DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-2, be found allowable, claims 8-9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2, 7, 9-11, 15 and 20 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 claims 2, 9, 15, and 20, each of these claims recites the motor drive being equipped with “a safe torque off feature.” It is unclear what a “safe torque off feature” is in the context of the claims. What is this feature? Is this a physical element of the grinding machine or a function of the motor drive? What function is served by this feature? For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejections below. See arguments below for further discussion.
Claims 10-11 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “said drive motor brake is configured as a dynamic brake.” It is unclear what “configured as a dynamic brake” means in this context. What makes a brake dynamic? What particular structure or function of the brake is being defined here? Applicant’s specification provides no guidance as to how this limitation is intended to be interpreted. See arguments below for further discussion.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasparino (US 2017/0320191, previously cited) in view of Woodson (US 2022/0023995, previously cited), Ruffner (US 2018/0099432, previously cited) and Barry (NL 2012364, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 8 (claim 8 is a duplicate of claim 1; see objection above), Gasparino teaches a grinding machine comprising: a support pedestal (shown unlabeled in fig 1b below motor 110 and connected to element 34) that supports a drive motor (110) that supports an abrasive wheel (112) rotatably coupled to the drive motor ([0027]); a motor drive (programmed memory 32) operatively coupled to the drive motor (fig 5); a safety controller (30) operatively coupled with the drive motor and motor drive ([0033]); an emergency stop (44) operatively coupled to the safety controller (fig 5; fig 1a), and an alternating current electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor ([0027]).
Gasparino does not teach a foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the safety controller. Woodson teaches a grinding machine comprising a foot pedal switch (20) operatively coupled to control a motor safety operation ([0034]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the safety controller of Gasparino, allowing a user an additional control to activate or deactivate the motor with or without the use of their hands as taught by Woodson ([0034]).
Gasparino does not teach the alternating current supply being 480 volts or 3 phase, but does teach that “traditional A/C power” can be used ([0027]). Ruffner teaches a grinding machine including a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to a drive motor (as described [0033]; “conventional 480 volt three phase building outlet”). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply for the grinding machine of Gasparino, as these types of power supplies are conventional in the field of grinding machines, achieving the predictable result of providing power for an electric motor as taught by Ruffner.
Gasparino does not teach an exhaust vacuum coupled to the support pedestal proximate the abrasive wheel and including an air flow sensor. Barry teaches a grinding machine including an exhaust vacuum (elements SD, ST) coupled to a support pedestal (GM; fig 1) with an airflow sensor (PS; measures pressure, which is indicative of airflow) connected to a safety controller (CS; fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an exhaust vacuum proximate the abrasive wheel with an associated air flow sensor connected to the safety controller of Gasparino, as this allows the grinding machine to remove particles from the work area during grinding and prevent operation when the suction is insufficient as taught by Barry (p 6, lines 1-4; p 6, lines 11-13).
Regarding claims 2 and 9 (claims 2 and 9 are duplicates; see objection above), Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as described above. Gasparino further teaches said motor drive is equipped with a safe torque off feature ([0033]; when unsafe conditions are detected, the power connection to the motor is interrupted).
Regarding claim 3, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gasparino further teaches said motor drive is programmable ([0034]) and configured to maintain operation of the drive motor ([0034] controls operation of the safety controller to run the grinding machine) at a predetermined speed for a material removal ([0027]; “high rate of speed”).
Regarding claim 4, Gasparino as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gasparino further teaches the safety controller (30) is electronically coupled to the emergency stop (44; fig 5) and the air flow sensor (as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gasparino further teaches the safety controller is configured to prevent operation of the drive motor responsive to predetermined conditions ([0037]; prevents operation of the motor depending on condition of element 44).
Regarding claim 10, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Gasparino further teaches the safety controller (30) is electronically coupled to the emergency stop (44; fig 5) and the vacuum pressure sensor (as described in the rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 13, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Gasparino does not teach a fault light on a panel. Barry teaches a grinding machine comprising a fault light (IL) on a panel (as shown in fig 3), wherein a safety controller is configured to provide a signal to the fault light on the panel (p 8, lines 1-3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fault light on a panel in the machine of Gasparino and configure the safety controller to provide a signal to the fault light in order to provide a visual indicator for an operator of the machine as to whether the machine is working sufficiently as taught by Barry (p 8, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 14, Gasparino teaches a process for configuring a grinding machine for safety comprising: providing a support pedestal (shown unlabeled in fig 1b below motor 110 and connected to element 34) that supports a drive motor (110) that supports an abrasive wheel (112) rotatably coupled to the drive motor ([0027]); coupling a motor drive (programmed memory 32) to the drive motor (fig 5); coupling a safety controller (30) with the drive motor and motor drive ([0033]); coupling an emergency stop (44) to the safety controller (fig 5; fig 1a), and supplying an alternating current electrical power supply electrically coupled to the drive motor ([0027]).
Gasparino does not teach a coupling foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the safety controller. Woodson teaches a process for configuring a grinding machine comprising coupling a foot pedal switch (20) operatively coupled to control a motor safety operation ([0034]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a foot pedal switch operatively coupled to the safety controller of Gasparino, allowing a user an additional control to activate or deactivate the motor with or without the use of their hands as taught by Woodson ([0034]).
Gasparino does not teach the alternating current supply being 480 volts or 3 phase, but does teach that “traditional A/C power” can be used ([0027]). Ruffner teaches a grinding machine including a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply electrically coupled to a drive motor (as described [0033]; “conventional 480 volt three phase building outlet”). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supply a 480 volt alternating current 3 phase electrical power supply for the grinding machine of Gasparino, as these types of power supplies are conventional in the field of grinding machines, achieving the predictable result of providing power for an electric motor as taught by Ruffner.
Gasparino does not teach coupling an exhaust vacuum to the support pedestal proximate the abrasive wheel and including a vacuum/air flow sensor. Barry teaches process for configuring a grinding machine comprising coupling an exhaust vacuum (elements SD, ST) to a support pedestal (GM; fig 1), the exhaust vacuum including an air flow sensor (PS; measures pressure, which is indicative of airflow) connected to a safety controller (CS; fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple an exhaust vacuum proximate the abrasive wheel with an associated air flow sensor connected to the safety controller of Gasparino, as this allows the grinding machine to remove particles from the work area during grinding and prevent operation when the suction is insufficient as taught by Barry (p 6, lines 1-4; p 6, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 15, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino further teaches said motor drive is equipped with a safe torque off feature ([0033]; when unsafe conditions are detected, the power connection to the motor is interrupted).
Regarding claim 16, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino further teaches said motor drive is programmable ([0034]) and configured to maintain operation of the drive motor ([0034] controls operation of the safety controller to run the grinding machine) at a predetermined speed for a material removal ([0027]; “high rate of speed”).
Regarding claim 17, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino further teaches electrically coupling the safety controller (30) to the E-stop (44; fig 5) and the air flow sensor (as described in the rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 18, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino further teaches configuring the safety controller to prevent operation of the drive motor responsive to predetermined conditions ([0037]; prevents operation of the motor depending on condition of element 44).
Regarding claim 20, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino further teaches said motor drive is equipped with a safe torque off feature, wherein the safe torque off feature is configured for the drive motor to spin freely upon predetermined input ([0033]; when unsafe conditions are detected, the power connection to the motor is interrupted, which would allow free spinning rather than powered operation).
Claim(s) 6-7, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasparino, Woodson, Ruffner, and Barry as applied to claims 1, 9, and 14 above, and further in view of Glide (US 2009/0093191, previously cited).
Regarding claims 6-7, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gasparino does not teach a dynamic drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor. Glide teaches a grinding machine including a drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor (described [0028]); wherein said drive motor brake is configured as a dynamic brake (as described [0028]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dynamic drive motor brake to the drive motor of Gasparino in order to allow a fast stop of the grind wheel as taught by Glide ([0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. Gasparino does not teach a drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor. Glide teaches a grinding machine including a drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor (described [0028]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drive motor brake to the drive motor of Gasparino in order to allow a fast stop of the grind wheel as taught by Glide ([0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 14 as described above. Gasparino does not teach a drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor. Glide teaches a grinding machine including a drive motor brake operatively coupled to the drive motor (described [0028]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a drive motor brake to the drive motor of Gasparino in order to allow a fast stop of the grind wheel as taught by Glide ([0028]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasparino, Woodson, Ruffner, and Barry as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Duan (US 2018/0147682, previously cited).
Regarding claim 12, Gasparino, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Gasparino does not teach the safety controller is configured to detect electrical faults, short circuits and welded contacts. Duan teaches a grinding machine including a safety controller (50) configured to detect electrical faults, short circuits and welded contacts (short circuit detection explicitly described in [0048], which would detect any faults and welded contacts which result in short circuiting). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the safety controller of Gasparino to detect electrical faults, short circuits, and welded contacts, as this allows the controller to automatically brake the grinding wheel in the event of a short circuit as taught by Duan ([0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2 Jan 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the term “safe torque off feature” is clear, due to being known in the art of VFDs. However, the current application is not in the field of VFDs (note that applicant’s arguments do not define VFD and the term never appears in applicant’s specification, but it appears applicant is referring to variable frequency drives), as the invention is directed to a grinding machine. While it is common for grinding machines to include motors and controls for them, the term “safe torque off feature” does not have a set defined meaning in the art of grinding machines. The claim recites “said motor drive is equipped with a safe torque off feature.” It is unclear if this phrase is indicating a structural limitation or a functional limitation, and in either case it is unclear in the context of the claims what structure or function is encompassed by the phrase. While applicant’s specification and arguments describe additional functions of this feature, these functions are not read into the claims and it is unclear what function or structure is included in the scope of the claims.
Applicant further argues that the term “dynamic brake” is clear to a person of ordinary skill, citing the specification which discloses their desired functions of a dynamic brake. However, there is no special definition of the phrase “dynamic brake” and it would be improper to import limitations into the claims from the specification. The term “dynamic brake” does not have a widely known accepted meaning in the field of grinding machines.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 14, and their dependents, applicant argues that Barry is nonanalogous art since it is directed to a floor grinder rather than a pedestal grinder, and therefore is not combinable with Gasparino, Woodson, and Ruffner. In response to applicant's argument that Barry is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Barry is both in the field of the inventor’s endeavor and pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Specifically, Barry is within the field of grinding machines. The second sentence of applicant’s specification states “The present disclosure is directed to grinding machines and particularly to safety features for grinding machines.” As Barry is directed to a grinding machine, it is clearly in the field of endeavor of the inventor. Applicant’s arguments attempt to narrowly define the field of endeavor as one that only include a grinding machine with a pedestal which supports a drive motor that supports an abrasive wheel rotatably coupled to the drive motor. See MPEP 2141.01(a), which states “The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.” Applicant’s arguments attempt to narrow the conception of the field of endeavor to a particular class of grinding machines, in sharp contrast to applicant’s own specification which states the invention is more generally “directed to grinding machines”.
Paragraph [0002] of applicant’s specification states the disclosure is directed “particularly to safety features for grinding machines,” and paragraph [0003] of applicant’s specification states “Grinding machines create substantial quantities of fine airborne particulate during operation. However, grinding machines are optionally equipped with exhaust vacuum particulate removal devices.” This is an indication that improving safety of a grinding machine is the particular problem with which the inventor is concerned, and that a particular solution for doing so is by removing particulate material generated during grinding. See page 1, lines 15-21 of Barry, which describes solving this same problem with the use of vacuum suction. In the paragraph which spans pages 13-14 of applicant’s response, applicant argues that the “problem faced by the present inventors was to provide a grinding machine comprising” the features of claim 1. This is not a problem, but is rather a recitation of claimed features. As detailed above, Barry is clearly directed to the broader problem of user safety and the more particular problem of removing particulate material during grinding.
Applicant further argues that the sensor of Barry is a pressure sensor rather than an air flow sensor as claimed. However, as the pressure difference measured by Barry is a direct result of air flow and is indicative of air flow caused by the vacuum system, the sensor of Barry is considered to be an air flow sensor as broadly claimed. Note that applicant’s specification in all instances which describe the sensor recites “a vacuum pressure/air flow sensor,” which conflates vacuum pressure and air flow, indicating that examiner’s interpretation here is consistent with applicant’s specification.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights