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 .
Election/Restrictions
The restriction of claim 23 is withdrawn. Claim 23 is now being examined on the merits in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 8-11, 18 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the motors”, but claim 1 only introduced “a motor”;
Claim 8 recites “power consumption of motor” but it should read “of the motor”;
Claims 8, 9, 10 and 11 recite “monitored operating condition”, but claim 1 recites “operating characteristic”;
Claim 18, “a second type of data” should read “a second data type”; and
Claim 23, “instructions that, when executed … causes”; change to “cause”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 1-5, 8, 10, 14-15, 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TORVALDSSON, WO 2017/215943 A1 (‘943), in view of Ogawa, U.S. Patent No. 5,125,188 A (‘188), in further view of Tanikella, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0306927 (‘927).
As per claim 1, ‘943 discloses a floor grinder (e.g., See ‘943; [0002] and [0057], which discloses a floor grinding machine for grinding floor surfaces), comprising:
a motor arranged to rotatably drive one or more abrasive grinding tool holders (e.g., See ‘943; [0057] – [0059], which discloses a motor driving a grinding head carrying grinding disks with abrasive grinding elements); and
a control unit arranged to monitor an operating characteristic of the floor grinder (e.g., See ‘943; [0076] and [0082], which discloses a control unit that senses operating characteristics of the floor grinder);
wherein the control unit is arranged to:
compare the monitored operating characteristic to a pre-determined set of operating characteristics indicative of an undesired condition (e.g., See ‘943; [0020] – [0024], which discloses comparing an actual motor operating value to a nominal value to identify an undesired grinding operating condition); and
trigger an action in case the monitored operating characteristic is indicative of the undesired grinding operating condition (e.g., See ‘943; [0036] – [0040], which discloses triggering an adjustment when the undesired grinding condition is identified).
However, ‘943 does not specifically disclose that the undesired grinding operating condition be a tool glazing condition.
‘188 discloses this missing feature (e.g., See ‘188; [0038] and [0052], which discloses monitoring grinding operating data (vibration and temperature) to determine that a grinding wheel is glazed, and triggering an alarm in response to that determination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘188 into ‘943 for the purpose of readily identifying glazing conditions, thereby allowing for corrective action(s) to be taken before grinding performance worsens further.
Further, ‘943 in view of ‘188 does not specifically disclose that the control unit is arranged to monitor the operating characteristic of the floor grinder using a machine learning technique and a glazing model configured using a plurality of examples of floor grinders which have experienced various degrees of glazing.
‘927 discloses the missing features (e.g., See ‘927; [0004] – [0006], [0151] and [0169] – [0172], which discloses training and using machine learning models with abrasive operation sensor data to determine an abrasive tool condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have incorporated the teachings of ‘927 into ‘943 in view of ‘188 for the purpose of using previous abrasive operation data to better recognize glazing patterns, thereby allowing earlier corrective actions to occur before grinding performance worsens further.
As per claim 2, ‘943’s combined system (‘943 in view of ‘188, in further view of ‘927) further discloses that the action comprises triggering generation of a warning signal to an operator (e.g., See ‘188; [0052], which discloses the action comprising a warning signal when the operating characteristic indicates the tool glazing condition).
As per claim 3, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the action comprises controlling the motor to reduce a rotation velocity of the one or more abrasive grinding tool holders (e.g., See ‘943; [0036] and [0040], which disclose the action comprising adjusting a grinding disc rotation speed).
As per claim 4, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the action comprises controlling a pressure applied to the one or more abrasive grinding tool holders (e.g., See ‘943; [0036] and [0040], which discloses the action comprising adjusting the grinding pressure applied to the abrasive grinding tool holders).
As per claim 5, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the action comprises bringing the floor grinder to a halt, triggering a pulsed drive mode by the motor, OR increasing an amount of water added to the grinding process (e.g., See ‘943; [0043], which discloses increasing water feed rate as the corrective action, which corresponds to increasing an amount of water added to the grinding process).
As per claim 8, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the monitored operating condition comprises a power consumption of the motor, wherein a decrease in power consumption is indicative of a glazing condition (e.g., See ‘943; [0024] and [0032], which discloses that the monitored operating characteristic comprises motor power, wherein lower motor power indicates the glazing condition).
As per claim 10, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the motor is configured to drive the one or more abrasive grinding tool holders at a constant rotation velocity (e.g., See ‘943; [0079], which discloses a motor operating at a selected rotational speed, including a constant rotational speed), wherein the monitored operating condition comprises a drive torque applied by the motor (e.g., See ‘943; [0032], [0035] and [0041], which discloses the operating characteristic comprises drive torque applied by the motor), wherein a decrease in drive torque is indicative of a glazing condition (e.g., See ‘943; [0022] and [0041], which discloses that lower torque indicates that the grinder is not operating as expected, which, in light of ‘188, would be an indication of a glazing condition).
As per claim 14, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the control unit is arranged to monitor a plurality of different operating characteristics of the floor grinder (e.g., See ‘188; [0049] and [0052], which discloses the control nuit monitoring a plurality of different operating characteristics to determine the tool glazing condition).
As per claim 15, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the plurality of different operating characteristics comprises at least two out of a power consumption by the one or more electric motors motor, a change in tool rotation speed or torque applied by a drive motor, vibrations, audible sound, and tool temperature (e.g., See ‘943; [0082], which discloses the plural different operating characteristics to comprise power, rotational speed, torque and temperature; also see ‘188; [0049] and [0052], which disclose the plural different operating characteristics to comprise vibration and temperature).
As per claim 17, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that the control unit is arranged to detect tool glazing based on a combination of several different types of data (e.g., See ‘188; [0052], which discloses the control unit detecting the tool glazing condition based on a combination of different types of data).
As per claim 18, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that a first data type is provided from control of an electric machine (e.g., See ‘943; [0082], which discloses the first data type from control of the electric machine), a second type of data is provided from a torque sensor arranged somewhere in the transmission between drive motor and tool holder or internally in the motor (e.g., See ‘943; [0035] and [0082], which discloses the second type of data from a torque measurement device used to measure motor torque), and a third data type is provided from a tool speed sensor arranged to measure a rotation velocity of the tool (e.g., See ‘943; [0082], which discloses determining and monitoring rotational speed of the tool, wherein a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the rotational speed data used to detect to tool glazing condition would most easily be provided by a speed sensor).
As per claim 19, ‘943’s combined system further discloses that system further comprises a dust extractor connected to the floor grinder via a dust collection hose (e.g., See ‘943; [0064], which discloses the floor grinder comprising a hose connected to a dust collector). Further, since claim 19 uses the floor grinder of claim 1, the rationale as set forth in that rejection of claim 1, from above, is applied herein.
As per claim 22, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1, from above, because it uses the floor grinder of claim 1 to perform the same monitoring, comparing and triggering functions.
As per claim 23, this claim is rejected for at least the same reasons as set forth above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 since the claim requires the same monitoring, comparing and triggering limitations that are performed by the control unit. Further ‘943 discloses the control unit comprising circuitry and software for controlling the floor grinder (e.g., See ‘943; [0076]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 16 and 20-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As per claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the use of constant drive torque with increased tool rotation velocity indicting a tool glazing condition, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest using dust amount, vibration frequency or sound frequency changes to indicate glazing, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest increasing tool speed unit glazing starts, then reducing the speed to avoid glazing, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
As per claims 20 and 21, specifically with respect to claim 20, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest the dust extractor measuring generated dust and sending that data to the control unit, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
Claim 24 is allowed.
As per claim 24, the prior art of record fails to teach or adequately suggest a floor grinder that uses generated dust or slurry amount to detect when a glazing condition is occurring and using that as the basis for determining when a trigger action should be implemented, in combination with the other claimed features and or limitations as claimed.
References Considered but Not Relied Upon
The following references were considered but were not relied upon with respect to any prior art rejections:
(1) US 10,729,300 B2, which discloses a floor surfacing machine with controlled motors and powered grinding heads; does not disclose detecting tool glazing or using ML to trigger corrective action;
(2) US 6,985,791 B2, which discloses a grinding wheel that uses sensors to monitor grinding wheel condition; does not disclose floor grinder control of ML glazing detection;
(3) US 10,813,516 B2, which discloses a surface treatment machine that adjusts liquid flow during use; does not disclose tool glazing detection of ML based grinder control;
(4) US 2019/0126456 A1, which discloses a power tool that senses unsafe operation and stops the motor operation; does not disclose floor grinding, tool glazing or ML glazing models;
(5) US 2019/0286075 A1, which discloses using ML with polishing process data to predict process results; does not disclose floor grinder glazing detection or corrective grinder action; and
(6) US 5,602,757 A, which discloses using vibration frequency changes to detect machine condition changes; does not disclose floor grinder structure, tool glazing, or ML glazing control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD D HARTMAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3684. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 4:30 EST.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/RONALD D HARTMAN JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119 June 6, 2026
/RDH/
Prosecution Insights