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 (claims 1-10) and
Subgroup IC (claims 6-7 and 10), as set forth in the reply filed on 05/21/2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the assertion that searching the limitations of claim 1 in Group I would necessarily result in searching the limitations of claim 11 in Group II (claims 11-16), and therefore examination of both groups would not impose an undue burden on the Examiner.
However, Group I is directed to a band saw apparatus that includes, inter alia, a motor located within a housing; a controller connected to a motor; a controller configured to determine that a first touch sensor and a second touch sensor are actuated by the user; and determine that a first trigger is actuated by the user after the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are actuated by the user. In contrast, claim 11, directed to a method for controlling a band saw including the step of providing a first touch sensor and a second touch sensor configured to detect a second hand of a user on a second handle; and detecting a first hand of a user on a first handle based on actuation or de-actuation of a first
trigger. Indeed, claim 11 does not expressly require a controller at all. In this case, for example, a user can determine whether a first trigger is actuated.
It is noted that an apparatus and a process are distinct inventions if either (1) the claimed process can be practiced by another, materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the claimed apparatus can be used to practice another, materially different process. In the present case, the claimed process could be performed using an apparatus in which the motor is not located within a housing (e.g., the motor may be external to the housing), and without a controller that performs all of the functions recited in claim 1. Accordingly, the apparatus and method claims are distinct.
Applicant’s argument that Subgroups IA-ID are not mutually exclusive is also not persuasive. As stated in the Restriction Requirement, each subgroup includes at least one feature that is not present in the other subgroups. Thus, each subgroup is mutually exclusive of the others. Although the searches for the individual subgroups may overlap to some extent, they do not coincide. A search directed to elected Subgroup IC would not be sufficient to address the distinct features of non-elected Subgroups IA-IB and ID. Furthermore, a text and subclass search necessary to locate the specific feature of one subgroup would not necessarily disclose the distinct features of the remaining subgroups. Each subgroup, by virtue of its distinct feature(s), occupies a separate status in the prior art and requires a different field of search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-5, 8-9, and 11-20 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, 6-7, and 10 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, the recitation that “a first hand of the user may be detected on the first handle based on actuation or de-actuation of the first trigger” is unclear. The claim does not recite any sensor, detector, or other structure associated with the first handle that would detect the presence of the user’s hand. Actuation or de-actuation of a trigger merely indicates a change in the state of the trigger (e.g., a switch state) and does not, by itself, detect the presence of a user’s hand. Accordingly, it is unclear how the user’s hand is detected, what structure performs the detection, or whether the alleged detection is merely inferred from trigger actuation or de-actuation.
Furthermore, the phrase “may be detected” introduces ambiguity as to whether detection of the user’s hand is required by the claim. The permissive term “may” suggests that the user’s hand need not actually be detected, even though the claim recites such detection. As a result, the scope of the claim is unclear because it is uncertain whether hand detection constitutes a required claim limitation. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite.
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.
6. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aaron et al. (DE 102017222077 A1), hereinafter Aaron, provided with the IDS submitted on 04/15/2026. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Aaron teaches a band saw (chain saw 100, the chain saw being considered a saw or machine for purposes of the claim) comprising: a housing (housing 110); a motor located within the housing (drive unit 140 arranged within housing 110 and configured to drive saw chain 144); a first handle including a first trigger configured to be actuated by a user (main handle 112, 112a including release element 124, 124a and/or operating element 160 configured to be actuated by a user), wherein a first hand of the user may be detected on the first handle based on actuation or de-actuation of the first trigger (control circuit 170 is configured to detect activation and deactivation of the release elements 122, 122a, 124, 124a and/or operating element 160 and to detect the temporal sequence of such actuations; because actuation of release element 124, 124a and/or operating element 160 requires engagement by the user’s hand and de-actuation occurs when the user’s hand releases the trigger, controller 170 determines the presence or absence of the user’s first hand on main handle 112, 112a based on the actuation or de-actuation state of the first trigger); a second handle including a first touch sensor and a second touch sensor (auxiliary handle 115 and associated hand guard 117 including touch elements 624 and 224, which are disclosed as touch elements configured to be activated by user contact), wherein the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are configured to detect a second hand of the user on the second handle (touch elements 624 and 224 are located on and/or associated with auxiliary handle 115 and are activated by user contact with the auxiliary handle, thereby detecting the user’s second hand on the second handle); and a controller connected to the motor, the first trigger, the first touch sensor, and the second touch sensor (control circuit 170 connected to and configured to monitor drive unit 140, operating element 160, release elements 122, 122a, 124, 124a, and touch elements 624, 224), the controller configured to determine that the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are actuated by the user (control circuit 170 determines activation of touch elements 624 and 224 based on received switching signals indicating user contact), determine that the first trigger is actuated by the user after the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are actuated by the user (control circuit 170 detects the temporal sequence of activation of the touch elements and the release element/operating element and requires activation of the first trigger after activation of the touch elements as part of the prescribed safety activation sequence), and drive, in response to the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor being actuated and in response to the first trigger being actuated after the first touch sensor and the second touch sensor are actuated, the motor (drive unit 140 is enabled and started only after the prescribed sequence of activations has been detected by control circuit 170, including activation of the touch elements followed by activation of the release element and/or operating element, as described with respect to the safety switching arrangement 120 and the activation sequences shown in Figs. 6-13).
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. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron in view of Ditthard et al. (DE 102018108068 A1), hereinafter Ditthard, or Chan (KR 101408278 B1) or Schaer (EP 1440771 A1), all provided with the IDS submitted on 05/30/2024 and 04/15/2026. Regarding claim 10, it could be argued that Aaron does not explicitly teach that the first and second touch sensors are capacitive sensors. It should be noted that Aaron teaches that the first and second release elements (124, 122) may be implemented as touch sensors or presence sensors, and that actuation of the first release element 124 energizes or activates the control unit, safety switching arrangement, and drive unit logic. See Figs. 12 and 15.
In embodiments where the release elements are implemented as touch or presence sensors for detecting a user’s hand on the handle, such sensors inherently operate based on detection of electrical characteristics of the user, such as impedance or capacitance.
To the extent Aaron does not explicitly disclose that the touch sensors are specifically a capacitive sensor, Ditthard teaches a power cutting machine including handles having gripping sections (20, 30) provided with touch sensors implemented as impedance or capacitive sensors (see paragraph 6 on page 4 of the attached translation and Fig. 1). Similarly, Chan teaches a power cutting machine 100 including a handle 110 having a gripping section provided with a capacitive sensor 620 functioning as a touch sensor (see the last paragraph on page 3 and the first two paragraphs on page 4 of the attached translation, and Fig. 3). Schaer also teaches a power cutting tool 1 including handles having gripping sections equipped with touch sensors implemented as impedance, capacitive, or resistance sensors (5a, 5b) (see paragraphs 3-4 on page 4 of the attached translation and Figs. 1a-1b). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement Aaron’s touch sensors as capacitance sensors as taught by Ditthard, Chan, or Schaer in order to facilitate reliable detection of a user’s hand on the handle and thereby enhance operational safety.
9. Claims 1, 6-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron in view of Khapochkin et al. (7,999,562 B2), hereinafter Khapochkin. Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Aaron teaches a chain saw or similar powered cutting machine (chain saw 100) comprising a housing (housing 110) (Aaron, Fig. 1), a motor located within the housing (drive unit 140 arranged within housing 110 and configured to drive saw chain 144), a first handle including a first trigger configured to be actuated by a user (main handle 112, 112a including release element 124, 124a and/or operating element 160 configured to be actuated by a user), wherein a first hand of the user may be detected on the first handle based on actuation or de-actuation of the first trigger (control circuit 170 configured to detect activation and deactivation of release elements 122, 122a, 124, 124a and/or operating element 160 and to determine presence/absence of a user based on the state and temporal sequence of such actuation), a second handle including a second user-contact input arrangement (auxiliary handle 115 and hand guard 117 including touch elements 624 and 224 configured to be activated by user contact), wherein the second hand of the user is detected based on user interaction with the second handle (touch elements 624 and 224 generating switching signals in response to user contact), and a controller connected to the motor, the first trigger, and the second handle inputs (control circuit 170 connected to drive unit 140, operating element 160, release elements 122, 122a, 124, 124a, and touch elements 624, 224), the controller configured to determine that the second handle inputs are actuated, determine that the first trigger is actuated after the second handle inputs are actuated, and enable operation of the motor only in response to the defined actuation sequence (control circuit 170 enforcing safety interlock logic requiring activation of touch elements followed by trigger actuation before enabling drive unit 140).
It could be argued that Aaron does not expressly disclose that the second handle touch sensors are implemented as capacitive sensors including a guard electrode arrangement configured to substantially isolate the sensing element from ground and reduce environmental interference such as moisture-induced capacitance effects.
However, Khapochkin expressly teaches a capacitive operator presence detector for a machine handle, including a capacitive sensor (23) mounted within a handle and configured to form part of a capacitor when touched by an operator (Khapochkin, Fig. 2; col. 8, claim 1(a)), a separate guard electrode (24) positioned adjacent to the capacitive sensor and arranged along the handle (Khapochkin, Fig. 2; Fig. 4a; claim 1(b)), wherein the guard electrode is driven to substantially the same voltage as the capacitive sensor such that the sensor is effectively isolated from ground and environmental coupling (Khapochkin, power amplifier 27; node B; node C; Va = Vc), and an operator presence detection circuit (31) configured to measure changes in capacitance of the capacitive sensor as changes in voltage at a node (output measurement 30 at node B), wherein the guard electrode is actively driven so that the voltage at the guard electrode tracks the sensor voltage, thereby reducing false capacitance changes caused by water, moisture, or conductive fluids forming unintended conductive paths to ground (Khapochkin, Fig. 2; col. 5–7; detection circuit 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Aaron’s second handle touch sensing arrangement to employ the capacitive sensor and guard electrode configuration of Khapochkin because Aaron’s system already relies on user-contact detection as a safety interlock mechanism, and Khapochkin teaches that capacitive sensing with a driven guard electrode improves detection reliability by reducing false activations caused by moisture, rain, humidity, or conductive debris commonly encountered in outdoor power equipment environments. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that replacing or implementing Aaron’s user-contact sensors with Khapochkin’s capacitive sensor/guard electrode structure would have been a predictable substitution of known sensing technologies performing the same function of detecting operator presence, with the predictable result of improved robustness and reduced false triggering under environmental conditions, while maintaining Aaron’s safety interlock control logic.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Aaron teaches a handheld power tool including touch sensors and a control unit configured to determine user presence and control operation of the tool. Aaron does not expressly teach wherein an initial voltage is read and stored to provide a baseline capacitance and wherein a predetermined sensitivity cutoff is established for determining whether a measured voltage is indicative of operator presence. Khapochkin teaches reading and storing an initial capacitance value during controller power-up to establish a baseline capacitance based on environmental conditions, wherein the controller remembers the baseline capacitance and subtracts that value from subsequently measured values, and further teaches establishing a sensitivity cutoff point for determining operator presence (Khapochkin, col. 6, lines discussing calibration on power-up, baseline capacitance, sensitivity cutoff, and controller operation; controller 60). Khapochkin further teaches that the baseline capacitance may be recorded during initialization and that subsequent capacitance measurements are compared against a predetermined threshold to determine whether an operator is present. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the baseline calibration and sensitivity threshold techniques taught by Khapochkin into Aaron’s touch-sensing system because doing so would compensate for environmental variations, reduce false detections, and improve the accuracy and reliability of operator detection, yielding the predictable result of a more robust sensing system.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Aaron teaches a touch sensor arrangement for detecting user contact with a power tool. Aaron does not expressly teach wherein a shielded wire is used to connect the capacitive sensor and the guard electrode to the operator presence circuit. Khapochkin teaches wiring (26) connecting the capacitive sensor (23) and guard electrode (24) to the detection circuit (31), and further teaches that the handle wires are preferably completely shielded to protect the signal path and improve operation of the sensing system (Khapochkin, col. 6, lines discussing wiring 26 and stating that handle wires are preferably completely shielded; Fig. 2; Fig. 4a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the shielded wiring taught by Khapochkin in the sensor arrangement of Aaron because shielded conductors reduce electrical noise, electromagnetic interference, and signal degradation in capacitive sensing systems, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of user-contact detection and producing the predictable result of enhanced sensing performance.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, Aaron teaches first and second touch sensors configured to detect user contact with the housing of a power tool and provide signals to a control unit for controlling operation of the tool. Aaron does not expressly disclose that the first sensor and the second sensor are capacitive sensors. Khapochkin teaches a capacitive operator presence detector employing a capacitive sensor (23) configured to detect the presence of an operator through changes in capacitance caused by human touch, wherein the detection circuit measures capacitance changes and determines operator presence based on those changes (Khapochkin, Fig. 2; Fig. 4a; col. 4-7; claim 1(a)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement Aaron’s first and second touch sensors as capacitive sensors as taught by Khapochkin because Khapochkin demonstrates that capacitive sensing provides reliable, non-mechanical detection of human contact while reducing susceptibility to environmental conditions when used with the disclosed guard electrode arrangement. Such substitution would merely involve the use of a known sensing technology for its known purpose of detecting user touch and would have yielded the predictable result of reliable operator-contact detection in Aaron’s power tool system.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Koschel et al. (EP 3905528 A1) teach a power tool including sensor for detecting a hand of a user on a handle.
11. 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
June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights