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 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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“fixing device” (claims 23, 42, 43);
“adjusting device” (claims 42, 43);
“adjustment apparatus” (claim 28, 43).
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.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 23 and 26-46 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 23 recites the limitation “by a linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body in a vertical direction via the adjusting device” (lines 13-15). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the term “a vertical direction” is not defined in a manner to properly limit the scope and would depend on the orientation of the device. For example, if the rolling bodies of the device rest on an inclined surface, would “vertical direction” mean in a direction normal to the inclined surface or in a direction parallel to the gravitational direction of the Earth? As another example, if the device is laying down on its side, would the “vertical direction” be parallel to the “joint axis”? The claim itself and the specification do not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II). Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite an adjustment direction relative to fixed portions of the device, e.g., a direction perpendicular to a plane defined by the center axes of the rolling bodies. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as best understood. Claims 42 and 43 recite the same limitation and are rejected on the same basis as claim 23. Claims 26-41 and 44 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 23. Claims 45 and 46 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claims 42 and 43 respectively.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
McDonald
Claims 23 and 26-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20030166386 A1 (“McDonald”).
Regarding claim 23, McDonald discloses a spacer device for a grinding roller (Fig. 1, spacer device 10 for grinding roller 16 of grinding machine 11), the spacer device comprising:
a main body (Fig. 2, bracket 40);
rolling bodies (Fig. 2, rollers 72);
a fixing device (Figs. 2, 4, element 22; “fixing device” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 7 and equivalents thereof (Spec. Fig. 1; p. 9, line 26–p. 10, line 2)); and
an adjusting device (Fig. 2, bracket 40 including central portion with slots 54/56 and end portions with slots 64/66, which allow for adjustment of grinding roller 16 relative to bracket 40 and/or rollers 72, and portion of element 14, and elements 30, 32),
wherein:
the rolling bodies are rotatably mounted to the main body (Fig. 2, rollers 72 mounted to bracket 40 via screws 74 and nuts 76);
the spacer device is configured to be supported by the rolling bodies against a surface to be ground during a grinding process (Fig. 1, rollers 72 support spacer device 10 on surface 17 to be ground);
the fixing device is arranged between two of the rolling bodies (Figs. 2, 4, element 22 is arranged between rollers 72);
the fixing device is configured to fix the grinding roller to the spacer device (Figs. 1, 2; grinding roller 16 is fixed to bracket 40 of spacer device via element 22; ¶ 0029, “A pair of arcuately shaped fastener slots 54, 56 are also provided in the support bracket 40 for securing it to the housing extension 22 by fasteners 58, 60 projected therethrough to engage in threaded recesses 62 also provided in the housing extension 22.”);
the adjusting device includes a linear longitudinal groove or a linear guide rail configured to adjust the grinding roller relative to the main body by a linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body in a vertical direction via the adjusting device (Figs. 2-3, adjusting device includes element 14, which is a linear guide rail that is capable of adjusting the grinding roller relative to the main body (and fixed by elements 30, 32) by a vertical linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body, e.g., if the device is lying on its side);
the spacer device is configured to fix the grinding roller so as to be:
(i) rotatable relative to the main body about a joint axis of the spacer device (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 to be rotatable relative to bracket 40 about axis of shaft 14, which is also the joint axis of bracket 40; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and (ii) spaced from the adjusting device in an axial direction of an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 so that the grinding roller 16 is spaced from bracket 40 in the axial direction of the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16);
the joint axis is configured to correspond to an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, the joint axis of the spacer device (axis of shaft 14) corresponds to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller 16);
a pivot axis of the fixing device with respect to the adjusting device is configured to correspond to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, pivot axis of element 22 corresponds to the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis... (Figs. 1-4, element 22 is capable of freely pivoting relative to the pivot axis (axis of shaft 14) via movement of screws 58/60 in angular slots 54/56; ¶ 0031).
McDonald does not explicitly disclose the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis during operation of the grinding roller. However, McDonald makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify McDonald such that the fixing device 22 is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis (axis of shaft 14) during operation of the grinding roller, such as by having the screws 58/60 slightly loose (but incapable of further loosening (e.g., by using a threadlocker)) so that during operation, this pivoting could occur. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because having this ability to freely pivot during operation allows a user to pivot and change the angle of the tool to suit the grinding operation at hand without turning off the grinder and loosening/retightening screws 58/60 to make the angular adjustment (which may also require the removing of the grinding roller 16). Examiner notes that Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having this “freely pivot” capability during operation of the grinding roller. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197 (CCPA 1954) (holding that an adjustable finger grip for a fishing rod “would not involve anything more than the exercise of ordinary skill.... We have in many cases noted that the provision of adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D).
Regarding claim 26, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein:
the main body is configured to be spaced radially from the axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, bracket 40 is spaced radially from axis of shaft 14).
Regarding claim 27, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein:
the main body includes rolling body receivers that are mutually spatially separate (Figs. 1-4, end portions 44/46 and slots 64/66 of bracket 40 receive the rollers 72, which are mutually spatially separate from each other);
and the fixing device is arranged between two of the rolling body receivers (Figs. 1-4, element 22 is between end portions 44/46 and slots 64/66 of bracket 40).
Regarding claim 28, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein:
the adjusting device includes the main body and an adjustment apparatus which is releasably fixed to the main body (Figs. 2, 4, adjusting device includes bracket 40 along with the central portion of bracket 40 with slots 54/56 and end portions with slots 64/66, and screws 58/60 (“adjustment apparatus”) are releasably fixed to bracket 40; “adjustment apparatus” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 13, and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1, 3a; p. 10, line 6–p. 11, line 12)); and
the main body includes a receiver for at least region-wise arrangement of the adjustment apparatus within the receiver (Figs. 2, 4, slots 54/56 receive screws 58/60; Examiner interprets “at least region-wise” to mean “applying to a local area,” “local,” or “locally”).
Regarding claim 29, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 28 as applied above and further discloses wherein the fixing device is: (i) directly hinged to the adjustment apparatus; or (ii) indirectly hinged, by the adjustment apparatus, to the main body (Figs. 2, 4, element 22 is indirectly hinged by screws 58/60 (“adjustment apparatus”) to bracket 40).
Regarding claim 30, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein the adjusting device is configured to fix a radial spacing of the main body from the grinding roller (Figs. 2, 4, bracket 40 including central portion of bracket 40 with slots 54/56 and end portions with slots 64/66 and/or elements 14, 30, 32 are configured to fix the radial spacing (relative to the axis of shaft 14) of bracket 40 from the grinding roller 16).
Regarding claim 31, McDonald makes obvious the spacer device of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein:
the main body includes a curvature portion (Figs. 2, 6, curvature portion at corners of ends 44 and 46 of bracket 40);
and three of the rolling bodies are arranged at the curvature portion (Fig. 6; ¶ 0034, three or four rolling bodies arranged at curvature portions of ends 44 and 46).
Regarding claim 32, McDonald makes obvious an arrangement comprising:
the spacer device of claim 23 (as applied above);
the grinding roller (Fig. 1, grinding roller 16),
wherein the grinding roller is fixed to the spacer device by the fixing device (Figs. 2, 4, grinding roller 16 is fixed to bracket 40 of spacer device 10 via element 22).
Regarding claim 33, McDonald makes obvious the arrangement of claim 32 as applied above and further discloses wherein the adjusting device is configured to adjust a radial spacing of the grinding roller relative to the main body (Figs. 1-4, bracket 40 including central portion of bracket 40 with slots 54/56 and end portions with slots 64/66 and/or elements 14, 30, 32 are configured to adjust the radial spacing of grinding roller 16 (relative to the axis of shaft 14) relative to bracket 40).
Regarding claim 34, McDonald makes obvious the arrangement of claim 32 as applied above and further discloses wherein the fixing device includes mutually spatially spaced mounting devices configured to fix the grinding roller in the axial direction of the axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 2, 4, element 22 has two mutually spatially spaced recesses 62 configured to fix grinding roller 16 (using screws 58/60) in the axial direction of the axis of rotation of the grinding roller).
Regarding claim 35, McDonald makes obvious an arrangement comprising:
two spacer devices of claim 23 (as applied above, see discussion below re “two”);
and the grinding roller (Fig. 1, grinding roller 16),
wherein:
the grinding roller is fixed to the two spacer devices by the respective fixing devices (Figs. 2, 4, grinding roller 16 is fixed to bracket 40 of spacer device 10 via element 22; see discussion below re “two”);
the grinding roller includes a rotatable roller body (Fig. 3, disc body of grinding roller 16) and a grinding element (Fig. 3, edge 18; ¶ 0027, “a material processing disc 16 such as a grinding wheel...may include a peripheral cutting or processing edge 18”);
and the two spacer devices are arranged on the rotatable roller body in an axial direction of an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is attached to the grinding roller 16 in an axial direction of the axis of rotation of the grinding roller; see discussion below re “two”).
McDonald does not explicitly disclose two spacer devices. However, McDonald makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify McDonald to use two spacer devices (as claimed in claim 23) in the configuration as recited for claim 35, such as to add a second spacer device to the opposite side of the grinding roller 16 from the first spacer device (which is shown in Fig. 1). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because the addition of the second spacer device would provide stability and prevent tilting of the device during operation on a work surface (see e.g., US 7770574 B1 (“Ferreira”) Figs. 2A-B, 3, showing the configuration and use of a device having rollers on both sides of a grinding/cutting wheel; US 11584038 B2 (“Merck”) Fig. 1, showing same; US 6349712 B1 (“Halstead:) Fig. 1, showing same). Further, Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having two spacer devices (compared to one). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 36, McDonald makes obvious the arrangement of claim 32 as applied above and further discloses wherein a roller body is pivotably arranged on the spacer device by the joint axis which corresponds to an axis of rotation of the roller body (Figs. 1-4, grinding roller 16 is pivotably arranged on spacer device on the joint axis of bracket 40, which is also the joint axis of shaft 14, and corresponds to the axis of rotation of grinding roller 16; ¶ 0031).
Regarding claim 37, McDonald makes obvious the arrangement of claim 32 as applied above and further discloses wherein the grinding roller: (i) is a brush grinding roller; or (ii) includes a rotatable roller body and abrasive grinding elements separate from the rotatable roller body (¶ 0027, “a material processing disc 16 such as a...flap wheel”; Examiner notes that the meaning of “flap wheel” to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of this application includes an abrasive wheel of the type exemplified by US 3585765 A (“McAleer”), which is a type of brush grinding roller (McAleer Fig. 1, wheel 10) and/or a grinding roller with abrasive grinding elements (McAleer Fig. 1, elements 14) separate from a roller body (McAleer Fig. 1, element 20)).
Regarding claim 38, McDonald makes obvious a grinding machine (Fig. 1, machine as shown) comprising:
the arrangement of claim 32 (as applied above);
and a drive device or a guide device (Fig. 1; ¶ 0027, housing 12 (as a handle) (see Spec. p. 12, lines 20-28 and Fig. 5, for interpretation of “drive device 24” and “guide device 25”),
wherein the adjusting device is configured to adjust a radial spacing of the grinding roller relative to the main body (Figs. 1-4, bracket 40 including central portion of bracket 40 with slots 54/56 and end portions with slots 64/66 and/or elements 14, 30, 32 are configured to adjust the radial spacing of grinding roller 16 (relative to the axis of shaft 14) relative to bracket 40).
Regarding claim 39, McDonald makes obvious the grinding machine of claim 38 as applied above and further discloses wherein the grinding machine comprises the guide device (Fig. 1, machine as shown has housing 12 (as a handle (“guide device”));
Regarding claim 40, McDonald makes obvious the grinding machine of claim 38 as applied above and further discloses a transport device (Figs. 1-4, 6, rollers 72).
Regarding claim 41, McDonald makes obvious the grinding machine of claim 38 as applied above and further discloses a compressed air drive; a suction remover, or a fluid feed device (¶ 0017, “The tool is driven by...external (e.g. compressed air) power source”; ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 42, McDonald discloses a spacer device for a grinding roller (Fig. 1, spacer device 10 for grinding roller 16 of grinding machine 11), the spacer device comprising:
a main body (Fig. 2, portion of bracket 40, not including central potion with slots 54/56);
rolling bodies (Fig. 2, rollers 72);
a fixing device (Figs. 2, 4, element 22; “fixing device” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 7 and equivalents thereof (Spec. Fig. 1; p. 9, line 26–p. 10, line 2)); and
an adjusting device (Fig. 2, portion of bracket 40 including the central portion with slots 54/56, which allow for adjustment of grinding roller 16 relative to bracket 40 and/or rollers 72, and portion of element 14, and elements 30, 32; “adjusting device” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 8 and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1, 2; p. 10, lines 6-29),
wherein:
the rolling bodies are rotatably mounted to the main body (Fig. 2, rollers 72 mounted to bracket 40 via screws 74 and nuts 76);
the spacer device is configured to be supported by the rolling bodies against a surface to be ground during a grinding process (Fig. 1, rollers 72 support spacer device 10 on surface 17 to be ground);
the fixing device is arranged between two of the rolling bodies (Figs. 2, 4, element 22 is arranged between rollers 72);
the fixing device is configured to fix the grinding roller to the spacer device (Figs. 1, 2; grinding roller 16 is fixed to bracket 40 of spacer device 10 via element 22; ¶ 0029, “A pair of arcuately shaped fastener slots 54, 56 are also provided in the support bracket 40 for securing it to the housing extension 22 by fasteners 58, 60 projected therethrough to engage in threaded recesses 62 also provided in the housing extension 22.”);
the adjusting device is configured to adjust the grinding roller relative to the main body by a linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body in a vertical direction via the adjusting device (Figs. 2-3, adjusting device includes element 14, which is a linear guide rail that is capable of adjusting the grinding roller relative to the main body (and fixed by elements 30, 32) by a vertical linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body, e.g., if the device is lying on its side);
the adjusting device and the main body are two separate components (Fig. 2, portion of bracket 40 including only the central portion with slots 54/56 (“adjusting device”) is a separate component from the portion of bracket 40 not including central potion with slots 54/56 (“main body”);
the spacer device is configured to fix the grinding roller so as to be:
(i) rotatable relative to the main body about a joint axis of the spacer device (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 to be rotatable relative to bracket 40 about axis of shaft 14, which is also the joint axis of bracket 40; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and (ii) spaced from the adjusting device in an axial direction of an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 so that the grinding roller 16 is spaced from bracket 40 in the axial direction of the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16);
the joint axis is configured to correspond to an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, the joint axis of the spacer device (axis of shaft 14) corresponds to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller 16);
a pivot axis of the fixing device with respect to the adjusting device is configured to correspond to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, pivot axis of element 22 corresponds to the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis... (Figs. 1-4, element 22 is capable of freely pivoting relative to the pivot axis (axis of shaft 14) via movement of screws 58/60 in angular slots 54/56; ¶ 0031).
McDonald does not explicitly disclose the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis during operation of the grinding roller. However, McDonald makes obvious this claim for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
To the extent McDonald does not explicitly disclose the adjusting device and the main body are two separate components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to make the adjusting device removable from the main body (e.g., a detachable plate having slots 54/56, detachable from the main body (portion of bracket 40)) because this would also allow for easy removal of the adjusting device and/or the main body from the remaining assembly for maintenance or replacement purposes. Examiner notes that Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to making the adjusting device and the main body “two separate components”. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (“If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of Peterson’s holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.”); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Regarding claim 43, McDonald discloses a spacer device for a grinding roller (Fig. 1, spacer device 10 for grinding roller 16 of grinding machine 11), the spacer device comprising:
rolling bodies (Fig. 2, rollers 72);
a fixing device (Figs. 2, 4, element 22; “fixing device” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 7 and equivalents thereof (Spec. Fig. 1; p. 9, line 26–p. 10, line 2)); and
an adjusting device (Fig. 2, bracket 40 including central portion with slots 54/56, which allow for adjustment of grinding roller 16 relative to bracket 40 and/or rollers 72, and portion of element 14, and elements 30, 32; “adjusting device” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 8 and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1, 2; p. 10, lines 6-29),
wherein:
the adjusting device includes a main body and an adjustment apparatus which is releasably fixed to the main body or laterally displaceable (Figs. 2, 4, adjusting device includes bracket 40 (“main body”), along with the central portion of bracket 40 with slots 54/56, and screws 58/60 (“adjustment apparatus”) are releasably fixed to bracket 40, and portion of element 14, and elements 30, 32; “adjustment apparatus” interpreted under § 112(f), includes element 13, and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1, 3a; p. 10, line 6–p. 11, line 12));
the rolling bodies are rotatably mounted to the main body (Fig. 2, rollers 72 mounted to bracket 40 via screws 74 and nuts 76);
the spacer device is configured to be supported by the rolling bodies against a surface to be ground during a grinding process (Fig. 1, rollers 72 support spacer device 10 on surface 17 to be ground);
the fixing device is arranged between two of the rolling bodies (Figs. 2, 4, element 22 is arranged between rollers 72);
the fixing device is configured to fix the grinding roller to the spacer device (Figs. 1, 2; grinding roller 16 is fixed to bracket 40 of spacer device 10 via element 22; ¶ 0029, “A pair of arcuately shaped fastener slots 54, 56 are also provided in the support bracket 40 for securing it to the housing extension 22 by fasteners 58, 60 projected therethrough to engage in threaded recesses 62 also provided in the housing extension 22.”);
the adjusting device is configured to adjust the grinding roller relative to the main body by a linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body in a vertical direction via the adjusting device (Figs. 2-3, adjusting device includes element 14, which is a linear guide rail that is capable of adjusting the grinding roller relative to the main body (and fixed by elements 30, 32) by a vertical linear movement of the grinding roller relative to the main body, e.g., if the device is lying on its side).
the spacer device is configured to fix the grinding roller so as to be:
(i) rotatable relative to the main body about a joint axis of the spacer device (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 to be rotatable relative to bracket 40 about axis of shaft 14, which is also the joint axis of bracket 40; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and (ii) spaced from the adjusting device in an axial direction of an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, spacer device 10 is configured to fix grinding roller 16 (via screws 58/60) to element 22 so that the grinding roller 16 is spaced from bracket 40 in the axial direction of the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16);
the joint axis is configured to correspond to an axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, the joint axis of the spacer device (axis of shaft 14) corresponds to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller 16);
a pivot axis of the fixing device with respect to the adjusting device is configured to correspond to the axis of rotation of the grinding roller (Figs. 1-4, pivot axis of element 22 corresponds to the axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14) of grinding roller 16; ¶ 0031, “In the installed, nested position, the concavity 50 and cylindrical periphery 27 have a common an axis of rotation, and are angularly adjusted in the direction of arrow A (FIG. 4) to achieve the desired handling angle of the power hand tool 11.”);
and the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis... (Figs. 1-4, element 22 is capable of freely pivoting relative to the pivot axis (axis of shaft 14) via movement of screws 58/60 in angular slots 54/56; ¶ 0031).
McDonald does not explicitly disclose the fixing device is configured to freely pivot relative to the pivot axis during operation of the grinding roller. However, McDonald makes obvious this claim for the same reasons discussed for claim 1.
Regarding claim 44, McDonald makes obvious the grinding machine of claim 23 as applied above and further discloses wherein at least a part of the adjusting device is configured to be shifted linearly in the vertical direction (Figs. 2-3, adjusting device includes elements 30, 32, which are capable of being shifted linearly in the vertical direction).
Claims 45 and 46 are rejected on the same basis as claim 44, except as depending from claims 42 and 43 respectively.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-22, 24, and 25 have been canceled. New claims 44-46 have been added. Claims 23 and 26-46 are pending. Claims 23 and 26-46 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection of claim 36 is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claims 23, 42, and 43 are premature and moot in view of the new rejection above due to the amended limitations. Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 2488834 A (“Simpson”) discloses a grinding machine with a grinding drum that is vertically adjustable relative to the floor and machine body (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2).
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723