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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 Nov 2025 has been entered.
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 28 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 28 recites “a handle” in line 7. However, there is already antecedent basis for a handle in claim 13. It is unclear if “a handle” recited in claim 7 is the same or different from the handle recited in claim 13. For the purposes of this examination, “a handle” will be interpreted as “the handle” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyer (US 2003/0228833).
Regarding claim 29, Boyer discloses a grinding machine housing comprising: at least one housing shell element (20c; fig 6) and at least one further housing shell element (20d) connected to the at least one housing shell element (connected as shown in fig 1), the at least one housing shell element and the at least one further housing shell element at least partially forming a handle (24), wherein at least one air vent (22h) is defined at least partially in a region between an end face of the at least one housing shell element that faces an end face of the at least one further housing shell element (air vent 22h is partially formed between interior faces of elements 22i and 22j as shown in fig 6) such that the at least one air vent extends over two regions that are arranged at an angle of between 90° and 120° relative to one another (two regions defined by interior walls of element 22i and 22g are angled at 90° relative to each other).
Regarding claims 30-31, Boyer further discloses the at least one housing shell element and the at least one further housing shell element are fixed together along an at least substantially entire contact line (20e; fig 1) and/or face of the at least one housing shell element and the at least one further housing shell element, at least substantially without visible fastening elements (fastening elements 21 are not visible from view of figure 1, or from top view shown in fig 4 due to them being hidden in recesses as described in [0035]); and the handle is formed at least substantially without a separating edge at least on a side of the handle that faces toward and/or faces away from a tool side (separating edge 20e is formed on top and bottom of handle and therefore is not located on a lateral side of the handle which faces outwardly away from the tool).
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) 13-19, 23, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch (US 7427228, previously cited) in view of Sugita (US 9061393, previously cited), and further in view of Bruck (US 2893175, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Kirsch teaches a hand-held power tool for simultaneously driving a plurality of grinding disks (26; note that the grinding disks are not positively recited as a part of the tool structure), comprising: a rearwardly extending handle (108), a plurality of output shafts (60; best shown in figs 4, 5) each of the plurality of output shafts defining a respective output shaft axis (axes central to shafts 60); at least one output shaft housing (14) enclosing the plurality of output shafts orthogonally to the respective output shaft axes (fig 1; enclosed on lateral sides by element 32 of housing 14); a motor (col 3, lines 37-38; in assembly 22) having a motor shaft axis (central to motor shaft 118 shown in fig 8); and a motor housing (labeled in annotated fig below) which at least substantially encloses the motor orthogonally to the motor shaft axis (col 3, lines 37-38; fig 1), wherein a first sectional area of the motor housing orthogonal to the motor shaft axis in a constricted region at a lower portion of the motor housing (see constricted region labeled in annotated fig 1 below; first sectional area is through a horizontal cross section through this region) is less than a second sectional area of the at least one output shaft housing orthogonal to the respective output shaft axes in an extended region (28; flat top 28 of output shaft housing 14 extends horizontally orthogonal to output shaft axes; second sectional area is a horizontal cross section through this region) of the at least one output shaft housing (as shown in fig 1, the first sectional area is less than the second sectional area by a large margin), wherein a first of the plurality of output shafts (the leftmost/forwardmost shaft as viewed in fig 1) is located forwardly of a second and a third of the plurality of output shafts (as shown in fig 1, forwardmost output shaft is forward of the other two output shafts), wherein the motor extends through a plane orthogonal to the respective output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts above the constricted region (horizontal plane going through the motor housing above the constricted region intersects motor inside housing), and wherein the respective output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts extends through the plane and within the motor housing (extends within element 16 of the motor housing).
Although the claimed relationship appears to be shown, Kirsch does not explicitly teach the first sectional area is less than 70% of the second sectional area as claimed (fig 1 appears to suggest this relationship; however, the figures are not necessarily to scale). Sugita teaches a hand-held power tool including a motor housing with a constricted region (at areas 44; figs 1, 5), and an output shaft housing with an extended region (2c; fig 1), wherein a sectional area of the constricted region in the constricted region is smaller than the sectional area of the extended region (as viewed in fig 5), wherein the relative size of the constricted region can be adjusted in order to fit the hand size of a user (col 5, lines 57-61) , and the extended region is sized in order to prevent contact of a user’s hand with the grinding disk (col 7, lines 46-50). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative sectional areas of the constricted region and extended regions of Kirsch such that the sectional area of the constricted region is less than 70% the sectional area of the extended region, as these are known results effective variables which determine a user’s ability to hold the tool while being protected from contact with the grinding disks as taught by Sugita. Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range, which is optimizable within prior art conditions (see MPEP 2144.05 II) as described above.
Kirsch does not teach the output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shaft axes extends through the plane at a location within the motor housing (in Kirsch, the axis extends motor housing and extends through the plane, but does not extend through the plane at a location within the motor housing, as the plane has been defined to be above the constricted region). Bruck teaches a handheld power tool including a motor housing (2) wherein the motor extends through a plane orthogonal to a respective output shaft axis of a first of a plurality of output shafts (orthogonal to shafts 7) above the constricted region (see fig 1; a horizontal plane going through housing 2 above constricted region with unlabeled fan), and wherein a respective output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts (either of frontmost shafts 7) extends through the plane at a location within the motor housing (as viewed in fig 1, due to motor housing’s location at front of tool, a vertical axis of the frontmost output shaft would intersect the plane within the motor housing). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the motor housing of Kirsch to be at a front of the tool, resulting in the output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts to extend through the plane at a location within the motor housing, as having the motor and its housing at a front of the tool allows a user to grip and control the tool at front and rear portions thereof as taught by Bruck (col 2, lines 60-65; figs 3 and 4), allowing improved control and handleability.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches a rear region (see annotated fig below with rear region shaded) of the second sectional area of the at least one output shaft housing is covered to an extent of less than 25% by the first sectional area of the motor housing projected along the motor shaft axis (as shown in fig 1, none of the rear region is covered by the first sectional area of the constricted region, corresponding to 0% coverage, within the claimed range); wherein the rear region is in a region of at the respective output shaft axis of the second of the plurality of output shaft axes (as shown in fig 5, there is an output shaft axis near each corner, including the corner with the rear region).
Regarding claims 16-17, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches a front region (as broadly claimed, a front region of the second sectional area of output shaft housing 14 can be considered to be the region central to holes 36 shown in fig 3, as this central region is frontward of the majority of the tool as viewed in fig 1) of the second sectional area of the at least one output shaft housing is covered to an extent of more than 70% by the first sectional area of the motor housing projected along the motor shaft axis (as viewed in fig 1, the entirety of the central front region is covered by the first sectional area of the motor housing); wherein the front region is in a region of the respective output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts (as broadly claimed, the frontmost output shaft 60 is near the central front region; note that the claims do not require the axis to coincide or pass through the front region and their close proximity is considered to be “in a region” as claimed), and the front region is entirely covered by the first sectional area (as viewed in fig 1, the entirety of the central front region is covered by the first sectional area of the motor housing).
Regarding claims 18-19, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches a circumferential length of the motor housing orthogonal to the motor shaft axis in the constricted region of the motor housing (circumference of constricted region labeled in annotated fig 1 below) is less than a circumferential length of the at least one output shaft housing (14; circumference of outer section 32) orthogonal to the respective output shaft axes in the extended region of the output shaft housing (as shown in fig 1, circumference of constricted region is much less than circumference of output shaft housing). Although the claimed relationship appears to be shown, Kirsch does not explicitly teach the circumference of the constricted region is less than 80% or less than 70% of the circumference of the output shaft housing (fig 1 appears to suggest this relationship; however, the figures are not necessarily to scale). Sugita further a constricted region (at areas 44; figs 1, 5), and an output shaft housing (including elements bottom part of housing 2 at elements 2c; fig 1), wherein a circumferential length of the motor housing in the constricted region is less than a circumferential length of the output shaft housing (as shown in fig 5), wherein the relative size of the constricted region can be adjusted in order to fit the hand size of a user (col 5, lines 57-61) , and the extended region of the output shaft housing is sized in order to prevent contact of a user’s hand with the grinding disk (col 7, lines 46-50). Therefore, similarly to the sectional areas discussed in claim 13 above, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative circumferential lengths of the constricted region and extended regions of Kirsch such that the circumferential length of the constricted region is less than 70% the circumferential length of the extended region, as these are known results effective variables which determine a user’s ability to hold the tool while being protected from contact with the grinding disks as taught by Sugita. Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range, which is optimizable within prior art conditions (see MPEP 2144.05 II) as described above.
Regarding claim 23, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the respective output shaft axis of the first of the plurality of output shafts extends within a handle housing portion (see handle housing portion labeled in annotated fig 1 below, which can be used as a handle; when the modification based on Bruck is employed as described in the rejection of claim 13 above, the handle housing portion would be at a front of the tool and overlapping the output shaft axis of the first output shaft).
Regarding claim 26, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Claim 26 further limits the relative areas of the first and second sectional areas to be less than 55%, further narrowing the range of 70% recited in claim 13. This is obvious for substantially the same reasons described above in the rejection of claim 13. Specifically, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the relative sectional areas of the constricted region and extended regions of Kirsch such that the first sectional area is less than 55% the second sectional, as these are known results effective variables which determine a user’s ability to hold the tool while being protected from contact with the grinding disks as taught by Sugita.
Regarding claim 27, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the hand-held power tool is a grinder configured to drive the plurality of grinding disks (26) in a rotating, oscillating or randomly circular manner (col 2, lines 15-22).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch, Sugita, and Bruck as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2013/0137347, previously cited).
Regarding claim 20, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch does not teach at least one of the respective output shaft axes does not extend within the motor housing. Chen teaches a hand-held power tool for driving a plurality of grinding disks (2) comprising a plurality of output shafts (fig 3; unlabeled shafts in center of grinding disks 2), each defining a respective output shaft axis (vertical axis central to each shaft), wherein at least one of the respective output shaft axes does not extend within a motor housing (as shown in fig 3, the outermost shaft axes do not extend into housing around motor 11; can also be seen in fig 4 where front and back axes central are central to housing and side axes are laterally located outside the motor hosing). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange at least one of the respective output shaft axes to not extend within the motor housing by providing a wider spacing between output shafts, as this wider spacing provides a larger grinding area to the tool, which can increase grinding efficiency as taught by Chen ([0024], [0015]).
Regarding claim 21, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the at least one of the respective output shaft axes which does not extend within the motor housing includes the respective output shaft axes of the second and the third of the plurality of output shafts (axes located outside motor housing based on the teachings of Chen as described in the rejection of claim 20 above).
Regarding claim 22, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the at least one of the respective output shaft axes which does not extend within the motor housing (axes located outside motor housing based on the teachings of Chen as described in the rejection of claim 20 above) does not extend within a transitional region between the handle and the motor housing (as shown in fig 1 of Kirsch, the axes do not extend within the junction between handle 108 and motor housing).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch, Sugita, and Bruck as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of RU 182288 (hereinafter ‘288, previously cited).
Regarding claims 24-25, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the handle is a substantially bar-shaped handle (108). Kirsch is silent as to a relative heights and lengths of the tool and handle. However, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, ‘288 teaches a hand-held power tool wherein a height of the hand-held power tool in a direction of the output shaft axis and a length of a substantially bar-shaped handle can be optimized for improving the ergonomic characteristics of the tool while maintaining internal volume of the tool to house additional components ([0010]); and wherein a total length (L) of the hand-held power tool orthogonally to the motor shaft axis is at least 10% greater than a height (H) of the hand-held power tool in the direction of the motor shaft axis ([0022]; 272mm is more than 10% greater than 61mm). Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed height deviation between the tool and handle, as well as relative length and height of the power tool through routine optimization such that the height of the power tool of Kirsch deviates by less than 50% from a length of the handle and the length of the tool is at least 10% greater than a height of the tool, as it is known that the relative dimensions of the tool can be optimized to improve ergonomics and provide the necessary internal space for additional components as taught by ‘288 ([0010], [0026]).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirsch, Sugita, and Bruck as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Boyer (US 2003/0228833).
Regarding claim 28, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Kirsch further teaches the tool further comprises a grinding machine housing (22) at least partially forming the handle (108; fig 1). Kirsch does not teach the grinding machine housing comprising a housing shell element and further housing shell element forming the handle with at least one air vent defined in a region between opposing end faces of the shell elements. Boyer teaches a handheld power tool comprising a grinding machine housing comprising: at least one housing shell element (20c); and at least one further housing shell element (20d; fig 6) connected to the at least one housing shell element (connected as shown in fig 1), the at least one housing shell element and the at least one further housing shell element at least partially forming a handle (24), wherein at least one air vent (22h) is defined at least partially in a region between an end face of the at least one housing shell element that faces an end face of the at least one further housing shell element (air vent 22h is partially formed between interior faces of elements 22i and 22j as shown in fig 6) such that the at least one air vent extends over two regions that are arranged at an angle of between 90° and 120° relative to one another (two regions defined by interior walls of element 22i and 22g are angled at 90° relative to each other). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a housing shell element and further housing shell element connected to each other with at least one air vent between opposing faces thereof, with regions arranged at an angle between 90° and 120° relative to each other in the power tool of Kirsch, as this allows air circulation to cool the motor as taught by Boyer ([0021]).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US 2005/0221738, previously cited) in view of Chen (US 2013/0137347, previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, Cooper teaches a grinding machine housing comprising a motor housing portion (32), an output shaft (16) defining a respective output shaft axis (13; fig 1), and a bar-shaped handle housing portion (elements 26 and 44) extending rearwardly from the motor housing portion (as shown in fig 1; handle formed by elements 26 and 44 extends rearwardly from element 32), wherein the grinding machine housing has a longitudinally extending concave recess in a transitional region between the bar-shaped handle housing portion and the motor housing portion (see concave recess at upper portion between handle and motor housing) such that said concave recess serves as an ergonomic contact face for a thumb of a user extending along the longitudinally extending concave recess with the user’s hand positioned above the bar shaped handle (this function is provided by the fact that the concave recess is formed on an outer surface of the tool which can be contacted by a thumb of a user; finger contact is shown in figs 2b-2e and a hand above the handle is explicitly shown in figs 2a-2b), wherein a first output shaft extends within the bar shaped handle housing portion (fig 1; extends within element 44).
Cooper does not teach a plurality of output shafts (cooper teaches a single shaft) including second and third output shaft axes positioned outwardly of the bar shaped handle housing portion. Regarding claim 20, Kirsch, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Chen teaches a grinding machine housing comprising a plurality of output shafts (fig 3; unlabeled shafts in center of grinding disks 2), each defining a respective output shaft axis (vertical axis central to each shaft), wherein a first of the plurality of shafts is located forwardly of a second and a third of the output shafts (fig 4; first shaft is rightmost as viewed in fig 4) wherein the respective output shaft axes of the second and third of the plurality of output shafts are positioned outwardly of a bar-shaped handle housing portion (fig 4, shafts in center of each disk 2 on lateral sides of the tool are outside housing portion 11). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a plurality of output shafts including a second and third output shaft positioned outward of the handle potion of Cooper and with the first shaft forward of the second and third output shafts, as this provides a larger grinding area to the tool, which can increase grinding efficiency as taught by Chen ([0024], [0015]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amendments have overcome the previous 112b rejections. While most of the prior rejections have been overcome, there is a new indefinite rejection of claim 28 as detailed above.
Regarding claim 29 and its dependents, applicant argues that Oktavec does not teach the claimed air vent location as amended. However, Boyer is now relied upon to teach these limitations as detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 13 and its dependents, applicant argues that Kirsch does not teach the newly claimed axis intersection with a plane at the defined location above the constricted region and within the motor housing. However, this arrangement is rendered obvious by the teachings of Bruck as detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 32 and its dependents, applicant argues that Cooper does not teach an arrangement requiring a user’s thumb to extend along the longitudinally extending concave recess with the user’s hand positioned above the bar-shaped handle. Applicant points to figure 2b of Cooper which depicts a user’s thumb being spaced from the recess. However, this limitation constitutes merely a function limitation. The “manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II.). As the recess of Cooper has the claimed structural limitations and is capable of being used in the defined manner, the claims do not define over the recess disclosed in the grinding machine of Cooper. While figure 2b of Cooper shows the user’s right thumb slightly below the recess, the recess is clearly capable of accommodating contact with the thumb as claimed. Furthermore, the user’s left hand shown at the top in fig 2b is clearly capable of being positioned in a manner which contacts the claimed recess.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar grinding machines are recited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723