DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogelberg (US 2023/0152838, previously cited) in view of Oh (KR 101435166, previously cited) and Shishido (US 5363600).
Regarding claim 1, Fogelberg teaches a walk-behind machine (100; fig 1) adapted for grinding or polishing concrete floors, comprising: a frame (frame carrying elements 110, 120 and handle as shown in fig 1) having forward and rear portions (left and right portions as viewed in fig 1) that pivots about a single set of right and left wheels (wheels shown in rear of frame in fig 1); the rear portion of the frame including a handle bar assembly (as shown in annotated fig 1), the handle bar assembly being hinged to the frame via a pivoting joint (described [0019]); an engine (120) mounted on the forward portion of the frame (fig 1); a planetary (described as planetary in claim 20) grinding head (110) coupled to the forward portion of the frame underneath the engine (as shown in fig 1) and powered by the engine ([0030]); and wherein the engine is directly, mechanically coupled to the grinding head without the use of pulleys, belts or chains (by centrifugal clutch shown in fig 2; [0031]).
Fogelberg does not teach a water tank coupled to the frame or a water feed line facilitating wet floor grinding or polishing. Oh teaches a walk-behind machine for grinding or polishing concrete floors comprising a water tank (410; [0060]) coupled to a rear portion of a frame (frame 110 labeled in fig 1 and shown unlabeled in fig 5 with water tank coupled to rear portion), between an engine (230) and a handle bar assembly (including elements 130, 132 shown labeled in fig 1), and a water feed line (430) from the water tank to a grinding head (as shown in fig 5) facilitating wet floor grinding or polishing ([0062-0063]), wherein the water tank is mounted on the frame above wheels between the engine and a pivoting joint of the handle bar assembly (as shown in figs 1 and 5). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a water tank on the rear portion of the frame of Fogelberg between the engine and pivoting joint with a water feed line from the water tank to the grinding head, as this allows the machine to utilize water to prevent dust from spreading to the air and reducing frictional heat as taught by Oh ([0004]).
Oh and Fogelberg do not teach the water feed line extending to a front portion of the grinding head located in front of the engine relative to the handle bar assembly (the water feed line of Oh extends forward as shown in fig 5, but not to the portion of the grinding head in front of the engine relative to the handle bar assembly). However, it has been held that it is obvious for a person of ordinary skill to rearrange of parts when there would be no change in the operation of the device (MPEP 2144.04 VI C.). Furthermore, Shishido teaches a walk-behind machine adapted for grinding or polishing floors including a water feed line (3a) extending to a front portion of a grinding head located in front of an engine (engine within cover 1a; col 2, lines 57-62) relative to a handle bar assembly (7; as shown in fig 1, water feed line 3a extends in front of engine relative to handle 7 before entering shroud 2). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the water feed line to extend to a front portion of the grinding head of Fogelberg located in front of the engine relative to the handle bar assembly, as the position or extent of the water feed line would not affect the operation of the machine, and the disclosure of Shishido demonstrates that this position for a water feed line is known in the art and would predictably achieve the desired result of providing liquid to the grinding head to facilitate wet grinding or polishing (Shishido col 2, lines 64-66).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Fogelberg, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fogelberg further teaches the engine is a propane engine ([0030]); the engine is directly coupled to the grinding head through a centrifugal clutch (220; [0031]); and the grinding head is encased in a shroud (see annotated fig below) coupled to a tube (see annotated fig below; coupled through frame) for dust collection associated with dry floor grinding or polishing (the function of dust collection associated with dry grinding and polishing is provided by the structure of the tube).
Regarding claim 6, Fogelberg, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. Fogelberg is silent as to whether the tube is an exhaust out tube extending into the shroud (it is unclear from Fogelberg whether the tube extends into the shroud). Oh further teaches the machine includes a grinding head encased in a shroud (210; fig 1) and coupled to a tube (352) for dust collection ([0055]), wherein the tube is an exhaust out tube extending into the shroud (extends into shroud through element 340 as shown in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the tube of Fogelberg to extend into the shroud as an exhaust out tube, as this position achieves the predictable result of allowing dust to be suctioned and collected from the work surface as taught by Oh ([0047], [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Fogelberg, as modified by Oh and Shishido, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Shishido further teaches the water feed line (3a; included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) extends along the frame above the grinding head from the rear portion to the forward portion (Shishido fig 1).
Regarding claim 11, Fogelberg, as modified by Oh and Shishido, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fogelberg further teaches a shroud that encases the grinding head (see annotated fig below). Shishido further teaches the water feed line (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) enters the shroud (2) at the front portion of the grinding head (Shishido teaches shows this in fig 1 and this positioning is rendered obvious for the reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogelberg, Oh, and Shishido as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buchanan (US 6343981, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Fogelberg, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fogelberg is silent as to the specific structure of the engine, and thus does not explicitly teach an air intake or catalytic exhaust (although an air intake would be necessary to provide the desired combustion for the engine taught by Fogelberg [0030]). Buchanan teaches a grinder/polisher adapted for concrete floors powered by an engine (652; fig 14) including an air intake (indicated by fan shown in fig 14) and a catalytic exhaust (650). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an air intake and catalytic exhaust to the engine of Fogelberg, achieving the predictable result of providing oxygen for the combustion desired by Fogelberg, and to reduce pollutants from said combustion, permitting the grinder to be used indoors as taught by Buchanan (col 5, lines 38-44).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fogelberg, Oh, and Shishido as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stoll (US 2008/0171499, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Fogelberg, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fogelberg does not teach gas springs coupled between the frame and the grinding head for weight distribution. Stoll teaches a walk-behind grinder/polisher adapted for concrete floors including gas springs (31a) coupled between a frame (12; fig 1) and a grinding head (52 described [0026], mislabeled as 5 in fig 1) for weight distribution (function provided by the presence of the springs). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple gas springs between the frame and grinding head of Fogelberg in order to allow the grinding head to float on the work surface, allowing up and down movement to follow the contours of an uneven surface as taught by Stoll ([0026]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant generally argues there is no disclosure in the prior art of the claimed water tank and water feed line locations. Examiner respectfully disagrees and these disclosures are detailed in the rejection above. Applicant specifically argues that Fogelberg and Oh do not teach the water feed line extending to the claimed front portion of the grinding head. However, this is rendered obvious by the disclosure of Shishido as detailed in the rejection above. Applicant argues that the prior art “lacks the associated benefits of the claimed structural configuration,” pointing to paragraphs [0023] and [0029] of the PGPub of the instant application as describing a benefit to the water tank and water feed line locations. However, applicant’s specification provides no disclosure of a particular benefit to the claimed arrangement of the tank and water line. Applicant’s specification merely discloses that the water tank and water feed line “facilitate wet floor grinding and polishing,” and has no description of any particular benefit to the arrangement of these elements. Additionally, even if applicant’s specification were to describe a particular benefit to the tank and water feed line locations, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore Fogelberg, Oh, and Shishido render claim 1 obvious for the reasons detailed in the rejection above.
Regarding claims 8 and 11, applicant further argues that Fogelberg and Oh do not teach the particularly claimed locations of the water feed line. However, as detailed above, these elements are rendered obvious by the newly cited Shishido reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other grinding machines with similar water tanks and feed lines are cited.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723