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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The IDS filed 02/28/2025 is a duplicate of the one submitted 12/23/2024.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-16 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schaer et al. [US 2022/324092], applicant cited prior art.
Claim 12 Schaer et al. discloses a method for detecting kickback of an electric tool [1], the electric tool having a housing [2], a power supply module [accumulator or power cable; paragraph 0045], an electric motor [drive; paragraph 0046], a working component [3], a control module [5] and a detection module [6], the detection module being designed to detect a linear acceleration and an angular velocity of the working component [paragraphs 0048-0049], and the detection module being separated from the centre of gravity [P] of the working component by a distance r [D; figure 3], the detection method comprising: a. detecting the linear acceleration via the detection module [paragraphs 0057-0058], subtracting gravitational acceleration from the linear acceleration to form an adjusted linear acceleration [paragraph 0059]; then integrating the adjusted linear acceleration to obtain a linear speed [paragraph 0065];
b. detecting the angular velocity via the detection module [paragraph 0072], and multiplying by the distance r between the detection module and the centre of gravity of the working component to obtain a rotational speed [paragraphs 0073-0075];
c. calculating a total translational speed based on the linear speed and the rotational speed [paragraph 0076], predicting a position of the centre of gravity of the working component of the electric tool after a time constant τ milliseconds [paragraphs 0077-0078]; d. detecting an actual position of the centre of gravity of the working component of the electric tool [paragraph 0064]; and e. comparing a displacement between the predicted position of the centre of gravity of the working component and the actual position of the centre of gravity of the working component with a pre-set threshold, and when the displacement exceeds the pre-set threshold [GW], determining that kickback is about to occur [paragraph 0078].
Claim 13 Schaer et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 12 wherein the predicted position of the centre of gravity of the working component of the electric tool after τ milliseconds is calculated by the following equation:
s(t+τ) = s(t) + v(t) * τ + ½ * τ2 * a(t)
where s(t+τ) represents the predicted position, s(t) represents the actual position, v(t) represents the vector sum of the linear speed and the rotational speed, and α(t) represents the linear acceleration [paragraph 0077].
Claim 14 Schaer et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 13 wherein the detection module detects linear acceleration or angular velocity in three spatial directions, including on an x-axis, a y-axis and a z-axis [paragraph 0054].
Claim 15 Schaer et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 14 wherein the linear accelerations in the three spatial direction are filtered [paragraph 0049].
Claim 16 Schaer et al. discloses the method as recited in claim 15 wherein the pre-set threshold [GW] is fixed [paragraph 0069].
Claim 20 Schaer et al. discloses an electric tool [1] comprising: a housing [2]; a power supply module [accumulator or power cable; paragraph 0045]; an electric motor [drive; paragraph 0046]; a working component [3]; a control module [5]; and a detection module [6], the detection module being designed to detect at least one linear acceleration or at least one angular velocity of the working component [paragraphs 0048-0049], the detection module being separated from the centre of the working component by a distance r [D; figure 3], the electric tool performing the method for detecting kickback as recited in claim 12.
Claim 21 Schaer et al. discloses the electric tool as recited in claim 20 wherein the detection module includes an acceleration sensor for determining linear acceleration in three specific spatial directions, and a gyroscope sensor for determining angular velocity in three spatial directions [paragraphs 0019 and 0048].
Claim 22 Schaer et al. discloses the electric tool as recited in claim 20 wherein the working component includes a saw blade, a drill bit, or an abrasive wheel [paragraph 0045].
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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaer et al. [US 2022/324092] in view of Abbott et al. [US 2021/229258], applicant cited prior art.
Claim 17, Schaer et al. disclose the method as recited in claim 15 with the exception of further comprising collecting rotational speed or current signals from the electric motor, and changing the pre-set threshold according to the rotational speed or current from the electric motor.
Abbott et al. discloses kickback control methods for power tools [abs] wherein the electronic processor determines whether the power tool characteristic has reached a kickback threshold. [paragraph 0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the adjustable threshold of Abbott et al. in the method of Schaer et al. in order to adjust the detection means od the tool.
Claim 18, Schaer et al. as modified disclose the method as recited in claim 17 Abbott et al. further teaching comprising: if a drop in the rotational speed or an increase in the current of the electric motor is detected at the same time as the displacement exceeds the pre-set threshold, this is determined as being true kickback; otherwise, if there is no obvious change in the rotational speed or current of the electric motor, this is determined as being a manual kickback test [paragraph 0061].
Claim 19, Schaer et al. as modified disclose the method as recited in claim 18 further comprising braking or stopping the electric motor or issuing an alarm signal when true kickback is determined [paragraph 0061].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights