DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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. Claim 1 teaches “applying a falsification parameter”. This term is not properly defined or established as common knowledge. Based on the context, examiner will interpret this language to pertain to data sets or movements that imply kickback, but do not meet the threshold for kickback.
Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 USC 112b for being indefinite.
Claim 4 does remedy the issues of claim 1. Claims 5-11 depend directly and/or indirectly from claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gil KR20170075309 (as seen in the IDS).
As to claim 1, Gil teaches “A method of detecting a kickback condition of a handheld power tool ([0001]), the method comprising: moving an implement ([0028]) of the handheld power tool within an implement motion plane ([0028]; Figure 1. This chain rotates around the guide in a single place when held still); detecting a motion of the handheld power tool ([0007]; [0008]) and a workpiece contact parameter ([0033]-[0035]); applying a falsification parameter ([0037] teaches “As another example, when the user wields the electric saw apparatus in an operating state, the acceleration sensor 300 may calculate the rotation acceleration based on at least one axis selected from the x-axis, the y-axis, the z-axis, Axis, a z-axis, and a combination thereof.” This can be interpreted as the sensor measuring this movement correlating to kickback when exceeding a threshold. The rotation below a threshold can be a falsification parameter); and determining that the kickback condition exists based on a verification parameter that includes the motion of the handheld power tool and the workpiece contact parameter, and based on the falsification parameter, wherein, when the implement is in contact with a workpiece, the workpiece contact parameter is within a contact value range, wherein, when the implement is spaced apart from the workpiece, the workpiece contact parameter is within a no-contact value range (element 200 monitors and detects various parameters, such as acceleration. The acceleration is measured when in motion and then the chain interacts with the workpiece. Based on this acceleration and the thresholds for kickback, the system can recognize the kickback condition based on that parameter).”
As to claim 2, Gil teaches “wherein the detecting the motion includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: (a-i) detecting a magnitude of an acceleration of the handheld power tool; (a-ii) detecting a direction of the acceleration of the handheld power tool; and (a-iii) detecting an angular velocity of the handheld power tool ([0037]).”
As to claim 3, Gil teaches “wherein the determining includes determining that the kickback condition exists, in case of: (b-i) detecting the magnitude of the acceleration of the handheld power tool (a-i): when the magnitude of the acceleration of the handheld power tool is greater than a threshold acceleration value ([0008]); (b-ii) detecting the direction of the acceleration of the handheld power tool (a- ii): when the direction of the acceleration of the handheld power tool is within a threshold direction range; and/or (b-iii) detecting the angular velocity of the handheld power tool (a-iii): when the angular velocity of the handheld power tool is within a threshold angular velocity value.
As to claim 4, Gil teaches “wherein the falsification parameter includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: (a) a linear acceleration component of the acceleration of the handheld power tool (Figure 1; [0037] teaches the acceleration of the chain, and this acceleration occurs when there is no change in the direction of travel); (b) an angular velocity component of the angular velocity of the handheld power tool; and (c) a linear acceleration direction component of the acceleration of the handheld power tool.
As to claim 5, Gil teaches “wherein the determining includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: (i) determining that the kickback condition exists when the linear acceleration component is outside a threshold linear acceleration component range (Figure 1; [0008]; [0037] teaches the acceleration of the chain, and this acceleration occurs when there is no change in the direction of travel); and (ii) determining that the kickback condition does not exist when the linear acceleration component is within the threshold linear acceleration component range.
As to claim 7, Gil teaches “wherein the determining includes at least one selected from the group consisting of: (i) determining that the kickback condition exists when the angular velocity component is outside a threshold angular velocity component range ([0040]); and (ii) determining that the kickback condition does not exist when the angular velocity component is within the threshold angular velocity component range.
As to claim 9, Gil teaches “wherein the linear acceleration direction coincides with an angular velocity axis of the angular velocity ([0037]; [0040]).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and amended including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 do not have any prior arts rejections, but are rejected under 35 USC 112b since they are dependent on claim 1 and do not remedy the issues presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARUN SINHA whose telephone number is (571)270-3993. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM 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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
/TARUN SINHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights