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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 9 has been amended. No claims have been canceled. Claim 26 has been added. Claims 1-26 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-8, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the previous
drawing objection and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 24, are not persuasive.
The claim’s limitation is “the shroud portion is located within the dust collection portion”.
The Applicant argues: “The Replacement Sheet including amended Figure 3 therefore shows the shroud portion (formed by the upper shroud portion 132 and the lower shroud portion 134, as disclosed in the Specification) located within the dust collection portion (20).”;
“As described, the shroud portion 130 is a portion of the dust collection system 120, which is partially supported in the dust collection portion 20 of the main housing 14. Applicant notes that the "dust collection portion 20" of the main housing 14 and the dust collection system 120 are separate objects, not one and the same object as apparently interpreted by the Office.”
The Applicant argues 20 and 14 are separate objects, yet in the amended the figure 3 drawing which includes “20”, submitted on 11/07/2025, does not show how they are separate objects. One cannot reasonably discern where the shroud is “within” as required by the claim.
The Applicant further argues the shroud is “partially supported in the dust collection portion 20 of the main housing 14”, which is not synonymous with the required language of the claim. Paragraph 0026 discloses: “The dust collection system 120 includes upper and lower sections 136, 140 with an upper shroud portion 132 and a lower shroud portion 134, respectively, that cooperate to form a shroud portion 130 that surrounds the fan 86.”. If sections 136, 140 are included in the “shroud portion 130”, it is unclear how they surround the fan. Lastly, using Fig. 5A as a reference, if sections 136, 140 are included in the “shroud portion 130”, it is unclear how “the dust circulates around the shroud 130” per paragraph 0028: “After the dust enters the shroud 130, the dust circulates around the shroud 130 until it eventually is routed along the path 148 through the interface 124 and into the dust bag 128 for collection.”.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-11, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
With respect to: “To modify the fan of Kuehne with a unitary body as taught by Chen II would negate all of the purported benefits of using a fan having a two-piece construction, thus rendering Kuehne unfit for its intended purpose. Accordingly, the subject matter of independent claim 1 is not obvious over the combination of Kuehne and Chen II, and claim 1 is, therefore, allowable.”, the examiner disagrees. A modification of swapping the fan of Chen II with the fan of Kuehne would not impede the operation of Kuehne’s sander. Chen II’s own disclosure in paragraph 0034 states: “the present invention is not limited to the product, and the present invention is also applicable to other sanders that require balance”. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of simply swapping out fans. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejections below.
With respect to: “Claims 2-8, 21-22, and 26 depend from claim 1 and are also, therefore, allowable, for at least the same reason as claim 1. Claim 26 is allowable for the further reasons that Kuehne, on its own, does not include a planar unitary main body.”, the examiner disagrees, as detailed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below.
With respect to: “King II fails to disclose the subject matter of claim 9 as amended. Claim 9 recites that the dust collection portion is integrated with the housing and partially houses a dust collection system within the dust collection system, the dust collection system including a shroud portion including the upper and lower shroud portions.”, the examiner disagrees. See dust collecting portion DCP-2 in Fig. 9-A inserted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the shroud portion is located within the dust collection portion.” of claim 24 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 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” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the 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 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: “latching mechanism” in claims 6 and 9.
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 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 26 recites: “wherein the unitary main body is a planar unitary main body”. Nowhere does in the specification is the fan described as “a planar unitary main body”.
Planar as defined by Merriam-Webster is: “1: of, relating to, or lying in a plane; 2: two-dimensional in quality”. As shown in the annotated figures 4A and 4B, the marked elevated areas do not support the language of the claim. Therefore, it’s new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
950
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 recites the limitation: “wherein the shroud portion is located within the dust collection portion.”. Paragraph 0022 of the specification and claims 2 and 9 disclose: “a dust collection portion 20 that is integrated with the housing 14 and that partially houses a dust collection system 120.”. Dust collection portion 20 can only be seen in Fig. 2 and as best understood, it is offset from the center of the housing 14 and covers sections 136 and 140. The dust collection system 120 comprises of the shroud 130 as seen in Figs. 5A and 5B. It is unclear how the dust collection portion 20 which partially encloses the dust collection system 120 and has shroud portion 130 simultaneously within 20. For examination purposes, the limitation of “wherein the shroud portion is located within the dust collection portion.” has been construed as “wherein the shroud portion is located within the dust collection system.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II.
Referring to claim 1: CHEN II discloses an orbital sander comprising:
a housing (1 Fig. 1);
a drive unit (2, 3, 4, 5 Fig. 1) within the housing (1 Fig. 1), the drive unit including
an electric motor (2 Fig. 1) defining a rotational axis (rotational axis of 4),
a drive shaft (4 Fig. 1) coupled for co-rotation with the motor about the rotational axis (”the drive shaft can be wound around the first axis” [005]), the drive shaft (4 Fig. 1) including a lower portion (lower portion of 4 shown in Fig. 4), and
a fan (7 Figs. 1 and 6-9) rotatably coupled to the lower portion (lower portion of 4 shown in Fig. 1) of the drive shaft, the fan including
a unitary main body (“the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]) having a plurality of fan blades (77c, 78c, 76c Fig. 6-9),
an upper counterweight (weights of 78c Fig. 6-9) located on one side (see Fig. 7) of the main body and a lower counterweight (weights of 76c Figs. 6-9) located on an opposite side (see Fig. 7) of the main body for balancing [0032] the operation of the fan, and
an interruption region (region opposite to 76c, with larger spacing between blades 77c shown in Fig. 7) located opposite the lower counterweight (weights of 76c Figs. 6-9), wherein the fan blades located within the interruption region have a reduced mass (shown in Fig. 7); and
a baseplate (PL-2 Fig. 8-A inserted below) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (SH-2 Fig. 8-A inserted below), the baseplate (PL-2 Fig. 8-A inserted below) being coupled to the lower portion (lower portion of 4 shown in Fig. 4) of the drive shaft for orbital rotation about the rotational axis (rotational axis of 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
423
766
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 16: CHEN II discloses an orbital sander comprising:
a housing (1 Fig. 1);
a drive unit (2, 3, 4, 5 Fig. 1) within the housing (1 Fig. 1), the drive unit including an electric motor (2 Fig. 1) having a motor shaft (4 Fig. 1) extending from the motor,
a drive shaft (5 Fig. 1) coupled to the motor and offset (“the eccentric shaft is
rotatable about the second axis” [005]) from the motor shaft (4 Fig. 1), the drive shaft defining a rotational axis (“the eccentric shaft is rotatable about the second axis” [005]) and including a lower portion (lower portion of 5),
and a fan (7 Figs. 1 and 6-9) rotatably coupled to the lower portion (lower portion of 5) of the drive shaft (5 Fig. 1), the fan (7 Figs. 1 and 6-9) including a unitary main body (body of 7; “the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]) having a plurality of fan blades (77c, 78c, 76c Fig. 6-9), an upper counterweight (weights of 78c Fig. 6-9) located on one side of the main body (body of 7), and a lower counterweight (weights of 76c Figs. 6-9) located on an opposite side of the main body (body of 7) for balancing [0032] the operation of the fan; and a baseplate (PL-2 Fig. 8-A inserted above) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (SH-2 Fig. 8-A inserted above), the baseplate (PL-2 Fig. 8-A inserted above) being coupled to the lower portion (lower portion of 5) of the drive shaft for orbital rotation about the rotational axis (“second axis” [005]).
Referring to claim 26: CHEN II discloses the orbital sander of claim 1, wherein the unitary main body (“the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]) is a planar unitary main body (planar unitary main body with only the blades protruding shown in Figs. 6 and 7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2) and CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II.
Referring to claim 1: Kuehne et al. teaches an orbital sander (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a housing (12 Figs. 1 and 2); a drive unit (drive unit comprising of 30, 32, 46, and 92 Fig. 2) within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor (30 Fig. 2) defining a rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2), a drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) coupled for co-rotation with the motor (30 Fig. 2) about the rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2), the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) including a lower portion (46 Fig. 2), and a fan (34 Figs. 2-9) rotatably coupled to the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft, the fan (34 Figs. 2-9) including a main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4; Col. 5, lines 32-33) having a plurality of fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4), an upper counterweight (96 Fig. 3) located on one side of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) and a lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3) located on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 3) of the main body for balancing (“balanced” Col. 1, lines 23-24; Col. 6, lines 19-32) the operation of the fan, and an interruption region (IR fig. 1-A inserted below) located opposite the lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3), wherein the fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4) located within (blades of IR shown in Fig. 1-A) the interruption region (IR fig. 1-A inserted below) have a reduced mass (have a reduced mass due to their reduced height and less material used for their construction shown in Fig. 1-A inserted below); and a baseplate (49 Fig. 2) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (“sand paper” Col. 5, lines 19-27), the baseplate (49 Fig. 2) being coupled to (Col. 5, lines 19-27) the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) for orbital rotation about the rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2).
But is silent on the fan including a main body that’s specifically unitary.
CHEN II in an analogous orbital sander [005] teaches a similar configuration fan (fan 7 shown in Figs. 6 and 7) including a main body (main body of 7 shown in Figs. 6 and 7) that’s specifically unitary (shown in Figs. 6 ad 7; “the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan body of Kuehne et al with the unitary body as taught by CHEN II for the purpose of having a simple structure that’s also low cost ([0033] of CHEN II), and since such a modification would have involved making several structures into a single integral, continuous piece. Making structures as a single integral piece is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)
PNG
media_image3.png
646
1146
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 2: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 1, further comprising a motor housing (motor housing which supports 30 shown in Fig. 2) for housing the electric motor (30 Fig. 2); a battery receptacle (battery receptacle which receives the battery in sander 10, “the sander 10 may include a battery pack” Col. 5, line 4) for selectively receiving a battery pack (“battery pack” Col. 5, line 4) to provide electrical power to the motor; and a dust collection portion (portion of 20 which is integrated in 12 shown in Fig. 2) integrated with the housing (12 Figs. 1 and 2) for partially housing a dust collection system (20 Figs. 1 and 2).
Referring to claim 4: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 1, but is silent on wherein the fan blades located within the interruption region have specifically a height of 1 millimeter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interruption region fan blades with a 1 mm height, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a blade height of 1 mm which achieves the recognized result of drawing in dust and/or cooling the motor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Referring to claim 21: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 1, wherein the plurality of fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4) includes a first fan blade (first fan blade of 60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4) having a first height (shown in Figs. 3 and 4), a second fan blade (second fan blade of the IR region in Fig. 1-A inserted above) having a second height (shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above), and the first height is different (shown in Figs. 1-A, 3, and 4) than the second height.
Referring to claim 26: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 1, wherein the unitary main body (“the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]) is a planar unitary main body (planar unitary main body shown in Figs. 6 and 7).
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2) and CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II, as applied above in claim 2, and further in view of Hutchins (U.S. Patent No. 4,671,019 A).
Referring to claim 3: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 2, but is silent on further comprising a paper retention system including a front clamp supported on the baseplate, and a rear clamp supported on an opposite side of the baseplate as the dust collection portion.
Hutchins teaches a similar configuration sander comprising a paper retention system (FC, RC, and SF Fig. 2-A inserted below) including a front clamp (FC Fig. 2-A inserted below) supported on the similar configuration baseplate (18 Figs. 1 and 2), and a rear clamp (RC Fig. 2-A inserted below) supported on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the baseplate (18 Figs. 1 and 2), as the similar configuration dust collection portion (22 Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. as modified with the clamps as taught by Hutchins for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, securing the abrasive paper and allows the replacement as needed.
PNG
media_image4.png
305
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 7: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 3, wherein the paper retention system (FC, RC, and SF Fig. 2-A of Hutchins) further includes one or more stop features (SF Fig. 2-A of Hutchins) mounted to the similar configuration baseplate (18 Figs. 1 and 2 of Hutchins) for preventing flexion (once locked with the paper further flexing is prevented) of the front clamp (FC Fig. 2-A of Hutchins).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2) and CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II, as applied above in claim 2, and further in view of King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2) and Chen (U.S. Patent No. 8,382,559 B2).
Referring to claim 5: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 2, but is silent on wherein the dust collection system includes a shroud portion for partially enclosing the fan blades to form a seal between the housing and the fan blades, and a mating interface having a latch for selectively receiving a dust bag attachment.
King et al. teaches an analogous orbital sander (10 Fig. 1) wherein the dust collection system (82 and 130 Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) includes a shroud portion (82 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) for partially enclosing the similar configuration fan blades (fan blades of 88 and 90 Figs. 2 and 6; Col. 5, lines 18-20) to form a seal (seal created by 82 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) between the similar configuration housing (12 Figs. 1, 4, and 5) and the similar configuration fan blades (fan blades of 88 and 90 Figs. 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. with the dust collection system as taught by King et al. for the purpose of having a sealed dust collection system which efficiently channel’s dust to its intended place.
Chen in an analogous orbital sander teaches wherein a mating interface (31 Fig. 1) having a latch (LP-2 in Fig. 4-A inserted below) capable of selectively receiving a dust bag attachment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. with the mating interface and latch as taught by Chen for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate form of enclosing the sander which can be assembled for maintenance and a latch for enabling a quick-disconnect.
PNG
media_image5.png
344
434
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2), CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II, King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2), and Chen (U.S. Patent No. 8,382,559 B2), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Reich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,363 B2).
Referring to claim 6: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 5, but is silent on wherein the dust collection system further includes a latching mechanism that hooks onto the latch on the mating interface to selectively secure the dust bag attachment.
Reich et al. in an analogous sander (2 Fig. 1) teaches wherein the similar configuration dust collection system (4 Figs. 1-4) further includes a latching mechanism (10 Fig. 2) that hooks onto (shown in Fig. 1) the similar configuration latch (latch of 1 Fig. 1) on the similar configuration mating interface (mating interface of 1 shown in Fig. 1) to selectively secure the dust bag attachment (8 Figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. with the latching mechanism and dust bag attachment as taught by Reich et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having a quick-disconnecting connection for ease of use and a dust bag attachment for storing debris.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2) and CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II, as applied above in claim 2, and further in view of Sugita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,061,393 B2).
Referring to claim 8: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 2, but is silent on wherein the battery receptacle defines a battery insertion axis, and wherein the battery receptacle includes a lower portion that defines a plane obliquely oriented with respect to the battery insertion axis to create a gap between the battery pack and the battery receptacle when the battery pack is mounted to the battery receptacle, the plane and battery insertion axis defining therebetween an included angle between 0 and 10 degrees.
Sugita et al. in an analogous sander (1 Fig. 1) teaches wherein the battery receptacle (42 Fig. 4; LP Fig. 3-A inserted below) defines a battery insertion axis (BIA Fig. 3-A inserted below), and wherein the battery pack receptacle includes a lower portion (LP Fig. 3-A inserted below) that defines a plane (P Fig. 3-A inserted below) obliquely oriented with respect to the battery insertion axis (BIA Fig. 3-A inserted below) to create a gap (G Fig. 3-A inserted below) between the battery pack (40 Fig. 4 and Fig. 3-A inserted below) and the battery receptacle (42 Fig. 4; LP Fig. 3-A inserted below) when the battery pack is mounted to the battery receptacle, the plane and battery insertion axis (BIA Fig. 3-A inserted below) defining therebetween an included angle between 0 and 10 degrees (Col. 7, lines 3-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. with the battery configuration as taught by Sugita et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having an alternate battery configuration that adjusts the center of gravity which increases the comfort of use.
PNG
media_image6.png
572
535
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 16-20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2), CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II, and Sugita et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,061,393 B2).
Referring to claim 16: Kuehne et al. teaches an orbital sander (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a housing (12 Figs. 1 and 2); a drive unit (drive unit comprising of 30, 32, 46, and 92 Fig. 2) within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor (30 Fig. 2) having a drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) coupled to the motor, the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) defining a rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2) and including a lower portion (46 Fig. 2), and a fan (34 Figs. 2-9) rotatably coupled to the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft, the fan (34 Figs. 2-9) including a main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4; Col. 5, lines 32-33) having a plurality of fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4): an upper counterweight (96 Fig. 3) located on one side of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) and a lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3) located on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 3) of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) for balancing (“balanced” Col. 1, lines 23-24; Col. 6, lines 19-32) the operation of the fan; and a baseplate (49 Fig. 2) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (“sand paper” Col. 5, lines 19-27), the baseplate (49 Fig. 2) being coupled (Col. 5, lines 19-27) to the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) for orbital rotation about the rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2).
But is silent on having a motor shaft extending from the motor, and a drive shaft which is specifically offset from the motor shaft; and the fan including a main body that’s specifically unitary.
Sugita et al. in an analogous sander (1 Fig. 1) teaches a motor shaft (“rotation shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21) extending from the similar configuration motor (30 Fig. 5; Col. 5, lines 15-21), and a drive shaft (4 Fig. 5; “output shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21) which is specifically offset (shown in Fig. 5; shafts are coupled via a “belt” Col. 5, lines 15-21) from the motor shaft (“rotation shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to the sander of Kuehne et al. with the offset motor shaft as taught by Sugita et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, balancing the tool for ease of use.
CHEN II in an analogous orbital sander [005] teaches a similar configuration fan (fan 7 shown in Figs. 6 and 7) including a main body (main body of 7 shown in Figs. 6 and 7) that’s specifically unitary (shown in Figs. 6 ad 7; “the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fan body of Kuehne et al with the unitary body as taught by CHEN II for the purpose of having a simple structure that’s also low cost ([0033] of CHEN II), and since such a modification would have involved making several structures into a single integral, continuous piece. Making structures as a single integral piece is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)
Referring to claim 17: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 16, but is silent on further comprising a first pulley rotatably driven by the motor shaft: a second pulley coupled to the drive shaft oriented parallel to the first pulley: and a belt extending between the first and second pulleys for transmitting torque from the motor shaft to the drive shaft.
Sugita et al. in an analogous sander (1 Fig. 1) teaches a first pulley (“pulley fixed to rotation shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21) rotatably driven by the motor shaft (“rotation shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21): a second pulley (“pulley of the output shaft 4” Col. 5, lines 15-21) coupled to the drive shaft (4 Fig. 5; “output shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21) oriented parallel (oriented parallel via belt Col. 5, lines 15-21) to the first pulley (“pulley fixed to rotation shaft” Col. 5, lines 15-21): and a belt (“A belt (timing belt, not shown) is looped around these pulleys.” Col. 5, lines 15-21) extending between the first and second pulleys for transmitting torque from the motor shaft to the drive shaft.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. as modified with the pulley/ belt configuration as taught by Sugita et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, transmitting power between the offset shafts and having an efficient gear ratio.
Referring to claim 18: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 16, wherein the fan further includes an interruption region (IR fig. 1-A inserted above of Kuehne et al.) located opposite the lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3 of Kuehne et al.), and wherein the fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4 of Kuehne et al.) located within (blades of IR shown in Fig. 1-A of Kuehne et al.) the interruption region have a reduced mass (have a reduced mass due to their reduced height and less material used for their construction shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above of Kuehne et al.).
Referring to claim 19: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 16, further comprising a motor housing (motor housing which supports 30 shown in Fig. 2) for housing the electric motor (30 Fig. 2): and a battery receptacle (battery receptacle which receives the battery in sander 10, “the sander 10 may include a battery pack” Col. 5, line 4) for selectively receiving a battery pack (“battery pack” Col. 5, line 4) to provide electrical power to the motor.
Referring to claim 20: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 19, but is silent on wherein when the battery pack is mounted to the battery receptacle, the center of gravity is located substantially over a center of the baseplate.
Sugita et al. in an analogous sander (1 Fig. 1) teaches a similar configuration battery pack (40 Fig. 4 and Fig. 3-A inserted above) mounted to the similar configuration battery receptacle (42 Fig. 4; LP Fig. 3-A inserted above) with the center of gravity (Col. 6, lines 55-58) is located substantially over a center of the baseplate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. as modified with the battery configuration as taught by Sugita et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, improving the ergonomics and comfort when using the power tool, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Referring to claim 25: Kuehne et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 16, but is silent on wherein the orbital sander defines a center of gravity located on an opposite side of the drive shaft from the motor.
Sugita et al. in an analogous sander (1 Fig. 1) teaches wherein a center of gravity (Cols. 5-6, lines 65-2) located on an opposite side of the similar configuration drive shaft (4 Fig. 5) from the similar configuration motor (30 Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of Kuehne et al. as modified with the center of gravity configuration as taught by Sugita et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, improving the ergonomics and comfort when using the power tool, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)
Claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2), and Reich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,363 B2).
Referring to claim 9: King et al. teaches an orbital sander (10 Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (12 Figs. 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10; “The tool body 12 can further define a dust extraction port 20 (FIG. 4) to which dust can be extracted to a dust chamber 21.” Col. 4, lines 65-67);
a drive unit (18 Fig. 1; “drive system 18” Col. 4, line 61) within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor (36 Fig. 4) defining a rotational axis (rotational axis of drive shaft 38 Fig. 4),
a drive shaft (drive shaft 38 Fig. 4) coupled for co-rotation with the motor about the rotational axis, the drive shaft (drive shaft 38 Fig. 4) including a lower portion (lower portion of drive shaft 38 shown in Fig. 4 which mates with 94 Fig. 2), and
a fan (88 and 90 Figs. 2 and 6; “The attachment hub 82 can generally house a rotatable member 88 (FIG. 6). The rotatable member 88 can generally be in the form of a fan 90 having a counterweight 92.” Col. 6, lines 22-25) rotatably coupled (“The rotatable member 88 can define a mounting hub 93 that aligns for rotation with a female spline 94 that cooperatively receives the male spline 40 of the output member 38 in an installed position” Col. 6, lines 27-30) to the lower portion of the drive shaft (lower portion of drive shaft 38 shown in Fig. 4 which mates with 94 Fig. 2); and
a dust collection portion (DCP-2 Fig. 9-A inserted below) integrated with the housing (12 Figs. 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10) for partially housing (shown partially housing in Fig. 10) a dust collection system (20, 21, 82, 106 and 130 Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6; Col. 6, lines 21-25; Col. 7, lines 14-17) within the dust collection portion (DCP-2 Fig. 9-A inserted below), the dust collection system including
a shroud portion (82 and 106 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) including a separate upper shroud portion (82 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) and a lower shroud portion (106 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) that are coupled (“The shroud 106 can generally surround the rotatable member 88. In one example, the attachment hub 82, the chute 84 and the shroud 106 can be monolithic or integrally formed.” Col. 6, lines 41-44) and partially enclose the fan to form a seal (seal created by 82 and 106 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) between the housing (12 Figs. 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and the fan (88 and 90 Figs. 2 and 6),
a mating interface (end of 20 shown in Figs. 4 and 5) for selectively receiving a dust bag attachment (21 Fig. 1);
a baseplate (50 Fig. 1) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (“abrasive sheet” Col. 5, lines 45-51), the baseplate being coupled to the lower portion of the drive shaft (drive shaft 38 Fig. 4) for orbital rotation (“orbital motion” Col. 5, lines 33-36) about the rotational axis (rotational axis of drive shaft 38 Fig. 4).
But silent on a mating interface specifically having a latch, and
a latching mechanism for hooking onto the latch to secure the dust bag attachment;
a shroud portion specifically including a separate upper shroud portion and a lower shroud portion that are coupled and partially enclose the fan.
Reich et al. in an analogous sander (2 Fig. 1) teaches wherein the similar configuration dust collection system (4 Figs. 1-4) further includes a latching mechanism (10 Fig. 2) for hooking onto (shown in Fig. 1) the similar configuration latch (latch of 1 Fig. 1) on the similar configuration mating interface (mating interface of 1 shown in Fig. 1) to selectively secure the dust bag attachment (8 Figs. 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of King et al. with the latching mechanism and dust bag attachment as taught by Reich et al. for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, having a quick-disconnecting connection for ease of use and a dust bag attachment for storing debris.
PNG
media_image7.png
526
838
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 10: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 9, wherein the seal (seal created by 82 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) creates a vacuum effect (“The fan 90 can be configured to direct air through the chute 84 and into the dust extraction port 20.” Col. 6, lines 25-27) routing dust particles along a dust path through the interface (end of 20 shown in Figs. 4 and 5) and into the dust bag attachment (21 Fig. 1).
Referring to claim 23: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 9, wherein the dust collection portion (DCP-2 Fig. 9-A inserted above) is integrally formed (shown integrally formed in Figs. Figs. 9 and 10) with the housing (12 Figs. 1, 4, 5, 9, and 10).
Referring to claim 24: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 23, wherein the shroud portion (82 Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5) is located within the dust collection portion (DCP-2 Fig. 9-A inserted above).
Claims 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2), and Reich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,363 B2), as applied above in claim 9, and in further view of Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2).
Referring to claim 11: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 9, further comprising a motor housing (MH Fig. 6-A inserted below) for housing the electric motor (36 Fig. 4); King et al. discloses the orbital sander is capable of operating with other power sources (Col. 5, lines 10-12) but is silent on a battery receptacle for selectively receiving a battery pack to provide electrical power to the motor.
Kuehne et al. in an analogous orbital sander teaches a battery receptacle (battery receptacle which receives the battery in sander 10, “the sander 10 may include a battery pack” Col. 5, line 4) for selectively receiving a battery pack (“battery pack” Col. 5, line 4 of Kuehne et al.) to provide electrical power to the motor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the orbital sander of King et al. as modified for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, increasing the portability of the device as well as improving comfort of use.
PNG
media_image8.png
300
482
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 13: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 9, wherein the fan (88 and 90 Figs. 2 and 6) further includes a main body (main body of 88 and 90 shown in Fig. 6) having a plurality of fan blades (“The fan can include a plurality of upwardly projecting blades generally arranged to direct air toward the motor 36.” Col. 5, lines 18-20),
King et al. teaches a plurality of counterweights (“It is also appreciated that each of the counterweights (i.e., 92)” Col. 7, lines 8-9) shown on a side of the main body (shown in Fig. 6); but is silent on an upper counterweight located on one side of the main body and a lower counterweight located on an opposite side of the main body for balancing the operation of the fan, and an interruption region located opposite the lower counterweight, and wherein the fan blades located within the region have a reduced mass.
Kuehne et al. in an analogous orbital sander teaches an upper counterweight (96 Fig. 3 of) located on one side of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) and a lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3) located on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 3) of the main body for balancing (“balanced” Col. 1, lines 23-24; Col. 6, lines 19-32) the operation of the fan, and an interruption region (IR fig. 1-A inserted above) located opposite the lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3), and wherein the fan blades (60 and 66 Figs. 3 and 4) located within (blades of IR shown in Fig. 1-A) the region have a reduced mass (have a reduced mass due to their reduced height and less material used for their construction shown in Fig. 1-A inserted above).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of King et al. as modified with the fan counterweight configuration as taught by Kuehne et al. for the purpose of as it is known in the art, for minimizing vibration (Col. 6, lines 62-63).
Referring to claim 15: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 13, but is silent on wherein the fan blades located within the interruption region have a height of 1 millimeter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the interruption region fan blades with a 1 mm height, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is a blade height of 1 mm which achieves the recognized result of drawing in dust and/or cooling the motor, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2), and Reich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,363 B2), and in further view of Hutchins (U.S. Patent No. 4,671,019 A).
Referring to claim 12: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 9 but is silent on further comprising: a paper retention system including a front clamp supported on the baseplate, and a rear clamp supported on an opposite side of the baseplate as the dust collection portion.
Hutchins teaches a similar configuration sander comprising a paper retention system (FC, RC, and SF Fig. 2-A inserted above) including a front clamp (FC Fig. 2-A inserted above) supported on the similar configuration baseplate (18 Figs. 1 and 2), and a rear clamp (RC Fig. 2-A inserted above) supported on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 2-A inserted below) of the baseplate (18 Figs. 1 and 2), as the similar configuration dust collection portion (22 Figs. 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of King et al. as modified with the clamps as taught by Hutchins for the purpose of, as it is known in the art, securing the abrasive paper and allows the replacement as needed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,172,642 B2), Reich et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,976,363 B2), and Hutchins (U.S. Patent No. 4,671,019 A), as applied above in claim 12, and in further view of Richter (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0057046 A1).
Referring to claim 14: King et al. as modified teaches the orbital sander of claim 12, but is silent on further comprising a foam pad attached to the baseplate for supporting the sanding sheet, wherein the foam pad extends beyond one or more sides of the baseplate acting as a buffer between the baseplate and a work surface.
Richter teaches an analogous sander comprising a foam pad (14 Figs. 1 and 2; “a carrier element 14 of a yielding material 16, in the exemplary embodiment a polyurethane foam material” [0057]) attached to similar configuration baseplate (22 Figs. 1 and 2) for supporting the sanding sheet [0061], wherein the foam pad (14 Figs. 1 and 2) extends beyond one or more sides (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) of the similar configuration baseplate (22 Figs. 1 and 2) acting as a buffer between the baseplate and a work surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sander of King et al. as modified with the foam pad as taught by Richter for the purpose of, as it is well known in the art, having a material which can conform to evenly sand uneven surfaces.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuehne et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,102,048 B2) and CHEN (CN 109773635 A), herein referred to as CHEN II.
Referring to claim 22: Kuehne et al. teaches the orbital sander (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a housing (12 Figs. 1 and 2); a drive unit (drive unit comprising of 30, 32, 46, and 92 Fig. 2) within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor (30 Fig. 2) defining a rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2), a drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) coupled for co-rotation with the motor (30 Fig. 2) about the rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2), the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) including a lower portion (46 Fig. 2), and a fan (34 Figs. 2-9) rotatably coupled to the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft, the fan (34 Figs. 2-9) including a unitary (unitary body shown in Figs. 6 ad 7; “the weights of the first and second weight regions are all fan blade parts of the fan.” [007] of CHEN II) main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4; Col. 5, lines 32-33) having a plurality of fan blades (fan blades of 58 Fig. 5-A inserted below), an upper counterweight (96 Fig. 3) located on one side of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) and a lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3) located on an opposite side (shown in Fig. 3) of the main body for balancing (“balanced” Col. 1, lines 23-24; Col. 6, lines 19-32) the operation of the fan, and an interruption region (IR-2 fig. 5-A inserted below) located opposite the lower counterweight (98 Fig. 3), and a baseplate (49 Fig. 2) for selectively mounting a sanding sheet (“sand paper” Col. 5, lines 19-27), the baseplate (49 Fig. 2) being coupled to (Col. 5, lines 19-27) the lower portion (46 Fig. 2) of the drive shaft (32 and 46 Fig. 2) for orbital rotation about the rotational axis (A1 Fig. 2).
wherein the fan blades (fan blades of 58 Fig. 5-A inserted below) are formed only on a side (side 58 Figs. 3 and 5-A inserted below) of the main body (50 Figs. 3 and 4) in a facing relationship with the baseplate (49 Fig. 2).
But is silent on wherein the fan blades (fan blades of 58 Fig. 5-A inserted below) located within (blades of IR shown in Fig. 1-A) the interruption region (IR Fig. 1-A inserted above) specifically having a reduced mass.
Per MEPE 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: greater mass, reduced mass, or equal mass; further, the prior art teaches the blades of different heights (shown in Figs. 3 and 4) which in turn have a “reduced mass”.
Therefore, modifying the fan blades of Kuehne et al. to have fan blades located within the interruption region to specifically have a reduced mass, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the orbital sander system of Kuehne et al. with reasonable expectations of success.
It would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Kuehne et al. by having the fan blades located within the interruption region to specifically have a reduced mass for the purpose of having the intended balance of the fan to increase efficiency during use.
PNG
media_image9.png
346
460
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights