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 .
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, previously cited).
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) 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, the longitudinally extending concave recess indented toward the output shaft axis (see concave recess at upper portion between handle and motor housing indented towards center of tool) 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), and wherein the output shaft axis extends within the motor housing portion.
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, wherein at least one of the output shafts does not extend within the motor housing portion. 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) and wherein at least one of the respective output shaft axes does not extend within the motor housing portion (second and third motor shaft axes are outside motor housing at head of tool). 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 and motor housing portion 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]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-19 and 21-28 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 13 and its dependents, applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Specifically, applicant argued that locating at least one of the respective output shaft axes of Kirsch to not extend within element 16 of Kirsch would not have been obvious due to the fact that element 16 of Kirsch is specifically designed and required to accommodate the rotating pulleys which rotate the output shafts. As the claim additionally requires the first output shaft axis, which is forward of the second and third output shafts and handle, to have an axis which extends through a plane at a location within the motor housing, element 16 must be considered to be a part of the claimed motor housing to teach this limitation. For the reasons stated above, it would not be obvious to arrange one of the shaft axes to be outside of element 16 as claimed, particularly in combination with a motor housing having the claimed sectional area arrangements. Thus this particular combination of limitations would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112b rejection.
Regarding claim 29 and its dependents, applicant argues that Boyer does not disclose an air vent defined at least partially in a region between an end face of the at least one housing shell element that face an end face of the at least one further housing shell element. Applicant argues that the vent is not located between the identified facing walls of elements 22i and 22j. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be easily seen in figure 1 of Boyer, the air vent 22h is “at least partially” formed between elements 22i and 22j as claimed. Applicant argues that the air vent is only defined by the curved wall 22g. It must be noted that a vent is an open space and does not exists only at a single wall surface. As can be seen in fig 1 of Boyer, the identified vent exists as the open space between walls 22i and 22j with a back end defined by curved portion 22g. Therefore, as broadly claimed, the air vent is at least partially formed between the facing walls as claimed.
Regarding claim 32 and its dependents, applicant states that neither Chen nor Cooper disclose the claimed arrangement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the rejection above, Cooper and Chen render the claimed arrangement obvious. Applicant states that the elements of claim 32 are similar to the elements of claim 13 and should be allowed for the same reasons as claim 13. However, claim 13 contains far more limiting language than claim 32 and the arguments directed to Kirsch do not apply to the rejection of claim 32 which does not rely on Kirsch.
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 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
Prosecution Insights