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 .
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation " the second switch " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites, “when the power tool is in the normal mode, the controlled is confirmed to control the motor to rotate normally when the unloading signal of the workpiece is detected.” From Figure 5 of the specification, the unloading signal is not utilized in the normal mode, therefore it is unclear how the unloading signal is being generated.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the second switch comprises an activation switch used for controlling the motor to start and a shutoff switch used for controlling the motor to be turned off.” It is unclear how the second switch constitutes both an activation switch and shutoff switch. How does one switch become two switches? Are the “an activation switch” and “shutoff switch” the “on”/ “off” for the second switch or is the Applicant claiming two separate structures?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 7, 10, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koegel (U.S. Publication 2016/0016240).
In regard to claim 1, Koegel discloses a power tool (table saw), comprising: a saw blade (108) to cut a workpiece; a motor (M; fig. 2) for driving the saw blade to rotate; a controller (microprocessor 115) for controlling the motor (M; paragraph [0013]); and a motor switch (control module 117; “In a typical tool the control module 115 may be provided with a user interface (not shown) that permits operator adjustment of the blade cutting speed and that allows push-button activation and de-activation of the tool.” Paragraph [0013]) for a user to operate;
wherein, when the motor switch is in an on state, the controller is configured to, control the motor to stop when the cutting is finished (“automatic shutoff”; see paragraphs [0019 and 0020]).
In regard to claim 7, Koegel discloses a sensing device (sensor 120) to acquire an unloading signal of the workpiece (“d) once the workpiece has moved entirely out of the sensor area, meaning that the cut is complete (i.e., when the material sensor signal 121 is a null value), de-energizing the motor.” Paragraph [0019]) and, when the user finishes cutting and the sensing device detects the unloading signal of the workpiece, the controller controls the motor to be turned off.
In regard to claim 10, Koegel discloses wherein the unloading signal is related to a working parameter of the motor (“The position of the workpiece W may be verified by proximity sensors (not shown), and/or the engagement of the workpiece by the cutting blade may be verified by sensors associated with the blade and/or motor.” Paragraph [0019])
In regard to claim 11 and 20, Koegel discloses wherein the working parameter of the motor comprises a working current or the rotational speed of the motor. ( It is thus contemplated that the table look-up feature of the microprocessor 117 may provide a blade speed profile that is initiated once the blade contacts the workpiece and that continues until the blade passes entirely through the workpiece. The blade speed profile is a function of the material and/or material properties (such as density); paragraph [0020]).
In regard to claim 18, Koegel discloses control method for a power tool (table saw 100) comprising a saw blade (108) for acting on a workpiece, a motor (M) for driving the saw blade to rotate, and a controller (microprocessor 115) for controlling the motor (M), wherein the control method comprises: acquiring a working mode of the power tool ( “In a typical tool the control module 115 may be provided with a user interface (not shown) that permits operator adjustment of the blade cutting speed and that allows push-button activation and de-activation of the tool.” Paragraph [0013]) and, when the power tool is in an intelligent mode, controlling, by the controller, a rotational speed of the motor to be zero when acquiring an unloading signal of the workpiece.
(“automatic shutoff”; see paragraphs [0019 and 0020] ; “d) once the workpiece has moved entirely out of the sensor area, meaning that the cut is complete (i.e., when the material sensor signal 121 is a null value), de-energizing the motor.” Paragraph [0019])
In regard to claim 19, Koegel discloses wherein the unloading signal is related to a first signal outputted by a sensing device (sensor 120) used for sensing a state of the workpiece (e.g. whether the workpiece is within the sensor area) and the method further comprises outputting to the controller (115) the first signal (when the sensor signals 121 is a null value) or a working parameter of the motor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-6, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Publication 2016/0016240) in view of Slamka et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0256640), herein referred to as Slamka.
In regard to claim 2, Koegel sets forth that the user may override the operation of the automatic height adjustment assembly via a user interface. Koegel also sets forth that the user interface permit operator adjustment of the blade cutting speed and allows for push button activation and deactivation of the tool. (see paragraph [0013]). However, Koegel is silent as to when the motor switch is in an off state, the controller is configured to, control the motor to rotate normally when the cutting is finished. Slamka is concerned with control systems for table saws with active injury mitigation systems such as systems that detect contact or proximity between a user and the saw blade and stop the blade from rotating and/or retract the blade beneath the table (see paragraphs [0040-0041]). Slamka acknowledges that there are several operations in which the user may wish to disable or the mitigation systems. A bypass switch 334 is incorporated which allows the user to operate the saw without the use of the mitigation systems being employed (see paragraphs [0083-0087]. As Koegel's first working intelligent mode that controls the operational speed of the motor is also an active risk mitigation system, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have also incorporated a bypass switch as taught by Slamka such that the user had the option to either utilize the mitigation system of Koegel or instead be operated without the mitigation system. In that regard, the motor would be maintained at a constant speed until the power was removed manually by the operator instead of relying on an automatic control system to adjust the motor speed or remove power based upon sensed conditions.
In regard to claim 3, the modified device of Keogel discloses wherein the power tool can work in at least two working modes, the at least two working modes comprise an intelligent mode and a normal mode (as modified by Slamka with the override switch), when the power tool is working in the intelligent mode, the controller is configured to, when the motor switch is in an on state, control the motor to be turned off when the cutting is finished (in the mode as disclosed by Koegel, the motor has an automatic shutoff when the workpiece is no longer detected; see paragraphs [0019 and 0020]) .
