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 Arguments
Claims 1, 5-20, 24, 31-32, 34, 41-44, 49, 73, 74, and 78-80 are currently pending.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response filed 11/1/2025, Applicant amended claim 19 to reflect an independent form due to Examiner indicating the scope of previous claim 19 as allowable. However, Applicant omitted incorporating the intervening subject matter of additional dependent claims, and Examiner determined that presently amended claim 19 is not in condition for allowance as a result.
Applicant amended the claims in order to overcome the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn where appropriate, however Examiner has additionally provided updated 112(b) rejections as a result of Applicant’s amendments.
Regarding the prior art, Applicant argues that Lundum does not teach “the distal end is continuous between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end…” because the strips 12 are formed in a series of segments (page 10, Arguments). Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards a narrower scope than what is required by the claimed invention. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the combination of segments which form the unitary strip teach a unitary distal end spanning the length of each strip (12). The claim does not impart a monolithic structure, and a continuous distal end is still taught by the structure of the individual strip.
Applicant argues that Lundum does not disclose or teach the claimed blade retention structure required of newly recited independent claim 78, and that Kegg does not resolve the shortcomings of Lundum because “removal of the deformable member 38 does not enable removal of the vanes 34” (page 12, Arguments). Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. While claim 78 is newly presented, Examiner will address the relevant arguments directed towards the previously applied (and updated below) prior art combination.
Lundum discloses that the structure of the retaining cover (24) is provided in a manner which upon removal of the cover, the strips (12) may be removed from respective grooves (18); see Col. 3, lines 54-62; Col. 4, lines 41-45; Col. 5, lines 35-40; Col. 6, lines 39-47; Col. 7, lines 49-52. Kegg provides a slightly alternative structure for mounting the end cap(s) (30), and thus removal of the end cap (and the claimed spring member or snap-ring) would also enable the combination of Lundum in view of Kegg to remove the strips (12 of Lundum) from respective grooves.
For the above stated reasons, Examiner has not found Applicant’s arguments persuasive. Examiner has updated the grounds of rejection below where appropriate, as necessitated by amendment. This action is made final herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 5-18, 20, 24, 31, 32, 34, 49, 73, 74, and 80 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, claim 1 initially recites “a distal end of the blade”, and then goes on to recite “wherein each blade of the plurality of blades has a distal end…”, i.e. “a distal end” is recited twice. Please amend the claim to reflect proper antecedent basis if the recitations are limiting the same distal end(s), or amend the claim to reflect the distal ends are different from one another.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 remains dependent from cancelled claim 4. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting claim 5 to depend from claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear what is being imparted into the claimed invention in the recitation of “wherein the two or more blades are circumferentially spaced about the outwardly facing body surface of the elongated body and arranged such that, in axial end view along the abrasive device, there is no circumferential location, along a periphery of the outwardly facing body surface, at which at least some part of the outwardly facing body surface is not axially aligned with part of the distal end of at least one of the blades”. When seeking to ascertain Applicant’s intent, Examiner sought clarification from the specification, specifically referencing [0067]. Paragraph [0067] repeats the claimed subject matter, and then slightly expands upon a feature of the instant application including overlapping blades so that at least one of the blades remains in contact with the floor surface at all times. However, within the context of the claimed invention, it is not clear what is intended. As can be seen in Figures 1-4, there is an alignment of the blades on the outwardly facing body surface, i.e. as a result of the blades being kept within the channels shown in Figure 7A and reproduced in Figures 1-4. However, there are external circumferential locations which have gaps between the blades (which is also recited in claim 1).
Regarding claim 49, recitation of “a drive system for connected for rotating the abrasive device about the body axis” (emphasis added) renders the claimed invention indefinite, as the grammar of the limitation is confusing. Please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intent.
Regarding claim 80, please amend “the blade retention structure” to read “the axial blade retention structure”. Furthermore, “a snap-ring” is recited in claim 78, wherein claim 80 depends from claim 78. Please amend the recitation to reflect proper antecedent basis.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10, 19, 24, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lundum (US 6,793,569).
Regarding claim 1, Lundum discloses an abrasive device for use on concrete floors (please see the Abstract regarding the sanding configuration of the device; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with concrete floors) comprising:
an elongated body (20) having a first end, a second end and an outwardly facing body surface (see Figures 8-10) extending about a body axis (22) and between the first end and the second end (see Col. 6, lines 29-47), the elongated body configured to be driven about the body axis (see through holes 24 to accommodate a drive shaft for rotation);
a plurality of blades (12) extending, at least in part, radially outwardly from the outwardly facing body surface (see Figure 10 regarding the radial extension of the sanding strips outwardly from the surface of the core 20), each blade including a blade abrasive part extending from a distal end of the blade and inwardly toward the elongated body (see sanding means 30, as well as Col. 6, lines 48-59; wherein the sanding means extends from a distal end of the strip 12 and inwardly toward the core 20, see Figures 9-11);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades includes a first axial blade end located toward the first end of the elongated body and a second axial blade end located toward the second end of elongated body (wherein each strip 12 shown in Figures 8-10 extends between the end caps 24, i.e. each strip includes a first end located toward the first end of the core 20 and a second end located toward the second end of core 20);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades has a distal end spaced away from the outwardly facing body surface (see Figures 9 and 10 regarding the distal ends of each respective strip 12) and the distal end is continuous between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end such that an axial length of the distal end of each blade is at least ninety percent of an axial length of the outwardly facing body surface of the elongated body (wherein the grooves 18 and strips 12 retained therein extend from one end of the core to the other, see at least Col. 1, line 65- Col 2, line 5; wherein the grooves and strips retained therein extend the whole length of the core, see Col. 6, lines 35-47 and Col. 7, lines 39-48);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades runs in a orientation that is angularly offset from the body axis between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end (wherein strips 12 are secured within grooves 18, and wherein grooves 18 are formed in a helical or spiral configuration, i.e. the strips run in an orientation that is angularly offset from the axis 22 between opposing ends; see also Col. 7, lines 39-65);
wherein the outwardly facing body surface is substantially cylindrical and each blade of the plurality of blades runs in a substantially helical orientation (see Col. 7, lines 39-52 disclosing the core 20 is cylindrical and the helical manner of the grooves 18 and strips 12 therein);
wherein the plurality of blades are circumferentially spaced apart about the outwardly facing body surface such that helically extending portions of the outwardly facing body surface are exposed between the blades (see at least annotated Figure 10, Reference Drawing 1, regarding the exposed portions);
wherein the distal end of each blade is spaced apart from the distal end of each circumferentially adjacent blade by a helically extending gap therebetween (see at least annotated Figure 10, Reference Drawing 1, regarding the gaps between the distal ends of adjacent strips).
In regards to the limitations directed towards the intended use of the apparatus, Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
Regarding claim 5, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein the plurality of blades comprise two or more blades (wherein the number of strips 12 exceeds 2, see Figures 8 and 10), wherein the two or more blades are circumferentially spaced about the outwardly facing body surface of the elongated body and arranged such that, in axial end view along the abrasive device, there is no circumferential location, along a periphery of the outwardly facing body surface, at which at least some part of the outwardly facing body surface is not axially aligned with part of the distal end of at least one of the blades (please see Figures 8 and 10 regarding the strips 12 within grooves 18 spanning the exterior surface of core 20, and the alignment of the strips 12 with the exterior surface of the core 20; see also the112b rejection provided above).
Regarding claim 10, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein the plurality of blades are positioned such that, for each blade of the plurality of blades, at least part of the blade axially overlaps with part of another blade, in axial end view (wherein as can be seen in Figures 8 and 9, the extension of the helix/spiral is such that there is overlap between adjacent strips 12).
Regarding claim 24, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein the elongated body includes a plurality of channels (grooves 18) opening to the outwardly facing body surface, wherein each channel receives a radially inward end of a respective one of the blades (see Figures 8-10).
Regarding claim 34, Lundum discloses a rotary cleaning machine, comprising the abrasive device of claim 1 mounted therein with the body axis substantially horizontal, and a drive system for rotating the abrasive device about the body axis (see at least Abstract and Col. 1, lines 18-32 and Col. 6, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 19, Lundum discloses an abrasive device for use on concrete floors (please see the Abstract regarding the sanding configuration of the device; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with concrete floors) comprising:
an elongated body (20) having a first end, a second end and an outwardly facing body surface (see Figures 8-10) extending about a body axis (20) and between the first end and the second end (see Col. 6, lines 29-47), the elongated body configured to be driven about the body axis (see through holes 24 to accommodate a drive shaft for rotation);
a plurality of blades (strips 12) extending, at least in part, radially outwardly from the outwardly facing body surface (see Figure 10 regarding the radial extension of the sanding strips outwardly from the surface of the core 20), each blade including a blade abrasive part (wherein the abrasive part comprises the combination of bunch 15 of brush hairs 14 and sanding means 30) and a blade non-abrasive retaining part (see rail 16, as well as Col. 6, lines 29-39), wherein the blade abrasive part extends from a distal end of the blade and inwardly toward the elongated body (see Col. 6, lines 48-59) and joins with the blade non-abrasive retaining part which is connected to the elongated body (see Figure 11 regarding the brushes and brush hairs14/sanding means 30 joining with the rail 16, as well as Figure 10);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades includes a first axial blade end located toward the first end of the elongated body and a second axial blade end located toward the second end of elongated body (wherein each strip 12 shown in Figures 8-10 extends between the end caps 24, i.e. each strip includes a first end located toward the first end of the core 20 and a second end located toward the second end of core 20);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades runs in a orientation that is angularly offset from the body axis between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end (wherein strips 12 are secured within grooves 18, and wherein grooves 18 are formed in a helical or spiral configuration, i.e. the strips run in an orientation that is angularly offset from the axis 22 between opposing ends; see also Col. 7, lines 39-65);
wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to the blade non-abrasive part of the blade by a joining region (see Reference Drawing 2, which is an annotated Figure 11; Examiner also notes herein that the labelling of Reference Drawing is also applicable to the embodiment shown in Figure 6, i.e. Figure 11 was selected for annotation purposes but the claim limitation is disclosed by both embodiments), wherein the joining region has a localized thickness (T1) that is greater than both a thickness of the distal end of the blade (see thickness T2) and a thickness of a stem portion of the blade non-abrasive retaining part (thickness T3; wherein T1 is greater than T2 and T3), for increasing a joint strength between the blade abrasive part and the blade non-abrasive retaining part (see Col. 3, lines 10-18 and 35-43, Col. 4 lines 11-34; Col. 5, lines 3-13; Col. 7, lines 9-24; Col. 8, lines 16-30).
PNG
media_image2.png
794
450
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 2
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundum (US 6,793,569) in view of Kimmerle (US 3,280,516).
Regarding claims 6-9, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein the plurality of blades comprises four or more blades (subject matter of claims 6 and 7, see at least Figure 10 of Lundum).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach wherein each blade of the plurality of blades extends circumferentially through at least ninety degrees (claim 6) or at least one-hundred degrees (claim 7) or at least one-hundred and ten degrees (claim 8) or at least one-hundred and twenty degrees (claim 9), in axial end view, between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kimmerle teaches of an abrasive roll tool having a cylindrical body and strips (40) thereon, see Figures 6 and 7, wherein the strips (40) are wrapped onto the tube for a spiral which extends about 180 degrees of the length of the tube, see Col. 5, lines 19-45, i.e. through at least ninety degrees, one-hundred degrees, one-hundred and ten degrees, and one-hundred and twenty degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Lundum to ensure the strips extend through at least a certain degree of extent, as taught by Kimmerle. One would be motivated to do so because the selected spiral angle has been found to give operationally satisfactory results, thus producing a slightly modified apparatus for performing a similar operation (see Col. 5, lines 25-33).
Claim(s) 11-18, 20, 41-44, 46, 73, 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundum (US 6,793,569) in view of Eichinger (US 5,983434).
Regarding claim 11, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part comprises at least one abrasive grit material (see the relevant sanding material disclosed in Col. 6, lines 55-60, i.e. an abrasive grit material under broadest reasonable interpretation).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part comprises a thermoplastic.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Eichinger teaches of a rotary tool which has a portion with abrasives (Col. 21, lines 25-58), wherein the elements including the abrasives may comprise thermoplastic (Col. 12, lines 57-67), with specific examples described in Col. 14, line 48-Col. 15, line 25.
As evidenced by Eichinger describing additional prior arts which use thermoplastic elements (Col. 1, lines 43-60; Col. 2, lines 15-56), as well as Pihl (Col. 1, lines 23-41), it is old and well known in the abrading art to use apparatus components comprising different thermoplastic durometers since these materials not only perform well within the abrading environment, but are also stable and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. The prior art of Eichinger explicitly teaches thermoplastic materials within the context of devices configured to abrade a surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thermoplastic material as suggested by Eichinger into the invention of Lundum, since it is known in the art that these are materials which perform well within the abrading environment, are stable, and resist wear, and thus would have yielded predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Lundum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, Lundum as currently modified does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one abrasive grit material comprises one or more of silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, and diamond.
Eichinger further teaches the at least one abrasive grit material comprises one or more of silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, and diamond (wherein all three are taught in Col. 15, lines 32-47).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have employed the abrasive grit material types as suggested by Eichinger into the invention of Lundum, wherein Lundum is silent regarding the specific material of abrasives.
As evidenced by Eichinger describing additional prior arts which use thermoplastic elements (Col. 1, lines 43-60; Col. 2, lines 15-56), as well as Pihl (Col. 1, lines 23-41), it is old and well known in the abrading art to use apparatus components comprising different thermoplastic durometers since these materials not only perform well within the abrading environment, but are also stable and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. The prior art of Eichinger explicitly teaches these abrasive particle types within the context of devices configured to abrade a surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a specific abrasive grit material as suggested by Eichinger into the invention of Lundum, since it is known in the art that these are materials which perform well within the abrading environment, are stable, and resist wear, and thus would have yielded predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 13, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades,
the blade abrasive part is joined to a blade non-abrasive retaining part of the blade (see rail 16, as well as Col. 6, lines 29-39),
wherein the blade abrasive part comprises at least one abrasive grit material (see the relevant sanding material disclosed in Col. 6, lines 55-60, i.e. an abrasive grit material under broadest reasonable interpretation),
the blade non-abrasive retaining part comprising a second thermoplastic having a second durometer (see at least the polyethylene material, disclosed in Col. 9, lines 10-14).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach the abrasive portion comprises a first thermoplastic having a first durometer, the specific value of the second durometer, and wherein the first durometer is lower than the second durometer.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Eichinger teaches of a rotary tool which has a portion with abrasives and a second base portion (Col. 21, lines 25-58), wherein the base element (12) from which active abrasive elements (20) extend from comprises a suitable material to resist bending (Col. 6, lines 18-28; Col. 21, lines 33-35), wherein the invention may comprise thermoplastics (Col. 12, lines 57-67), with specific examples described in Col. 14, line 48-Col. 15, line 25, and wherein the durometer of the specific examples has a first durometer lower than the second durometer (wherein there are several commercially available HytrelTM materials listed, wherein each of the materials has a durometer hardness property, and the listed materials has at one durometer property greater than another; wherein Pihl (US Patent 5,443,906), which is entirely incorporated by reference within Eichinger, lists Shore D durometers of materials specifically pointed out by Eichinger, see Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl; wherein the material is selected to provide bending resistance to the base and flexibility to the active bristles, i.e. when selecting the properties ‘as desired’ and suggested by Eichinger, the durometer the bristle elements is lower than the durometer of the base).
As evidenced by Eichinger describing additional prior arts which use thermoplastic elements (Col. 1, lines 43-60; Col. 2, lines 15-56), as well as Pihl (Col. 1, lines 23-41), it is old and well known in the abrading art to use apparatus components comprising different thermoplastic durometers since these materials not only perform well within the abrading environment, but are also stable and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. The prior art of Eichinger explicitly teaches the various materials having different properties, which may be incorporated into adjacent components, while include thermoplastics. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the materials as suggested by Eichinger into the invention of Lundum, since it is known in the art that these are materials which perform well within the abrading environment, are stable, and resist wear, and thus would have yielded predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches for each blade of the plurality of blades, the first durometer is no more than seventy-five percent of the second durometer (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-59 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D, which is less than 65% of the durometers of Hytrel 5526 and 5556, both which have a durometer of 55D; see also Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl listing the Shore D hardnesses of the TPE materials.
Regarding claim 15, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the first durometer is no more than sixty-five percent of the second durometer (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-59 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D, which is less than 65% of the durometers of Hytrel 5526 and 5556, both which have a durometer of 55D; see also Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl listing the Shore D hardnesses of the TPE materials).
Regarding claim 16, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the first durometer is between 40 Shore D and 50 Shore D (see the combination statement applied above as well as Col. 14, lines 52-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D; see also Estane 58409 and Estane 58810 in Pihl, Table 1, Col. 28, having a 48D and 42D hardness), per ASTM D2240 Peak Shore D hardness test procedure, and the second durometer is between sixty-five Shore D and seventy-five Shore D (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 7246 has a durometer of 72 Shore D; see also Lomod B0520, having a durometer of 70 Shore D, in Table 1 Col 28 of Pihl), per ASTM D2240 Peak Shore D hardness test procedure.
Regarding claim 17, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the first thermoplastic comprises a thermoplastic polyester and/or a thermoplastic polyurethane and the second thermoplastic comprises a thermoplastic polyester and/or a thermoplastic polyurethane (see the combination statement applied above as well as Col. 14, lines 48-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger, as well as Table 1, Column 28 of Pihl) .
Regarding claim 18, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention. However, Ludnum as presently modified does not explicitly teach wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to the blade non-abrasive retaining part by a joining region comprising a co-extrusion bond.
However, Eichinger further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to the blade non-abrasive retaining part by a joining region comprising a co-extrusion bond (wherein the multiple materials of Eichinger are joined by co-extrusion, see Eichinger: Col. 20, lines 50-67, Col. 21, lines 25-58; Col. 17, lines 36-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure of bond as taught by Eichinger into the invention of Ludnum. One would be motivated to do so because extrusion techniques, which are old and well known, are satisfactory for producing the thermoplastic articles in the context of abrading, and are known processes for producing the products within the art. See also Col. 17, lines 26-32.
Regarding claim 20, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to the blade non-abrasive retaining part by one of adhesive bonding, welding or mechanical fastening (Ludnum: see Col. 6, lines 30-62 and Col. 8, lines 1-16).
Regarding claim 41, Lundum discloses wherein, for each blade, the blade abrasive part comprises at least one abrasive grit material (see the relevant sanding material disclosed in Col. 6, lines 55-60, i.e. an abrasive grit material under broadest reasonable interpretation),
the blade non-abrasive retaining part comprising a second thermoplastic having a second durometer (see at least the polyethylene material, disclosed in Col. 9, lines 10-14).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach the abrasive portion comprises a first thermoplastic having a first durometer, the specific value of the second durometer, and wherein the first durometer is lower than the second durometer.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Eichinger teaches of a rotary tool which has a portion with abrasives and a second base portion (Col. 21, lines 25-58), wherein the base element (12) from which active abrasive elements (20) extend from comprises a suitable material to resist bending (Col. 6, lines 18-28; Col. 21, lines 33-35), wherein the invention may comprise thermoplastics (Col. 12, lines 57-67), with specific examples described in Col. 14, line 48-Col. 15, line 25, and wherein the durometer of the specific examples has a first durometer lower than the second durometer (wherein there are several commercially available HytrelTM materials listed, wherein each of the materials has a durometer hardness property, and the listed materials has at one durometer property greater than another; wherein Pihl (US Patent 5,443,906), which is entirely incorporated by reference within Eichinger, lists Shore D durometers of materials specifically pointed out by Eichinger, see Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl; wherein the material is selected to provide bending resistance to the base and flexibility to the active bristles, i.e. when selecting the properties ‘as desired’ and suggested by Eichinger, the durometer the bristle elements is lower than the durometer of the base).
As evidenced by Eichinger describing additional prior arts which use thermoplastic elements (Col. 1, lines 43-60; Col. 2, lines 15-56), as well as Pihl (Col. 1, lines 23-41), it is old and well known in the abrading art to use apparatus components comprising different thermoplastic durometers since these materials not only perform well within the abrading environment, but are also stable and resist wear. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.07 establishes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facia case of obviousness. The prior art of Eichinger explicitly teaches the various materials having different properties, which may be incorporated into adjacent components, while include thermoplastics. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the materials as suggested by Eichinger into the invention of Lundum, since it is known in the art that these are materials which perform well within the abrading environment, are stable, and resist wear, and thus would have yielded predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to the limitations directed towards the intended use of the apparatus, Applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II.
Regarding claim 42, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein the first durometer is no more than seventy-five percent of the second durometer (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-59 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D, which is less than 65% of the durometers of Hytrel 5526 and 5556, both which have a durometer of 55D; see also Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl listing the Shore D hardnesses of the TPE materials).
Regarding claim 43, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches wherein the first durometer is no more than sixty-five percent of the second durometer (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-59 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D, which is less than 65% of the durometers of Hytrel 5526 and 5556, both which have a durometer of 55D; see also Table 1 in Column 28 of Pihl listing the Shore D hardnesses of the TPE materials).
Regarding claim 44, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches, wherein the first durometer is between 40 Shore D and 50 Shore D (see the combination statement applied above as well as Col. 14, lines 52-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 4056 has a durometer of 40D; see also Estane 58409 and Estane 58810 in Pihl, Table 1, Col. 28, having a 48D and 42D hardness), and the second durometer is between sixty-five Shore D and seventy-five Shore D (see the combination statement as well as Col. 14, lines 52-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger; wherein Hytrel 7246 has a durometer of 72 Shore D; see also Lomod B0520, having a durometer of 70 Shore D, in Table 1 Col 28 of Pihl).
Regarding claim 73, Ludnum in view of Eichinger teaches the claimed invention, wherein modified Ludnum further teaches, wherein the thermoplastic comprises a thermoplastic polyester and/or a thermoplastic polyurethane (see the combination statement applied above as well as Col. 14, lines 48-Col. 15, line 25 of Eichinger, as well as Table 1, Column 28 of Pihl).
Regarding claim 74, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Lundum does not explicitly teach wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to a blade non-abrasive retaining part by a joining region comprising a co-extrusion bond.
However, Eichinger further teaches wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the blade abrasive part is joined to a blade non-abrasive retaining part by a joining region comprising a co-extrusion bond (wherein the multiple materials of Eichinger are joined by co-extrusion, see Eichinger: Col. 20, lines 50-67, Col. 21, lines 25-58; Col. 17, lines 36-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the structure of bond as taught by Eichinger into the invention of Ludnum. One would be motivated to do so because extrusion techniques, which are old and well known, are satisfactory for producing the thermoplastic articles in the context of abrading, and are known processes for producing the products within the art. See also Col. 17, lines 26-32.
Claim(s) 31, 49, and 78-80 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundum (US 6,793,569) in view of Kegg (US 20210219800).
Regarding claim 31, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Lundum further discloses wherein an axial blade retention structure is located at the first end of the elongated body (see at least covers 24).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach the axial blade retention structure includes at least one of an elastomeric band, a garter spring, a snap-ring, a zip tie, a wire tie or a hose clamp structure positioned in a channel.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kegg teaches of a cylindrical device with vanes (34) for engaging a surface (see [0043]), wherein there are axial retention structures (end caps 30, element 38, see also Figure 7A) located at the first end of the elongated body (see Figures 3-4A), wherein the axial blade retention structure includes at least one of an elastomeric band, a garter spring, a snap-ring, a zip tie, a wire tie or a hose clamp structure positioned in a channel (see at least end cap 30 and elastomeric band 38, [0034], [0036-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an elastomeric band element, as taught by Kegg, into the invention of Lundum. One would be motivated to do so because the member (38) would act as a seal, thus limiting unwanted debris accumulation within the device, see [0037-0039] of Kegg.
Regarding claim 78, Lundum discloses an abrasive device for use on concrete floors (please see the Abstract regarding the sanding configuration of the device; wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with concrete floors), comprising:
an elongated body (20) having a first end, a second end and an outwardly facing body surface (see Figures 8-10) extending about a body axis (22) and between the first end and the second end (see Col. 6, lines 29-47), the elongated body configured to be driven about the body axis (see through holes 24 to accommodate a drive shaft for rotation);
a plurality of blades (12) extending, at least in part, radially outwardly from the outwardly facing body surface (see Figure 10 regarding the radial extension of the sanding strips outwardly from the surface of the core 2), each blade including a blade abrasive part extending from a distal end of the blade and inwardly toward the elongated body (see sanding means 30, as well as Col. 6, lines 48-59; wherein the sanding means extends from a distal end of the strip 12 and inwardly toward the core 20, see Figures 9-11);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades includes a first axial blade end located toward the first end of the elongated body and a second axial blade end located toward the second end of elongated body (wherein each strip 12 shown in Figures 8-10 extends between the end caps 24, i.e. each strip includes a first end located toward the first end of the core 20 and a second end located toward the second end of core 20);
wherein each blade of the plurality of blades runs in a orientation that is angularly offset from the body axis between the first axial blade end and the second axial blade end (wherein strips 12 are secured within grooves 18, and wherein grooves 18 are formed in a helical or spiral configuration, i.e. the strips run in an orientation that is angularly offset from the axis 22 between opposing ends; see also Col. 7, lines 39-65);
wherein the outwardly facing body surface is substantially cylindrical and each blade of the plurality of blades runs in a substantially helical orientation (see Col. 7, lines 39-52 disclosing the core 20 is cylindrical and the helical manner of the grooves 18 and strips 12 therein);
wherein the elongated body includes a plurality of helically extending channels (grooves 18, see Figure 10) opening to the outwardly facing body surface, wherein each helically extending channel receives a radially inward end of a respective one of the blades (see Figures 1 and 8-10 regarding the strips 12 being received within the channels 18);
wherein an axial blade retention structure is removably located for preventing sliding blade movement out of the out of the helically extending channels (see at least covers 24; Col. 6, lines 29-47; Col. 7, lines 49-52).
However, Lundum does not explicitly teach the type of axial blade retention structure including a specific type, and a channel for receiving the covers (24), i.e. wherein the outwardly facing body surface includes a recessed channel running circumferentially about the elongated body at the first end of the elongated body;
wherein the axial blade retention structure is located in the recessed channel, wherein the axial blade retention structure comprises a spring member or a snap-ring located in and extending along the recessed channel and about the elongated body.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kegg teaches of a cylindrical device with vanes (34) for engaging a surface (see [0043]), wherein there are axial retention structures (end caps 30, element 38, see also Figure 7A), wherein the outwardly facing body surface (see the agitator body 22 having an outward surface) includes a recessed channel running circumferentially about the elongated body at the first end of the elongated body (see Figures 3, 4, and 7, as well as [0038] regarding the concentric protrusions and annular protrusions, and the structure configured to mate with the internal face of end caps 30; see also groove 37);
wherein the axial blade retention structure is located in the recessed channel (see Figures 3, 4, and 7; see also [0034-0039]), wherein the axial blade retention structure comprises a spring member or a snap-ring located in and extending along the recessed channel and about the elongated body (see at least end cap 30 and elastomeric band 38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the mating arrangement of the cap and cylindrical body, as taught by Kegg, into the invention of Lundum. One would be motivated to do so because the member (38) permits interlocking action and would beneficially act as a seal, thus limiting unwanted debris accumulation, see [0037-0039] of Kegg.
Regarding claim 49, Ludnum in view of Kegg teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Lundum further teaches a rotary cleaning machine, comprising the abrasive device of claim 78 mounted therein with the body axis substantially horizontal, and a drive system for connected for rotating the abrasive device about the body axis (Lundum: see at least Abstract and Col. 1, lines 18-32 and Col. 6, lines 40-42).
Regarding claim 79, Lundum in view of Kegg teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Lundum further teaches wherein, removal of the spring member or snap-ring from the channels allows sliding blade movement of the helically extending channels (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, wherein removal of the cap element 30 and element 38 of Kegg would enable removal of the blades, see also Col. 3, lines 54-61, Col. 5 lines 3-14, Col. 7 lines 49-52 of Lundum).
Regarding claim 80, Lundum in view of Kegg teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Lundum further teaches wherein the blade retention structure is formed by a snap-ring (please refer to the combination statement as applied above, wherein the deformable member 38 is shown as a ring and described to have the material features as taught by [0037-0040], i.e. under broadest reasonable interpretation, ring element 38 teaches a snap ring).
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundum (US 6,793,569) in view of Lacoma (US 2022/0354324).
Regarding claim 32, Lundum discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Lundum does not explicitly teach wherein, for each blade of the plurality of blades, the distal end has a radial height that is substantially uniform along an axial center region and that tapers downwardly in both a first end region at one end of the axial center region and a second end region at an opposite end of the axial center region.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Lacoma teaches a device comprising an elongated main body (2804) and a plurality of flap elements (2802), wherein for each blade (2802) of the plurality of blades, the distal end has a radial height that is substantially uniform along an axial center region (see height 3204 of central region 3206) and that tapers downwardly in both a first end region at one end of the axial center region and a second end region at an opposite end of the axial center region (wherein the height of the flap 2802 tapers at end regions 3200, 3202, see also [0174], and Figures 32-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the tapered end configuration of the flaps at taught by Lacoma into the invention of Lundum. One would be motivated to do so in order to alter/enhance the movement of debris being created or gathered during surface processing, thus allowing the central region to be more open and in better contact with the surface being processed, see [0177]. Furthermore, a taper may assist in increasing the lifespan of the blades, see at least [0178] and [0180-183].
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723