discloses a table saw (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the table saw tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a safety module (30 and 22 and brake of par 0027) which has a brake (“brake”, par 0027); the brake is disposed on the motor to make the motor stop operating (par 0027), in order to allow the motor to be stopped more immediately when it is desired for the motor to be stopped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by including the safety module further having a brake; the brake is disposed on the motor to make the motor stop operating in order to allow the motor to be stopped more immediately when it is desired for the motor to be stopped.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, in view of Koegel, Boseman and Pilchowski, as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Nishimiya.
Regarding Claim 6, Keller as modified above includes the safety module and controller. And the controller acting to stop the motor see claim 3 rejection above.
Keller lacks wherein the safety module further has a brake; the brake is disposed on the motor and the brake makes the motor stop operating.
Nishimiya discloses a table saw (abstract), in the same field of endeavor as the table saw tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a safety module (30 and 22 and brake of par 0027) which has a brake (“brake”, par 0027); the brake is disposed on the motor to make the motor stop operating (par 0027), in order to allow the motor to be stopped more immediately when it is desired for the motor to be stopped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by including the safety module further having a brake; the brake is disposed on the motor to make the motor stop operating in order to allow the motor to be stopped more immediately when it is desired for the motor to be stopped.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Keller, Koegel, Boseman and Pilchowski as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPUB 20220221240, Song.
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Keller lacks wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller controls a brake to apply braking control to the motor, and the controller drives the motor to rotate the saw blade only after the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone.
Song discloses a safety control system for a handheld power tool, in the same field of endeavor as the safety control system for a handheld power tool, of the present application, and discloses that in such a system, a controller is controlled to either power or stop power to the system when a safe or unsafe condition is detected, and discloses that in making such a determination the system includes: wherein when the controller receives a start signal (par 0145), the controller controls (lock) to prevent the system from operating to perform a firing operation (par 0146), wherein the controller allows the system to fire only after the image sensor confirms that the system is in a safe zone/conditions, in order to only allow the system to be powered to perform its normal operation and to start the system when a safe condition is detected (par 145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Keller by further including wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller controls the system stop the system from controlling the main operation (cutting) by control to the motor, and the controller drives the system to perform its main function (cutting) when only after the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone, in order to only allow the system to be powered to perform its normal operation and to start the system when a safe condition is detected as taught by Song.
In modifying Keller as above an artisan of such skill in the art would be motivated to apply the safety teachings of Song into Keller to be applied equally to the normal conditions of Keller, e.g. to use the brake of Metzger to prevent normal operation once the controller receives a power start signal and to allow the motor to rotate the blade only when a safe condition is detected (which safe condition corresponds to a user’s hand being in the safety zone).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller, in view of Koegel and Boseman as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of USPGPUB US20100300256A1, Loewe.
Keller lacks wherein the image sensor continuously capturing the object to obtain a plurality of dynamic parameters of the object, the dynamic parameters including at least one of a movement direction, a movement speed, a shape variation, and a displacement path, based on which the controller determines whether the object is likely to enter the danger zone.
Loewe discloses a saw safety braking tool, in the same field of endeavor as the a saw safety/braking tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes a visual element (34 and 38, par. 0025), which helps to defining a safety zone (36) and a danger zone (40) for the work plane (18), and when the visual element captures that an object about to enter the danger zone 40 according to a movement trajectory of the object (par. 0034 - par. 0035), the visual element transmits a brake signal (par. 0034 and Par. 0027) to the controller to make the controller control the device to stop the blade from operating/ stop the tool drive, (par 0027 and 0034), in order to allow for rapid recognition and reacting to a dangerous condition, par 0008-0009.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keller by replacing the single camera sensor in Keller with the dual image sensor shown in Loewe, the sensor being disposed above the worktable, wherein the sensor is also used to determine that an object is about to enter the danger zone according to a movement trajectory of the object, in order to allow a particularly short response time to be achieved in recognizing a type of material in the tool range, as taught by Loewe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 was previously objected to (in the previous office action) and is still objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the found or cited prior art includes “, wherein when the controller receives the start signal, the controller the motor to start and operate in an idling state, such that the saw blade does not rotate, and when the image sensor confirms that the object is located within the safety zone, the controller controls the motor to drive the saw blade to rotate” in addition to the rest of the structure/function of claim 1. For example, USPN: 5435066 Bare, shows a cutting device with a safety system and discloses that “cutting device 10 has several power modes: "off," "on/idle," "normal cutting," and "turbo." When a user first turns the cutting device 10 on, the motor 70 is powered to "idle." When the motor 70 is powered to idle it is at a slow speed and is not very noisy. When the user starts to cut the need for increased power is sensed (as described in detail below) and full normal cutting power is provided to the motor 70 (enough to cause the cutting blade 20 to oscillate between approximately 10,000-20,000 and preferably 15,000-16,000 cycles per minute)”. This is very similar to what is required of claim 11. However, Claim 11 requires that the transition from idle to full power happens when the system detects that an object is not in a safety zone. Unlike Song, which was used to reject claim 10, which confirms a safety of the system in a non contact manner, the system of Bare detects a safe state via contact. As such, this teaches away from the contactless system claimed in claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/17/26, with respect to the previously made prior art rejections, as the claims have now been amended, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, a new rejection is made in view of Keller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 20040017294 6418829 20100011926 20060096425 20060096425 20090241748 9873158 20150000492 20080173147 6418829 20060096425 disclose state of the art sawing devices with safety portions, while USPGPUB 20090038456 discloses the benefits of having a brake on a safety mechanism. Thus, each of these references disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights