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 Interpretation
Examiner is interpreting “at least one holder notch” recited in claims 1-2 as --at least one holder protrusion-- as a notch is essentially a recess and at least Fig. 3A of Applicant’s drawings do not show two notches (i.e. recesses) engaging each other, but instead show a protrusion engaging a notch.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Locking mechanism” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idil (CN106041692), attached as a PDF, in view of Yates et al. (US5933966), hereinafter Yates, and as further evidenced by Fronek (US20100261414).
Regarding claim 1, Idil discloses an adjustable sander comprising: a body (Fig. 3 element 110);
a flexible base (Fig. 3 element 120) having a first end and a second end spaced apart from one another (see annotated Fig. 3 below), and wherein the first end and second end is each pivotally attached to the body (0013), and wherein the flexible base is configured to move between a concave configuration, a neutral configuration, and a convex configuration relative to the body (0013);
a removable sanding surface affixed to a surface of the flexible base that is distal from the body (0056, where an abrasive sheet corresponds to a removable sanding surface);
a mechanism (Fig. 4 element 140) configured to cause the flexible base to be in a desired one of the concave, neutral or convex configurations (0051-0053 and 0093); and
the mechanism comprises:
an axial (Fig. 4 elements 141 and 143) including a head (Fig. 4 element 143) and a shaft (Fig. 4 element 141) extending along a shaft axis (Fig. 4 element 145); and
a sleeve (Fig. 4 element 144) configured to be positioned around the shaft (Fig. 3).
Idil fails to disclose that the mechanism is a locking mechanism configured to selectively lock the flexible base in a desired one of the concave, neutral or convex configurations, and the shaft includes a series of shaft notches;
a selector having an operator surface and a holder coupled to the selector, wherein the operator surface is accessible from outside the body and the holder includes an engagement surface having at least one holder notch configured to selectively engage at least one of the shaft notches, and wherein the selector is selectively movable from a disengaged position, wherein the at least one holder notch is disengaged from the shaft notches, to an engaged position to move the at least one holder notch perpendicularly relative to the shaft axis and into the selectively engaged relationship with the at least one of the shaft notches.
Yates is also concerned with a handheld tool and teaches the shaft (Fig. 2 element 16) includes a series of shaft notches (Fig. 2 elements 28a-28d and 29a-29d);
a selector (Fig. 2 element 19) having an operator surface (Fig. 2, where the upper surface of element 19 which protrudes beyond element 12 in the upward direction corresponds to an operator surface) and a holder (Fig. 2 element 26) coupled to the selector (Figs. 2-3, 4:43-48), wherein the operator surface is accessible from outside the body (Figs. 2-3) and the holder includes an engagement surface (Fig. 3 element 27) having at least one holder notch (Fig. 3 element 27, where the at least one holder notch is a subset of the engagement surface which encompasses the entirety of the engagement surface and where “holder notch” is being interpreted a protrusion (see claim interpretation section above)) configured to selectively engage at least one of the shaft notches (Fig. 2, 4:48-52), and wherein the selector is selectively movable from a disengaged position, wherein the at least one holder notch is disengaged from the shaft notches (4:19-34, where “a second position” corresponds to a disengaged position), to an engaged position (4:19-34, where “a first position” corresponds to an engaged position) to move the at least one holder notch perpendicularly relative to the shaft axis and into the selectively engaged relationship with the at least one of the shaft notches (see annotated Fig. 2 below, 5:11-34, where “upward” corresponds to a movement direction of the holder notch which is perpendicular relative to the shaft axis and where the selector is moved from the disengaged position to the engaged position to allow the at least one holder notch to move upwardly out of a first shaft notch (e.g. 28d) and then downwardly into a second shaft notch (e.g. 28c)). It 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 to modify the adjustable sander of Idil to have a series of shaft notches and a selector and holder as defined above, as taught by Yates, because Yates teaches that the interaction between the shaft notches, selector, and holder as recited above allows for adjusting to a desired length position and then fixing that length position (5:23-34), and selectively fixing a position of a sanding profile of an adjustable sander is known in the art, as evidenced by Fronek, to allow “sanding of the precisely set radiuses of surface curvatures” (see the last sentence of Fronek 0007, and also see 0076 of Fronek where “to achieve the most accurate setting and the firmest fixing of the pressure plate to the required radius of the curved or flat surface, it is advantageous to fix as many as possible points” provides further evidence for selectively fixing a sanding profile of an adjustable sander).
Idil, as modified, then yields the mechanism is a locking mechanism (Idil, Fig. 4 element 140 as modified by the teachings of McCoy as described above) configured to selectively lock the flexible base in a desired one of the concave, neutral or convex configurations (Idil, 0051-0053 and 0093 discloses using the locking mechanism to move the flexible base into each of the claimed configurations and Yates, 5:23-34 teaches adjusting the position and then fixing the position (i.e. selectively locking) of the locking mechanism).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
700
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the operator surface of the selector is a thumb slider (Yates, 4:12-15).
Regarding claim 12, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a spring (Idil, Fig. 4 element 150) positioned around the shaft (Idil, Fig. 3) and configured to be selectively compressed between the head of the shaft and the sleeve (Idil, Fig. 4, the spring (150) is capable of compressing in an area between the head (143) of the shaft (141) and the sleeve (144)).
Regarding claim 13, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the body is constructed of a two-part clam shell (Idil, Fig. 4 elements 110a and 110b are each part of a two-part clam shell).
Regarding claim 14, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses first and second connecting arms (Idil, Fig. 4 element 127 corresponds to a first connecting arm and element 128 corresponds to a second connecting arm) spaced apart from one another (Idil, Fig. 4) and each having one end connected to the flexible base (Idil, Fig. 1, where elements 24 and 25 correspond to one end of each connecting arm), and a second end connected to the body (Idil, Fig. 1, where elements 11 and 12 correspond to a second end of each connecting arm), and wherein said connecting arms are configured to facilitate greater pivotal movement of the flexible base relative to the body (Idil, 0055).
Regarding claim 15, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses a vacuum tube coupling (Idil, Fig. 4 elements 170 and 180) having one end (Idil, Fig. 8 element 171) configured to engage a vacuum mechanism (Idil, 0058, where a standard vacuum hose corresponds to a vacuum mechanism) and the other end (Idil, Fig. 9 element 183) configured to facilitate access to sanded particles freed by the sanding surface (Idil, 0058).
Examiner notes that “vacuum mechanism” recited in claim 15 has not been interpreted under 112(f) because the vacuum mechanism does not appear to be a part of the adjustable sander and is therefore being interpreted broadly. Applicant has not provided any definition for “vacuum mechanism” in the specification. Therefore, no patentable weight has been given to the “vacuum mechanism” other than the vacuum tube coupling on the adjustable sander must be capable of engaging a generic vacuum mechanism.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idil (CN106041692), attached as a PDF, in view of Yates et al. (US5933966), hereinafter Yates, as further evidenced by Fronek (US20100261414), and in further view of Rusell (US6672565).
Regarding claim 10, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose the locking mechanism further includes a detent biased by a spring, and wherein said detent is configured to engage detent receiving surfaces on the selector.
Russell is also concerned with solving the problem of locking an object in place and teaches a detent (Fig. 2 element 26) biased by a spring (Fig. 2 element 28, 9:9-20), and wherein said detent is configured to engage detent receiving surfaces (Fig. 1A element 14).
Modifying the adjustable sander of Idil, as modified, with the teachings of Russell, as described above, yields the locking mechanism further includes a detent (Russell, Fig. 2 element 26) biased by a spring (Russell, Fig. 2 element 28, 9:9-20), and wherein said detent is configured to engage detent receiving surfaces on the selector (Russell, 9:21-30 where detent receiving surfaces on the selector corresponds to the groove (14)). It 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 to modify the adjustable sander of Idil, as modified, to have a detent biased by a spring to engage detent receiving surfaces of the object which the detent is meant to inhibit movement of, as taught by Russell, because Russell teaches that this allows for the object to resist unwanted movement (Russell, 9:9-30).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Idil (CN106041692), attached as a PDF, in view of Yates et al. (US5933966), hereinafter Yates, as further evidenced by Fronek (US20100261414), and in further view of Suzuki (JP2001054833), attached as a PDF.
Regarding claim 11, Idil, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to disclose at least one of the shaft notches and holding notches are chamfered.
Suzuki is also concerned with solving the problem of locking an object in place and teaches chamfering notches (0032).
Modifying the adjustable sander of Idil, as modified, with the teachings of Suzuki, as described above, yields at least one of the shaft notches and holding notches are chamfered (Suzuki, 0032). It 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 to modify the adjustable sander of Idil, as modified, to chamfer at least one of the shaft notches and holding notches, as taught by Suzuki, because Suzuki teaches that a chamfered surface makes it easier for mechanical locking engagement to occur (Suzuki, 0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claims 2, 4, and 5, the closest arts of record, Idil (CN106041692A) and Yates et al. (US5933966), fail to disclose, suggest, or make obvious in combination with the additional elements or each respective claim the following features:
Each tine’s engagement surface has at least one holder notch thereon as recited in claim 2.
The sleeve defines a window, and the engagement surface of the holder is capable of engaging the shaft notches through said window as recited in claim 4.
Claim 5 would be allowable as being dependent on an allowed claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on a different combination of prior art as the combination of prior art challenged by Applicant in the Arguments/Remarks.
Examiner notes that examiner does not find Applicant’s argument that using Fronek as an evidentiary reference is improper Fronek does not disclose selectively “fixing” or “locking” the flexible base to be unpersuasive. Examiner finds that Applicant has pointed to a specific example within Fronek (specifically example 1 discussed in 0074 of Fronek) which is not the example examiner has relied upon (specifically example 2 discussed in 0076 of Fronek) which does discussed “fixing of the pressure plate” and therefore Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steen (US2091495) teaches a locking mechanism (Fig. 3 elements 18-22) where the selective locking occurs by a perpendicular movement of an element of the locking mechanism relative to a shaft axis (Fig. 3, 3:38-42).
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 CALEB A HOLIZNA whose telephone number is (571)272-5659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached on 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723