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 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 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant) regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a branch portion extending outwardly from a side of the step portion along a direction, the direction is vertical to an axial direction of the shaft portion”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “the direction is vertical to an axial direction of the shaft portion” means—does this mean the direction is parallel to the axial direction of the shaft portion, or does this mean that it is perpendicular to the axial direction, or does this mean that the device has to be oriented in a certain way so that the direction is vertical with respect to the ground, or does this mean something else? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 3-12 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Zhu in view of Heidelberger
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 210739375 U (“Zhu”) (citations are to the translation filed 09/16/2024) in view of US 20040102145 A1 (“Heidelberger”).
Zhu pertains to an orbital sander, specifically the shaft (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Heidelberger pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses a dustproof structure of a grinding tool holder, the grinding tool holder assembled with a motor and provided for a grinding tool to be assembled therewith (Fig. 2, dustproof structure including elements 3, 4, 5, 12, 21, 22, 23 of grinding tool holder as shown; Abstract, ¶ 0029, grinding tool holder is configured to be assembled with a motor and a grinding tool; based on Applicant’s amendment and remarks (Reply at 5), the grinding tool is interpreted as being positively claimed along with the motor and the grinding tool holder, including grinding tool holder’s recited elements; see discussion below re “a motor” and “a grinding tool”), the grinding tool holder comprising:
a shaft portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below),
and a counterweight portion, connected to one end of the shaft portion, the counterweight portion comprising an eccentric block connected to the shaft portion, at least one bearing mounted in the eccentric block, a dustproof ring, and a grinding member assembling head assembled with the at least one bearing (see annotated Fig. 2 below; Fig. 1; Examiner notes that the limitation “grinding member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) because it is understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure such as a grinding wheel or pad, and there is no express intent in the specification to disavow the full scope of the plain meaning of this limitation),
wherein the eccentric block is formed with an assembly port to provide the at least one bearing and the dustproof ring for disposal therein, the dustproof ring is located on a side of the at least one bearing facing the grinding member assembling head (see annotated Fig. 2 below; Fig. 1),
and the dustproof ring is formed with a first continuous concave-convex structure on a side of the dustproof ring distant from the at least one bearing, the first continuous concave-convex structure comprises a step portion facing the grinding member assembling head and a branch portion extending outwardly from a side of the step portion along a direction, the direction is vertical to an axial direction of the shaft portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below; Fig. 1; see § 112(b) rejection),
and the grinding member assembling head is formed with a second continuous concave-convex structure on a side of the grinding member assembling head facing the dustproof ring, the second continuous concave-convex structure comprises a recess extending toward the grinding tool (see annotated Fig. 4 below; Fig. 1; see § 112(b) rejection),
and the first continuous concave-convex structure and the second continuous concave-convex structure coordinate with each other and jointly define a path communicating from an external environment into the assembly port, the path comprises a plurality of bends, and the plurality of bends are configured to block dust (see annotated Fig. 4 below (labeled “annotated for path”), path as shown).
[AltContent: textbox (These two pieces 4 and 21/22/23 together form the “grinding member assembling head”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Dustproof ring 5 mounts in “assembly port” 11 in eccentric block, on side of bearing 6 facing the “grinding member assembling head”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bearing 6 mounts in “assembly port” 11 in eccentric block)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Counterweight portion with eccentric blocks)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Shaft portion)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1389
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 2 (annotated)
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (“Branch portion” extends outwardly from a side of the “step portion” in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the shaft portion (see dashed arrow))][AltContent: rect][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess of “second concave-convex structure” extends downward towards grinding tool)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“First concave-convex structure” on dustproof ring 5 on a side of the ring 5 that is distant from the bearing 6)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Second concave-convex structure” of “grinding member assembling head” 4 on a side of the head 4 facing the dustproof ring 5)][AltContent: textbox (“Step portion”, where its bottom surface faces the “grinding member assembling head” 4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Bearing 6)]
PNG
media_image2.png
710
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 4 (annotated)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Path with bends capable of blocking dust (dotted line))][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image2.png
710
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 4 (annotated for points)
Zhu does not explicitly disclose:
the grinding tool holder assembled with a motor and provided for a grinding tool to be assembled therewith,
a shaft portion, assembled with the motor.
However, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious this claim.
Heidelberger discloses:
the grinding tool holder assembled with a motor and provided for a grinding tool to be assembled therewith (Figs. 1-5, grinding tool holder including elements 20, 60, 62 is assembled with a motor 16 a grinding tool 24),
a shaft portion, assembled with the motor (Figs. 1, 3, shaft 20 assembled with motor 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Heidelberger with Zhu by assembling the shaft portion of Zhu with a motor and a grinding tool because the shaft assembly of Zhu is meant to be used in an orbital sander with a motor and grinding tool (see Zhu ¶ 0029, “The dustproof effect is good, and can effectively reduce the phenomenon of dust entering the bearing 6 and the motor assembly during grinding, ensuring the stable operation of the motor assembly and extending the service life of the grinder.”).
Regarding claim 3, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 1, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein the dustproof ring comprises an outer ring edge and an inner ring edge, and the first continuous concave-convex structure is disposed close to the inner ring edge (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Inner ring edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer ring edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“First concave-convex structure” on dustproof ring 5)]
PNG
media_image2.png
710
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 4 (annotated)
Regarding claim 4, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 3, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein the counterweight portion comprises a limiting ring mounted in the assembly port for limiting a position of the dustproof ring (Figs. 2-4, ring 3 is mounted in assembly port 11 and prevents dustproof ring 5 from moving downward (via interference with element 4)).
Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as claim 4, except as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 4, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the limiting ring is larger than an outer diameter of the dustproof ring (Figs. 2-4, outer diameter of ring 3 is larger than outer diameter of dustproof ring 5).
Regarding claim 7, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 5, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein the dustproof ring comprises an inclined surface facing the grinding member assembling head (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Inclined surface facing “grinding member assembling head” 4)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“First concave-convex structure” on dustproof ring 5)]
PNG
media_image2.png
710
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 4 (annotated)
Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis as claim 7, except as depending from claim 1.
Zhu in view of Heidelberger and Huber
Claims 6, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 210739375 U (“Zhu”) (citations are to the translation filed 09/16/2024) in view of US 20040102145 A1 (“Heidelberger”) and US 6979254 B1 (“Huber”).
Zhu pertains to an orbital sander, specifically the shaft (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Heidelberger pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Huber pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1A) These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 6, the Zhu/Heidelberger combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 4, as applied above. Zhu and Heidelberger do not explicitly disclose wherein the shaft portion is formed with an air guide channel communicating with the assembly port, and a mounting groove communicating with the air guide channel to provide for installing a motor paddle, and wherein an airflow is induced into the air guide channel by the mounting groove when the motor rotates. However, the Zhu/Heidelberger/Huber combination makes obvious this claim.
Huber discloses:
wherein the shaft portion is formed with an air guide channel communicating with the assembly port (Fig. 17, shaft 27’ has a channel 183/184/185/186 that fluidly communicates with chamber 187; 11:24-64),
and a mounting groove communicating with the air guide channel to provide for installing a motor paddle (Figs. 1A, 17, groove 182 for installing a pneumatic motor paddle 181; 11:16-23),
and wherein an airflow is induced into the air guide channel by the mounting groove when the motor rotates (Figs. 17, 18; 11:24-64, “The foregoing structure thus causes air flow into chamber 187 and through bearings 55 and through the annular space 196 between...This pressure is more positive than the pressure outside of eccentric housing 57, thereby preventing sanding dust and other foreign materials from entering bearings 55 in chamber 187 from the area above pad 14. It is to be noted that since duckbill valve 190 is a one-way valve, the air in chamber 187 cannot be drawn back into bore 184 when the air motor inherently functions as a pump when the compressed air flow thereto is terminated, thereby obviating the induction of foreign material laden air into chamber 187.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
920
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Huber Fig. 17
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Huber with the Zhu/Heidelberger combination by adding the air channel and related components of Huber to the Zhu shaft and dustproof structure. This would have been obvious because it provides extra cooling to the bearing and other components inside the assembly port during operation to prevent overheating (Heidelberger ¶ 0035, “During operation of sander 10, pressurized air tends to escape from motor chamber 38 through the annular path defined by lower end plate 28 and motor shaft 20, and due to the air permeable nature of washer 74, is permitted to flow axially of bearing 32 in order to cool such bearing.”). Examiner notes that both Zhu and Heidelberger disclose a shaft with a groove for a motor paddle and are similar to Huber except lacking the air channel (Zhu Figs. 1, 3; Heidelberger Figs. 3, 5).
Claim 12 is rejected on the same basis as claim 6, except as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the Zhu/Heidelberger/Huber combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 6, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein the dustproof ring comprises a pushing block disposed on a side facing the at least one bearing to contact with the at least one bearing (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
[AltContent: textbox (“Pushing block” of dustproof ring 5)][AltContent: textbox (Bearing 6)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
710
915
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhu Fig. 4 (annotated)
Regarding claim 9, the Zhu/Heidelberger/Huber combination makes obvious the dustproof structure of the grinding tool holder of claim 6, as applied above. Zhu further discloses wherein an outer diameter of the dustproof ring is larger than an outer diameter of the at least one bearing (Figs. 2-4, outer diameter of dustproof ring 5 is larger than the outer diameter of the bearing that contacts surface element 22), and an outer diameter of the limiting ring is larger than an outer diameter of the dustproof ring (Figs. 2-4, outer diameter of ring 3 is larger than outer diameter of dustproof ring 5; Examiner interprets the two instances of “an outer diameter of the dustproof ring” as not necessarily referring to the same outer diameter of the dustproof ring).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending. Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendment and remarks (Reply at 5), the § 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn. Based on Applicant’s amendment and remarks (Reply at 5), the grinding tool is interpreted as being positively claimed along with the motor and the grinding tool holder, including grinding tool holder’s recited elements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to disclose or make obvious the limitations of claim 1 are addressed in the § 103 rejection above (Reply at 5-7). Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the “branch” of Zhu that it does not block the movement of dust (Reply at 7). Applicant’s arguments for the alleged benefits of the claimed invention (i.e., “better dustproof effect” (Reply at 7)) in comparison to the design of Zhu are not persuasive. Actual evidence of secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long felt need, failure of others, skepticism of others, copying) would be required for further consideration. MPEP § 2145; see MPEP §§ 716.01-06. It should be noted that attorney argument cannot take the place of actual evidence. MPEP §§ 716.01(c)(I)-(II).
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 20050079808 A1 (“Tiede”) discloses a handheld grinding tool with a dust blocking membrane 30 and seal 40 (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8);
US 20170159822 A1 (“Liaw”) discloses a dust resistant structure for a grinding tool including rubber ring 23 (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6);
JP 2011043212 A (“Kono”) discloses a dust sealing device for use with a device having a rotating shaft (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