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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 February, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a magnetic fastening arrangement and friction based fastening arrangement in claims 1, 13, and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 1 recites “a magnetic fastening arrangement … for releasably holding an abrasive tool…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as electromagnetic magnets, permanent magnets, metal, metallic material, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least pg. 10-11 of specification of the instant application
Claim 1 recites “a friction based fastening arrangement … for releasably holding an abrasive tool…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as hook and loop fasteners, hook and pile fasteners, protrusions, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function of providing increased friction between two surfaces (See at least pg. 8-10 of specification of the instant application).
Claim 13 recites “a friction based fastening arrangement … for releasably holding an abrasive tool…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as hook and loop fasteners, hook and pile fasteners, protrusions, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function of providing increased friction between two surfaces (See at least pg. 8-10 of specification of the instant application).
Claim 28 recites “a magnetic fastening arrangement … for releasably holding an abrasive tool…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as electromagnetic magnets, permanent magnets, metal, metallic material, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (See at least pg. 10-11 of specification of the instant application
Claim 28 recites “a friction based fastening arrangement … for releasably holding an abrasive tool…”. This limitation is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as hook and loop fasteners, hook and pile fasteners, protrusions, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function of providing increased friction between two surfaces (See at least pg. 8-10 of specification of the instant application).
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 13 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 13 recites “a rotational center of the abrasive tool” on lines 4-5 and 10, it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be separate structures or the same structure. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same.
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(s) 1, 6-7, 9-12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (2012/0270483, previously presented) in view of Tchakarov (2018/0206690, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 1, Bae teaches a tool driver (Ref. 20, Fig. 13) for a power trowel (Fig. 1), the tool driver (20) comprising a combination of a magnetic fastening arrangement (Ref. 21&33, Fig. 13, [0044]) and a friction based fastening arrangement (Ref. 22, Fig. 13, [0052]) for releasably holding an abrasive tool (Ref. 30a &30b, Fig. 13) to the tool driver (Fig. 7),
wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is configured symmetrically around a rotational center of the tool driver (Fig. 13 annotated below), wherein the friction based fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased shear strength during abrasive operation of the abrasive tool (examiner notes, the protrusion of the friction based fastening arrangement limits the movement in the shearing direction thereby providing increased shear strength during abrasive operation), and wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased pull strength during lifting of the tool driver (examiner notes, the magnets limit travel in the pulling direction thereby increasing pull strength during lifting of the tool driver), further wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises at least one magnetic object (Ref. 21, Fig. 13 shows a plurality of magnets) on the tool driver disposed at least one radial distance from the rotational center (Fig. 13 annotated below) and configured to align at least one corresponding magnetic object on the abrasive tool (Fig. 13),
wherein the tool driver (20) comprises a circular driving face (Ref. 20, top surface, Fig. 13) that lies in a first plane (Fig. 13 plane along the top surface of the plate (20)) and the abrasive tool (30a&b) comprises a circular driven face (Ref. 30a, bottom surface, Fig. 13) that lies in a second plane (Fig. 13 plane along the bottom surface of the abrasive tool (30a)) , the driving face and the driven face each having respective centers thereof aligned with each other (Fig. 13 below) and an axis of rotation of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 annotated below), and
wherein the driving face and the driven face are arranged in direct planar contact (Fig. 13 shows the faces contact when put together) such that a continuous planar interface between the driving face ([0054], Fig. 13) and the driven face forms the friction based fastening arrangement (22, Fig. 13, [0054]).
Bae fails to explicitly teach wherein the tool driver has a diameter between 7 and 25 inches. Tchakarov teaches a tool driver with an abrasive tool and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tchakarov further teaches a circular tool driver (ref. 14, Fig. 1) to hold abrasive tools has a diameter between 7 and 25 inches ([0034] teaches a diameter of 8 inches). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of Bae to be 8 inches to between 7 and 25 inches since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [Pg. 11, lines 22-27] indicating the diameter has multiple preferred sizes to be within the claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
642
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises at least one magnet ([0044] describes a magnet), permanent magnet, non-permanent magnet, metal element responsive to a magnetic force, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 7, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the tool driver comprises centering means (Fig. 13 the recesses that fit the steel plates (33)) for centering the abrasive tool with respect to the rotational center of the tool driver ([0104] Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 9, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the tool driver interfaces with a secondary tool driver (Ref. 20-1, Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 10, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises one or more magnets (Ref. 21, Fig. 8) extending through the tool driver (20-2; Fig. 8) to engage with the abrasive tool on one side of the tool driver (Fig. 8) and to engage with the secondary tool driver (20-1) on the other side of the tool driver (Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 11, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches protruding elements (Ref. 22a, Fig. 13) having shapes matched to corresponding recesses formed in the secondary tool driver ([0090]).
Regarding Claim 12, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and further teaches one or more notches (Ref. 3, Fig. 6) formed in the rim of the tool driver ([0067]), to allow a better grip by a hand removing the tool drive from the secondary tool driver (Fig. 6, [0067]).
Regarding Claim 28, Bae teaches A linearly releasable abrasive tool (Ref. 2, Fig. 13) for a power trowel (Fig. 1), the abrasive tool comprising a combination of a magnetic fastening arrangement (Ref. 21&33, Fig. 13, [0044]) and a friction based fastening arrangement (Ref. 22, Fig. 13, [0052]) for being releasably held by a tool driver (Ref. 30a, Fig. 13) on a first side of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 bottom surface), wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is configured symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 annotated below),
wherein the friction based fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased shear strength during abrasive operation of the abrasive tool (examiner notes, the protrusion of the friction based fastening arrangement limits the movement in the shearing direction thereby providing increased shear strength during abrasive operation), and
wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased pull strength during lifting of the abrasive tool (examiner notes, the magnets limit travel in the pulling direction thereby increasing pull strength during lifting of the tool driver), and
further wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises at least one magnetic object (Ref. 21, Fig. 13 shows a plurality of magnets) on the abrasive tool disposed at least one radial distance from the rotational center (Fig. 13 annotated below) and configured to align at least one corresponding magnetic object on the tool driver (Fig. 13), and
wherein the abrasive tool is linearly releasable from the tool driver by overcoming the pull strength provided by the magnetic fastening arrangement (Fig.6, [0061] describes “…the end of grinding tool 30 protrudes along the outer peripheral surface corresponding to tool mounting part 2 in order that the end surface of mounted grinding tool 30 can be raised by hand to disengage grinding tool 30 from magnet 21…”).
Bae to explicitly teach wherein the abrasive tool has a diameter between 7 and 25 inches. Tchakarov teaches a tool driver with an abrasive tool and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Tchakarov further teaches an abrasive tool (ref. 14, Fig. 1) has a diameter between 7 and 25 inches ([0034] teaches a diameter of 8 inches). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameter of Bae to be 8 inches to between 7 and 25 inches since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see pp. [Pg. 11, lines 22-27] indicating the diameter has multiple preferred sizes to be within the claimed range).
PNG
media_image1.png
636
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as modified of as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivard (2009/0191376, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 2, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a tool driver surface with protrusions configured to engage with a yielding surface material on the abrasive tool to provide the increased shear strength. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches wherein a friction based fastening arrangement (Ref. 36&18, Fig. 1, [0028]) comprises a tool driver surface (Ref. 36, Fig. 2) with protrusions (Ref. 50, Fig. 1 describes hook elements, Fig. 2) configured to engage with a yielding surface material (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) on an abrasive tool (12) to provide the increased shear strength. Given the teachings of Rivard teaching a hook and loop structure (18&50), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the friction based fastening arrangement as a hook and loop structure provides more friction causing an increased shear strength during operation of the tool (note, examiner interprets shear strength as the ability to resist forces causing structures to slide relative to one another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the friction based fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the hook and loop structure on a tool driver surface and yielding surface, as taught by Rivard, to allow easy removal and change of the abrasive member without having to manipulate any mechanical fasteners ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 3, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a material with hooks for holding respective loops on the abrasive tool. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches wherein the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a material with hooks (Ref. 50, Fig. 1, [0034]) for holding respective loops on the abrasive tool ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the friction based fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the hook and loop structure on a tool driver surface and yielding surface, as taught by Rivard, to allow easy removal and change of the abrasive member without having to manipulate any mechanical fasteners ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 2, as described above, and Rivard further teaches wherein the yielding surface material or the material with loops is a felt-like cloth, a fibrous material, a foam, rubber, and/or a non-synthetic material ([0034] describes the material with loops is a felt-like cloth).
Claims 13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae (2012/0270483, previously presented) in view of Benner (4,222,204).
Regarding Claim 13, Bae teaches an abrasive tool (Ref. 30a &30b, Fig. 13) for a power trowel (Fig. 1), the abrasive tool comprising a combination of a magnetic fastening arrangement (Ref. 21&33, Fig. 13, [0044]) and a friction based fastening arrangement (Ref. 22, Fig. 13, [0052]) for being releasably held by a tool driver (Ref. 2, Fig. 13) on a first side of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 bottom side), wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is configured symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 annotated below),
wherein the friction based fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased shear strength during abrasive operation of the abrasive tool (examiner notes, the protrusion of the friction based fastening arrangement limits the movement in the shearing direction thereby providing increased shear strength during abrasive operation), and
wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement is adapted to provide increased pull strength during lifting of the abrasive tool (examiner notes, the magnets limit travel in the pulling direction thereby increasing pull strength during lifting of the tool driver),
further wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement (21&33) configured to align at least one corresponding magnetic object on the tool driver (Fig. 13).
Bae fails to explicitly teach the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises a continuous annular ring disposed symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool. Benner teaches an abrasive tool with a magnetic fastening arrangement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Benner teaches an abrasive tool (Fig. 3) having a magnetic fastening arrangement (Ref. 25, Fig. 3) configured symmetrically around a rotation center of the abrasive tool (Ref. 22, Fig. 3, further wherein the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises a continuous annular ring (Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Lines 21] describes “…the magnetic pad 25 is annular…”) disposed symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool (Ref. 24, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the annular ring magnetic fastening arrangement, as taught by Benner, to provide the predictable result of holding an abrasive grit/pad to the abrasive tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
636
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 21, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches an abrasive component or compound (Ref. 31, Fig. 7, [0048]) arranged on a second side of the abrasive tool (Fig. 8 top side of the abrasive tool) opposite to the first side (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 23, Bae as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches wherein a maximal radial distance of the magnetic fastening arrangement (See annotated Fig. 13 below) is smaller than a radius of the abrasive tool (See annotated Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
636
412
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 14-15, 22, and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claims 13 and 21 above, and further in view of Rivard (2009/0191376, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 14, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a tool driver surface with protrusions configured to engage with a yielding surface material on the abrasive tool to provide the increased shear strength. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches wherein a friction based fastening arrangement (Ref. 36&18, Fig. 1, [0028]) comprises a tool driver surface (Ref. 36, Fig. 2) with protrusions (Ref. 50, Fig. 1 describes hook elements, Fig. 2) configured to engage with a yielding surface material (Ref. 18, Fig. 1) on an abrasive tool (12) to provide the increased shear strength. Given the teachings of Rivard teaching a hook and loop structure (18&50), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that the friction based fastening arrangement as a hook and loop structure provides more friction causing an increased shear strength during operation of the tool (note, examiner interprets shear strength as the ability to resist forces causing structures to slide relative to one another). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the friction based fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the hook and loop structure on a tool driver surface and yielding surface, as taught by Rivard, to allow easy removal and change of the abrasive member without having to manipulate any mechanical fasteners ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 15, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a surface material with hooks for holding respective loops on the tool driver or wherein the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a surface material with loops for holding respective hooks on the tool driver. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches wherein the friction based fastening arrangement comprises a surface material with hooks (Ref. 50, Fig. 1, [0034]) for holding respective loops ([0034]) on the tool driver (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the friction based fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the hook and loop structure on a tool driver surface and yielding surface, as taught by Rivard, to allow easy removal and change of the abrasive member without having to manipulate any mechanical fasteners ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 22, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 21, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the abrasive component is supported at least partly by a flexible supporting element. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches an abrasive component (Ref. 12, fig. 1) is supported at least partly by a flexible supporting element (Ref. 34, [0033] describe the attaching member as bendable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive component, as taught by Rivard, to be at least partly by a flexible supporting element, as taught by Rivard, to better conform to different shaped layers of backup pads and effective attaching the abrasive pad to any driving assembly ([0033]).
Regarding Claim 24, Bae teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further teaches where a magnetic ring (Ref. 21, Fig. 8) arranged on the upper surface constitutes the magnetic fastening arrangement (Fig. 7-8), wherein the magnetic ring has an outer diameter smaller than an outer diameter of the reinforcement layer (Fig. 7-8). Bae fails to explicitly teach a fibrous pad. Rivard teaches an abrasive tool with a friction based fastening agreement and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of abrasive tools. Rivard further teaches a fibrous pad (Ref. 30, Fig. 1, [0028]) including an upper surface (See annotated Fig. 1 below), a floor-facing lower surface (See annotated Fig. 1 below) and a peripheral surface (See annotated Fig. 1 below);
a reinforcement layer (Ref. 32, Fig. 1, [0032]) attached to the bottom surface (via intermediate layers 34 and 36) of the pad (Fig. 1), the reinforcement layer including an internal edge defining a hole therethrough (Fig. 2-3A);
abrasive disks attached to a floor-facing surface of the reinforcement layer (Fig. 1);
a central area of the pad (Fig. 3A annotated below) being exposed through the hole of the reinforcement layer (Fig. 3A) such that a linear dimension of the central area within the hole is greater than a linear dimension of one side of the reinforcement layer between the hole and a periphery thereof (Fig. 3A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive tool, as taught by Bae, with a fibrous pad, as taught by Rivard, to allow easy removal and change of the abrasive member without having to manipulate any mechanical fasteners ([0003]).
PNG
media_image4.png
658
841
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
633
637
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, applicant has amended the claim limitation thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new ground of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach wherein the tool driver comprises a circular driving face that lies in a first plane and the abrasive tool comprises a circular driven face that lies in a second plane, the driving face and the driven face each having respective centers thereof aligned with each other and an axis of rotation of the abrasive tool have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicants’ claims require that there are two different faces in two different planes that align with each other and an axis of rotation. Examiners have interpreted this limitation as the driving face and the driven face centers only need to be aligned with each other in any direction and need to have centers that are aligned in any direction of an axis of rotation. Examiner has applied Bae to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Bae teaches wherein the tool driver (20) comprises a circular driving face (Ref. 22, top surface, Fig. 13) that lies in a first plane (Fig. 13 plane along the top surface of the pin (22)) and the abrasive tool (30a&b) comprises a circular driven face (Ref. 33, top surface, Fig. 13) that lies in a second plane (Fig. 13 plane along the top surface of the abrasive tool (30a)), the driving face and the driven face each having respective centers thereof aligned with each other ([0054] describes the and an axis of rotation of the abrasive tool (Fig. 13 annotated above), and wherein the driving face and the driven face are arranged in direct planar contact (Fig. 13 shows the faces contact when put together) such that a continuous planar interface between the driving face ([0054], Fig. 13) and the driven face forms the friction based fastening arrangement (22, Fig. 13). Examiner notes that the centers of the driven face and drive face are aligned with one another in a vertical direction and are aligned with the rotational axis in a radial direction. If applicant intended for the limitation to require the faces to have the centers of the drive face and driven face to be centered around the rotation axis such a limitation is not required.
Regarding Claim 13, applicant has amended the claim limitation thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new ground of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the magnetic fastening arrangement is a continuous annular ring disposed symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool has been fully considered and is persuasive. However, examiner has applied Benner to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Benner teaches the magnetic fastening arrangement comprises a continuous annular ring (Fig. 3, [Col. 2, Lines 21] describes “…the magnetic pad 25 is annular…”)disposed symmetrically around a rotational center of the abrasive tool (Ref. 24, Fig. 3). Given that the magnetic fastening arrangement of Bae is symmetrically around a rotation center of the abrasive tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnetic fastening arrangement, as taught by Bae, with the annular ring magnetic fastening arrangement, as taught by Benner, to provide the predictable result of holding an abrasive grit/pad to the abrasive tool.
Regarding Claim 28, applicant has amended the claim limitation thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new ground of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments fail to teach wherein the abrasive tool is linearly releasable from the tool driver by overcoming the pull strength provided by the magnetic fastening arrangement have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Bae to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Bae teaches wherein the abrasive tool is linearly releasable from the tool driver by overcoming the pull strength provided by the magnetic fastening arrangement (Fig.6, [0061] describes “…the end of grinding tool 30 protrudes along the outer peripheral surface corresponding to tool mounting part 2 in order that the end surface of mounted grinding tool 30 can be raised by hand to disengage grinding tool 30 from magnet 21…”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights