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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference number(s) not mentioned in the description: 400 (Fig. 4) (should be element 100, see Spec. ¶ 0036); lever 128 in Fig. 4 (Spec. ¶ 0034-0036).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) or amendment to the specification to add the reference number(s) in the description in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “pin” (Spec. ¶ 0042) as described in the specification. Further, the drawings fail to show the interaction of the engagement portion 508 and the curved portion 514 with the follower portion 452, and the interaction of lever 128 with the follower portion 452 (Spec. ¶¶ 0035, 0044, 0045), as described in the specification. That is, while Figs. 3-4 and 5A-D show the structure of the follower portion 452, lever 128, and engagement portion 508 and its various features, the figures detailing the assembly (e.g., Figs. 3-4) lack clarity and sufficient structural details for proper understanding of how these features interact together within the housing to perform the recited functions as described in the specification (Spec. ¶¶ 0035, 0044, 0045). Notably, lever 128 is not labeled in Fig. 4; and it is unclear which depicted portions correspond to the lever 128. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Examiner notes that there is some ambiguity in this application with respect to the various “embodiments” and drawings. Based on Applicant’s amendments identifying the device of Figs. 1-4 as “100”, Figs. 1A-B, 2A-B, 3, 4, and 5A-D appear to represent a single embodiment and these figures show the various aspects of that single embodiment. However, the scale of Fig. 4 does not correspond to the scale of Fig. 3 and it is not clear how the structures of Fig. 4 correspond to what is shown in Figs. 1-3.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(4) because elements 122 (Figs. 1A-B, 2A-B, and 3) and 422 (Fig. 4) have been used to designate the same part (all of these figures show the embodiment 100).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“in the second position” (claim 1, line 24) should be changed to --in the second [lever] position--;
Claim 25 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 11-12, and 19-28 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 limitations “base portion” and “intermediate body portion”. These limitations are indefinite because they are unclear and fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what they mean. Specifically, the “base portion” of the lever as claimed appears to correspond to a lever portion that element 508 in Figs. 5A-B. However, in the specification, reference 508 is called the “engagement portion 508” (Spec. ¶ 0043; Figs. 5A-B), and it is reference 502 that is called the “base portion 502” (Spec. ¶ 0043; Figs. 5A-B). Claim 1 appears to refer to the specification’s “base portion 502” as the “intermediate body portion” (a term not stated in the specification). These discrepancies make unclear what is being claimed here and how the limitations “base portion” and “intermediate body portion” correspond to that which is described in the specification. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood. Examiner suggests using the terminology in the original specification and changing the claims to reflect that terminology, without introducing the new term “intermediate body portion”. That is, the “base portion” of claim 1 should be changed to “engagement portion” and the “intermediate body portion” of claim 1 should be changed to “base portion”. The remaining claims that contain the limitations “base portion” and “intermediate body portion” should also be amended accordingly. Claims 2-6, 11-12, and 19-28 are rejected on the basis they incorporate these limitations of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the engagement portion being configured for manual engagement to pivot the lever between the first lever position and the second lever position.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what it means. Specifically, it is unclear how “manual engagement” applies to the “engagement portion” and thus, the meaning of this limitation. The specification describes the “engagement portion 508” (Spec. ¶ 0043; Figs. 5A-B) as the portion of the lever that engages with another portion of the device to hold or lock the position of the lever relative to the device (Spec. ¶¶ 0041-0042). There does not appear to be any “manual engagement” (e.g., the movement of the lever by a user) relating to the “engagement portion 508”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the second distance between the first roller and the second roller exceeds an internal perimeter dimension of the continuous abrasive belt, such that the continuous abrasive belt cannot be received along the belt path when the first roller and the second roller are separated by the second distance.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what it means. Specifically, this limitation appears to conflict with claim 1 because it does not make sense how in claim 1, the abrasive belt is able to fit onto the first and second rollers that are separated by a second distance, but this same second distance as recited in claim 12 does not allow the abrasive belt to “be received along the belt path”. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “wherein the intermediate body portion is generally parallel to at least one of the base portion or the tab portion.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what it means. Specifically, it is unclear how the intermediate body portion could be parallel to either the base portion or the tab portion while also meeting the limitations of claim 1, including the limitations “an intermediate body portion extending from the base portion, and a tab portion extending from the intermediate body portion” and “wherein, in the second position, the base portion and the tab portion are positioned on opposite lateral sides of the belt path, and the tab portion extends across a lateral direction of the belt path, transverse to a direction of travel of the abrasive belt.” For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as set forth in this Office Action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record is US 20150360339 A1 (“Suzuki”).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses an abrasive belt device (Fig. 1, device 100) comprising:
a belt assembly (see annotated Fig. 1 below) comprising a first roller and a second roller (Figs. 1, 5, 6, first roller 140, second roller 145; ¶ 0031),
wherein the belt assembly defines a belt path along which a continuous abrasive belt is supported partially around the first roller and the second roller (Figs. 1, 5, 6; ¶¶ 0031, 0033-0034, belt assembly defines a belt path as shown for continuous abrasive belt 148, belt 148 is supported around the first roller 140 and second roller 145);
and a lever comprising a base portion, an intermediate body portion extending from the base portion, and a tab portion extending from the intermediate body portion (see annotated Fig. 4 below, lever includes elements 170, 174, and 180),
wherein the base portion is pivotably mounted about a lever axis, and wherein the lever is mechanically linked to the belt assembly such that pivoting the lever about the lever axis modifies a spacing between the first roller and the second roller (Figs. 2-6; ¶¶ 0033-0034, base portion of lever is rotatable about pivot 126 (“lever axis”) and is mechanically linked to (e.g., attached to) first roller 140 (see Fig. 5) of the belt assembly, which changes the spacing between rollers 140 and 145 in order to install or remove belt 148),
wherein the lever is movable between:
a first lever position corresponding to a belt-relaxed configuration in which the first roller and the second roller are separated by a first distance that permits installation or removal of the abrasive belt through a lateral opening of the belt assembly, and in which the tab portion is positioned clear of the belt path (Figs. 4, 6; ¶¶ 0033-0034, first position of the lever is a belt-relaxed configuration that causes a first distance between rollers 140 and 145 (as shown in Figs. 4 and 6), where the “tab portion” of the lever is positioned clear of the belt path, allowing belt 148 to be installed or removed (due to lack of tension holding belt 148 to rollers 140 and 145) via lateral opening 129),
and a second lever position corresponding to a belt-tensioned configuration in which the first roller and the second roller are separated by a second distance greater than the first distance to apply operating tension to the abrasive belt (Figs. 1-2, 5; ¶¶ 0033-0034, second position of the lever is a belt-tensioned configuration that causes a second distance between rollers 140 and 145 that is greater than the first distance (as shown in Figs. 2 and 5)),
and wherein, in the second [lever] position...the tab portion extends across a lateral direction of the belt path, transverse to a direction of travel of the abrasive belt (Figs. 1-2, 5, in the second position, the tab portion extends as recited (i.e., in and out of the paper as shown in Fig. 1), which is across a lateral direction of the belt path (i.e., the up-down direction shown in Fig. 1) and transverse to the direction of travel of belt 124 (i.e., the left-right direction shown in Fig. 1)).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Belt assembly)][AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
1509
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Suzuki Fig. 1 (annotated)
[AltContent: textbox (“Tab portion”)][AltContent: textbox (“Intermediate body portion”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Base portion”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Lever”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
703
955
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suzuki Fig. 4 (annotated)
Suzuki does not disclose the limitation:
wherein, in the second position, the base portion and the tab portion are positioned on opposite lateral sides of the belt path (the term “opposite lateral sides of the belt path” is interpreted to correspond to the two opposite sides of the belt 124 (i.e., the two oval side faces of the belt 124 (see Spec. Fig. 1B)) when it is installed on the rollers 132 and 232).
Based on the prior art of record, it would appear that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application would not have modified the lever 170/174/180 of Suzuki to include the missing limitation, as this limitation appears to be incompatible with the Suzuki design (when considered in combination with the rest of claim 1).
In view of the prior art of record and its deficiencies, Applicant’s invention is novel, non-obvious, and allowable as claimed. Claims 2-6, 11-12, and 19-28 are allowable for depending from claim 1 (subject to overcoming the claim objections).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 7-10 and 13-18 have been canceled. New claims 24-28 have been added. Claims 1-6, 11-12, and 19-28 are pending. Claims 1-6, 11-12, and 19-28 are rejected.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are sustained-in-part in view of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant’s amendments fail to address all of the outstanding drawing objections in the 10/15/2025 Office Action. Applicant’s response to the objections is lacking for the following reasons (see drawing objections above for more details):
“Lever” 128 (Spec. ¶¶ 0034-0036) is not shown in Fig. 4;
The “pin” (Spec. ¶ 0042) is not shown;
The drawings fail to show and provide proper understanding of the interaction of the follower portion 452, lever 128, and engagement portion 508;
The scale of Fig. 4 does not match the scale of Fig. 3; although same scale is not required in drawings, this difference in scale leads to the confusion of how the depicted elements shown in Fig. 4 correspond to what is shown in Figs. 1A-B, 2A-B, and 3;
Element 422 of Fig. 4 should be changed to reference 122 as in Figs. 1A-B, 2A-B, and 3 (same embodiment 100).
If Applicant does not desire to amend the drawings and/or specification to address these issues, an adequate technical explanation (where appropriate) on the record may be accepted instead so long as no new matter is introduced in connection with the explanation.
Claims – The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. Claim 1 is allowable as indicated above, subject to overcoming the claim objection and § 112(b) rejection set forth in this Office action. Claims 2-6, 11-12, and 19-28 are allowable for depending from claim 1 (subject to overcoming the claim objections).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
US 8747191 B2 (“Kishi”) discloses a handheld belt sander tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3);
US 2375604 A (“Williams”) discloses a belt sander device (Figs. 1-6);
GB 2562436 A (“Suzuki2”) discloses a handheld belt sander tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8).
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
Prosecution Insights