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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it needs to be a separate sheet and narrative. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, remove the comma between “one” and “movable brake pad”.
Claim 22, line 3, remove the comma between “within the apparatus” and “a part of the machine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 22, 24 and 26 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 1 recites, “a facing set of brake pads in lines 4-5, and then “ at least one movable brake pad” in line 7. It is unclear if the movable brake pad is part of the facing set.
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 13-15, 17, 18, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winkler (U.S. Patent 8,689,665)
In regards to claim 13, Winkler discloses a hazard response apparatus in a disc cutting machine; the disc cutting machine having a motor (60) and a rotatable cutter shaft (16) supported on a frame (work table 40) by bearings (roller bearings; col. 10 lines 8-13) that support the rotatable cutting shaft (16) and an attached cutting disc (blade 66) in a work area, wherein the rotatable cutter shaft (24a) also supports a separate brake disc (brake drum 12) having sides and disposed in a space between a facing set of brake pads (brake shoes 18; fig. 5) mounted on the frame (40); the hazard response apparatus (emergency braking system 10) being adapted to cause, when in use, a first effector (magnetic actuator 28) to respond to the detected hazard by causing release of stored energy within a spring (spring elements 27), consequent motion of the spring (27) causing a linkage (locking pin 24) to at least one, movable brake pad (18) to press the pads (18/18) against the sides of the brake disc (drum 12) thereby causing friction to be developed during a braking action and stopping the cutter shaft (16) and the cutting disc (blade 66) within a controlled period of time.
In regards to claim 14, Winkler discloses wherein the brake disc is supported on the cutter shaft (16) within a compartment (within the base under work table 40) separated from the work area (surface of work table 40).
In regards to claim 15, Winkler discloses wherein the first effector (magnetic actuator 28) is selected from the group consisting of a reversibly closable magnetic circuit and an electromagnetic trip device acting on an over-centre latch, said first effector causing, when activated, the quick release of energy to the linkage.
In regards to claim 17, Winkler discloses wherein a prime mover (magnetic actuator 28) selected from the group consisting of an electric motor, a hydraulic piston and a pneumatic piston is disposed in a configuration adapted for restoration of stored energy within the spring (27), thereby returning the cutting machine to a safe and stoppable condition before the cutting machine is used (col. 7, lines 35-38).
In regards to claim 18, Winkler discloses wherein the cutter shaft (16) is directly driven by the motor (60)
In regards to claim 27, Winkler discloses wherein the cutting disc (60) is selected from the group consisting of a toothed disc saw (toothed table saw blade), a sharp-edged disc, an abrasive wheel and a cutoff wheel.
In regards to claim 28, Winkler discloses wherein the controlled period of time is less than 20 milliseconds (10ms or less; col. 3, lines 47-54).
In regards to claim 29, Winkler discloses wherein the controlled period of time is in a range of from 2 to 15 milliseconds (10ms or less; col. 3, lines 47-54).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (U.S. Patent 8,689,665) in view of Blenkinsopp et al. (U.S. Patent 10,603,808), herein referred to as Blenkinsopp.
In regards to claim 16, Winkler teaches the emergency braking apparatus of claim 13 including a brake disc, and movable brake shoes/pads, and discloses sprig elements in the braking system. Winkler does not expressly disclose the particular linkage recited in claim 16. Blenkinsopp teaches a spring actuated linkage for rapidly applying a saw brake. In Figure 7 and its accompanying description, spring 710 urges rod 705 against block 702, block 702 pivots about pivot 703, moving pivot 704 and brake shoe 701 into braking contact. Blenkinsopp thus teaches using a spring driven pivoting arm and pivot support brake shoe to transmit spring force into brake engagement. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to implement Winkler’s movable braking member with Blenkinsopp’s spring driven pivot linkage. Both references concern rapid emergency braking a saws and Blenkinsopp teaches that a spring driven pivot mechanism applies the brake shoe quickly upon a hazard signal. Applying that known linkage to Winkler’s brake would have predictable provided a mechanical path for transmitting spring force to the movable braking member. In the proposed combination, the frame supported pivot of Blenkinsopp corresponds to the claimed rotatable stub axle, and the pivot supported brake shoe mount corresponds to the claimed connection to the movable brake pad.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (U.S. Patent 8,689,665) in view of Chuang (U.S. Patent 6,722,242).
In regards to claim 19, Winkler discloses a motor that drives the cutter shaft (16) but is silent as of belt drives and timing belt drives operatively coupling the cutter shaft to another shaft that is driven by the motor. Chuang discloses saw blade rotated by a motor via a belt and pulley system on a table saw. Chaung discloses that the belts provide for the movement of the height of the saw blade while maintaining tension within the belts. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a belt and pulley system on the blade of Winkler as demonstrated by Chaung for providing a height adjustable saw blade that maintains appropriate tension within the adjustment system.
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (U.S. Patent 8,689,665) in view of Guynn et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0234559).
Winkler discloses detecting hazards utilizing radar and optical sensors (col. 10, lines 40-45) but is silent the sensor being a camera to detect an object with a predefined appearance nor a conductive glove worn by the operator. Guynn discloses a saw blade for cutting meat in which a detector is utilized to detect when a body part of a person is adjacent to or touching the saw blade. Guynn discloses a system in which a colored conductive glove is worn by the user and a camera may detect when the glove enters into a safety zone. The colored glove having a color that can be reliably distinguished by the camera from a product cut with the saw blade (paragraph [0117]). Gyunn also discloses that the conductive glove can complete a circuit in response to the glove contacting the saw blade to control the motor to stop rotation of the saw blade. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a colorful conductive glove, and camera system into the Winkler apparatus as disclosed by Guynn as an alternative means of detecting and stopping the rotation of the saw blade before harm can befall the operator.
In regards to claim 21, the modified device of Winker discloses wherein the detected image is discriminated against a background by image analysis apparatus receiving an image from the camera (170 Guynn as modified), and the distinctive appearance is selected from the group consisting of colours characteristic of blue gloves, green gloves, yellow gloves, red gloves, fluorescent gloves, or infra- red fluorescent gloves to be worn by the operator (paragraphs [0016 and 0117] as modified by Guynn).
In regards to claim 22, the modified device of Winker discloses wherein the monitoring apparatus includes an apparatus capable of detecting electric contact between a conductive glove worn by the operator and wired to sensing means within the apparatus, and a part of the machine including the cutting disc; contact causing the first effector to act (paragraphs [0049, 0109] and claim 3; as modified by Guynn).
In regards to claim 23 and 24, the modified device of Winker discloses wherein the apparatus includes evaluation means (diagnostic circuit 96) for evaluating the elapsed time taken after detection and until the cutting wheel (66) is brought to a stop and preventing the machine from being used if the evaluated time exceeds a predetermined limit (col. 3, lines 47-54 and col. 8, lines 26-46)
Claim 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler (U.S. Patent 8,689,665) in view of in view of Guynn et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0234559) and in further view of Lily (U.S. Publication 2005/0049831)
In regards to claim 25 and 26, Winkler discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose wherein the monitoring apparatus capable in use of detecting an unsafe situation also includes a second effector; said second effector comprising a digital incident reporting system configured to prepare and transmit a detailed incident report to a server through a network when caused to respond to the hazard. Lily discloses a performance monitoring system for a machine that can measure parameters of the machine and generate calculations from the measurements. Lily also discloses that the performance indicators and measurements can be provided to the operator in real time or sent to a server with storage means for maintaining the generated KPI reports generated from the collected data. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated a data measurement, transfer and storage reporting system in the Winkler table saw as disclosed by Lily to accurately record any hazard incidents or issues with the table saw for maintenance or quality control.
Conclusion
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