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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Pg. 1, line 14, “product rotate” should read “product to rotate”.
In Pg. 3, line 9, “A polishing equipment for a spherical body 1” should read “A polishing equipment 1 for a spherical body 60”.
In Pg. 3, line 17, “to and the” should read “to the”.
In Pg. 4, line 5, “better in shock” should read “better shock”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, “spherical body” should read “a spherical body” for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 2, “configure” should read “configured” for proper grammar.
In claim 1, line 2, “a spherical body” should read “the spherical body” to avoid double inclusion (MPEP 2173.05(o)).
In claim 1, line 5, “configure” should read “configured” for proper grammar.
In claim 9, line 2, examiner recommends amending “is replaceably disposed” to “is disposed in a replaceable manner”, because “replaceably” is not considered to be a word in the English language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Fluid pressurizing unit” in claim 1 because (A) the term “unit” is a generic placeholder; (B) the term is modified by the functional language “configured for fluid to flow into the interior of the tubular member”; and (C) the term is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
“Driving device” in claim 3 because (A) the term “device” is generic placeholder; (B) the term is modified by the functional language “configured to drive the carrier to move relative to the grinding member”; and (C) the term is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “fluid pressurizing unit” in claim 1 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) corresponds to a pump and a pipe member (Pg. 5, line 21), and equivalents thereof.
The “driving device” in claim 1 interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) corresponds to a telescopic cylinder device (Pg. 4, lines 11-12), and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin et al. (US 3971164 A), hereinafter Albin, in view of Höglund (US 20150314171 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Albin discloses (Fig. 1-3) a polishing equipment (Abstract, lines 1-4) for a spherical body (20), including: a base (1), including ball casters (8a-8e) configured to support the spherical body to be polished (Abstract, lines 8-10); and a grinding member (9), configured to be relatively movable with respect to the ball casters (Col. 2, lines 42-43 and 66-68), and configured for grinding an outer surface of the spherical body (Col. 2, lines 35-41 and 45-49) and rotating the spherical body by friction (The grinding member is configured to rotate the spherical body by friction, because the grinding member applies a downward frictional force to the spherical body [Fig. 1-2; Col 3, lines 20-26], and the spherical body is free to rotate on the ball casters about any axis [Col. 2, lines 50-55]; Albin discloses wherein the spherical body is intended to be “rotated manually” on the ball casters by the user during sanding [Col. 1, lines 45-48], however the “manner of operating the device does not differentiate [an] apparatus claim from the prior art” [See MPEP 2114 (II)]).
However, Albin fails to disclose a tubular member configured to support the spherical body to be polished; a fluid pressurizing unit (“Fluid pressurizing unit” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a pump and a pipe member, and equivalents thereof), being in communication with an interior of the tubular member and configured for fluid to flow into the interior of the tubular member to push the spherical body.
Nevertheless, Höglund teaches (Fig. 1-2) a support cradle (1) to be used in the “grinding, polishing and cleaning” of a spherical body (3; Para. 0019). The support cradle has a tubular member (4) configured to support the spherical body (Para. 0018, “a support surface [2] … is specially adapted for receiving a bowling ball [3]. The support surface is carried by a frame [4]”). Höglund also teaches a fluid pressurizing unit (Specifically, a “pump” [Para. 0021] and a “connecting pipe” [Para. 0021]), being in communication with an interior of the tubular member and configured for fluid to flow into the interior of the tubular member to push the spherical body (Para. 0020, “to lift the bowling ball [3] … a compressed fluid needs to be introduced in the support cradle [1] … [via] a special connection [9]”). Höglund further teaches that “the ball [is] … lifted from the support surface … by producing … a water cushion between the support surface [2] and the surface [8] of the bowling ball, thus eliminating friction against the support surface and allowing the bowling ball to turn virtually frictionless in any direction” (Para. 0019).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ball casters of Albin with a support cradle and a fluid pressurizing unit, as taught by Höglund, to achieve the predictable result of supporting the spherical body and allowing it to rotate freely about any axis.
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Albin discloses wherein the base further includes a rail (5 and 6) and a carrier (7) movably disposed on the rail (Col. 2, lines 42-43), and the ball casters are disposed on the carrier. Therefore, the combination of Albin and Höglund disclose the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Albin further discloses wherein the base further includes a driving device1 (lead screw 30 and knob 31) connected with the carrier, and the driving device is configured to drive the carrier to move relative to the grinding member (Col. 2, lines 42-32; Col. 1, lines 38-40). Therefore, the combination of Albin and Höglund disclose the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Höglund teaches wherein the tubular member includes an opening (See annotated Fig. 2) configured to receive a part of the spherical body (Fig. 2). Therefore, the combination of Albin and Höglund disclose the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
311
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Höglund)
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Albin further discloses wherein the grinding member includes a grinding face (Col. 2, the “outer flat face”; Fig. 1), and in a direction which the grinding face faces toward the ring of ball casters (The “offset direction” in annotated Fig. 1), a centerline of the grinding face and a centerline of the ring of ball casters are offset from each other. Therefore, the combination of Albin and Höglund (wherein the ball casters of Albin are substituted for the support cradle of Höglund [incl. the tubular member]) disclose the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
437
510
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (Albin)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin in view of Höglund, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cloutier (US 2405344 A).
Regarding claim 4, Albin as modified by Höglund discloses the polishing equipment of claim 1.
However, Albin as modified fails to disclose a fluid-penetrable layer on which the spherical body is disposed covers an end of the tubular member and allows the fluid to penetrate therethrough.
Nevertheless, Höglund teaches about the support cradle that “when it is desirable… the bowling ball (i.e., the spherical object) … is allowed to bear against the support surface (2) of the support cradle, and then friction between the ball and the support surface will principally prevent rotation of the ball … this is done by [removing the] water cushion between the support surface (2) and the surface (8) of the ball” (Para. 0019). Cloutier teaches (Fig. 1-4) a support cradle (20) for a bowling ball (i.e., a spherical object) wherein the support surface is a polishing cloth (22; i.e., a fluid-penetrable layer; Examiner notes that any cloth will be penetrable by water to some degree, because it is a woven material2), wherein “frictional contact of the bowling ball with the [support surface] of the [support cradle] during… random movement of the ball produces an efficient and uniform polishing action” (Col. 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support surface of Albin -– as modified by Höglund – to be a polishing cloth, as taught by Cloutier, to produce an efficient and uniform polishing action when the spherical object is allowed to bear against the support surface and is moved randomly.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Cloutier teaches wherein the fluid-penetrable layer is a fiber-layer (the polishing cloth [22], being a woven material, is made of fibers or threads3). Therefore, the combination of Albin with Höglund and Cloutier discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated. Albin as modified by Höglund and Cloutier discloses the polishing equipment of claim 4.
However, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the fluid-penetrable layer is positionally mounted to the tubular member by a hoop member.
Nevertheless, Cloutier teaches (Fig. 1-4) wherein the polishing cloth (22; i.e., the fluid-penetrable layer) is positionally mounted to the support cradle (20) by a hoop member (21), specifically, the polishing cloth is “secured by an external metal strap member” (i.e., the hoop member) to the upper rim of the support cradle (Col. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an external metal strap member, as taught by Cloutier, to secure the polishing cloth of Albin – as modified by Höglund and Cloutier – to the support cradle (specifically, the tubular member), as it has been held as obvious to utilize art with a recognized suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07, in particular Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp. [Fed. Cir. 1988]; In this case, an external metal strap member has been recognized as suitable for the intended purpose of securing the polishing cloth to the support cradle).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin in view of Höglund, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (CN 105500145 A), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 7, Albin as modified by Höglund discloses the polishing equipment of claim 1. Albin as modified further discloses wherein the tubular member is movable along a first direction (Albin discloses wherein the ball casters – which were substituted out for the support cradle/tubular member of Höglund in the rejection of claim 1 – are moveable along a first direction [70], see Col. 2, lines 66-68).
However, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the grinding member is moveable along a second direction which is non-parallel to the first direction.
Nevertheless, Sun teaches a processing system (Fig. 1-3) for grinding and polishing cylindrical or spherical objects (Para. 0002, “a system for processing of cylindrical or spherical components”; Para. 0028), wherein a grinding member (28) is positioned on the end of a multi-freedom support arm device (26) that can adjust its position in space at will (e.g., the support arm can “rotate 360 degrees relative to the base (24)” [Para. 0009]) to process parts of different sizes (Para. 0035, lines 4-7) “without relying on manual processing, making the operation very convenient, the work efficiency high, and the processing accuracy high” (Para. 0010).
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 member of Albin to be positioned on the end of a multi-freedom support arm device, as taught by Sun, in an attempt to increase the versatility, conveniency, efficiency, and accuracy of the grinding process (Examiner notes that the grinding member is now movable along a second direction [e.g., when rotating 360 degrees relative to the base] which is non-parallel to the first direction).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Albin as modified by Höglund and Sun discloses wherein the grinding member is swingable relative to the first direction (Sun teaches that the multi-freedom support arm device is able to rotate 360 degrees relative to the base [Para. 0009]). Therefore, the combination of Albin with Höglund and Sun discloses the limitations for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albin in view of Höglund, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Richardson (US 20220241926 A1), Shotmeyer (US 3061044 A), Cloutier, Sun, and Fietkiewicz (US 20130125347 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Albin as modified by Höglund discloses the polishing equipment of claim 3. Albin as modified further discloses wherein the tubular member is disposed in a replaceable manner4 on the carrier (See Fig. 1 of Albin, the ball casters [8a-8e] were substituted with the support cradle of Höglund in the rejection of claim 1); the fluid pressurizing unit includes a pump and a pipe member communicating the pump and the interior of the tubular member (See the rejection of claim 1, Höglund was used to teach a fluid pressurizing unit including a “pump” [Para. 0021] and a “connecting pipe” [Para. 0021]); and the tubular member is movable along a first direction (Albin discloses wherein the ball casters – which were substituted out for the support cradle/tubular member of Höglund in the rejection of claim 1 – are moveable along a first direction [70], see Col. 2, lines 66-68).
However, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the driving device is a telescopic cylinder device.
Nevertheless, Richardson teaches a polishing device (Fig. 1; Para. 0091, “polishing pads 149”) wherein a base (132) includes a pneumatic cylinder (140; i.e., a telescopic cylinder device) connected with a carrier (138, 136, and 144) via a piston rod (142), wherein the pneumatic cylinder is configured to drive the carrier to move (Para. 0091).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the lead screw and knob of Albin – as modified by Höglund – with a pneumatic cylinder, as taught by Richardson, to achieve the predictable result of moving the carrier relative to the grinding wheel.
Furthermore, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the pipe member is flexible.
Nevertheless, Shotmeyer teaches (Fig. 1) a pipe member (76) for delivering pressurized fluid (Col. 2, lines 60-67) from a pump (68) to a lifting apparatus (34), wherein the pipe member can be made of a flexible material, such as braided hose (Col. 3, lines 24-25).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the connecting pipe of Albin – as modified by Höglund and Richardson – to be formed from a flexible material (e.g., braided hose), as taught by Shotmeyer, as it has been held as obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (See MPEP 2144.07, Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose).
Furthermore, Albin as modified fails to disclose a fluid-penetrable layer on which the spherical body is disposed covers an end of the tubular member and allows the fluid to penetrate therethrough; the fluid-penetrable layer is a fiber layer.
Nevertheless, Höglund teaches about the support cradle that “when it is desirable… the bowling ball (i.e., the spherical object) … is allowed to bear against the support surface (2) of the support cradle, and then friction between the ball and the support surface will principally prevent rotation of the ball … this is done by [removing the] water cushion between the support surface (2) and the surface (8) of the ball” (Para. 0019). Cloutier teaches (Fig. 1-4) a support cradle (20) for a bowling ball (i.e., a spherical object) wherein the support surface is a polishing cloth (22; i.e., a fluid-penetrable layer; Examiner notes that any cloth will be penetrable by water to some degree, because it is a woven material5), wherein “frictional contact of the bowling ball with the [support surface] of the [support cradle] during… random movement of the ball produces an efficient and uniform polishing action” (Col. 2). Cloutier teaches wherein the fluid-penetrable layer is a fiber-layer (the polishing cloth, being a woven material, is made of fibers or threads6).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the support surface of Albin -– as modified by Höglund, Richardson, and Shotmeyer – to be a polishing cloth, as taught by Cloutier, to produce an efficient and uniform polishing action when the spherical object is allowed to bear against the support surface and is moved randomly.
Furthermore, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the fluid-penetrable layer is positionally mounted to the tubular member by a hoop member; and the hoop member is an annular member whose perimeter is adjustable.
Cloutier teaches wherein the polishing cloth (22; i.e., the fluid-penetrable layer) is positionally mounted to the support cradle (20) by a hoop member (21; the polishing cloth is “secured by an external metal strap member” to the upper rim of the support cradle [Col. 1, lines 47-49]); wherein the hoop member is an annular member (Fig. 3). Fietkiewicz teaches (Fig. 1) an external strap member (10), wherein a bolt (12) is used to tighten (i.e., reduce the perimeter of) the external strap member around a sleeve (14) and tube (16) to secure them together (Para. 0024).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an external strap member, as taught by Fietkiewicz, to secure the polishing cloth of Albin – as modified by Höglund, Richardson, Shotmeyer, and Cloutier – to the support cradle (specifically, the tubular member), as taught by Cloutier, as it has been held as obvious to utilize art with a recognized suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07, in particular Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp. [Fed. Cir. 1988]; In this case, an external metal strap member has been recognized as suitable for the intended purpose of securing the polishing cloth to the support cradle).
Furthermore, Albin as modified fails to disclose wherein the grinding member is moveable along a second direction which is non-parallel to the first direction.
Nevertheless, Sun teaches a processing system (Fig. 1-3) for grinding and polishing cylindrical or spherical objects (Para. 0002, “a system for processing of cylindrical or spherical components”; Para. 0028), wherein a grinding member (28) is positioned on the end of a multi-freedom support arm device (26) that can adjust its position in space at will (e.g., the support arm can “rotate 360 degrees relative to the base (24)” [Para. 0009]) to process parts of different sizes (Para. 0035, lines 4-7) “without relying on manual processing, making the operation very convenient, the work efficiency high, and the processing accuracy high” (Para. 0010).
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 member of Albin – as modified by Höglund, Richardson, Shotmeyer, Cloutier, and Fietkiewicz – to be positioned on the end of a multi-freedom support arm device, as taught by Sun, in an attempt to increase the versatility, conveniency, efficiency, and accuracy of the grinding process (Examiner notes that the grinding member is now movable along a second direction [e.g., when rotating 360 degrees relative to the base] which is non-parallel to the first direction).
Conclusion
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 “Driving device” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as corresponding to a telescopic cylinder device, and equivalents thereof. The lead screw and knob of Albin is considered an equivalent structure, because it:
(A) Performs the function specified in the claim
(B) Is not excluded by any explicit definition provided in the specification for an equivalent
(C) Is an equivalent of the means- (or step-) plus-function limitation
Furthermore, the lead screw and knob perform the identical function specified in the claim (i.e. “driv[ing] the carrier to move relative to the grinding member”) in substantially the same way (i.e., by pushing or pulling the carrier), and produce substantially the same result (i.e. the carrier is either closer or further away from the grinding wheel) as the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification (See MPEP 2183, Making a Prima Facie Case of Equivalence).
2 The definition of “cloth” was obtained from the Cambridge Dictionary. See the attached NPL document.
3 The definition of “fiber” was obtained from the Cambridge Dictionary. See the attached NPL document
4 Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “in a replaceable manner” includes more intensive means of replacement that would be known to one skilled in the art (e.g., using an angle grinder, torch, drill, etc.). Therefore, the ball casters (See Fig. 1 of Albin), and the support cradle that the ball casters are substituted for, are considered to be disposed on the carrier “in a replaceable manner”.
5 The definition of “cloth” was obtained from the Cambridge Dictionary. See the attached NPL document.
6 The definition of “fiber” was obtained from the Cambridge Dictionary. See the attached NPL document