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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 26th, 2025 has been entered. The drawing objections, specification objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) claim rejections, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) claim rejections, and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections made in the previous office action are withdrawn in view of the amendments, except for those listed below.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of a number of grammatical errors. The following list is non-exhaustive and examiner requests applicant’s assistance in proofreading, identifying, and correcting any and all similar issues within the specification:
In Para. 0003, lines 20-21, the phrase “it cannot meet a modern factory that use robot for walking, as well as an intelligent logistics ground” is unclear. Does the applicant mean “it cannot meet the high-level requirements of a modern factory that uses robots for transporting, as well as an intelligent logistics ground”?
In Para. 0007, line 1-2, “no a technical problem” should read “no technical problem”
It is not clear what is meant by “delineating layer”, “floss layer”, and “magic stick” because no such terms appear to exist in the prior art. The applicant has provided clarification that “delineating layer” means a “hook portion”, “floss layer” means a “loop portion”, and “magic stick” means a “fastener” (specifically, a hook-and-loop fastener). However, if the terms are not being replaced, then the specification needs to be amended to include these definitions. Furthermore, the following items should be corrected:
In Para. 0032, “a delineating layer 61 with a magic stick” should read “a delineating layer 61 of a magic stick”
In Para. 0032, “a floss layer 62 with the magic stick” should read “a floss layer of the magic stick”.
In Para. 0035, “a floss layer 72 with a magic stick” should read “a floss layer 72 of a magic stick”.
In Para. 0035, “a delineating layer 71 with the magic stick” should read “a delineating layer 71 of the magic stick”.
In para. 0029, lines 4-5, the phrase “wherein a working surface of the chassis 3 is a separate flat disk, the width of the working surface of the chassis is above 500mm” is unclear for a few reasons. Firstly, how can a surface of the chassis be separate from the chassis? Secondly, how can a surface (a two-dimensional object) be described as a flat disk (a three-dimensional object)? From this description, it is unclear what the “working surface” is intended to be. Lastly, it is unclear if “width” refers to the thickness of the separate flat disk or the diameter. Examiner recommends amending the phrase to read “wherein the chassis is a circular flat disk with a diameter above 500mm”. The phrase also appears in para. 0032 and para. 0035.
In para. 0035, lines 1-2, “for a terrace with rough grinding, during smooth grinding” is unclear. Is the terrace undergoing rough or smooth grinding? Further clarification is needed.
Appropriate corrections are required. The specification should be revised carefully to avoid the addition of any new matter in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the phrase “a plurality of middle disk connecting through holes, corresponding to the plurality of upper disk connecting through holes” should read “a plurality of middle disk mounting holes, corresponding to the plurality of upper disk connecting through holes”.
In claim 1, line 12, the limitation “wherein the grinding disk of the ground grinding machine driven by the motor” should be removed, as it appears to be the preamble for one of the cancelled dependent claims that was combined with claim 1.
In claim 1, line 22, the limitation “anupper” should read “an upper”.
In claim 6, line 3, “a loop portion of fastener with a fastener” should read “a loop portion of a hook-and-loop fastener” for clarity and to establish proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not provide sufficient structure to explain how the “metal grinding blocks are embedded and mounted in the mounting grooves when struck by a hammer”. The specification merely repeats the language used in the claims, and does not speak to the specific structure of the metal grinding blocks and mounting grooves that enables the metal grinding blocks to be embedded and mounted in the mounting grooves when struck by the hammer (e.g., are the metal grinding blocks shaped to be wedged into the mounting grooves? Is there a snap fit? Is there a threaded connection?). Since the applicant does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, it is unreasonable to conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 112(a) due to their dependency on previously rejected claims.
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 1and 4-7 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, the limitation “wherein a working surface of the chassis is a separate flat disk, wherein the chassis is a circular with a diameter above 500mm” is unclear. Firstly, how can a surface of the chassis be separate from the chassis? Secondly, how can a surface (a two-dimensional object) be described as a flat disk (a three-dimensional object)? Lastly, the phrase “the chassis is a circular” is grammatically incorrect, because the word “circular” cannot be used as a noun (The word “circular” is an adjective). Examiner recommends amending the limitation to read “wherein the chassis is a circular flat disk with a diameter above 500mm”, and will treat the limitation in this way for examination purposes. Consequentially, the later limitation “onto the working surface of the chassis” should read “onto the lower surface of the chassis”.
Regarding claim 1, in line 10, “the abrasive” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “the plurality of abrasives”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein a center of the upper disk is fixedly connected to an output shaft of the direct-drive motor along a circumferential direction, a center of the middle disk is fixedly connected to the upper disk along the circumferential direction, and a center of the chassis is fixed on the middle disk along the circumferential direction” is unclear. What does it mean for a center to be fixedly connected along a circumferential direction? The metes and bounds are unclear. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as the upper disk, middle disk, and chassis being stacked on top of each other in that order with their central axes aligned.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the upper disk passes through the upper disk bolt mounting through hole through the upper disk bolt” is unclear. How can the “upper disk” pass through its own “through hole”? For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “the upper disk bolt passes through the upper disk bolt mounting through hole through the upper disk”.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation wherein “the middle disk has a raised central position” is unclear. What is the reference frame to determine if the middle disk is in a raised central position? Further clarification is needed. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as ““the middle disk has a raised central portion”.
Regarding claim 6, in line 2, “the abrasive” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “the plurality of abrasives”.
Regarding claim 7, in line 2, “the abrasive” lacks antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “the plurality of abrasives”.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 112(b) due to their dependency on previously rejected claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the claim element “wherein the plurality of abrasives is resin grinding blocks or ceramic blocks” replaces the claim element “wherein the plurality of abrasives is metal grinding blocks”. Therefore, the claim omits an element from the independent claim, which is considered improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (See MPEP 608.01(n) (III) Test for Proper Dependency, “If claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements… a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends”).
Regarding claim 7, the claim element “wherein the plurality of abrasives is animal hair mats or felts” replaces the claim element “wherein the plurality of abrasives is metal grinding blocks”. Therefore, the claim omits an element from the independent claim, which is considered improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) (See MPEP 608.01(n) (III) Test for Proper Dependency).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 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, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlhac et al. (US 20090186567 A1), hereinafter Orlhac, in view of Wang et al. (CN 2060101 U), hereinafter Wang, Kimoto et al. (US 20130331015 A1), hereinafter Kimoto, and Christian (US 3823516 A).
Regarding claim 1, Orlhac discloses (Fig. 1, 2A, and 2C) a grinding disk (10) intended for a grinding machine (Para. 0008, lines 4-5), comprising a chassis (20), wherein the chassis is a circular flat disk (Fig. 2A; Para. 0044, line 3) with a diameter above 500mm (Para. 0043, lines 12-15; The diameter of the chassis ranges from 125mm to 1200mm or more), mounting grooves (mounts 40; Para. 0047, lines 4-6, the mounts could be “cavities” into which the abrasives may be “inserted”; The plain meaning of “groove” is a low area in a surface1) are arranged on a lower surface (24) of the chassis (Fig. 2A), and a plurality of abrasives (30) is fixedly installed through the mounting grooves (Para. 0047, lines 1-6); wherein the mounting grooves are arranged to fix the plurality of abrasives onto the lower surface of the chassis (Fig. 2A; Para. 0047, lines 1-6); wherein the plurality of abrasives are embedded and mounted in the mounting grooves (Fig. 2A; In regards to the limitation “when struck by a hammer”, it has been held that “if the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” [MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims]); and wherein the chassis is a circular flat disk of which a central part is provided with a chassis central through hole (Fig. 2A) and a plurality of lower disk mounting holes (60) penetrating up and down are circumferentially arranged on the chassis.
The grinding disk being part of “a ground grinding machine driven by a motor” does not limit the structure of the grinding disk being claimed and therefore is considered intended use (MPEP 2111.02). Similarly, the following recitation wherein “the motor is a vertical shaft direct-drive motor, the direct-drive motor is directly or indirectly connected to the chassis” is also considered intended use. Orlhac discloses wherein the grinding disk is provided with an array of threaded fastener portions (60) forming any number of patterns for fastening the grinding disk to a grinding machine (Para. 0052, lines 1-5), and therefore can be used for the intended purpose. As evidenced by Wang, there exists in the prior art a ground grinding machine (Fig. 1; Para. 0001, lines 3-4) driven by a vertical shaft direct-drive motor (2; Para. 0009, line 1) configured to connect to a chassis (7) via threaded fasteners (Fig. 2; Para. 0013, lines 11-12).
However, Orlhac fails to disclose wherein the plurality of abrasives is metal grinding blocks.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the plurality of abrasives could contain abrasive grain-like diamond particles (Para. 0045, lines 1-4), and may be fabricated by any abrasive/bond combination known in the art (Para. 0045, lines 4-7). Kimoto teaches (Fig. 1-4) a grinding wheel (1A) for grinding concrete (Para. 0003, line 3) with a grinding block (11) that is composed of diamond abrasive grains bonded by a metal alloy mainly containing copper, tin, iron, cobalt, and nickel to improve machining force or performance (Para. 0051, lines 1-4 and lines 14-17).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the plurality of abrasives of Orlhac to be formed of diamond abrasive grains bonded by a metal alloy containing copper, tin, iron, cobalt, and nickel to improve machining force or performance when grinding concrete, as taught by Kimoto.
Furthermore, Orlhac fails to disclose in Fig. 1, 2A, and 2C wherein a plurality of mounting grooves are arranged in a regular pattern in the circumferential direction around the chassis to form a cycle of mounting grooves, and wherein a plurality of cycles of mounting grooves are arranged around the chassis.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the plurality of abrasives and the gaps formed between them may be shaped and arranged to form any geometric pattern suitable for a particular grinding operation (Para. 0048, lines 7-9; Para. 0051, lines 1-3) and provides example patterns in Fig. 6A-6F. It is implicit that the mounting grooves will follow the same pattern as the abrasives they are intended to support (Para. 0047, lines 3-4; See MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure). In particular, Fig. 6B shows implicitly wherein a plurality of mounting grooves are arranged in a regular pattern in the circumferential direction around the chassis to form a cycle of mounting grooves (e.g., pattern 1), and wherein a plurality of cycles of mounting grooves (e.g., patterns 1 and 2) are arranged around the chassis (See annotated Fig. 6B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
352
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6B (Orlhac)
Accordingly, because Orlhac suggests alternate geometric arrangements for the plurality of the abrasives, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the plurality of abrasives of Orlhac, and thereby the mounting grooves, to appear as in Fig. 6B, because this pattern has been presented by Orlhac as being suitable for particular grinding operations and would be within the level of routine skill in the art.
Furthermore, Orlhac fails to explicitly disclose a specific example of the grinding disk being attached to a grinding machine. In particular, Orlhac fails to disclose an upper disk, a middle disk, or any of the limitations concerning these two components.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the lower disk mounting holes may form any number of patterns for fastening the grinding disk to a grinding machine (Para. 0052, lines 1-5). Christian teaches (Fig. 1-4) a means of attaching a chassis (18) to a floor grinding machine (10) wherein the chassis is fixed on a middle disk (13) along a circumferential direction; and wherein the middle disk is fixedly connected to an upper disk (20) along a circumferential direction; and wherein the upper disk is configured to receive an output shaft of a direct-drive motor (Fig. 4; Col. 4, lines 25-29). The middle disk has a raised central portion (Annotated Fig. 4), a plurality of middle disk mounting holes (Annotated Fig. 4), corresponding to a plurality of upper disk connecting through holes (Annotated Fig. 4), are circumferentially arranged at a raised upper surface of the middle disk near an outside edge of the raised upper surface of the middle disk (Annotated Fig. 4), a plurality of middle disk connecting through holes (Annotated Fig. 4) penetrating up and down are circumferentially arranged at the middle disk near an outside edge of the middle disk (Annotated Fig. 4). Christian further discloses that the central cutout (16; See annotated Fig. 4) through the upper disk, middle disk, and chassis is optional (Col. 4, lines 6-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
693
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Christian)
Christian further teaches that the primary function of the upper disk is to act as a coupling means to a drive member of a suitable floor maintenance device (Col. 10, lines 40-44). Wang teaches (Fig. 2) a ground grinding machine (Fig. 1; Para. 0001, lines 3-4) with an upper disk comprising an upper cylindrical section, lower cylindrical section, output shaft mounting stand, upper disk shaft, and upper disk connecting through holes (See annotated Figure 2). Wang further teaches that an output shaft is connected to the upper disk by screws, but does not specify a specific configuration (Pg. 3, lines 4-5). Kimoto teaches (Fig. 2; Para. 0063, lines 1-5) wherein a grinding wheel (1A) is fixed to a shaft of a rotary tool (51) by a nut or the like fastened in the axial direction of the shaft.
PNG
media_image3.png
342
622
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Wang)
Accordingly, because the chassis of Orlhac is provided with a plurality of the lower disk mounting holes for mounting it to a grinding machine, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to attach the chassis of a Orlhac to a middle disk attached to an upper disk attached to the shaft of a grinding machine, as taught by Christian, in order to drive the grinding disk to polish a floor. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to alter the shape of the upper disk to have an upper cylindrical section, lower cylindrical section, output shaft mounting stand, and upper disk shaft as these alterations were known in the art, as taught by Wang, and would not affect the primary function of the upper disk; Therefore, these change to the shape of the upper disk are insignificant (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.B Changes in Shape; Examiner notes that having the chassis central through hole match the diameter of the lower cylindrical section is also an insignificant change in shape because Christian teaches that the chassis central through hole could be removed altogether). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to use screws to fix the output shaft of the grinding machine to the upper disk, as taught by Wang, wherein the screws could be inserted in the axial direction through the lower cylindrical section into the shaft to hold the grinding disk with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Kimoto, to achieve the predictable result of fixedly connecting the output shaft to the grinding disk to drive rotation.
Furthermore, Orlhac as modified by Kimoto, Wang, and Christian fails to disclose an elastic damping rubber ring arranged between the middle disk and the chassis.
Nevertheless, Kimoto teaches (Fig. 1-4) a grinding wheel (1A) for grinding concrete (Para. 0003, lines 1-4) wherein an elastic damping rubber ring (15; Para. 0056, lines 3-6) is placed in-between a chassis (8) and middle disk (2) to absorb vibrations and soften shocks during a working operation (Para. 0056, lines 9-13) which can cause damage, like the formation of “wrinkles”, to a workpiece (Para. 0007).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grinding wheel of Orlhac (as modified by Christian, Wang, and Kimoto) to include an elastic damping rubber ring in-between the chassis and middle disk, as taught by Kimoto, in order to reduce vibrations and soften shocks that can damage a workpiece during operation of a grinding machine.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Orlhac as modified by Christian, Wang, and Kimoto discloses wherein the plurality of cycles of the mounting grooves are alternately arranged along the circumferential direction (See annotated Fig. 6B of Orlhac above). Therefore, the combination of Orlhac with Christian, Wang, and Kimoto discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Orlhac as modified by Christian, Wang, and Kimoto fails to disclose wherein the plurality of cycles of mounting grooves are alternately arranged along a radial direction from a center of the chassis.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the plurality of abrasives and the gaps formed between them may be shaped and arranged to form any geometric pattern suitable for a particular grinding operation (Para. 0048, lines 7-9; Para. 0051, lines 1-3) and provides example patterns in Fig. 6A-6F. It is implicit that the mounting grooves will follow the same pattern as the abrasives they are intended to support (Para. 0047, lines 3-4; See MPEP 2144.01 Implicit Disclosure). In particular, Fig. 6C shows implicitly wherein a plurality of mounting grooves are arranged in a regular pattern in the circumferential direction around the chassis to form a cycle of mounting grooves (e.g., pattern 1), wherein a plurality of cycles of mounting grooves (e.g., patterns 1, 2, and 3) are arranged around the chassis (See annotated Fig. 6C below), and wherein the plurality of cycles of mounting grooves are alternately arranged along a radial direction from a center of the chassis.
PNG
media_image4.png
323
487
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6C (Orlhac)
Accordingly, because Orlhac suggests alternate geometric arrangements for the plurality of the abrasives, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the plurality of abrasives of Orlhac, and thereby the mounting grooves, to appear as in Fig. 6C, because this pattern has been presented by Orlhac as being suitable for particular grinding operations and would be within the level of routine skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlhac in view of Kimoto, Wang, and Christian, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Van Eijden et al. (US 20120122378 A1), hereinafter Van.
Regarding claim 6, Orlhac as modified by Kimoto, Wang, and Christian disclosed the grinding disk of claim 1. Orlhac further discloses wherein the plurality of abrasives may contain ceramic abrasive grains (Para. 0045, lines 1-4, alumina zirconia, silicon carbide, and CBN are ceramic materials), and therefore the plurality of abrasives of Orlhac is within the scope of a ceramic grinding block.
However, Orlhac fails to disclose wherein the ceramic grinding blocks are fixed to the lower surface of the chassis by a hook-and-loop fastener.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the plurality abrasives may be fastened to the chassis in any convenient manner (Para. 0047, lines 1-2). Furthermore, Van teaches (Fig. 4) a grinding disk (1) for grinding concrete or marble (Para. 0037, lines 2-5) comprising a chassis (3) wherein a hook-and-loop fastener (24 and 26) is used to attach grinding blocks (5 and 6) to the chassis; One layer of the hook-and-loop fastener (24) is glued to the chassis and the other layer of the hook-and-loop fastener (26) is glued to the grinding blocks (Para. 0054, lines 2-4; Para. 0055, lines 1-2). Van teaches that using a hook-and-loop fastener allows easy replacement of the grinding blocks and saves time (Para. 0012, lines 4-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grinding disk of Orlhac to include a hook-and-loop fastener to fix the ceramic grinding blocks to the chassis, as taught by Van, in order to facilitate easy replacement of the grinding blocks and save time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orlhac in view of Kimoto, Wang, and Christian, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Van and Fiore (US 20140154961 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Orlhac as modified by Kimoto, Wang, and Christian disclosed the grinding disk of claim 1.
However, Orlhac fails to disclose wherein the plurality of abrasives are animal hair mats or felts, and wherein a hook-and-loop fastener is used to fix the animal hair mats or felts to the lower surface of the chassis.
Nevertheless, Orlhac suggests that the plurality abrasives may be fastened to the chassis in any convenient manner (Para. 0047, lines 1-2). Furthermore, Van teaches (Fig. 4) a grinding disk (1) for grinding concrete or marble (Para. 0037, lines 2-5) comprising a chassis (3) wherein a hook-and-loop fastener (24 and 26) is used to attach grinding blocks (5 and 6) to the chassis; One layer of the hook-and-loop fastener (24) is glued to the chassis and the other layer of the hook-and-loop fastener (26) is glued to the grinding blocks (Para. 0054, lines 2-4; Para. 0055, lines 1-2). Van teaches that using a hook-and-loop fastener allows easy replacement of the grinding blocks and saves time (Para. 0012, lines 4-13). Furthermore, Fiore teaches (Para. 0022, lines 30-34; Para. 0010, lines 5-6) that it well known to use felt pads for the final step in the polishing process of flat marble or granite floors in order to achieve a shiny finish.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grinding disk of Orlhac to include a hook-and-loop fastener to fix the grinding blocks to the chassis, as taught by Van, in order to facilitate easy replacement of the grinding blocks and save time. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the grinding blocks of Orlhac to be felt pads, as taught by Fiore, in order to create a shiny finish on a marble or granite floor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26th, 2025, and reproduced below in bolded text, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
…the function of the elastic plate 15 in Kimoto is to absorb vibration and soften impact… The elastic damping rubber ring can effectively ensure the large-area flexible connection of the chassis and the middle disk, and reduce the requirements on the connecting bolts while ensuring the great torque. Therefore, the elastic plate of Kimoto and the elastic damping rubber ring of the present application each play different roles, so even if those skilled in the art would not think of combining Kimoto on the basis of Orlhac, the technical features of claim 10 of the present application cannot be obtained.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The elastic damping rubber ring can effectively ensure the large-area flexible connection of the chassis and the middle disk, and reduce the requirements on the connecting bolts while ensuring the great torque”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that “the elastic plate of Kimoto and the elastic damping rubber ring of the present application each play different roles, so (…) the technical features of claim 10 of the present application cannot be obtained”, 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).
In this case, the grinding wheel of Orlhac (as modified by Christian, Wang, and Kimoto) was modified by the teachings of Kimoto to include an elastic damping rubber ring in-between the chassis and middle disk, because it has the advantage of reducing vibrations and softening shocks that can damage a workpiece during operation of a grinding machine. The inventor has recognized additional advantages to this known structure, but they cannot act as the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. Therefore, the combination of Orlhac with Christian, Wang, and Kimoto, as presented in this office action, still renders the limitation “wherein an elastic damping rubber ring is arranged between the middle disk and the chassis” as obvious, regardless of whether the additional advantages recognized by the applicant are added to the claims.
Compared with the prior art, the present disclosure has the following advantages: the independent grinding disk is adopted, so the size of the working surface of the grinding disk can be set freely, the great-torque direct- drive motor is adopted for driving, and the torque is great; the single-point grinding of the independent grinding disk replaces the multi-point grinding of the multi-point grinding disk, so as to really achieve the flat ground grinding; the grinding blocks can be dismounted and replaced, so the maintenance is quick and convenient; the middle disk is connected to the chassis through the elastic damping rubber ring, so as to reduce the starting torque and achieve the buffering effect; the fixed devices may adopt the arrangement modes of circumferential alternate or radial alternate, so that the grinding positions of the grinding 15 blocks installed on the fixed devices can compensate for each other, the groove-free and flat grinding is achieved, the uniform and complete grinding is ensured while reducing the quantity of the grinding blocks, and any combination and arrangement may be carried out according to the ground demands, for example, when reducing a grinding diameter, the grinding blocks may be installed to a central position"
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the independent grinding disk (…) freely”, “the great-torque direct-drive motor (…) great”, “the single-point grinding (…) grinding”, “the grinding blocks can be dismounted and replaced (…) convenient”, “the middle disk (…) effect”, and “the fixed devices (…) position”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 SAVINO ROJAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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.
/SAVINO ROJAS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
1 The meaning of “groove” was obtained from The Britannica Dictionary: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/groove