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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 112(b) rejections, withdrawn herein.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the advisory action mailed on 1/5/2026, Examiner addressed the arguments filed 12/9/2025. Examiner has reproduced the response to arguments below.
Examiner has carefully considered Applicant's arguments but has not found them persuasive. Applicant argues that modifications to the RJH reference would be impermissible hindsight (page 9, arguments). Applicant argues that the modifications would "change the principle of operation of the emergency foot pedal switch, and the RJH emergency foot pedal switch would be inoperable for its intended purpose", "since it is designed for foot initiated shut down and not foot initiated operation" (page 10, arguments). Examiner has not found Applicant's arguments persuasive. In both the RJH reference and the teachings of Woodson, the foot pedal switch is provided to assist in controlling the operation of the device (i.e. kill switch deactivation and activation within Woodson, see [0034] of Woodson, and deactivation within RJH). The principle of operation of the device of RJH is to perform grinding on a workpiece. Modifying how the device is activated or turns off does not change the principle of the grinding/abrading operation. Furthermore, both the RJH reference and Woodson provide a foot pedal switch which is provided to turn off the device, wherein Woodson has the additional benefit of being used as a kill switch. In the context of RJH, modifying the device to instead have a kill switch foot pedal would alleviate issues arising if a user were harmed or unable to walk to the emergency foot pedal switch.
Please see the below updated grounds of rejection resulting from Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, please amend “and a vacuum pressure/air flow sensor” to read “the vacuum pressure/air flow sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RJH Powerfin 1100 Abrasive Belt, herein after referred to as “RJH”, citing the YouTube video provided in the PTO-892 in combination with the NPL Wayback Machine document, in view of Lamb (US 4727683), Woodson (US 2022/0023995), and Harper (US 5283982).
Regarding claim 1, RJH discloses an abrasive belt machine comprising:
a support housing having an arm that supports an abrasive belt rotatably coupled to a drive motor (see Reference Drawing 1, which is an image taken from 4:36 of the YouTube video; wherein there is a support housing, an arm, and an abrasive belt in rotation on the arm; wherein the Wayback Machine capture page 4 discloses motor(s));
a safety controller operatively coupled with the drive motor (see at least the setup shown on page 3 of the WayBack machine capture, as well as 3:20-4:50 regarding the safety features);
an emergency stop operatively coupled to the safety controller (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the Youtube video showing the emergency stop button and controller configurations);
a foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the drive motor (see at least Reference Drawing 2, taken from 4:02 of the YouTube video; see also 4:00-4:16).
However, RJH does not explicitly teach a pivoting arm, that the foot pedal switch is configured for foot pressure on the foot pedal switch to maintain drive motor operation, and a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor.
Lamb (US 4727683) teaches of a pivoting arm (see pivot element 48, Figures 1-4, as well as Col. 1, lines 42-65, Col. 3, lines 25-46).
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 RJH to include a pivotable function on the arm of the device, as taught by Lamb. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional convenience for a user to position an abrasive belt; see Col. 1, lines 42-48.
Woodson teaches of a foot pedal switch configured for foot pressure on the foot pedal switch to maintain drive motor operation (see Figure 1, switch 20, as well as [0034]: wherein the switch 20 may be used for activation of the motor and used as a kill switch for deactivation of the motor, wherein such deactivation occurs by removal of foot pressure on the switch).
RJH provides both an emergency stop button, as can be seen at 3:45, in addition to an emergency stop foot pedal, i.e. both configured to deactivate the drive motor. Woodson also teaches of a foot pedal configured as a kill switch, in addition to a manual hand operated control (26), i.e. analogous to the emergency button of RJH, however Woodson further teaches that the deactivation of the motor takes place as a result of removing foot pressure from the pedal, instead of the configuration taught by RJH. 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 foot pedal switch of RJH to reflect that pressing the foot pedal imparts driving the motor, and removal of foot pressure deactivates the motor, as taught by Woodson. Both Woodson and RJH provide multiple pedals, dials, switches, etc. for deactivating respective drive motors, wherein Woodson provides a slightly different activation/deactivation sequence. One would be motivated to modify the invention of RJH to reflect the foot pedal switch of Woodson in order to ensure that if an operator suddenly releases foot pressure (i.e. if an operator is suddenly injured, faints, gets distracted, etc.), the motor stops immediately, as opposed to needing a user to find the foot pedal switch and then impart pressure to stop the device. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a type of foot pedal switch configured to activate and deactivate a motor, to improve a similar surfacing device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Harper (US 5283982) teaches of a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor (Col. 8, lines 46-59).
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 RJH to include the power supply taught by Harper. Harper is from a similar field of surfacing devices which operate on a larger scale, and Harper contemplates a proper power supply for the device. One would be motivated to employ the teachings of Harper in order to ensure the device of RJH has enough power to perform the machining functions. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. the power supply described by Harper, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1
PNG
media_image2.png
886
1426
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 2
Regarding claim 3, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches wherein the safety controller is configured to prevent operation of the drive motor responsive to a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition comprises an operator providing foot pressure on the foot pedal switch to provide for drive operation (please also see the combination statement as applied above, as well as [0034] of Woodson regarding activation of the motor).
Claim(s) 2 and 4, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RJH in view of Lamb (US 4727683), Woodson (US 2022/0023995), Harper (US 5283982), and in further view of Betterman (US 2022/0184775). Examiner notes that claim 2 is in further view of Betterman, wherein claims 4 and 8 are independent claims unpatentable over the combination of listed references.
Regarding claim 2, RJH in view of Lamb, Woodson, and Harper teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches wherein the safety controller is electronically coupled to the emergency stop (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the Youtube video showing the emergency stop and controller configurations; please also refer to the combination statement as applied above), a guard door sensor (4:19-4:50 of the Youtube video shows guard electrical locks which cease operation of the motor when activated, and senses disconnection).
However, modified RJH does not explicitly teach a vacuum pressure/air flow sensor.
Betterman (US 2022/0184775) teaches of a vacuum/air flow sensor ([0046]).
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 RJH to include a vacuum flow sensor, as taught by Betterman. One would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the suction rate taking place, which influences the energy consumption of the device as well as the quality of the machining result, such that a user may fine tune the desired suction rate; see [0021].
Regarding claim 4, RJH discloses an abrasive belt machine comprising:
a support housing having an arm that supports an abrasive belt rotatably coupled to a drive motor (see Reference Drawing 1, which is an image taken from 4:36 of the YouTube video; wherein there is a support housing, an arm, and an abrasive belt in rotation on the arm; wherein the Wayback Machine capture page 4 discloses motor(s));
a guard door coupled to the support housing proximate the abrasive belt (see at least Reference Drawing 1 regarding the guard door, as well as 4:35-4:40 of the YouTube video), the guard door including a guard door sensor (4:19-4:50 of the Youtube video shows guard electrical locks which cease operation of the motor when activated, and senses disconnection);
an exhaust vacuum coupled to the support housing proximate the abrasive belt (see at least page 3 of the WayBack machine capture disclosing dust extraction, wherein Reference Drawing 3 labels the vacuum exhaust coupler, and page 4 of the wayback machine capture discloses dust extraction, and page 5 of the wayback machine capture shows a dust extractor, and wherein 5:45 of the Youtube shows a hose coupled thereto);
a safety controller operatively coupled with the drive motor (see at least the setup shown on page 3 of the WayBack machine capture, as well as 3:20-4:50 regarding the safety features);
an emergency stop operatively coupled to the safety controller (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the Youtube video showing the emergency stop button and controller configurations);
a foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the drive motor (see at least Reference Drawing 2, taken from 4:02 of the YouTube video; see also 4:00-4:16).
However, RJH does not explicitly teach a pivoting arm, the exhaust vacuum including a vacuum/air flow sensor, wherein the foot pedal switch requires foot pressure to maintain the drive motor operational, and a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor.
Lamb (US 4727683) teaches of a pivoting arm (see pivot element 48, Figures 1-4, as well as Col. 1, lines 42-65, Col. 3, lines 25-46).
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 RJH to include a pivotable function on the arm of the device, as taught by Lamb. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional convenience for a user to position an abrasive belt; see Col. 1, lines 42-48.
Betterman (US 2022/0184775) teaches of a vacuum/air flow sensor ([0046]).
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 RJH to include a vacuum flow sensor, as taught by Betterman. One would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the suction rate taking place, which influences the energy consumption of the device as well as the quality of the machining result, such that a user may fine tune the desired suction rate and thus the quality of the machining result; see [0021].
Woodson teaches of wherein the foot pedal switch requires foot pressure to maintain the drive motor operational (see Figure 1, switch 20, as well as [0034]: wherein the switch 20 may be used for activation of the motor and used as a kill switch for deactivation of the motor, wherein such deactivation occurs by removal of foot pressure on the switch).
RJH provides both an emergency stop button, as can be seen at 3:45, in addition to an emergency stop foot pedal, i.e. both configured to deactivate the drive motor. Woodson also teaches of a foot pedal configured as a kill switch, in addition to a manual hand operated control (26), i.e. analogous to the emergency button of RJH, however Woodson further teaches that the deactivation of the motor takes place as a result of removing foot pressure from the pedal, instead of the configuration taught by RJH. 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 foot pedal switch of RJH to reflect that pressing the foot pedal imparts driving the motor, and removal of foot pressure deactivates the motor, as taught by Woodson. Both Woodson and RJH provide multiple pedals, dials, switches, etc. for deactivating respective drive motors, wherein Woodson provides a slightly different activation/deactivation sequence. One would be motivated to modify the invention of RJH to reflect the foot pedal switch of Woodson in order to ensure that if an operator suddenly releases foot pressure (i.e. if an operator is suddenly injured, faints, gets distracted, etc.), the motor stops immediately, as opposed to needing a user to find the foot pedal switch and then impart pressure to stop the device. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a type of foot pedal switch configured to activate and deactivate a motor, to improve a similar surfacing device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Harper (US 5283982) teaches of a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor (Col. 8, lines 46-59).
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 RJH to include the power supply taught by Harper. Harper is from a similar field of surfacing devices which operate on a larger scale, and Harper contemplates a proper power supply for the device. One would be motivated to employ the teachings of Harper in order to ensure the device of RJH has enough power to perform the machining functions. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. the power supply described by Harper, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
PNG
media_image3.png
808
1424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 3
Regarding claim 5, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches wherein the safety controller is electronically coupled to the emergency stop (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the YouTube video showing the emergency stop button and controller configurations), the guard door sensor (4:19-4:50 of the YouTube video shows guard electrical locks which cease operation of the motor when activated, and senses disconnection), and the vacuum pressure/air flow sensor (see the combination statement as applied above for controlling the power supplied to the suction unit).
Regarding claim 7, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches a fault light on a panel, wherein the safety controller is configured to provide a signal to the fault light on the panel (see at least the blinking ‘E.S.’ indicating an emergency stop in 3:37-3:54 of the youtube video).
Regarding claim 8, RJH discloses a process for configuring an abrasive belt machine for safety comprising:
providing a support housing having an arm that supports an abrasive belt rotatably coupled to a drive motor (see Reference Drawing 1, which is an image taken from 4:36 of the YouTube video; wherein there is a support housing, an arm, and an abrasive belt in rotation on the arm; wherein the Wayback Machine capture page 4 discloses motor(s));
coupling a guard door to the support housing proximate the abrasive belt (see at least Reference Drawing 1 regarding the guard door, as well as 4:35-4:40 of the YouTube video), the guard door including a guard door sensor (4:19-4:50 of the YouTube video shows guard electrical locks which cease operation of the motor when activated, and senses disconnection);
coupling an exhaust vacuum to the support housing proximate the abrasive belt (see at least page 3 of the WayBack machine capture disclosing dust extraction, wherein Reference Drawing 3 labels the vacuum exhaust coupler, and page 4 of the wayback machine capture discloses dust extraction, and page 5 of the wayback machine capture shows a dust extractor, and wherein 5:45 of the YouTube shows a hose coupled thereto);
coupling a safety controller with the drive motor (see at least the setup shown on page 3 of the WayBack machine capture, as well as 3:20-4:50 regarding the safety features);
coupling an emergency stop to the safety controller (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the YouTube video showing the emergency stop and controller configurations);
coupling a foot pedal switch to the drive motor (see at least Reference Drawing 2, taken from 4:02 of the YouTube video; see also 4:00-4:16).
However, RJH does not explicitly teach of a pivoting arm, the exhaust vacuum including a vacuum/air flow sensor, wherein the foot pedal switch requiring foot pressure to operate the drive motor, and supplying a 480 volt current 3 phase electrical power to the drive motor.
Lamb (US 4727683) teaches of a pivoting arm (see pivot element 48, Figures 1-4, as well as Col. 1, lines 42-65, Col. 3, lines 25-46).
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 RJH to include a pivotable function on the arm of the device, as taught by Lamb. One would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional convenience for a user to position an abrasive belt; see Col. 1, lines 42-48.
Betterman (US 2022/0184775) teaches of a vacuum/air flow sensor ([0046]).
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 RJH to include a vacuum flow sensor, as taught by Betterman. One would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the suction rate taking place, which influences the energy consumption of the device as well as the quality of the machining result, such that a user may fine tune the desired suction rate; see [0021].
Woodson teaches of a foot pedal switch requiring foot pressure to operate the drive motor (see Figure 1, switch 20, as well as [0034]: wherein the switch 20 may be used for activation of the motor and used as a kill switch for deactivation of the motor, wherein such deactivation occurs by removal of foot pressure on the switch).
RJH provides both an emergency stop button, as can be seen at 3:45, in addition to an emergency stop foot pedal, i.e. both configured to deactivate the drive motor. Woodson also teaches of a foot pedal configured as a kill switch, in addition to a manual hand operated control (26), i.e. analogous to the emergency button of RJH, however Woodson further teaches that the deactivation of the motor takes place as a result of removing foot pressure from the pedal, instead of the configuration taught by RJH. 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 foot pedal switch of RJH to reflect that pressing the foot pedal imparts driving the motor, and removal of foot pressure deactivates the motor, as taught by Woodson. Both Woodson and RJH provide multiple pedals, dials, switches, etc. for deactivating respective drive motors, wherein Woodson provides a slightly different activation/deactivation sequence. One would be motivated to modify the invention of RJH to reflect the foot pedal switch of Woodson in order to ensure that if an operator suddenly releases foot pressure (i.e. if an operator is suddenly injured, faints, gets distracted, etc.), the motor stops immediately, as opposed to needing a user to find the foot pedal switch and then impart pressure to stop the device. This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. a type of foot pedal switch configured to activate and deactivate a motor, to improve a similar surfacing device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Harper (US 5283982) teaches of a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor (Col. 8, lines 46-59).
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 RJH to include the power supply taught by Harper. Harper is from a similar field of surfacing devices which operate on a larger scale, and Harper contemplates a proper power supply for the device. One would be motivated to employ the teachings of Harper in order to ensure the device of RJH has enough power to perform the machining functions. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. the power supply described by Harper, to improve a similar device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches electronically coupling the safety controller to the emergency stop, the guard door sensor, and a vacuum pressure/air flow sensor (see at least the emergency stop portions shown on page 3 of the wayback machine capture, as well as 2:45, 3:20-4:50 of the YouTube video showing the emergency stop and controller configurations, as well as the combination statement as applied above for controlling the power supplied to the suction unit).
Regarding claim 10, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. Modified RJH further teaches configuring the safety controller to prevent operation of the drive motor responsive to a predetermined condition, wherein the predetermined condition comprises an operator providing foot pressure on the foot pedal switch to provide for drive motor operation (please also see the combination statement as applied above, as well as [0034] of Woodson).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RJH in view of Lamb (US 4727683), Woodson (US 2022/0023995), Harper (US 5283982), and Betterman (US 2022/0184775), and in further view of Miura (JPH0711319Y2). Please see the attached English Translation.
Regarding claim 6, RJH as modified above teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, although modified RJH teaches the safety controller is configured to detect electrical contact being broken in at least 3:20-4:50 of the YouTube video, modified RJH further does not explicitly teach the combination of wherein the safety controller is configured to detect electrical faults, short circuits, and welded contacts.
From the same or similar field of endeavor of devices with safety features incorporated therein, Miura teaches of a safety controller is configured to detect electrical faults, short circuits, and welded contacts (see page 2 of the English translation teaching of a determination circuit for determining whether or not there is an abnormality in the device, wherein page 3 teaches of a signal and alarm indicative of a ground fault or welding of contact occurring, as well as a short circuit occurring).
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 inclusion of detecting circuit abnormalities including electrical faults, short circuits, and welded contacts as taught by Miura, into the invention of modified RJH. Within the context of circuits coupled with AC power sources, both Miura and RJH employ several types of safety mechanisms. One would be motivated to incorporate those taught by Miura in order to further mitigate accidents and incorporate a fail-safe protection in the instance of unforeseen circumstances or abnormalities (see pages 2 and 3 of Miura). This modification would be recognized as using a known technique, i.e. additional circuitry safety features, to improve a similarly powered device, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the DynaBrade Obsolete Manual for the date for the below citation. Item number 65036 (dated in 2014).
Dynabrade Virtubelter Manual
Dynabrade 64881 Manual (2005)
Dynabrade 649003 (2007)
Beugler (US 1153479), please see treadle bar 62 which requires foot pressure.
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