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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/8/2023 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 1/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant identifies claims 1, 4-5, 9-11, 14-16, 20, 24-26 and 43 as being directed towards elected Group II.
Group II is directed towards a dampening unit comprising wherein an applied electric current changes a physical parameter of a fluid. However claims 14-16 are drawn towards a damping unit comprising a ball bearing feature, which is drawn towards Group I.
That is, claims 14-16 are drawn towards a compliant damping unit comprising a ball bearing feature, which is directed towards Group I, including a damping unit comprising a ball bearing feature and shock absorbers. The ball bearing feature of claims 14-16 is not appropriate for Group II, as elected, because Group II is drawn towards a dampening unit comprising an applied electric current changing a physical parameter of the damping fluid.
Additionally, claim 23 is drawn towards decreasing an applied current which decreases the applied force of the sanding tool, which is drawn towards a feature of elected Group II. Accordingly, claim 23 has been examined herein.
Overall, Claims 14-17, 19, 22 and 36-37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/7/2026.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 20, 23-26 and 43 have been examined herein.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Paragraph 0025 of the specification, “1C illustrates a cutaway view of an electric rotary sander”. However, neither figure 1C nor reference sign 1C appears in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
4. The amendment filed 6/16/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to US Provisional Application No. 63/199281 is ineffective because the attempt to incorporate the subject matter is occurring after the filing date of the application which is the filing date of the PCT. Therefore, the attempt to incorporate the subject matter of US Provisional Application No. 63/199281 is considered new matter. Please correct the specification accordingly.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0025 of the specification mentions “1C”. However, neither figure 1C nor reference sign 1C appears in the figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 5, 10, 20, 23 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “abrasive articles contacting a worksurface” should read “abrasive articles [[contacting]] contacts a worksurface” to provide increased clarity
Claim 5, “has contacted a worksurface” should read “has contacted [[a]] the worksurface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Claim 10, “a current” should read “[[a]] the current” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Claim 20, line 1, “sanding a surface” should read “sanding a [[surface]] worksurface” to provide proper antecedent basis for the rest of the claim language and provide increased clarity
Claim 20, line 3, “a worksurface” should read “[[a]] the worksurface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Claim 20, line 5, “a worksurface” should read “[[a]] the worksurface” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Claim 23, “wherein controlling” should read “wherein the controlling” to avoid the antecedent basis issue and provide increased clarity.
Claim 26, “wherein the system operating condition is received from a sensor associated with the compliant damping feature, a sensor associated with the motor, or a vision system remote from the sanding tool and, wherein the system operating condition is a measured reaction force, a motor actuation signal, an indication that the abrasive article has contacted a worksurface, or an indication that detected vibrations exceed a vibration threshold” should read “wherein the system operating condition is received from [[a]] the sensor which is associated with the compliant damping feature, [[a]] the sensor which is associated with [[the]] a motor, or the sensor which is a vision system remote from the sanding tool and, wherein the system operating condition is a measured reaction force, a motor actuation signal, an indication that the abrasive article has contacted [[a]] the worksurface, or an indication that detected vibrations exceed a vibration threshold” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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:
Claim 1, “a compliant damping unit configured to provide variable compliance for the tool when the abrasive article contacting a worksurface”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided as fluid container 330 and coils 360 in fig. 3B.
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 § 112
7. 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 9-11, 20 and 23-26 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 claim 9, the language recites the terms “the magnetorheological fluid” and “the current”. However, these terms lacks proper antecedent basis because they have not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner ,the terms will be interpreted as “[[the]] a magnetorheological fluid” and “[[the]] a current”.
Claims 10-11 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 10, the language recites “wherein the tool”. However, the term “tool” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein [[the]] a tool”.
Regarding claim 11, the language recites “the fluid bladder”. However the term “fluid bladder” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] a fluid bladder”.
Regarding claim 20, second line from bottom, the language recites “the mechanical damping feature”. However, the term “the mechanical damping feature” lacks proper antecedent basis because this term has not yet been introduced and it is not specifically clear if it was meant to reference the previously introduced “the compliant damping feature”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “the [[mechanical]] compliant damping feature”.
Claims 23-26 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 25, the terms “the motor” and “the electronic controller” lack proper antecedent basis. Additionally, it is not clear if the term “electronic controller” was intended to reference the previously introduced “electronic control system”. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the terms will be interpreted as “[[the]] a motor” and “the [[electronic controller]] electronic control system”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 26 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hemes et al. (WO 2020084523), hereinafter Hemes (see document previously attached on 11/7/2025).
Regarding claim 20, Hemes teaches a method of mechanically sanding a surface (fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing a sanding tool coupled to an abrasive article (12, fig. 1);
contacting the abrasive article to a worksurface (fig. 1); and
varying compliance of the sanding tool during an abrasive operation comprising the abrasive article contacting a worksurface (page 9, line 33 - page 10, line 4), wherein varying compliance comprises controlling a compliant damping feature (page 9, line 33 - page 10, line 4), wherein the compliant damping feature adjusts an applied force of the sanding tool (page 9, line 33 - page 10, line 4); and
wherein an electronic control system actuates the mechanical damping feature in response to a system operating condition received from a sensor (page 2, line 21 - page 3, line 3 and page 9, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 26, Hemes teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Additionally, Hemes teaches wherein the system operating condition is received from a sensor associated with the compliant damping feature (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes), a sensor associated with the motor (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or a vision system remote from the sanding tool (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”) and: wherein the system operating condition is a measured reaction force (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes, wherein the implementation force is interpreted as a measured reaction force), a motor actuation signal (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), an indication that the abrasive article has contacted a worksurface (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes, wherein the implementation force is interpreted as an indication that the abrasive article has contacted a worksurface), or an indication that detected vibrations exceed a vibration threshold (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 43, Hemes teaches a damping system for a sanding tool (fig. 1), the system comprising:
a fluid-based damping feature (page 9, line 33 - page 10, line 4, wherein Hemes teaches the damping feature is driven by pneumatic pressure, thereby being a fluid-based damping feature);
an electronic controller that receives a sanding operation signal (page 2, line 21 - page 3, line 3 and page 9, lines 7-11) and, based on the sanding operation signal, actuates the fluid-based damping feature (page 2, line 21 - page 3, line 3 and page 9, lines 7-11); and
wherein actuating the fluid-based damping feature comprises changing a physical parameter of a fluid in the fluid-based damping feature (Hemes teaches the damping feature is driven by pneumatic pressure. Therefore, the actuating includes changing a physical parameter (pressure) of a fluid in the fluid-based damping feature).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 1, 4, 5 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemes et al. (WO 2020084523), hereinafter Hemes (see document previously attached on 11/7/2025), in view of Clabunde et al. (US Patent 9085058), hereinafter Clabunde.
Regarding claim 1, Hemes teaches a sanding system (fig. 1 and claim 1) comprising:
a tool (14)
a backup pad (20), wherein the backup pad is configured to receive an abrasive article (12, fig. 1),
a compliant damping unit configured to provide variable compliance for the tool when the abrasive article contacting a worksurface (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. page 9 line 33 - page 10, line 4); and
an electronic controller that receives a system operating condition, sends a signal to the compliant damping unit based on the system operating condition (page 2, line 21 - page 3, line 3 and page 9, lines 7-11).
Hemes does not explicitly teach
a tool with a motor which, when actuated, drives movement of a drive shaft;
a backup pad coupled to the drive shaft, wherein movement of the drive shaft causes movement of the abrasive article.
However, Clabunde teaches a portable tool which includes an abrasive tool 16 and a motor 70 (fig. 3). Specifically, Clabunde teaches
a tool (16) with a motor (70) which, when actuated, drives movement of a drive shaft (tool spindle 24);
a backup pad (see annotated fig. 3 below) coupled to the drive shaft (fig. 3), wherein movement of the drive shaft causes movement of the abrasive article (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hemes to incorporate the teachings of Clabunde to provide a tool with a motor which, when actuated, drives movement of a drive shaft; a backup pad coupled to the drive shaft, wherein movement of the drive shaft causes movement of the abrasive article. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a motor and drive shaft into the device of Hemes, wherein movement of the drive shaft causes movement of the abrasive article. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide rotation to the backup pad of Hemes, thereby providing an abrasive tool. Additionally, doing so would provide explicit means of a motor and drive shaft for providing the rotation force as desired.
Regarding claim 4, Hemes, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Hemes, as modified, teaches wherein the system operating condition is received from a sensor associated with the damping unit (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes), a sensor associated with the motor (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), an end effector to which the sanding tool is coupled (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), or a vision system (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 5, Hemes, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Hemes, as modified, teaches wherein the system operating condition is a measured reaction force (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes, wherein the implementation force is interpreted as a measured reaction force), an orientation of the tool with respect to the worksurface (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”), an indication that the abrasive article has contacted a worksurface (page 9, lines 7-15 of Hemes, wherein the implementation force is interpreted as an indication that the abrasive article has contacted a worksurface), or a vibration threshold (the prior art is not required to teach this limitation because the language recites the term “or”).
Regarding claim 24, Hemes teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Hemes does not explicitly teach actuating the sanding tool, wherein actuation causes a motor to drive a drive shaft which causes motion of a backup pad which is coupled to the abrasive article.
However, Clabunde teaches a portable tool which includes an abrasive tool 16 and a motor 70 (fig. 3). Specifically, Clabunde teaches
actuating the sanding tool (via motor 70), wherein actuation causes a motor (70) to drive a drive shaft (tool spindle 24) which causes motion of a backup pad (see annotated fig. 3 below) which is coupled to the abrasive article (fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
933
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hemes to incorporate the teachings of Clabunde to provide actuating the sanding tool, wherein actuation causes a motor to drive a drive shaft which causes motion of a backup pad which is coupled to the abrasive article. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a motor and drive shaft into the device of Hemes, wherein movement of the drive shaft causes movement of the abrasive article. Doing so would allow the device to function as intended and provide rotation to the backup pad of Hemes, thereby providing an abrasive tool. Additionally, doing so would provide explicit means of a motor and drive shaft for providing the rotation force as desired.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemes et al. (WO 2020084523), hereinafter Hemes (see document previously attached on 11/7/2025), in view of Clabunde et al. (US Patent 9085058), hereinafter Clabunde, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Doyle et al. (US PGPUB 20200370619), hereinafter Doyle.
Regarding claims 9-10, Hemes, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Hemes, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the magnetorheological fluid is housed in the backup pad and wherein the current is applied to a contact ring on a surface of the backup pad, wherein the magnetorheological fluid is contained by a fluid bladder, and wherein the tool housing comprises a wire wound about the fluid bladder, and wherein the wire is configured to produce a magnetic field when a current is received.
However, Doyle teaches a damper using a magnetorheological fluid, wherein the magnetorheological fluid (fig. 6, fluid 122) is housed in the backup pad (fig. 6, wherein structures 124 and 126 are interpreted as part of the backup pad) and wherein the current is applied to a contact ring on a surface of the backup pad (fig. 8b, wherein grooves 134 are interpreted as the contact ring), wherein the magnetorheological fluid is contained by a fluid bladder (fig. 6, structure 124 is interpreted as a bladder because it is containing the fluid 122 and therefore performs as a bladder), and wherein the tool housing comprises a wire wound about the fluid bladder (fig. 6, wire 128), and wherein the wire is configured to produce a magnetic field when a current is received [0035].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hemes, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Doyle to provide wherein the magnetorheological fluid is housed in the backup pad and wherein the current is applied to a contact ring on a surface of the backup pad, wherein the magnetorheological fluid is contained by a fluid bladder, and wherein the tool housing comprises a wire wound about the fluid bladder, and wherein the wire is configured to produce a magnetic field when a current is received. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the damper of Doyle for the damper of Hemes, as modified. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known damping technology (of Doyle) for another known damping technology (of Hemes) to obtain the predictable results of selectively damping the operation to control processing forces/pressure.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemes et al. (WO 2020084523), hereinafter Hemes (see document previously attached on 11/7/2025), in view of Clabunde et al. (US Patent 9085058), hereinafter Clabunde, and further in view of Doyle et al. (US PGPUB 20200370619), hereinafter Doyle, as applied to claims 9-10 above, and further in view of Su et al. (CN 110497317), hereinafter Su.
Regarding claim 11, Hemes, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 9. Hemes, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the fluid bladder is positioned above the motor such that the motor can move in a single axis.
However, Su teaches a constant pressure device for automatic polishing device, wherein the damping unit (constant pressure device including pressure transmitting device B and constant voltage control device A in fig. 2) is positioned above the motor (brushless motor 33, fig. 7) such that the motor 33 can move in a single axis (abs and fig. 2, the pressure transmission device is glidingly connected with the polishing device of contact type polishing thereby allowing the motor to move in the vertical axis)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Hemes, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Su to provide wherein the fluid bladder is positioned above the motor such that the motor can move in a single axis. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Su and provide a damping mechanism above the motor of Hemes, as modified. Doing so would provide further control over the operating pressures and forces, thereby preventing damage to the workpiece and promoting quality of the workpiece.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemes et al. (WO 2020084523), hereinafter Hemes (see document previously attached on 11/7/2025), in view of Oberheim (US PGPUB 20130092408).
Regarding claims 23 and 25, Hemes teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 20. Hemes does not explicitly teach wherein controlling comprises decreasing an applied current which decreases the applied force of the sanding tool, wherein actuation of the motor causes actuation of the electronic controller.
However, Oberheim teaches an electrical power tool with a magnetorheological liquid dampener (fig. 2A). Specifically, Oberheim teaches wherein controlling comprises decreasing an applied current which decreases the applied force of the sanding tool (Oberheim teaches an electric current flows through the electrical conductor selectively to form an electromagnetic field with the dampener housing 204, around the MR fluid in the fluid chamber 208. When activated, magnetic particles that are suspended in the MR fluid align in a column-like arrangement following field lines of the electromagnetic field. The arrangement of the magnetic particles in the MR fluid increases the viscosity of the MR fluid and resistance to the movement of the bobbin within the fluid [0040]. Additionally, Oberheim teaches the controller applies to the electrical current to the dampener that is proportional. The corresponding mechanical resistance of the dampener increases in proportion to the intensity of the electromagnetic field [0058]. Oberheim’s teaching of applying the current in a desired proportion teaches wherein controlling comprises decreasing an applied current which decreases the applied force of the sanding tool. That is, the decreased current results in a softer dampener which decreases the force of the sanding tool), wherein actuation of the motor causes actuation of the electronic controller (the controller controls the dampener during operation of the tool. Therefore, the actuation of the motor of the tool causes actuation of the electronic controller to control accordingly).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hemes to incorporate the teachings of Oberheim to provide wherein controlling comprises decreasing an applied current which decreases the applied force of the sanding tool, wherein actuation of the motor causes actuation of the electronic controller. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate a magnetorheological liquid damper for the damper of Hemes, wherein the controller proportionally controls an amount of current of the liquid damper to achieve the desired operating force/pressure, wherein the controller controls the damper during processing. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known damping technology (of Oberheim) for another known damping technology (of Hemes) to obtain the predictable results of selectively damping the operation to control processing forces/pressure. Additionally, including a proportionally controlled damper would promote increased quality of the workpiece by monitoring and correcting the applied pressure and forces in real time, thereby also promoting the prevention of damage to the workpiece.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tadokoro (US PGPUB 20130260653) teaches a power tool with a motor for rotation (fig. 2) similar to the claimed invention
Jang et al. (US PGPUB 20210239179) teaches a magnetorheological damper similar to the elected group
Wierzbicki et al. (US Patent 11590661) teaches a robotic sanding system similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723