DETAILED ACTION
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 15-27 and 29-34 in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is persuasive. Claim 28 will be rejoined and examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show a first movement element 61 as described in the specification (page 3, lines 28, 31, 34, and 36). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Above is an example. The Applicant is required to review the Specification and the Drawings to ensure the reference numbers being in both the Specification and the Drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23, 25, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention..
Regarding claim 23, it is unclear how the drive error is detected, the voltage error is detected, the current saw blade position is detected (it is noted that the saw blade position is detected by the rotation of the rotor but not any position sensor), and how an operation time value is detected since the workpiece is fed manually.
Regarding claim 25, it is unclear how two different calibrations are run simultaneously.
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.
Claims 23, 32, and 33 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 23, it is unclear what the scope of a drive error is. It is unclear what scope of an operation time is. It is unclear what an operation time is since it appears a workpiece is fed to the saw device manually.
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.
Claims 15-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koegel et al. (2014/0318342), hereinafter Koegel.
Regarding claim 15, Koegel teaches a saw device comprising a workpiece rest 304 for the rest of a workpiece, a saw blade 308, as well as an electrical actuator device 600 for setting a saw blade position of the saw blade relative to the workpiece rest, wherein the electrical actuator device 600 comprises a first electrical actuator 604 which comprises a first rotor and serves for setting the saw blade position in a first degree of freedom and the saw device is designed to detect a current saw blade position of the saw blade on the basis of a first rotor movement of the first rotor.
See Figs. 9, 10, and 17; and para. [0081] and [0090].
Regarding claim 28, Koegel teaches method for operating a saw device according to claim 15, comprising the step: detecting the current saw blade position on the basis of the first rotor movement.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Koegel teaches detecting a current of the blade based on the rotation of the rotor and thus without relying on a position sensor.
Regarding claim 18, a second actuator 626 for setting up the blade a second degree of freedom (blade heights) is best seen in Fig. 18.
Regarding claims 19-21, the saw device is capable of carrying out a calibration run since the saw device can be adjusted manually or automatically.
Regarding claim 22, the saw device can run a calibration run anytime necessary by an operator since the saw device can be adjusted manually or automatically.
Regarding claim 23, Koegel teaches a detection of a blade height position and calibrating it accordingly.
Regarding claim 24, the saw device can run calibrating run as long as an operators wish since the saw device can be run manually or automatically.
Regarding claim 25, the saw device can run manually, thus it can calibrate the bevel angles and height partly simultaneously. For example, a bevel angle is adjusted first and then adjusted for a height instead of running the saw blade back to a 90 degrees angle.
Regarding claim 26, the table saw has a blade store position where the blade is below the table saw support surface.
Regarding claim 27, Koegel teaches the blade being adjustable in two bevel directions.
Regarding claim 29, Koegel teaches a bench saw.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Koegel teaches a blade height adjustment and a bevel adjustment.
Regarding claim 32, Koegel teaches a drive error based on a locking and/or slipping of the actuator device. See para. [0095].
Regarding claim 33, Koegel teaches a voltage error in para. [0093].
Regarding claim 34, Koegel teaches a user actuating an operation of the saw device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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 at 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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights