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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 29 Sep 2025 has been entered.
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.
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 20, 22-30, 32, and 34-42 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 20 and 42, each of these claims recites “the ball joint assembly having… a socket… a housing… a least one flange extending outward from the housing.” The phrasing in the claims indicates the socket, housing, and flange are separate components. This is inconsistent with applicant’s specification, which states “Housing 76 has a shelf 72, a socket 79, and one or more flanges 74 that extend outwardly from the socket 73” (original spec [0065]), which indicates that the socket and flange are subcomponents of the housing rather than separate components altogether. This makes the intended scope of the claims unclear. How can the flange extend from the housing if the flange is part of the housing itself? For the purposes of this examination, these claims will be read as defining a housing which includes a socked and at least one flange extending outward from the socket, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the intended limitation based on a reading of applicant’s specification.
Further regarding claim 20, the claim recites a ball joint assembly having a flange “coupled to the top surface through the thickness.” It is unclear what is meant by the phrase “through the thickness” in the claims. How can a flange, which is a flat surface, be coupled to the top surface and at the same time be coupled “through the thickness” of the plate as claimed? As shown in applicant’s figure 1, it is unclear how the flange of the ball joint assembly 3 could possibly be attached through the thickness of the driver 2, as the flange would simply rest on top of the plate of the driver and not be “through the thickness” of the plate as claimed. This makes the intended structure of the flange relative to the plate and its thickness unclear. For the purposes of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as requiring any part of the ball joint assembly to be located within a thickness of the plate, as this is examiner’s best understanding of the intended limitation. See arguments below for further discussion.
Claims 22-30 and 32-41 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 20.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the means for transmitting rotational motion from the shaft" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as “the means for transmitting rotational motion from the rotating arm,” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Further regarding claim 42, the claim recites “the abrasive surface attachment means” in lines 15 and 17. It is unclear if the “abrasive surface attachment means” is the same or different from the recited “means for removably attaching one or more abrasive surfaces” recited in line 14. For the purposes of this examination, “the abrasive surface attachment means” will be read as further limiting the originally first cited “abrasive surface attachment means,” as this appears to be applicant’s intent. For the sake of clarity, each subsequent recitation of the same “means” should use the same phrasing to avoid confusion.
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) 20, 22-30, and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luk-Tung (US 2010/0175237, previously cited) in view of Berg (DE 19735936, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 20, Luk-Tung teaches a driver for a grinding head comprising a plate (12) having a top surface (unseen surface in fig 6a), a bottom surface (surface shown in fig 6a), a center (central region of plate 12) and a thickness defined between the top surface and the bottom surface (as shown in fig 6a); one or more grinding disk holders (30; fig 6a), each having an upper surface (unseen surface in fig 6a), a lower surface (surface shown in fig 6a) and one or more ridges framing the lower surface (fig 6a; see unlabeled ridges in elements 14 on the lower surface of holder 30), wherein the lower surface is configured to receive an abrasive surface entirely within the one or more ridges (note that the abrasive surface is not positively recited as being a part of the claimed driver; the shown ridges are capable of achieving this function), a means (interpreted under 112f as a magnet or functional equivalent) for removably attaching the one or more grinding disk holders directly to the bottom surface (fig 6a; magnet 32; [0037-0038]), wherein the means for removably attaching the one or more griding disk holders is imbedded within the thickness between the top surface and the bottom surface to be coplanar with the bottom surface (as shown in fig 6a and described [0037]); and a means (interpreted under 112f as mechanical dogs or functional equivalents) for transmitting rotational motion from a rotating am the mechanical attachment described by Luk-Tung would be capable of transmitting rotation from a rotary arm to abrasives attached to the bottom surface of the plate) to the abrasive surfaces attached to the means for removably attaching the one or more grinding disk holders (elements 34 act as dogs are capable of performing the claimed function of transmitting rotation from a rotating arm), wherein the means for transmitting rotational motion is attached to the bottom surface (as shown in fig 6a).
Luk-Tung does not teach a ball joint assembly configured to engage a rotating arm of a power trowel having a shaft, housing, flange, socket and ball. Berg teaches a driver for a grinding head comprising a ball joint assembly (see annotated fig below) configured to engage a rotating arm of a power trowel (as shown in the embodiment of figure 1, the ball joint assembly is capable of attaching to an arm (elements 3, 4); note that the power trowel is not positively recited as being a part of the claimed driver) and having a shaft (53), a housing (66) comprising a socket (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation), and a ball (65) engaged to the socket (as shown in annotated fig 4 below), the shaft extending up from the ball from within the housing and at least one flange extending outward from the socket (as shown in fig 4), wherein a lower portion of the housing enclosing the ball and the socket sits within a thickness at a center of a plate (inside plate 60) while the at least one flange is coupled to the top surface through the thickness (as best understood, the lower portion of the housing is located through the thickness of the plate such that the flange contacts the top surface of the plate). 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 ball joint assembly with a shaft, a housing with a flange and socket, a ball within the socket and with a lower portion located within a thickness of the plate of Luk-Tung, as such a ball joint assembly allows the plate to pivot freely to adapt to the surface being ground as taught by Berg ([0006], [0008]).
Regarding claims 22-26, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Luk-Tung further teaches the means for removably attaching the one or more grinding disk holders (32) lies entirely below the top surface and entirely above the bottom surface (fig 6a; [0038]; “recessed”); the means for removably attaching the one or more grinding disk holders (no longer interpreted under 112f in this claim) comprises a permanent magnet ([0038]); the plate defines one or more retaining holes configured to frictionally engage the means for removably attaching the one or more grinding disk holders (as shown in fig 6a, magnets 32 are engaged in holes in the disk 12); at least two of the one or more retaining holes are located an equivalent radial distance from the center of the plate (as shown in fig 6a; equidistant from center of plate 12); and the one or more retaining holes comprises a plurality of retaining holes located radially symmetrically about the center of the plate (as shown in fig 6a).
Regarding claims 27-29, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Luk-Tung further teaches the means for transmitting rotational motion from the rotating arm (no longer interpreted under 112f in this claim; also see 112b rejection above) comprising one or more dogs (34) protruding from the bottom surface of the plate (fig 6a); wherein the one or more dogs comprises a plurality of dogs located radially symmetrically about the center of the plate (fig 6a; three dogs equally spaced radially); wherein at least two of the one or more dogs are located an equivalent radial distance from the center of the plate (as shown in fig 6a).
Regarding claim 30, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 27 as described above. Luk-Tung further teaches the one or more dogs (34) is configured to attachment to the plate in a radially symmetrical array about the center of the plate (fig 6a). While not explicitly teaching the dogs are threaded into engagement with threaded holes in the plate for their attachment, Luk-Tung does teach the dogs are “attached to” the plate ([0037]). Furthermore, Luk-Tung teaches the magnets 32 can be threadedly engaged with threaded holes in the plate ([0038]), indicating that threaded holes are a known an acceptable way of attaching elements to the bottom of the plate. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I D). Therefore, 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 threaded holes in the plate of Luk-Tung and configure the dogs for threaded engagement therewith, as threaded holes are a known technique for achieving the predictable result of attaching elements to the bottom of the plate and provide the ability to replace the elements as needed as taught by Luk-Tung ([0038]).
Regarding claim 40, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Luk-Tung further teaches the plate further comprises a primary hole defined through the center (unlabeled central hole in plate 12 shown in fig 6a) and at least one secondary hole defined through the plate and radially offset from the center (unlabeled holes on either side of central hole shown in fig 6a).
Regarding claim 41, Luk-Tung, as modified by Berg, teaches all the limitations of claim 40 as described above. Luk-Tung does not teach a fastener extending through the at least one secondary hole. Berg further teaches the lower portion of the housing (included with the ball drive assembly as described in the rejection of claim 20 above) sits within the primary hole (hole central to plate 60 which contains lower portion) and the at least one flange is coupled to the top surface via a fastener (fastener 64; fig 4) extending through at least one secondary hole which is radially offset from the center (as shown in annotated fig below). 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 the at least one secondary hole of Berg in the plate of Luk-Tung, facilitating a fastener extending through the hole for coupling the flange to the top surface, as this arrangement achieves the predictable result of non-rotatably attaching the flange and ball joint assembly to the plate as taught by Berg ([0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Berg Fig. 4
Claim(s) 32 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luk-Tung and Berg as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Olsen (US 2020/0262022, previously cited).
Regarding claim 32, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Luk-Tung does not teach an anti-rotation pin extending from the top surface of the plate. Olsen teaches an anti-rotation pin (including elements 66, 74) extending from the top surface of a plate (as shown in fig 1 and described [0100-0102], when element 29 of fig 5 is utilized, pin extends from top surface of plate 2), the anti-rotation pin configured to engage the rotating arm of the power trowel to arrest relative rotation of the driver with respect to the rotating arm (function achieved by the presence of pin; locking connection to rotating element 8 described in [0100-0102] of Olsen). 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 anti-rotation pin extending from the top surface of the plate of Luk-Tung, as this structure achieves the predictable result of securing the plate to a rotational drive as taught by Olsen ([0100-0102]; attached to element 8 as shown in fig 1).
Regarding claim 34, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 32 as described above. Olsen further teaches the anti-rotation pin (included as described in the rejection of claim 32 above) further comprises a through-hole configured to receive a cotter pin (element 72 at top of anti-rotation pin engages cotter pin 76 as shown in fig 5; note that the cotter pin has not been positively recited as a part of the claimed driver).
Regarding claims 35, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 32 as described above. Luk-Tung does not teach a pin holder integrally extending from the top surface. Olsen further teaches a pin holder (see annotated fig below) integrally extending from a top surface (from top surface of element 60), the pin holder configured to house the anti-rotation pin (housing anti-rotation pin 66 as shown in fig 5). 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 pin holder integrally extending from the top surface of the plate of Luk-Tung, achieving the predictable result of providing the means necessary to connect to the anti-rotation pin to the top surface as taught by Olsen ([0101]).
Regarding claims 36-37, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 35 as described above. Olsen further teaches the pin holder (included as described in rejection of claim 31 above) is imbedded at least partially within the driver (bottom part of pin holder is integrally embedded within top surface, which is the driver when applied to Luk-Tung), extending vertically and perpendicularly from the top surface (fig 5); and wherein the pin holder defines one or more cotter pin insertion holes (see annotated fig below).
PNG
media_image2.png
703
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Olsen Fig. 5
Claim(s) 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luk-Tung and Berg as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Klacking (US 2022/0088745, previously cited).
Regarding claims 38-39, Luk-Tung, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as described above. Luk-Tung does not teach extraction slots defined about an outer edge of the bottom surface and radially symmetrically about a center of the plate. Klacking teaches a driver including a plate (80) with a bottom surface comprising one or more extraction slots defined about an outer edge of the bottom surface (as shown in fig 8); wherein the one or more extraction slots are defined radially symmetrically about the center of the plate (as shown in fig 13). 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 one or more extraction slots on the bottom surface of the plate of Luk-Tung and defined radially symmetrically about the center of the plate, as such slots allow a tool to aid in removal of a grinding element from the bottom of the plate as taught by Klacking ([0075]).
Claim(s) 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luk-Tung (US 2010/0175237, previously cited) in view of Berg (DE 19735936, see provided machine translation) and Olsen (US 2020/0262022, previously cited).
Regarding claim 42, Luk-Tung teaches a driver for a grinding head comprising a plate (12) having a top surface (unseen surface in fig 6a), a bottom surface (surface shown in fig 6a), a center (central region of plate 12) and a plate thickness defined between the top surface and the bottom surface (as shown in fig 6a); a means (interpreted under 112f as a magnet or functional equivalent) for removably attaching one or more abrasive surfaces to the bottom surface (fig 6a; magnet 32; [0037-0038]), wherein the abrasive surface attachment means is imbedded in the thickness of the plate (as shown in fig 6a and described [0037]); and a means (interpreted under 112f as mechanical dogs or functional equivalents) for transmitting rotational motion from a rotating arm to the one or more abrasive surfaces attached to the abrasive surface attachment means (elements 34 act as dogs are capable of performing the claimed function of transmitting rotation from a rotating arm), wherein the means for transmitting rotational motion is attached to the bottom surface (as shown in fig 6a).
Luk-Tung does not teach a ball joint assembly configured to engage a rotating arm of a power trowel having a shaft, housing, flange, socket and ball. Berg teaches a driver for a grinding head comprising a ball joint assembly (see annotated fig 4 above) attached to a top surface at the center of a plate (60) and configured to engage a rotating arm of a power trowel (as shown in the embodiment of figure 1, the ball joint assembly is capable of attaching to an arm (elements 3, 4); note that the power trowel is not positively recited as being a part of the claimed driver), the ball joint assembly having a shaft (53), a housing (66) comprising a socket (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation), and a ball (65) engaged within the socket (as shown in annotated fig 4 above), at least one flange (see annotated fig above), wherein the housing, which comprises the socket (see 112b rejection above) ecloses the ball (as show in annotated figure 4 above), wherein the shaft extends upward from the ball and out of the housing and the at least one flange extends outward from the socket (as shown in fig 4), wherein a portion of the housing (lower portion labeled in annotated fig above) sits within a thickness (inside plate 60) so that the at least one flange is directly coupled to the top surface of the plate (as shows in annotated fig 4 above). 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 ball joint assembly with a shaft, a housing with a flange and socket, a ball within the socket and with a portion located within a thickness of the plate of Luk-Tung, as such a ball joint assembly allows the plate to pivot freely to adapt to the surface being ground as taught by Berg ([0006], [0008]).
Luk-Tung does not teach an anti-rotation assembly extending from the top surface and having an anti-rotation pin configured to engage the rotating arm to arrest rotation of the driver with respect to the rotating arm. Olsen teaches an anti-rotation assembly extending from a top surface (including elements 66, 74) extending from the top surface of a plate (as shown in fig 1 and described [0100-0102], when element 29 of fig 5 is utilized, pin extends from top surface of plate 2), having an anti-rotation pin (elements 66, 74 are a pin) configured to engage the rotating arm of the power trowel to arrest rotation of the driver with respect to the rotating arm (function achieved by the presence of pin; locking connection to rotating element 8 described in [0100-0102] of Olsen). 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 anti-rotation pin extending from the top surface of the plate of Luk-Tung, as this structure achieves the predictable result of securing the plate to a rotational drive as taught by Olsen ([0100-0102]; attached to element 8 as shown in fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Jul 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim amendments have overcome the previous issues under 112a and 112b. However, there are still issues of clarity as detailed in the 112b rejections above. Regarding the 112b rejection of claim 20 with respect to the phrase “the at least one flange is coupled to the top surface through the thickness,” applicant argues that this phrase is clear in light of the specification. Specifically, applicant argues that fasteners extend through the thickness of the plate and thus “the assembly is coupled to the top surface [using fasteners that extend] through the thickness of the plate” (bracketed text added by applicant). While it is clear that the specification describes fasteners extending through the plate, the claims recite the flange being coupled “through the thickness” of the plate, rather than fasteners coupled through the thickness of the plate. If applicant wishes the claims to be interpreted to include fasteners extending through the plate, this language should be added to the claims.
Regarding claim 20 and its dependents, applicant argues that the amendment to include grinding disk holders directly attached to the bottom surface of the plate. However, as broadly claimed, element 30 of Luk-Tung teaches this limitation as detailed in the rejection above.
Further regarding claims 20 and 42, applicant argues that Stark does not teach the newly claimed details of the ball joint assembly. However, as detailed above, these limitations are rendered obvious by Berg.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar drivers are cited.
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