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 Amendment
The amendments filed 11-04-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4,6-12,14-22 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 16-22 are newly added. Claims 5 and 13 have been cancelled. Applicant’s amendment overcomes 112 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office action mailed 08-19-2025. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see filed 11-04-2025, with respect to the
rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 19 and 22 their dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.102 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (as necessitated by amendment) relies on a different combination of prior art references, not applied in the prior rejection of record to teach the new claim limitations.
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: an attaching/detaching part in claim 6.
Examiner is interpreting the controller as an attaching/detaching part as disclosed in applicant specification (see para 0051) or equivalent structure.
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.
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
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) 1-4,6-12,14-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Melvin et al (EP1510291A1) in view of Lamphrect (DE10238757A1) and Makoto (JPH11291170A).
Regarding claim 1, Melvin teaches
a dust box (60, figure 16);
an electric motor (abstract; 10, figure 4);
a dust collecting fan (20, figure 2);
belt driving part configured to rotate an endless sanding belt (abstract, para 0017-0026); and housing (3,6, figure 3) that has a discharge nozzle (36, figure 16) and a suction nozzle (24, figure 3) configured to suck air from the dust box into the housing, the housing being configured to house the electric motor for driving the belt driving part and the dust collecting fan, the dust box comprising
first nozzle (61, figures 15 and 16) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
filter (para 0027-0028) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with the second nozzle, wherein;
the filter is a bag-shaped air filter that has an opening at one end (para 0031),
a frame (80, figure 20) is disposed inside the bag-shaped filter, and
a line (see annotated figure below) passing through a center of a frame (see figures 15-20) opening of the frame intersects with the dust collecting fan.
PNG
media_image1.png
468
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Melvin fails to teach the dust box comprising second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle;container part formed of synthetic resin and connected to the first and second nozzles;
Lamphrecht teaches a grinding machine that includes a dust box (22, figure 1) comprising:
a first nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
a second nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the suction nozzle;
a container part (30, figure 1) connected to the first and second nozzles (see annotated figure below); and
a filter (28, figure 1) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with the second nozzle (figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle based on the teachings of Lamprecht. This modification would help improve fludic optimization of the suction fan for an optimal suction effect, and so that suction power of the suction fan can be increased and avoid deposits of processing residues in the suction fan and reduce clogging (see pages 1-2 of Lamprecht).
Makoto discloses a belt sander that has a dust box (20-21, figure 1) where the dust box is formed of synthetic resin (Makoto “the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust box so that the container is formed of synthetic resin material based on the teachings of Makoto. This modification would help reduce the chance of a user getting shocked by neutralizing the static electricity that is generated. (see Makoto abstract, pages 1-4 )
Regarding claim 2, modified Melvin teaches wherein the filter is arranged closer to the second nozzle than to the first nozzle within the container part. (see annotated Lamphrecht figure above)
Regarding claim 3, modified Melvin teaches the belt driving part includes a drive roller that is rotated by the motor, and a driven roller, and where a direction in which a rotational axis of the drive roller and a rotational axis of the driven roller extend is defined as a left-right direction, a direction in which the drive roller and the driven roller are arranged in parallel is defined as a front-rear direction, and a direction orthogonal to the left-right direction and the front-rear direction is defined as an up-down direction, a polishing surface is defined by a lower surface of the sanding belt, and the dust box is configured such that, when the dust box is mounted to the belt sander (see Melvin para 0017-0026), the first nozzle is located below the second nozzle, and the first space is a lower space within the container part.
Regarding claim 4, modified Melvin teaches wherein the first (see Melvin 61, figures 15 and 16) and second nozzles are open in the same direction (see Lamphrecht annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Melvin teaches the container part has a nozzle connection part (see Melvin 62, figure 3) that is connected to the first and second nozzles, and a body part (see Melvin 64, figure 16) that is removably fitted to the nozzle connection part, and the filter (see Melvin para 0031-0033) is provided on the nozzle connection part.
Regarding claim 7, modified Melvin teaches an attaching/detaching part (see Melvin 40, figures 18-19)configured to attach and detach the body part to and from the nozzle connection part.
Regarding claim 8, modified Melvin teaches wherein at least part of the dust box is formed of conductive synthetic resin (see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon.)
Regarding claim 9, modified Melvin teaches where an up-down direction is defined with the side of the belt sander on which the belt driving part is arranged being defined as a lower side and the opposite side defined as an upper side (see Melvin abstract; para 0017-0026; figures 1-20), at least part of the container part that is located below a central position of the container part in the up-down direction when the dust box (see Melvin 60, figure 16) is mounted to the belt sander is formed of the conductive synthetic resin (see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)
Regarding claim 10, modified Melvin teaches an earth member having one end part connected to the part formed of the conductive synthetic resin, and the other end part exposed outside the dust box. (see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)
Regarding claim 11, modified Melvin teaches the belt driving part includes a drive roller that is rotated by the motor, and a driven roller, and where a direction in which a rotational axis of the drive roller and a rotational axis of the driven roller extend is defined as a left-right direction, a direction in which the drive roller and the driven roller are arranged in parallel is defined as a front-rear direction, and a direction orthogonal to the left-right direction and the front-rear direction is defined as an up-down direction, a polishing surface is defined by a lower surface of the sanding belt (see Melvin abstract; para 0017-0026; figures 1-20), and the dust box is configured such that, when the dust box is mounted to the belt sander, the first nozzle is located below the second nozzle, and the first space is a lower space within the container part (see Lamphrect annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Melvin teaches wherein the first and second nozzles are open in the same direction. (see Lamphrect annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 14, modified Melvin teaches a belt driving part that includes a drive roller configured to be rotated by the motor, and a driven roller, and is configured to drive an endless sanding belt looped over the drive roller and the driven roller, wherein: where a direction in which a rotational axis of the drive roller and a rotational axis of the driven roller extend is defined as a left-right direction, a direction in which the drive roller and the driven roller are arranged in parallel is defined as a front-rear direction, and a direction orthogonal to the left-right direction and the front-rear direction is defined as an up-down direction, the belt driving part is arranged below the housing (see Melvin abstract; para 0017-0026; figures 1-20), the housing includes: a discharge nozzle configured to discharge dust generated by the working operation from the housing and a suction nozzle configured to suck air from the dust box into the housing (see Lamphrecht annotated figure above, pages 1-2); a dust collection port (see Melvin 63, figures 20) provided behind the belt driving part;
an air outlet (see Melvin 26, figures 5-20) that communicates with a space where the dust collecting fan is housed; a first passage (see Melvin 33, figure 15) that connects the dust collection port and the discharge nozzle, and a second passage (see Melvin 22, figures 5-20) that connects the suction nozzle and the air outlet, wherein:
the first passage is separated from spaces where the motor and the dust collecting fan are housed within the housing (see Melvin para 0023-0027), and the second passage, and the second passage communicates with the space where the dust collecting fan is housed (see Melvin para 0020 and 0024), and the dust collecting fan is configured to rotate to generate an air flow from the dust collection port toward the discharge nozzle through the first passage, and an air flow from the suction nozzle toward the air outlet through the second passage (see Melvin para 0020 and 0024).
Regarding claim 15, modified Melvin teaches the suction nozzle and the discharge nozzle are open to the rear (see Melvin para 0017-0018,0024-0025,0029) and the discharge nozzle is arranged below the suction nozzle (see Lamphrecht annotated figure below).
Regarding claim 16, modified Melvin teaches the container part is separable into a nozzle connection part (see Melvin 62, figure 3) and a body part having a front opening, and
the filter is fixed, via the frame, to a groove of the nozzle connection part, with a filter opening directed toward the second nozzle.
Regarding claim 17, modified Melvin teaches the container part comprises a nozzle connection part (see Melvin 62, figure 3) and a body part (see Melvin 64, figure 16),
the dust box has an attaching/detaching part (see Melvin 40, figures 16-17) that is configured to attach and detach the body part to and from the nozzle connection part,
the nozzle connection part has a partition wall (see Melvin 62, figures 15-20), and
a shaft of the attaching/detaching part (see Melvin 40 figures 18) penetrates the partition wall in a front-rear direction.
Regarding claim 18, modified Melvin teaches a lower portion of the dust box is formed of conductive resin (see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon.),
an earth member is provided with one end connected to the conductive resin and the other end exposed externally (see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon.), and
the other end of the earth member extends so as to be contactable with a sanding surface see Makoto (“the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon.).
Regarding claim 19, Melvin teaches
a first nozzle (61, figures 15 and 16) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
a filter (para 0027-0033) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with a nozzle, wherein:
the container part is separable into a nozzle connection part (see Melvin 62, figure 3) and a body part (see Melvin 64, figure 16) having a front opening,
the filter is a bag-shaped air filter that has an opening at one end, a frame is disposed inside the bag-shaped filter, and the filter is fixed, via the frame, to a groove of the nozzle connection part, with a filter opening directed toward a nozzle (para 0027-0033, figures 1-20).
Melvin fails to teach the dust box comprising second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle;container part formed of synthetic resin and connected to the first and second nozzles.
Lamphrecht teaches a grinding machine that includes a dust box (22, figure 1) comprising:
a first nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
a second nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the suction nozzle;
a container part (30, figure 1) connected to the first and second nozzles (see annotated figure below); and
a filter (28, figure 1) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with the second nozzle (figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle based on the teachings of Lamprecht. This modification would help improve fludic optimization of the suction fan for an optimal suction effect, and so that suction power of the suction fan can be increased and avoid deposits of processing residues in the suction fan and reduce clogging (see pages 1-2 of Lamprecht).
Makoto discloses a belt sander that has a dust box (20-21, figure 1) where the dust box is formed of synthetic resin (Makoto “the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust box so that the container is formed of synthetic resin material based on the teachings of Makoto. This modification would help reduce the chance of a user getting shocked by neutralizing the static electricity that is generated. (see Makoto abstract, pages 1-4 )
Regarding claim 20, modified Melvin teaches an attaching/detaching part (see Melvin 40, figures 17-20) that is configured to attach and detach the body part to and from the nozzle connection part, wherein:
the nozzle connection part has a partition wall, and a shaft of the attaching/detaching part penetrates the partition wall in a front-rear direction (see Melvin 40 figures 17- 20).
Regarding claim 21, modified Melvin teaches a lower portion of the dust box is formed of conductive resin,
an earth member is provided with one end connected to the conductive resin and the other end exposed externally, and
the other end of the earth member extends so as to be contactable with a sanding surface. ( see Makoto ““the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)
Regarding claim 22, Melvin teaches
a first nozzle (see 61, figures 15-16) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
a filter (see para 0025-0031) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space (figures 17-20) that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with a nozzle, wherein:
the container part comprises a nozzle connection part (see Melvin 62, figures 3,15-20) and a body part (see Melvin 64, figure 16), the dust box has an attaching/detaching part (40, figures 15-20) that is configured to attach and detach the body part to and from the nozzle connection part, the nozzle connection part has a partition wall, and a shaft of the attaching/detaching part penetrates the partition wall in a front-rear direction. (see figures 15-20)
Melvin fails to teach the dust box comprising second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle; container part formed of synthetic resin and connected to the first and second nozzles;
Lamphrecht teaches a grinding machine that includes a dust box (22, figure 1) comprising:
a first nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the discharge nozzle;
a second nozzle (see annotated figure below) configured to be connected to the suction nozzle;
a container part (30, figure 1) connected to the first and second nozzles (see annotated figure below); and
a filter (28, figure 1) that is configured to separate dust from air and arranged within the container part to partition an inside space of the container part into a first space that communicates with the first nozzle and a second space that communicates with the second nozzle (figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
603
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust second nozzle configured to be connected to the suction nozzle based on the teachings of Lamprecht. This modification would help improve fludic optimization of the suction fan for an optimal suction effect, and so that suction power of the suction fan can be increased and avoid deposits of processing residues in the suction fan and reduce clogging (see pages 1-2 of Lamprecht).
Makoto discloses a belt sander that has a dust box (20-21, figure 1) where the dust box is formed of synthetic resin (Makoto “the cylinder is integrally formed of a conductive resin”; “Reference numeral 1 denotes an earth plate 19 formed integrally with a conductive resin (here, polypropylene containing carbon)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Melvin’s dust box so that the container is formed of synthetic resin material based on the teachings of Makoto. This modification would help reduce the chance of a user getting shocked by neutralizing the static electricity that is generated. (see Makoto abstract, pages 1-4 )
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723