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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 10/24/2024 and 07/02/2026 are being considered by the examiner. Please note that, in the IDS of 10/24/2024, item 9 in the Foreign Patent Documents has been crossed out because it is a duplicate of item 3.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “angle values,” the “spatial angles,” “deviation value,” and “spatial direction” as described in the specification and as specified in the claims. The drawings, at most, repeat claim language or portions of the specification without providing any context with respect to how the claimed angles and directions are structurally related to the “intelligent device.” It is unclear as to how the claimed angles and directions should be measured with respect to the intelligent device. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 13, 17, 18, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, “wherein whether to trigger the protection operation …” should be “wherein the determining whether to trigger the protection operation ….” Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 13 and 25, “wherein each of all comparison results meeting the corresponding condition …” should be “wherein the each of all comparison results meeting the corresponding condition ….” Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 17, “wherein determining the deviation value of each spatial angle …” should be “wherein the determining the deviation value of each spatial angle ….” Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 18, “wherein determining the plurality of error values …” should be “wherein the determining the plurality of error values ….”
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.
Claims 11-30 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. Claims 11, 21, and 23 each recites “obtaining a plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of a plurality of spatial angles.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what the “angle values” and “spatial angle” are in reference to. “Angle” is a relative term that defines the relationship between an object (e.g., vector, line, surface, etc.) and a reference point. The claim never defines what is being measured and what the claimed “angles” are in relation to (i.e., obtaining the angle of what parameter? and what is the reference point from which the angles are being measured?). Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12-20, 22, and 24-30 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claims 16-19 and 27-29 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. Claim 16 and 26 each recite that “the plurality of angle values comprises angle values collected in a first spatial direction, angle values collected in a second spatial direction, and angle values collected in a third spatial direction.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what “angle values collected in a first [second, third] spatial direction” means. Appropriate correction and/or explanation is required. Claims 17-19 and 27-29 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claims 17-18 and 27-29 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. Claims 17 and 27 each recite “calculating an angular deviation value of the first spatial direction, an angular deviation value of the second spatial direction, and an angular deviation value of third spatial direction.” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to what the “angular deviation value of the first [second, third] spatial direction” is in reference to. Again, angle is a relative term. The claim never defines the reference point from which the “angular deviation value of the first [second, third] spatial direction” is being measured from. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 18, 28, and 29 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and/or a mathematical concept without significantly more for the following reasons:
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 11 falls within a statutory class of a method (i.e., claim 11 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 11 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, claim 11 recites “obtaining a plurality of angle values …; obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value …; determining a deviation value of each spatial angle …; determining an error value …; and determining whether to trigger a protection operation ….” The claimed “obtaining[s]” and “determining[s]” are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally and/or are mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, III. Here, the claimed “obtaining[s]” can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by viewing a display with the claimed information and recording the information using a pen and paper. Similarly, the claimed “determining[s]” and/or the claimed “selects a vehicle” can be performed mentally by a human, e.g., by using a mathematical relationship correlating angles to deviations and errors.
Further, claim 11 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas discussed above into a practical application. For example, claim 11 does not positively recite that the “protection operation” is actually triggered using the determined information and thus does not integrate the abstract ideas discussed above into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. In addition, the claimed features do not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus they are still an abstract ideas that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed determining of a deviation value and/or an error value are new ideas, they are still an abstract ideas, as discussed above, and thus do not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Dependent claims 12-20 just further define the abstract ides and/or mathematical concepts discussed above and do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Therefore, claims 12-20 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “obtaining a safety factor, and determining a safety threshold value of the deviation value and a safety threshold value of the error value based on the safety factor,” which is an abstract idea. Because claim 12 does not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for this additional reason.
Claim 20 recites “obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value in each queue of the plurality of queues and determining the deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value in each queue,” which is an abstract idea. Because claim 20 does not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for this additional reason.
Claims 21 and 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 21 falls within a statutory class of a device (i.e., claims 21 and 23 pass Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claims 21 and 23 recite a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04. Specifically, similar to claim 11, discussed above, claim 21 [and claim 23] recite “obtaining [obtain] a plurality of angle values …; obtaining [obtain] a maximum value and a minimum value …; determining [determine] a deviation value of each spatial angle …; determining [determine] an error value …; and determining [determine] whether to trigger a protection operation ….” For reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 11, the claimed “obtaining[s]” and “determining[s]” are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally and/or are mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, III. In addition, claims 21 and 23 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas discussed above into a practical application, any improvement to the relevant technology or any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” Dependent claims 22 and 24-30 just further define the abstract ides and/or mathematical concepts discussed above and do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Therefore, claims 22 and 24-30 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claim 24 recites “obtain a safety factor, and determine a safety threshold value of the deviation value and a safety threshold value of the error value based on the safety factor,” which is an abstract idea. Because claim 24 does not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for this additional reason.
Claim 30 recites “obtain a maximum value and a minimum value in each queue of the plurality of queues and determine the deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value in each queue,” which is an abstract idea. Because claim 30 does not integrate the abstract idea into a judicial exception, claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for this additional reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 11-13, 15-16, 19-26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0154758 to Schmid et al. (“Schmid”) in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0038546 to Nishimiya et al. (“Nishimiya”). Schmid was submitted in the IDS of 07/02/2926.
Regarding claim 11:
A safety control method (Schmid at par. [0013].), wherein the safety control method comprises:
obtaining a plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of a plurality of spatial angles (Schmid discloses obtaining the direction of the mechanical vector quantity 3 (“plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle”) of a hand-held power tool. Schmid at pars. [0048] [0052], [0061]-[0064] and Fig. 2 (showing a 0-360° graph for mechanical vector quantity 3).);
obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value among the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle (Schmid discloses that the control device 4 determines directional ranges, which will include endpoints (“maximum value and a minimum value”) for mechanical vector quantity 3. For example, the control device 4 determines directional ranges 14 and 15 (based on user profile), which can represent a kickback event. Schmid at pars. [0050]-[0056], [0064], and [0067] and Fig. 2. Schmid also discloses that the directional range outside the directional ranges 14 and /or 15, corresponds to a no kickback event (e.g., the unshaded region in Fig. 2). Schmid at par. [0057].), and
determining a deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value (Schmid discloses in Fig. 2 an unshaded region, a directional range 14, and a directional range 15 that correspond to a “deviation value” of the direction of the mechanical vector quantity 3. Schmid at pars. [0048], [0050]-[0056] and [0061]-[0067] and Fig. 2.);
determining an error value according to the deviation value of each spatial angle (Schmid discloses determining a time duration (“error value”) that the mechanical vector quantity 3 is within directional range 15 and/or directional range 14. Schmid at par. [0062]. If the time duration is longer than a specific time threshold, the control devices 4 recognizes a “kickback” event.); and
determining whether to trigger a protection operation according to at least one of the deviation value and the error value (Schmid discloses that, if a kickback event is detected, the control device 4 can stop driving the tool and/or apply a brake. Schmid at pars. [0090]-[0091].),
obtaining a plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of a plurality of spatial angles (Schmid does not explicitly disclose obtaining the direction of the mechanical vector quantity in more than one plane (i.e., for more than one spatial direction). That is, Schmid does not explicitly disclose obtaining kickback information (e.g., force, acceleration, velocity, deflection, deformation and/or a mechanical stress) based on a force emanating from the saw blade (see Schmid at par. [0001]) for a “plurality of spatial angles.” However, in a same field of endeavor, kickback detection in handheld power tools (and thus analogous art), Nishimiya discloses use of a 3-axis (e.g., X,Y, Z) sensor (e.g., an accelerometer). Nishimiya at par. [0062]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to include the sensing system of Nishimiya in order to obtain additional kickback information incorporating all three axes (e.g., detect accelerations that are mutually perpendicular in the main body). Nishimiya at par. [0062]. Because both Schmid and Nishimiya relate to sensing kickback events in hand-held tool, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 12: The safety control method according to claim 11, further comprising:
obtaining a safety factor, and determining a safety threshold value of the deviation value and a safety threshold value of the error value based on the safety factor (Schmid discloses safety profiles for beginners and professionals (“safety factor”). Schmid at par. [0064]. Schmid also discloses that, based on the profile, directional range 14 and its corresponding time threshold value or directional range 15 and its corresponding time threshold value can be used. Schmid at par. [0062]. The borders for the respective directional range 14 or 15 correspond to the “safety threshold value of the deviation value” and the time threshold value for the respective directional range 14 or 15 corresponds to the “safety threshold value of the error value.”);
wherein whether to trigger the protection operation according to at least one of the deviation value and the error value comprises: obtaining a comparison result by comparing the deviation value with the safety threshold value of the deviation value and obtaining a comparison result by comparing the error value with the safety threshold value of the error value (As discussed above, Schmid discloses determining the directional range (“deviation value”) of the mechanical vector quantity 3. If the directional range of the mechanical vector quantity 3 falls within directional range 15 (beginner’s profile) and/or within directional range 14 (professional profile) (“obtaining a comparison result by comparing the deviation value with the safety threshold value of the deviation value”) for a time duration greater than the respective time threshold value (“obtaining a comparison result by comparing the error value with the safety threshold value of the error value”), a kickback event is recognized (“whether to trigger the protection operation”). Schmid at pars. [0062].); and
executing the protection operation when each of all comparison results meets a corresponding condition for triggering the protection operation (Schmid discloses that, if a kickback event is detected, the control device 4 can stop driving the tool and/or apply a brake. Schmid at pars. [0090]-[0091].)
Regarding claim 13: The safety control method according to claim 12, wherein each of all comparison results meeting the corresponding condition comprises:
the deviation value being greater than the safety threshold value of the deviation value and the error value being greater than the safety threshold value of the error value (Schmid discloses that, if the directional range of the mechanical vector quantity 3 goes beyond the no kickback range (unshaded region in Fig. 2) and into the directional range 14 or 15 and the time duration exceeds the time threshold value for the respective directional range 14 or 15, then kickback protection is recognized. Schmid at par. [0062]. Thus, Schmid discloses the claimed “deviation value being greater than the safety threshold value of the deviation value and the error value being greater than the safety threshold value of the error value.” ).
Regarding claim 15: The safety control method according to claim 12, further comprising:
determining the safety factor in response to input by a user (Schmid at par. [0067].).
Regarding claim 16: The safety control method according to claim 11,
wherein the plurality of angle values comprises angle values collected in a first spatial direction, angle values collected in a second spatial direction, and angle values collected in a third spatial direction (As discussed above, Schmid discloses obtaining kickback information for a plane and Nishimiya discloses obtaining kickback information for three spatial directions. Schmid at pars. [0048], [0050]-[0056] and [0061]-[0067] and Fig. 2 and Nishimiya at par. [0062].).
Regarding claim 19: The safety control method according to claim 16,
wherein the first spatial direction represents a X spatial direction, the second spatial direction represents a Y spatial direction, and the third spatial direction represents a Z spatial direction, the X spatial direction, the Y spatial direction, and the Z spatial direction are in a same three-dimensional space (Nishimiya at par. [0062].).
Regarding claim 20: The safety control method according to claim 11, further comprising:
after obtaining the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of the plurality of spatial angles, storing the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle in one of a plurality of queues; and obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value in each queue of the plurality of queues and determining the deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value in each queue (Schmid discloses storing the directional ranges 14 and 15 for a spatial direction in memory, which as discussed above in claim 1 correspond to deviation values. Schmid at pars. [0064] and [0073]. The deviation values will include information of the spatial angles and the maximum and minimum values. Schmid in view Nishimiya will perform the storing for each spatial direction of each directional range (“plurality of queues”).
Regarding claim 21:
An intelligent device (Schmid at par. [0012] and Fig. 1.), wherein the intelligent device comprises:
a collecting sensor, configured for collecting data of spatial angles and obtaining a plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of the spatial angles (Schmid discloses sensor device 2. Schmid at par. [0035] and Fig. 1. Nishimiya discloses that the sensor device should cover three axes. Nishimiya at par. [0062]. See claim 1 for motivation to combine Schmid and Nishimiya.);
at least one processor (Schmid discloses control device 4. Schmid does not explicitly disclose that control device 4 has a processor. However, Nishimiya discloses that such control devices can include CPUs. Nishimiya er at pars. [0049]. Because Schmid is silent on the configuration of the control device, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look for known circuit configurations to incorporate into the control device of Schmid. Because Nishimiya relates to detecting kickback in hand-held power tools, it would have been obvious to incorporate the CPU of Nishimiya into the control device 4 and there would have been a reasonable chance of success. MPEP § 2143.I.G.),
configured for obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value among the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle, determining a deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value; determining an error value according to the deviation value of each spatial angle; and determining whether to trigger a protection operation according to at least one of the deviation value and the error value (Please see analysis in claim 11.).
Regarding claim 22: The intelligent device according to claim 21,
wherein the collecting sensor is a six-axis sensor (Nishimiya discloses a six-axis sensor. Nishimiya at par. [0062].).
Regarding claim 23:
An intelligent device (Schmid at par. [0012] and Fig. 1.) comprises
a storage device and at least one processor, wherein the storage device stores a computer program (Nishimiya at par. [0049]. See claim 21 for motivation to combine with Schmid.) which when executed by the processor, causes the at least one processor to:
obtain a plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of a plurality of spatial angles; obtain a maximum value and a minimum value among the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle, and determine a deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value; determine an error value according to the deviation value of each spatial angle; and determine whether to trigger a protection operation according to at least one of the deviation value and the error value (Please see analysis in claim 11.).
Regarding claim 24: The intelligent device according to claim 23, wherein the at least one processor is further caused to:
obtain a safety factor, and determine a safety threshold value of the deviation value and a safety threshold value of the error value based on the safety factor; wherein whether to trigger the protection operation according to at least one of the deviation value and the error value comprises: obtaining a comparison result by comparing the deviation value with the safety threshold value of the deviation value and obtaining a comparison result by comparing the error value with the safety threshold value of the error value; and executing the protection operation when each of all comparison results meets a corresponding condition for triggering the protection operation (Please see analysis in claim 12.).
Regarding claim 25: The intelligent device according to claim 24, wherein each of all comparison results meeting the corresponding condition comprises:
the deviation value being greater than the safety threshold value of the deviation value and the error value being greater than the safety threshold value of the error value (Please analysis in claim 13.).
Regarding claim 26: The intelligent device according to claim 24,
wherein the plurality of angle values comprises angle values collected in a first spatial direction, angle values collected in a second spatial direction, and angle values collected in a third spatial direction (Please see analysis in claim 16.).
Regarding claim 30: The intelligent device according to claim 23, wherein the at least one processor is further caused to:
after obtaining the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle of the plurality of spatial angles, store the plurality of angle values corresponding to each spatial angle in one of a plurality of queues; and obtain a maximum value and a minimum value in each queue of the plurality of queues, and determine the deviation value of each spatial angle according to the maximum value and the minimum value in each queue (Please see analysis in claim 20.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0036725 to Osborne et al. discloses a cross comparison of accelerations in multiple axes to determine kickback value.
U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0166323 to J. Carl Cooper discloses three-axis sensors.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0154819 to Rusch et al. discloses determining events (e.g., kickback) for a power tool based on a detected mechanical quantity.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0206887 to Schmid et al. discloses determining events (e.g., kickback) for a power tool based on a detected mechanical quantity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights