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 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.
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer US20130090045 (hereinafter, Meyer) in view of Van US6280309 (hereinafter, Van).
Regarding claim 21, Meyer teaches a tile tool nut (100, see Fig. 4) comprising:
a nut body 102 that defines a central longitudinal axis 31 of rotation, the nut body
comprising a top surface (TS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) that defines a first diameter (see top surface diameter in Fig. 4) and a bottom surface (BS, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) that
defines a second diameter (see Fig. 4), the second diameter greater than the first diameter (see Fig. 4), the bottom surface comprises a contiguous flat surface transverse to the central longitudinal axis of rotation (see Fig. 5A);
a threaded passage 112 through the nut body along the central longitudinal axis of
rotation, the threaded passage operable to thread onto a spindle (34, see Fig. 1) of a cutting tool;
a counterbore (110, see Fig. 5A) in the bottom surface along the central longitudinal axis of rotation;
a first mounting (114A, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) feature through the nut body along a first axis (FA, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) parallel to the central longitudinal axis of rotation; and
a second mounting (114B, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) feature through the nut body along a second axis (SA, as indicated in annotated Fig. 4) parallel to the central longitudinal axis of rotation, the central longitudinal axis of rotation, the first axis, and the second axis, along a common line (see Fig. 4).
Meyer fails to teach a frustoconical nut body.
However, Van teaches a disk 1800, provided with an annular attachment 1804, having a frustoconical shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified the shape of the nut body in Meyer to have a frustoconical shape as taught by Van to allow the user to vary the depth of cut by tilting the disk (see column 8, lines 30-40).
PNG
media_image1.png
256
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
Regarding claim 22, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 21, wherein Meyer further teaches the bottom surface of the tile tool nut 100 is configured to fit flush against a grinder 36 associated with a cutting tool (see para. [0024]).
In any event, it is the Examiner’s position that the tool nut in Meyer is adjustable via spindle 34 making the tool element adjustable (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 21, wherein the bottom surface of the tile tool nut is configured to fit flush against a blade associated with a cutting tool.
Meyer fails to teach a blade, but discloses that a blade and a grinder disc are some variations of a power tool component (see para. [0002]). As established above in claim 22, Meyer is capable of being configured a nut to fit flush against a grinder. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Meyer is capable of being configured to align the nut to fit flush against the blade upon mounting of blade on the spindle. Please refer to Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 24, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 21, wherein Meyer further teaches the frustoconical nut body is manufactured of a non-metallic material (see para. [0021] stating the nut may be constructed of any appropriate material e.g. plastics).
Regarding claim 25, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 24, but fails to teach wherein the nut body in Meyer appear to be manufactured of a single seamless piece.
However, it is the Examiner’s position manufacturing of a tile tool nut of a single seamless piece is considered common and is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 26, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 25, wherein the frustoconical nut body is milled.
It is the Examiner’s position that claim 26 is directed to a product-by-process claim where in the process relied upon is “milling”. This limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 27, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 26, Van further teaches the tool adapted to be used with a conventional grinder having a typical no-load rotation speed of 11000 rpm, but fails to teach wherein the frustoconical nut body is manufactured to withstand rotation about the central longitudinal axis of rotation up to 20,000 RPMs.
However, the Examiner interprets the above limitation to be product by process where the nut body is manufactured to withstand certain rpm. Further, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the tool nut of Meyer to have rotation as claimed, since manufacturing of such nut is well known and routine skill to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 28, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 21, but fails to teach wherein the bottom surface of the tile tool nut is between 2-3 inches in diameter and a height of the tile tool nut along the central longitudinal axis of rotation is less than 0.5 inches.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the diameter and height of nut in Meyer in order to fit varieties of grinder or attaching element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Claims 29-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber et al., US20110014855 (hereinafter, Farber).
Regarding claim 29, Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious a tile tool nut comprising:
a frustoconical nut body that defines a central longitudinal axis of rotation, the frustoconical nut body comprising a top surface that defines a first diameter and a bottom surface that
defines a second diameter, the second diameter greater than the first diameter,
the bottom surface comprises a contiguous flat surface transverse to the central
longitudinal axis of rotation;
a threaded passage through the frustoconical nut body along the central longitudinal axis of rotation, the threaded passage operable to thread onto a spindle of a cutting tool;
a first mounting feature through the frustoconical nut body along a first axis parallel to the central longitudinal axis of rotation; and
a second mounting feature through the frustoconical nut body along a second axis parallel to the central longitudinal axis of rotation, the central longitudinal axis of rotation, the first axis, and the second axis, along a common line.
Meyer in view of Van teaches and/or make obvious of the limitations above in claim 1, except for a chamfer in the bottom surface along the central longitudinal axis of rotation.
However, Farber teaches similar tool of an abrasive disc assembly for a tool having an externally threaded, motor-driven spindle, wherein bore (112, see Fig. 10) comprise a chamfer 114 along the edge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified nut disclosed by Meyer to have a chamfer in the bottom surface along the central longitudinal axis of rotation as taught by Farber to improve engagement of abrasive disc assembly on spindle.
Regarding claim 30, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 29, wherein Meyer further teaches the bottom surface of the tile tool nut 100 is configured to fit flush against a grinder 36 associated with a cutting tool (see para. [0024] and rejection set forth above in claim 22).
Regarding claim 31, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 29, wherein the bottom surface of the tile tool nut is configured to fit flush against a blade associated with a cutting tool.
Meyer discloses that a blade and a grinder disc are some variations of a power tool component (see para. [0002]). As established above in claim 21, Meyer is capable of being configured a nut to fit flush against a grinder. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that Meyer is capable of being configured to align the nut to fit flush against the blade upon mounting of blade on the spindle. Please refer to Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 32, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 29, wherein Meyer further teaches the frustoconical nut body is manufactured of a non-metallic material (see para. [0021] stating the nut may be constructed of any appropriate material e.g. plastics).
Regarding claim 33, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 32, but fails to teach wherein the frustoconical nut body is manufactured of a single seamless piece.
However, it is the Examiner’s position manufacturing of a tile tool nut of a single seamless piece is considered common and is obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 34, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 33, wherein the frustoconical nut body is milled.
It is the Examiner’s position that claim 34 is directed to a product-by-process claim where in the process relied upon is “milling”. This limitation is not given any patentable weight since the structural limitations of the claimed product are met.
Regarding claim 35, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 34, Van further teaches the tool adapted to be used with a conventional grinder having a typical no-load rotation speed of 11000 rpm, but fails to teach wherein the frustoconical nut body is manufactured to withstand rotation about the central longitudinal axis of rotation up to 20,000 RPMs.
However, the Examiner interprets the above limitation to be product by process where the nut body is manufactured to withstand certain rpm. Further, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify the tool nut of Meyer to have rotation as claimed, since manufacturing of such nut is well known and routine skill to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 36, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 35, but fails to teach wherein the bottom surface of the tile tool nut is between 2-3 inches in diameter and a height of the tile tool nut along the central longitudinal axis of rotation is less than 0.5 inches.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have modified the diameter and height of nut in Meyer in order to fit different sizes of grinder or attaching element, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (iv) (a).
Regarding claim 37, Meyer in view of Van, in further view of Farber teaches and/or make obvious of the tile tool nut as recited in Claim 36, but fails to teach wherein the frustoconical nut body is manufactured of a single seamless piece of acetol.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that 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 nut disclosed by Meyer to be manufactured of a single seamless piece of acetol, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. It is also a common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations for that material. MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIL K MAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8180. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/DIL K. MAGAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675