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
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but prior to a decision on the appeal. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 11/3/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
2. Amendments filed 11/3/2025 have been entered, wherein claims 1-15 are pending. Accordingly, claims 1-15 have been examined herein. The previous claim objections, 35 USC 112(a) rejections and 35 USS 112(b) rejections have not been addressed and are therefore updated and maintained.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim uses letters followed by a period (a., b., c., d., e., and f.) to differentiate between limitations. However, MPEP 608.01(m) requires each claim to begin with a capital letter and end with a period and that periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. The additional periods (a., b., c., d., e., and f.) should be removed or replaced to avoid this issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claims 1-15 are 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide proper written description for the phrase “wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes”. Therefore, the figures would need to be relied upon to provide support for this limitation. Examiner notes MPEP section 2125 which states proportions of features in a drawing are not evidence of actual proportions when drawings are not to scale. Referencing figs. 1 and 7 of the instant application, it is not explicitly clear if the figures support the added limitation. Regarding fig. 1, the view of this figure appears to lack support for the phrase “wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes”. Figure 7 includes a different view point. From the viewpoint of fig. 7, the examiner can identify a width of the spoke which is narrower than a space between the spokes. Specifically, a width at the radially innermost section of the spoke is narrower than a radially outermost space between the spokes. However, from the view point of fig. 7, it is not explicitly clear if the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes. Overall, the disclosure does not provide proper written description for the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes. Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
5. 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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 9, the language recites “a disc insert retained in the disc retainer, wherein the disc is adapted”. However, the term “the disc” lacks proper antecedent basis. Specifically, the term “disc” alone has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “a disc insert retained in the disc retainer, wherein the disc insert is adapted”
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 2, the claim language recites “air flow openings formed between the spokes”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring multiple airflow openings between each set of spokes or if the language is requiring an air flow opening between each set of spokes. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “an air flow opening[[s]] formed between the spokes, respectively”.
Regarding claim 3, the language recites “spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring multiple spoke indents formed on each spoke or if the language is requiring a single spoke indent formed on each spoke. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “a spoke indent[[s]] formed on an underside of each of the spokes, respectively,”.
Regarding claim 5, the language recites “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally”. However, the term “disc protrusion retainers” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if this is the same or in addition to the previously mentioned “disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer further includes the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers extending horizontally”.
Regarding claim 5, the language recites “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls”. However, as best understood by the examiner, the disc retainer only includes a single sidewall because it has the shape of a circle and therefore the disc protrusion retainers all extend from the same sidewall. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from a disc retainer sidewall[[s]]”.
Regarding claim 6, the language recites “wherein the disc protrusion retainers include” and “wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include”. However, the term “disc protrusion retainers” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the “disc protrusion retainers” is the same or different from the previously introduced “disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers include” and “wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers also include”.
Regarding claim 8, the language recites “air flow openings formed between the spokes”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring multiple airflow openings between each set of spokes or if the language is requiring an air flow opening between each set of spokes. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “an air flow opening[[s]] formed between the spokes, respectively”.
Regarding claim 9, the language recites “spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes”. However, it is not precisely clear if the language is requiring multiple spoke indents formed on each spoke or if the language is requiring a single spoke indent formed on each spoke. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “a spoke indent[[s]] formed on an underside of each of the spokes, respectively,”.
Regarding claim 11, the language recites “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally”. However, the term “disc protrusion retainers” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if this is the same or in addition to the previously mentioned “disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer further includes the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers extending horizontally”.
Regarding claim 11, the language recites “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls”. However, as best understood by the examiner, the disc retainer only includes a single sidewall because it has the shape of a circle and therefore the disc protrusion retainers all extend from the same sidewall. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from a disc retainer sidewall[[s]]”.
Regarding claim 12, the language recites “wherein the disc protrusion retainers include” and “wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include”. However, the term “disc protrusion retainers” lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not precisely clear if the “disc protrusion retainers” is the same or different from the previously introduced “disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitations will be interpreted as “wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers include” and “wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding [[protrusion]] retainers also include”.
Regarding claim 13, the language recites “wherein the arc retainer is an interference fit”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by this limitation. Specifically, as best understood by the examiner, the arc retainer is the slot which receives the arc insert. Therefore, it is not precisely clear how the slot can be an interference fit. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the arc retainer secures the arc insert through [[is]] an interference fit”.
Regarding claim 13, the language recites “wherein the arc retainer is formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers”. However, this language is not clear as the term “arc retainer” refers to the recess shaped arc as introduced in claim 7. Specifically, it is not precisely clear how the recess can be a horizontal retainer. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the proximal arc protrusion retainer and the pair of distal arc protrusion retainers are [[arc retainer is]] formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers”.
Regarding claim 14, the language recites “wherein the disc inserts and the arc inserts are both retained”. However, the terms “disc inserts” and “arc inserts” lack proper antecedent basis. Specifically, the language has previously only introduced a single disc insert and a single arc insert. It is not precisely clear if the language of claim 14 is requiring multiple or single of each of the disc inserts and the arc inserts. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein the disc insert[[s]] and the arc insert[[s]] are both retained”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4-8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft et al. (US PGPUB 20180369981), hereinafter Craft, in view of Luk-Tung et al. (US PGPUB 20100175237), hereinafter Luk-Tung, and further in view of Cichy et al. (US PGPUB 20180304442), hereinafter Cichy, and further in view of Menken et al. (EP 3231321), hereinafter Menken.
Regarding claim 1, Craft teaches a floor polishing armature (fig. 58, polishing disk 560) comprising:
an inner ring (see annotated fig. 58 below) having an inner ring upper surface (opposite side of inner ring shown in fig. 58) and an inner ring lower surface (as seen in fig. 58, wherein fig. 58 is a bottom view [0070]);
PNG
media_image1.png
622
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
b. an outer ring (see annotated fig. 58 above);
c. spokes extending between the inner ring and the outer ring (see annotated fig. 58 below. The indicated structure is being interpreted as spokes which extend between the inner ring and the outer ring),
PNG
media_image2.png
622
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
d. a disc retainer formed on the outer ring (see annotated fig. 58 above.);
f. a disc insert (ring pads 564 and small pucks 565 are together interpreted as the disc insert) retained in the disc retainer (fig. 58, [0153]), wherein the disc is adapted for floor treatment (figs. 56-58, wherein Craft teaches polishing disk 560 is similar to disk 540 but with larger cutouts [0153]. The polishing disk of fig. 58 is capable of floor treatment).
Craft does not explicitly teach
wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes;
e. a spoke opening extending from the inner ring upper surface to the inner ring lower surface, wherein the spoke opening extends to the disc retainer; and
wherein the disc insert is released by pressing through the spoke opening, wherein the disc insert does not protrude through the spoke opening,
wherein the disc retainer has disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers;
wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers retains the disc insert.
However, Luk-Tung teaches a system for mounting an abrasive tool to a drive plate of grinding and polishing machines, wherein the machines can be machines used on floors [0043]. Specifically, Luk-Tung teaches abrasive tools 10 are mounted to drive plate 12 via pins 18 being inserted into holes 22 (fig. 1b), wherein a spring 24 fits into groove of pin 18 and allows for easy insertion and removal from a polisher or grinding machine [0033-0034]. The pins drop into the holes of the drive plate and are held by the springs 24. The tool mounting plate is placed on the drive plate by simply pushing the pins into the designated holes 98. Removing can be done by either pulling or pushing from the reverse side the tool mounting plate [0033-0034]. Luk-Tung teaches
a opening (holes 22 are being interpreted as openings, fig. 1b)) extending from the upper surface to the lower surface (fig. 1b, holes 22 extend from the upper surface to the lower surface of the plate); and
wherein the tool insert is released by pressing through the opening (Luk-Tung teaches removing can be done by either pulling or pushing from the reverse side the tool mounting plate [0033-0034]. Therefore, Luk-Tung teaches the tool insert is released by pressing through the opening 22), wherein the tool does not protrude through the opening (fig. 1a-1b, the tool is interpreted as the mounting plate 14 and the abrasive section 10 (fig. 1a). The tool does not protrude through the opening of the plate 12. Rather, a pin (which is not interpreted as part of the tool) attached to the tool is received in the opening 22 of fig. 1b. Therefore, the tool does not protrude through the opening).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Craft to incorporate the teachings of Luk-Tung to provide a spoke opening extending from the inner ring upper surface to the inner ring lower surface, wherein the spoke opening extends to the disc retainer; and wherein the disc insert is released by pressing through the spoke opening, wherein the disc insert does not protrude through the spoke opening. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the disc of Craft to include wherein the disc inserts are mounted via the mounting structure of Luk-Tung (including pins, springs and holes), wherein the disc includes a spoke opening extending from the inner ring upper surface to the inner ring lower surface (as taught by holes 98 of Luk-Tung, wherein the holes (of Luk-Tung) would extend from the inner ring upper surface (of Craft) to the inner ring lower surface (of Craft)), wherein the spoke opening extends to the disc retainer (The hole (as incorporated from Luk-Tung) is positioned to mount the disc insert. Therefore, the hole extends to the disc retainer), wherein the disc insert is released by pressing through the spoke opening (as taught by Luk-Tung), wherein the disc insert does not protrude through the spoke opening (rather, a pin is received in the spoke opening which is not interpreted as the disc insert). Doing so would allow the disc inserts to be mounted and retained as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote the savings of time when the disc inserts need to be replaced due to wear, because the connection configuration of Luk-Tung allows for easy insertion and removal from a polishing machine [0033 of Luk-Tung]. Additionally, doing so would allow the operator to change the disc inserts without the need of tools [0035 of Luk-Tung].
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes,
wherein the disc retainer has disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers;
wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers retains the disc insert.
However, Cichy teaches a grinding body having reduced weight (fig. 1a-1b), wherein the grinding body includes an inner ring, an outer ring, spokes, and spaces between the spokes (see annotated fig. 1a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
420
549
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Cichy teaches wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes (see fig. 1a above, wherein the spokes have a width narrower than a space between the spokes). Further, Cichy teaches the connecting structure 6 is formed of several radially outwardly running spokelike arranged struts, of which only two struts 6a, 6b are represented here. This has the advantage that, due to the cutout areas, a depositing of grinding dust on the connecting structure can be reduced [0049].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Cichy to provide wherein the spokes have a width equal to or narrower than a space between the spokes. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the spokes of Craft (as interpreted above) and slots 532 of Craft such that the spokes have a width narrower than a space between the spokes (as taught by Cichy). Doing so would reduce the depositing of grinding dust on the spoke structure [0049 of Cichy] which promotes cleanliness. Additionally, doing so would provide a more light weight disc of Craft, which would make the device easier to transport.
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach
wherein the disc retainer has disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers;
wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers retains the disc insert.
However, Menken teaches a tool insert (fig. 1, element 10) which is received in a disc (fig. 2, element 30), wherein the disc retainer has disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers (see annotated fig. 2 below, wherein the indicated structures are interpreted as disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers);
wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers retains the disc insert (Menken teaches the tool insert is secured to the disc via the projections 14 being received in the grooves 42, wherein a rotation of the plate 12 relative to the carrier 30 secures the plate 12, and a unidirectional torque transmission between carrier 30 and plate body 12 is provided (second paragraph on page 12 of attached translation)), wherein the disc includes protrusion retainers (see annotated fig. 2 below, wherein the indicated structures are interpreted as protrusion retainers) extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (see annotated fig. below. The structure interpreted as the protrusion retainers extends horizontally from the disc retainer sidewalls). Menken teaches the tool insert is secured to the disc via the projections 14 being received in the grooves 42, wherein a rotation of the plate 12 relative to the carrier 30 secures the plate 12, and a unidirectional torque transmission between carrier 30 and plate body 12 is provided (second paragraph on page 12 of attached translation),
PNG
media_image4.png
465
568
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein the disc includes protrusion retainers (see annotated fig. 2 above, wherein the indicated structures are interpreted as protrusion retainers)
extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (see annotated fig. below. The structure interpreted as the protrusion retainers extends horizontally from the disc retainer sidewalls), wherein the disc protrusion retainers include a distal disc protrusion retainer (see annotated fig. 2 below), and a proximal disc protrusion retainer (see annotated fig. 2 below), wherein the proximal disc protrusion retainer is opposite the distal disc protrusion retainer (see annotated fig. 2 below), wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include a first lateral disc protrusion retainer and a second lateral disc protrusion retainer (see annotated fig. 2 below), wherein the second lateral disc protrusion retainer is opposite the first lateral disc protrusion retainer (see annotated fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
486
793
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Menken to provide
wherein the disc retainer has disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers (of claim 1);
wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers retains the disc insert (of claim 1);
wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (of claim 5 and 11);
wherein the disc protrusion retainers include a distal disc protrusion retainer, and a proximal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the proximal disc protrusion retainer is opposite the distal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include a first lateral disc protrusion retainer and a second lateral disc protrusion retainer, wherein the second lateral disc protrusion retainer is opposite the first lateral disc protrusion retainer (of claim 6 and 12).
Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide wherein the disc inserts (of Craft) are additionally secured to the disc (of Craft) via the mounting structures of Menken (including projections 14 and grooves 42), wherein the grooves 42 (of Craft) include distal, proximal, first lateral and second lateral disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (as interpreted above when taught by Craft). Doing so would provide unidirectional torque transmission (as taught by Craft) between the disc and the disc inserts (of Craft), which prevents the disc inserts from rotating within the disc retainers, thereby promoting a uniform surface finish. Additionally, doing so would further secure the disc inserts in the disc retainers to prevent the disc inserts from falling out during operation.
Regarding claim 2, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches further including: airflow openings formed between the spokes (fig. 58 of Craft, slots 532 are interpreted as airflow openings).
Regarding claim 4, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc retainer is a first disc retainer, and further including: a second disc retainer, a third disc retainer, and a fourth disc retainer (fig. 58 of Craft, including a first disc retainer, a second disc retainer, a third disc retainer and a fourth disc retainer).
Regarding claim 5, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers were incorporated from Menken).
Regarding claim 6, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc protrusion retainers include a distal disc protrusion retainer, and a proximal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the proximal disc protrusion retainer is opposite the distal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include a first lateral disc protrusion retainer and a second lateral disc protrusion retainer, wherein the second lateral disc protrusion retainer is opposite the first lateral disc protrusion retainer (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers were incorporated from Menken which include a distal, proximal, first lateral and second lateral retainer).
Regarding claim 7, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches an arc retainer (fig. 58 of Craft, the recess in which kidney pad 562 is nested is being interpreted as an arc retainer); an arc insert (fig. 58 of Craft, kidney pad 562 and circular pocks 563 are together being interpreted as the arc insert [0153]), wherein the arc insert is retained in the arc retainer (fig. 58, [0153 of Craft]), wherein the arc insert is mounted inline with the disc insert (fig. 58 of Craft, a line can be drawn between a single arc insert of fig. 58 and a single disc insert of fig. 58. Therefore, the arc insert is mounted inline with the disc insert).
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach an arc opening formed on the outer ring, wherein the arc opening extends to an arc retainer;
wherein the arc insert is released by pressing through the arc opening.
However, Luk-Tung teaches a system for mounting an abrasive tool to a drive plate of grinding and polishing machines, wherein the machines can be machines used on floors [0043]. Specifically, Luk-Tung teaches abrasive tools 10 are mounted to drive plate 12 via pins 18 being inserted into holes 22 (fig. 1b), wherein a spring 24 fits into groove of pin 18 and allows for easy insertion and removal from a polisher or grinding machine [0033-0034]. The pins drop into the holes of the drive plate and are held by the springs 24. The tool mounting plate is placed on the drive plate by simply pushing the pins into the designated holes 98. Removing can be done by either pulling or pushing from the reverse side the tool mounting plate [0033-0034]. Luk-Tung teaches
an opening (holes 22 are being interpreted as openings, fig. 1b));
wherein the arc insert is released by pressing through the opening (Luk-Tung teaches removing can be done by either pulling or pushing from the reverse side the tool mounting plate [0033-0034]. Therefore, Luk-Tung teaches the tool insert is released by pressing through the opening 22).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Luk-Tung to provide an arc opening formed on the outer ring, wherein the arc opening extends to an arc retainer; wherein the arc insert is released by pressing through the arc opening. Specifically, it would have been obvious to modify the disc of Craft to include wherein the arc inserts are mounted via the mounting structure of Luk-Tung (including pins, springs and holes), wherein an arc opening is formed on the outer ring (as taught by holes 98 of Luk-Tung), wherein the arc opening extends to an arc retainer (The hole (as incorporated from Luk-Tung) is positioned to mount the arc insert. Therefore, the hole extends to the arc retainer); and wherein the arc insert is released by pressing through the arc opening (as taught by Luk-Tung). Doing so would allow the arc inserts to be mounted and retained as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote the savings of time when the arc inserts need to be replaced due to wear, because the connection configuration of Luk-Tung allows for easy insertion and removal from a polishing machine [0033 of Luk-Tung]. Additionally, doing so would allow the operator to change the arc inserts without the need of tools [0035 of Luk-Tung].
Regarding claim 8, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches further including: airflow openings formed between the spokes (fig. 58 of Craft, slots 532 are interpreted as airflow openings).
Regarding claim 10, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc retainer is a first disc retainer, and further including: a second disc retainer, a third disc retainer, and a fourth disc retainer (fig. 58 of Craft, including a first disc retainer, a second disc retainer, a third disc retainer and a fourth disc retainer).
Regarding claim 11, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc retainer further includes disc protrusion retainers extending horizontally from disc retainer sidewalls (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers were incorporated from Menken).
Regarding claim 12, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc protrusion retainers include a distal disc protrusion retainer, and a proximal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the proximal disc protrusion retainer is opposite the distal disc protrusion retainer, wherein the disc protrusion retainers also include a first lateral disc protrusion retainer and a second lateral disc protrusion retainer, wherein the second lateral disc protrusion retainer is opposite the first lateral disc protrusion retainer (see above rejection of claim 1 for more details, wherein the disc retainer horizontally protruding retainers were incorporated from Menken which include a distal, proximal, first lateral and second lateral retainer).
Regarding claim 14, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the disc inserts and the arc inserts are both retained by interference fit (Craft, as modified, teaches the disc inserts and the arc inserts are retained via the mounting structure of Luk-Tung, wherein the pins 18 and springs 24 fitting into the holes 22 (as incorporated from Luk-Tung) to secure the tool insert is an interference fit).
Regarding claim 15, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the inner ring is adapted to connect to a floor polishing machine driveshaft.
However, Craft additionally teaches an embodiment (fig. 34) wherein a mounting disk 332 includes a drive socket 331 rigidly formed from disk 332. The socket 331 may accept round, hex, square, flat and other type of shaft ends. The assembly 330 is driven by engine or motor drive through socket 331 [0136].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the additional teaches of Craft to provide wherein the inner ring is adapted to connect to a floor polishing machine drive shaft. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate Craft’s drive socket 331 onto the inner ring so the device of fig. 58 of Craft is adapted to connect to a floor polishing machine driveshaft. Doing so would allow the device of fig. 58 of Craft to be driven by a floor polishing machine in order to process the floor.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft et al. (US PGPUB 20180369981), hereinafter Craft, in view of Luk-Tung et al. (US PGPUB 20100175237), hereinafter Luk-Tung, and further in view of Cichy et al. (US PGPUB 20180304442), hereinafter Cichy, and further in view of Menken et al. (EP 3231321), hereinafter Menken, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Barbier et al. (EP 3542961), hereinafter Barbier.
Regarding claim 3, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches wherein the outer ring is not a flat plate (see annotated fig. 58 of Craft below. The outer ring, as interpreted includes raised structures 561 on structure 531. Therefore, the outer ring, as interpreted is not a flat plate).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes between the inner ring and the disc retainer, wherein the inner ring is not a flat plate.
However, Cichy further teaches wherein the inner ring (inner member 4) is not a flat plate (fig. 1b). Additionally, Cichy teaches the inner ring has a correspondingly shorter axial extension on one side. Thanks to this asymmetrical configuration, a further weight reduction is accomplished in particular, which makes possible a reduction of the rotational mass and the centrifugal forces during the machining process and thus higher acceleration [0051].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to provide wherein the inner ring is not a flat plate. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Cichy to modify the inner ring of Craft to provide wherein the inner ring of Craft resembles the configuration of the inner ring of Cichy (fig. 1b). Doing so would provide a further weight reduction which makes possible a reduction of the rotational mass and the centrifugal forces during the machining process and thus higher acceleration [0051 of Cichy].
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes between the inner ring and the disc retainer.
However, Barbier teaches a holder for an abrasive material including a holding element 3 for releasably connecting to the tool 2 (fig. 1). Additionally, Barbier teaches the holding element 3 includes spokes (indicated by element 6 in fig. 1). Barbier teaches the holding element 3 includes spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes (see annotated fig. 2 below) between the inner ring (structure indicated by element 4 in annotated fig. below) and the outer edge (see annotated fig. below). Barbier teaches the spoke indents allow for increased air flow which aids in carrying away dust and dirt particles that arise during use of the tool (last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation).
PNG
media_image6.png
474
797
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Barbier to provide spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes between the inner ring and the disc retainer. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include spoke indents (as taught by Barbier) formed on an underside of the spokes (of Craft) between the inner ring and the disc retainer (of Craft). Doing so would allow for increased air flow which aids in carrying away dust and dirt particles that arise during use of the tool (last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation of Barbier). Additionally, doing so would promote cooling of the tool and work surface, which prevents damage to the tool and work surface.
Regarding claim 9, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach further including: spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes between the inner ring and the disc retainer.
However, Barbier teaches a holder for an abrasive material including a holding element 3 for releasably connecting to the tool 2 (fig. 1). Additionally, Barbier teaches the holding element 3 includes spokes (indicated by element 6 in fig. 1). Barbier teaches the holding element 3 includes spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes (see annotated fig. 2 below) between the inner ring (structure indicated by element 4 in annotated fig. below) and the outer edge (see annotated fig. below). Barbier teaches the spoke indents allow for increased air flow which aids in carrying away dust and dirt particles that arise during use of the tool (last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation).
PNG
media_image6.png
474
797
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Barbier to provide spoke indents formed on an underside of the spokes between the inner ring and the disc retainer. Specifically, it would have been obvious to include spoke indents (as taught by Barbier) formed on an underside of the spokes (of Craft) between the inner ring and the disc retainer (of Craft). Doing so would allow for increased air flow which aids in carrying away dust and dirt particles that arise during use of the tool (last paragraph on page 4 of the attached translation of Barbier). Additionally, doing so would promote cooling of the tool and work surface, which prevents damage to the tool and work surface.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craft et al. (US PGPUB 20180369981), hereinafter Craft, in view of Luk-Tung et al. (US PGPUB 20100175237), hereinafter Luk-Tung, and further in view of Cichy et al. (US PGPUB 20180304442), hereinafter Cichy, and further in view of Menken et al. (EP 3231321), hereinafter Menken, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Gamba (US PGPUB 20110287700).
Regarding claim 13, Craft, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 7. Additionally, Craft, as modified, teaches pucks may be attached to disk by socket bolting or snap hardware or hook-and-loop rapid attachment [0094 of Craft].
Craft, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the arc retainer further includes a proximal arc protrusion retainer opposing a pair of distal arc protrusion retainers, wherein the arc retainer is an interference fit, wherein the arc retainer is formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers.
However, Gamba teaches a supporting device for an abrasive tool and corresponding abrasive tool including an upper half box 3b which includes a plurality of tabs 71 including locking teeth (projections) 72 which are configured to be received in respective cavities 73 of a lower half box 3a. Overall, Gamba teaches a snap hardware configuration (tabs 71 and cavities 73) for connecting an abrasive tool. Gamba teaches wherein the mounting structure includes a proximal arc protrusion retainer opposing a pair of distal arc protrusion retainers (see annotated fig. 3 below, wherein one of the proximal tabs is interpreted as the proximal arc protrusion retainer and two of the distal tabs are interpreted as a pair of distal arc protrusion retainers), wherein the arc retainer is an interference fit (Gamba teaches each of said tabs 71 is positioned at a respective cavity 73 and can be inserted inside said respective cavity. Gamba teaches insertion of said tabs 71 inside said cavities 73 entails an elastic flexion of said tabs 71, due to the effect of the locking teeth 72 protruding towards the outside in sliding contact with the walls 32a, until the locking teeth 72 go beyond said cavity 73, hooking to said cavities 73 and snap engaging [0047]. The elastic flexion of the tabs in sliding contact with the walls until the teeth go beyond the cavity and the teeth expand to hook said cavities is interpreted as an interference fit.), wherein the arc retainer is formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers (see below annotated fig. 3, wherein the tabs are formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers).
PNG
media_image7.png
633
738
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Craft, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Gamba to provide wherein the arc retainer further includes a proximal arc protrusion retainer opposing a pair of distal arc protrusion retainers, wherein the arc retainer is an interference fit, wherein the arc retainer is formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate wherein the arc inserts (of Craft) are further attached to the arc retainers (of Craft) via the snap hardware configuration of Gamba, wherein the arc retainers include tabs (of Gamba) which are receivable in cavities (of Gamba) provided on the arc inserts, wherein the arc retainer (of Craft) further includes a proximal arc protrusion retainer (proximal tab as taught by Gamba) opposing a pair of distal arc protrusion retainers (pair of distal tabs as taught by Gamba), wherein the elastic flexion of the tabs in sliding contact with the walls until the teeth go beyond the cavity and the teeth expand to hook said cavities provides an interference fit, wherein the incorporated tabs are formed as horizontally protruding arc retainers. Doing so would further secure the arc inserts into the arc retainers to prevent the arc inserts from falling out during operation.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended language as modified. Specifically, Applicant argues the prior art fails to teach the amended language of claim 1 and the amended language of claim 13. However, previously relied upon Menken was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 1 and previously relied upon Gamba was relied upon to teach the amended language of claim 13. See above rejection for more details.
Additionally, the claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections of record have not been addressed. The claim objections and 35 USC 112 rejections of record have been updated and maintained. See above rejection for more details.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723