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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 09/22/2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending application: 17/205,851, titled “GRINDING MACHINE TOOL FOR REDUCING HOTNESS OF CASING”, which has pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending application are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending application be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending application. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify copending applications that disclose similar subject matter as well as prior art and other information from copending applications that is material to the patentability of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
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 1-3, 5, and 7-18 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 “wherein the diversion structure is configured to prevent direct communication between the air inlet and the first air outlet.” (lines 20-21). Although the specification uses similar language (Spec. p. 11, lines 14-19), this limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, this limitation appears to suggest that there is some structure that stops the airflow (such as a valve, door, or shutter) between the air inlet and the first air outlet; however, the specification does not describe any such structure. To the extent this limitation means that airflow is somehow impeded or redirected in direction, this would appear to conflict with the phrase “direct communication”, as an impeded or redirected airflow between two points remains in direct communication between those two points. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-18 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “an inner wall of the casing” (line 2). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, this limitation is recited in claim 1, and it is unclear if this same limitation in claim 3 refers to the same “inner wall of the casing” or to another inner wall. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is recited as depending from claim 6, which has been canceled. Claim 8 is recited as depending from claim 4, which has been canceled. For examination purposes, claims 7 and 8 are interpreted as depending from claim 1. Claims 9-14 are rejected on the basis they depend from claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Zheng in view of Chen
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 214393694 U (“Zheng”) (citations are to the translation filed on 02/12/2025) in view of US 20130038148 A1 (“Chen”).
Zheng pertains to a grinding machine tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Chen pertains to a grinding machine tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0015). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a tool grinding machine (Fig. 1, machine as shown), comprising:
a casing, provided for operating the tool grinding machine in a gripping manner, and formed with at least one air inlet and at least one first air outlet (Figs. 1-6, casing 11 allows for a user to grip it during operation (held near reference 124), inlet 115, outlet 116),
wherein an interior of the casing is divided into a motor space and a grinding space separated from the motor space (Figs. 1-8, casing 11 interior is divided into a motor space occupied by motor casing 117 and motor 142, and a separate grinding space (the space below the protruding rib (near reference 126, Figs. 2-3, 6);
a driving component, installed in the casing, and comprising a motor and an airflow generator that rotates synchronously with the motor, wherein the motor comprises a stator, a rotor, an output shaft assembled with the rotor, and a motor housing disposed around the stator and the rotor (Figs. 1-6; ¶¶ 0090, 0095, driving component includes airflow generator 143 and motor 142 with stator 140 and rotor as shown (Fig. 3), output shaft 144 attached to rotor, motor housing 117 disposed around stator 140 and rotor, fan 143 is attached to output shaft 144 and rotates synchronously with motor 142),
and wherein the output shaft comprises a first end facing the casing and assembled with the airflow generator, and a second end opposite from the casing and assembled with a grinding member (Figs. 1-6, output shaft 144 first end faces the casing (upward) and is attached to the airflow generator 143, and second end (downward) is attached to grinding member 30; Examiner notes that the limitation “grinding member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) because the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes grinding wheels and pads),
wherein the motor housing comprises...at least one second opening communicating with an interior of the motor and facing the airflow generator (Figs. 2-3, second opening at bottom of motor housing 117 and facing airflow generator 143), and a protruding rib formed on a bottom edge of the motor housing and in contact with an inner wall of the casing, and the protruding rib divides the interior of the casing into the motor space and the grinding space (Figs 1-8, protruding rib (near reference 126, Figs. 2-3, 6) on bottom edge of motor housing 117 divides casing into motor space (above rib 126) and grinding space (below rib 126);
and a diversion structure, disposed at the casing or the motor housing (Figs. 4-6, 8, upper portion of motor housing 117 (cylindrical structure); Examiner notes that the limitation “diversion structure” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) because the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes diverters, baffles and deflectors; see § 112(b) rejection).
Zheng does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the motor housing comprises at least one first opening generating a ventilation relationship with the at least one air inlet,
the diversion structure provided to enable the tool grinding machine to define a first airflow path, wherein the first airflow path only performs in the motor space, and is composed of the at least one air inlet, the at least one first opening, the interior of the motor, the at least one second opening, the airflow generator and the at least one first air outlet in sequence, wherein the diversion structure is configured to prevent direct communication between the air inlet and the first air outlet.
However, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious this claim.
Chen discloses:
wherein the motor housing comprises at least one first opening generating a ventilation relationship with the at least one air inlet (Figs. 1-3, motor housing 321/323 with first opening 324, second opening at bottom of 321).
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 Chen with Zheng by modifying the motor housing 117 of Zheng to have a first opening at the top surface of motor housing 117 (see annotated Zheng Fig. 6 below) and to add openings to end plate 21, resulting in a modified diversion structure of Zheng that allows the tool grinding machine to meet the limitation: “the diversion structure provided to enable the tool grinding machine to define a first airflow path, wherein the first airflow path only performs in the motor space, and is composed of the at least one air inlet, the at least one first opening, the interior of the motor, the at least one second opening, the airflow generator and the at least one first air outlet in sequence, wherein the diversion structure is configured to prevent direct communication between the air inlet and the first air outlet” (Zheng Figs. 1-8, airflow path as modified is as follows: air inlet 115, first opening (added via Chen) at top of motor housing 117, interior of motor 142, second opening at bottom of motor housing 117, airflow generator 143, and first air outlet 116, where the airflow between the air inlet 115 and first air outlet 116 is impeded by the diversion structure (e.g., , upper portion of motor housing 117 that does not have the added airflow openings via Chen); the interpretation of “wherein the first airflow path only performs in the motor space” includes the meaning that the first airflow path is not in the “grinding space” (Spec. p. 12, lines 8-11)).
This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because the added first opening provides an airflow path through the motor housing, which would provide better cooling compared to a sealed motor housing (Chen ¶ 0017, “The ventilation hole 324 also can aid airflow to provide desired cooling effect for the electric motor 3.”).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Add “first opening” here)]
PNG
media_image1.png
1532
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zheng Fig. 6 (annotated)
Regarding claim 2, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the diversion structure is disposed in the casing and is interposed between the at least one first air outlet and the at least one air inlet (Figs. 4-6, 8, diversion structure (portion of motor housing 117) disposed inside casing 11 and interposed between inlet 115 and outlet 116).
Regarding claim 3, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the diversion structure is a baffle formed on the motor housing and contacting an inner wall of the casing after the motor housing is assembled (Figs. 4-6, 8, diversion structure (portion of motor housing 117) is a baffle that is formed on motor housing 117 and contacts an inner wall of casing 11 (e.g., at bottom near reference 168) when motor housing 117 is assembled into casing 11).
Regarding claim 5, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the casing is divided into a head for gripping and a body, the casing is composed of at least two shells, and the motor housing is connected to one of the at least two shells (Figs. 1-3, casing 11 includes head 111 and body 112 and shell 113 (upper shell 128, lower shell 127), motor housing 117 is connected to lower shell 127).
Regarding claim 7, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the motor comprises an end plate mounted on an end of the motor housing away from the at least one second opening, and the end plate provides the stator to be fixed thereon (Figs. 1-8, end plate 21 mounted on bottom end of motor housing 117 away from the second opening at the top of motor housing 117, allowing for stator 140 to be fixed thereon).
Regarding claim 8, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the casing is divided into a head for gripping and a body (Figs. 1-3, casing 11 includes head 111 and body 112),
the casing comprises a manipulation pressing plate assembled on the body (Fig. 6, pressing plate 124),
the tool grinding machine comprises a deflector disposed in the casing and located at a junction of the head and the body (Figs. 4-6, 8, deflector 16 disposed inside casing 11 at junction of head 111 and body 112).
Zheng and Chen do not explicitly disclose:
the casing comprises...at least one second air outlet,
the deflector is provided to enable the tool grinding machine to define a second airflow path which is composed of the at least one air inlet, the at least one first opening, the interior of the motor, the at least one second opening, the airflow generator and the at least one second air outlet in sequence.
However, the Zheng/Chen combination 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 further modify the Zheng/Chen combination by adding a second air outlet (e.g., next to the first air outlet 116), resulting in a modified tool grinding machine that meets the limitation: “the deflector is provided to enable the tool grinding machine to define a second airflow path which is composed of the at least one air inlet, the at least one first opening, the interior of the motor, the at least one second opening, the airflow generator and the at least one second air outlet in sequence” (Zheng Figs. 1-8, airflow path as modified is as follows: air inlet 115, first opening (added via Chen) at top of motor housing 117, interior of motor 142, second opening at bottom of motor housing 117, airflow generator 143, and second air outlet (added, adjacent to first air outlet 116). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because the added second air outlet would increase the cross-sectional area of the outlets, allowing for better airflow through the motor housing (due to less resistance), which would provide better cooling. Further, Applicant states no new and unexpected result due to having multiple air outlets, but only the ordinary result of having multiple airflow paths (e.g., Spec. p. 13, line 15 – p. 14, line 6). 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 9, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 8 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the deflector comprises an air guiding part facing the body, and the air guiding part comprises a main guide surface and two auxiliary guide surfaces respectively connected to two sides of the main guide surface (Figs. 4-6, 8, deflector 16 has air guiding part 162 with main guide surface 163 and two auxiliary guide surfaces 164).
Regarding claim 10, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 9 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein each of the two auxiliary guide surfaces is composed of a plurality of arcuate surfaces (Figs. 4-6, 8, the two auxiliary guide surfaces 164 are composed of arcuate surfaces as shown).
Regarding claim 11, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 9 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the deflector is in an arcuate shape, and the deflector comprises two flow stop blocks respectively disposed at two ends of the deflector (Figs. 4-6, 8, deflector 16 is an arcuate shape and has two flow stop blocks (near reference 165)).
Regarding claim 12, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 8 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the casing is divided into a head for gripping and a body, the casing is composed of at least two shells, and the motor housing is connected to one of the at least two shells (Figs. 1-3, casing 11 includes head 111 and body 112 and shell 113 (upper shell 128, lower shell 127), motor housing 117 is connected to lower shell 127).
Regarding claim 13, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 8 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein a level height of the at least one first air outlet on the casing is higher than a level height of the at least one air inlet on the casing (Figs. 1-8, inlet 115 is at a level height higher than outlet 116 (e.g., when the device is dangled down by the power cord end; Examiner notes that no reference plane or surface has been defined for the term “level”).
Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as claim 12, except as depending from claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as claim 13, except as depending from claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 1 as applied above. Zheng further discloses wherein the airflow generator is a centrifugal fan (Figs. 1-8, airflow generator 143 is a centrifugal fan).
Zheng in view of Chen and Duernegger
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over CN 214393694 U (“Zheng”) (citations are to the translation filed on 02/12/2025) in view of US 20130038148 A1 (“Chen”) and US 20190305640 A1 (“Duernegger”).
Zheng pertains to a grinding machine tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Chen pertains to a grinding machine tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1; ¶ 0015). Duernegger pertains to a grinding machine tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 14, the Zheng/Chen combination makes obvious the tool grinding machine of claim 13 as applied above. Zheng and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein the casing comprises at least one dust filter disposed at the air inlet. However, the Zheng/Chen/Duernegger combination makes obvious this claim.
Duernegger discloses wherein the casing comprises at least one dust filter disposed at the air inlet (Fig. 2; ¶ 0017, 0032; claim 11, filter disposed at air inlet 10).
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 Duernegger with the Zheng/Chen combination to add a filter to the inlet 115 because this would keep dust particles out from interior of the device, as the dust could cause damage to the electronics or moving parts inside (Duernegger ¶ 0017, “The filter structure ensures that a large portion of the dirt particles occurring during use of the machine tool do not get into the interior of the machine tool in the first place.”).
Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as claim 14, except as depending from claim 1.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-18 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-18 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(d) rejection of claim 7 is hereby withdrawn. However, see new § 112(b) and (d) rejections due to Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s arguments (Reply at 7-9) are not persuasive for the reasons discussed in the § 103 rejection above, where the combination of Zheng and Chen meet all of the limitations of claim 1. Further, Applicant relies on an incorrect understanding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the explicit content of the cited references. The question is not whether a combination was obvious to the inventor or Applicant but whether the combination was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. Applicant’s argument fails because Applicant confounds the question of obviousness and neglects the KSR standard for a person of ordinary skill, which is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at that time and addressed by the application can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed. KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21; MPEP § 2145(X)(C). In this case, a person of ordinary skill would recognize a need to cool an enclosed motor in order to keep it from overheating during operation. The redirection of existing airflow path to provide enhanced cooling to an enclosed motor (as proposed in the Zhang/Chen combination for claim 1) is an obvious modification in light of the prior art that teaches providing airflow not only around an enclosed motor (Zhang) but also through the innards of the motor (Chen).
Further, Applicant’s distinctions between the Zhang and Chen references, and the associated arguments for the alleged benefits of the claimed invention, are not persuasive as these are well-known benefits of devices having similar structural elements (Reply at 7-9). That is, despite slight differences in their designs, both Zhang and Chen teach techniques and structure providing cooling airflow through the innards of a handheld grinding machine. And as discussed above, these teachings would be considered in totality by a person of ordinary skill in the art when considering airflow/cooling improvements to such a machine. 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 of Applicant’s purported benefits. 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).
Examiner notes that in the proposed combination for claim 1, Chen is not bodily incorporated into Zhang—instead, Chen is relied upon for its teaching of the first openings 324. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); MPEP § 2145(III).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
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