In regard to claim 4, the modified device of Koegel discloses when the power tool is working in the intelligent mode and when the user turns on the motor switch, the motor starts to drive the saw blade to rotate.
In regard to claim 5, the modified device of Koegel discloses when the power tool is working in the normal mode (e.g. without a sensor), the controller (microprocessor 117) is configured to, when the motor switch is in an on state, output a control signal to a driver circuit to drive the motor to rotate (e.g. with the bypass switch 334 of Slamka).
In regard to claim 6, the modified device of Koegel discloses when the power tool is in the normal mode (e.g. without a sensor), the controller (microprocessor 117) is configured to, when the second switch (e.g. power switch) is in an off state, control the motor to stop.
In regard to claim 13, the modified device of Koegel discloses further comprising a main control switch (e.g. with the bypass switch 334 of Slamka) configured to be operated by the user to switch the power tool into the intelligent mode or the normal mode.
In regard to claim 14, the modified device of Koegel discloses a power tool (table saw 100), comprising: a saw blade (108) for acting on a workpiece; a motor (M) for driving the saw blade (108) to rotate; a controller (115) for controlling the motor (M); a sensing device (material sensor 120) to acquire an unloading signal of the workpiece (paragraph [0019]); and a first switch for a user to select a working mode from at least two working modes of the power tool(e.g. bypass switch 334 as modified by Slamka), wherein the at least two working modes comprise an intelligent mode (using sensor 120 to shutdown motor; per paragraphs [0019-0020] and a normal mode (without use of the sensor 120) and, when the power tool is in the intelligent mode (using sensor 120 to shutdown motor; per paragraphs [0019-0020]), the controller (115) is configured to control the motor to stop based on the unloading signal of the workpiece (“automatic shutoff”; see paragraphs [0019 and 0020] ; “d) once the workpiece has moved entirely out of the sensor area, meaning that the cut is complete (i.e., when the material sensor signal 121 is a null value), de-energizing the motor.” Paragraph [0019]).
In regard to claim 15, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein, when the power tool is in the normal mode (without use of the sensor), the controller (115) is configured to control the motor to rotate normally when the unloading signal of the workpiece is detected.
In regard to claim 16, the modified device of Koegel discloses further comprising a second switch operable by the user, wherein the second switch comprises an activation switch (e.g. main power switch 330 Slamka paragraph [0074]) used for controlling the motor to start and a shutoff switch (motor start stop switch 332 Slamka paragraph [0074]) used for controlling the motor to be turned off.
In regard to claim 17, the modified device of Koegel discloses further comprising a second switch (e.g. main power switch 330 Slamka / motor start/stop switch 332; Slamka; paragraph [0074]) operable by the user, wherein when the power tool is in the intelligent mode or the normal mode, the controller is configured to, when the second switch is in an on state (power on), output a control signal to a driver circuit to drive the motor to rotate.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Publication 2016/0016240).
In regard to claim 8, Koegel discloses wherein the sensing device comprises at least a sensor (120) but does not inherently set forth wherein the sensor is disposed on a front side of the saw blade, and a distance between the sensor and the saw blade is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 20 mm. Rather, Koegel discloses wherein “In one embodiment the sensor 120 may be arranged to overlap part of the tool slot and may be configured to be positioned as close to the cutting blade as possible, such as by providing a beveled or curved end 122 immediately adjacent the blade. In some embodiments, the material sensor 120 is either disposed over or embedded within and preferably flush with the table top” (paragraph [0014]). Thus, Koegel recognizes that sensor proximity to the blade is important for operation of the sensing system and teaches positioning the sensor as close to the blade as possible. Accordingly, the distance between the sensor and the blades constitutes a results effective variable and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance through routine experimentation including selecting a durance greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 20 mm in order to improve performance and response time. Furthermore, because Koegel traches locating the sensor immediately adjacent the blade, the particular placement of the sensor on a front side of the blade would have been an obvious matter of design choice. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the sensor could be positioned at various locations adjacent the blade, including the claimed front side location, while achieving the same sensing function.
In regard to claim 9, the modified device of Koegel discloses wherein the sensor comprises a capacitive proximity switch, an inductive proximity switch, or a photoelectric switch (“The sensor 120 can be of a variety of types such as optical, light, proximity, motion, reed type, acoustic, camera-based, imaging, IR, capacitive, piezoelectric, radar, sonar, ultrasonic, distance measuring, or the like” paragraph [0015]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegel (U.S. Publication 2016/0016240) in view of Hofstetter (DE202020105705). Koegel is silent as to the power supply for driving the table saw motor and therefore does not positively set forth that that the power supply device is detachably mounted onto the power tool and used for supplying power to the power tool. Hofstetter teaches a table saw with a battery 36 for powering the motor. Hofstetter sets forth that “In particular, the power tool should be able to be set up at any location and, in particular, also be able to be used flexibly, without the need for a separate 230 volt power connection. The power tool should also be powerful and have a long battery life.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided a Koegel power tool with a battery source as taught by Hofstetter, including a detachably mounted battery pack, in order to provide portable operation, permit operation in locations remote from a power source, and reduce reliance on a wall outlet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-8339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a.m.- 5p.m..
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.
/LAURA M LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights