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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on 02/26/2026. Claim(s) 10, 12, and 14-18 have been amended. Claims 19-24 have been added. Claim(s) 11 and 13 have been cancelled. Claims 10, 12, and 14-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claims 10, 12, and 14-18 filed on 02/26/2026.
The cancellation of the terms in question have been fully accepted, thus the drawing objections set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims have addressed the objections previously submitted, and as such the claim objections set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The amendments to claims have addressed the 112(b) rejection previously submitted, and as such the claim rejection set forth in the previous office action pertaining to claims are withdrawn.
The applicant’s amendments to claims 10, 12 and 14 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Hundebol (US Patent No. 5156257). The claims are also considered substantial to overcome the previous art of record. As such, please see the new rejection set forth within the action applying new art Schuster as required by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 02/26/2026 with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered.
As currently amended, the method and apparatus positively recite the abrasive belt and being used during an abrasive process. As such, Hundebol fails to anticipate all the limitations of the claims.
Resultant of the amendments, a new ground of rejection that does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument is set forth in this action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14, 17-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuster (US Patent No. 3872627)
In regards to claim 14, Schuster discloses
a grinding unit (wide belt sanding machine 10, fig. 1-2) configured to perform grinding by using an abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6), the grinding unit (wide belt sanding machine 10, fig. 1-2) comprising:
an air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) comprising an elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) that extends in a width direction of a surface of the abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6);
a workpiece vacuum clamping device (at least enclosure of belt sanding machine 10, conveyor 24 and pressure feed 28; fig. 1-3) and
an air supply structure (curved hood 33’, fig. 1-3, 4-6; col. 4 lines 30-35) configured to draw ambient air through the workpiece vacuum clamping device (at least enclosure of belt sanding machine 10, conveyor 24 and pressure feed 28; fig. 1-3) and force a stream of the ambient air though the elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) and against the surface of the abrasive belt.
In regards to claim 17, Schuster discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in claim 14, further comprising an extraction hood (see fig. 1 - ann. 1) enclosing the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52), the extraction hood having one or more openings (mouth 31 of suction duct 30, fig. 3) and one or more exhaust pipes (pipe 32, fig. 1; col. 4 lines 12-20; exhaust pipe with cyclone separator) configured to discharge dust laden air.
In regards of claim 18, Schuster discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in claim 14, further comprising deflectors (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25) in
an air chamber (chamber defined by front and rear walls 34 and 35, and side walls 36; fig. 4) of the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52),
the deflectors (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25) being configured to cause uniform escape of the ambient air from the air chamber (chamber defined by front and rear walls 34 and 35, and side walls 36; fig. 4).
In regards to claim 20, Schuster discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in Claim 14, further comprising a valve or switch (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25) configured to regulate an amount of the ambient air forced through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52).
In regards to claim 23, Schuster discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in Claim 14, wherein the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) is configured to direct the stream of air through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) against the surface of the abrasive belt in a direction that is non-perpendicular to the surface of the abrasive belt (see fig. 3 - ann. 1).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster (US Patent No. 3872627).
In regards to claim 21, Schuster as modified discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in Claim 14, but fails to explicitly disclose a width of the elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) is in a range of from 1 mm to 5 mm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
Page 4: In order to achieve an air jet (3) of preferably 25-40m/s velocity, the slot width of the air outlet gap (2) will generally be about 1-5 mm
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, air outlet will have a specific dimensionality, and finding the correct dimensions for the opening in order to accommodate the proper airflow within the structure and being efficient and not create unwanted turbulence would address design needs and market demands.
Claims 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster (US Patent No. 3872627) in view of Biedermann (US Patent No. 4364147).
In regards to claim 10, Schuster discloses
a method of blowing off an abrasive belt during an abrasion process (abstract), the method comprising:
An endless abrasive belt sanding machine in which the sanding or abrading head is vertically oriented and provided with an improved dust collecting system having a suction duct connected with a source of suction…and has its discharge arranged to cause the air debouching therefrom to forcibly impinge the surface of the abrasive belt directly above the mouth of the suction duct…
forcing a stream of ambient air (abstract: air debouching) through an air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) and against a surface of the abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6), the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) comprising
an elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) that extends in a width direction of the surface of the abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
1165
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schuster fails to disclose a “fan” as the means for moving air through the supply duct.
Biedermann, which also discloses an apparatus for removing dust from an abrasive belt teaches using a fan for moving air from a discharge blower for cleaning a surface:
Col. 4 lines 48-51: This further facilitates the removal of dust particles from the surface 2a by resorting to an air stream whose pressure is surprisingly low and which is generated by a practically noiseless blower or fan.
Schuster and Biedermann are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, device for cleaning off abrasive surfaces during a grinding process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to incorporate the teachings of
Biedermann and provide a fan to functionally move air through the supply duct in order to blow air and clear off the abrasive belt, given the combination would have yielded obvious results.
In regards to claim 12, Schuster discloses
an air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) for blowing off an abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6) comprising:
[[an]]said air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) comprising an elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) that extends in a width direction of a surface of the abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6),
the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) being configured to direct a stream of ambient air against the surface of the abrasive belt (endless abrasive belt 18, fig. 1-3 and 6); and
an extraction hood (see fig. 1 - ann. 1) enclosing the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52), the extraction hood having one or more openings (mouth 31 of suction duct 30, fig. 3) and a discharge pipe (pipe 32, fig. 1; col. 4 lines 12-20; exhaust pipe with cyclone separator) configured to discharge dust laden air from a grinding machine interior.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Schuster fails to disclose a “fan” as the means for moving air through the supply duct.
Biedermann, which also discloses an apparatus for removing dust from an abrasive belt teaches using a fan for moving air from a discharge blower for cleaning a surface:
Col. 4 lines 48-51: This further facilitates the removal of dust particles from the surface 2a by resorting to an air stream whose pressure is surprisingly low and which is generated by a practically noiseless blower or fan.
Schuster and Biedermann are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of endeavor, device for cleaning off abrasive surfaces during a grinding process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuster to incorporate the teachings of
Biedermann and provide a fan to functionally move air through the supply duct in order to blow air and clear off the abrasive belt, given the combination would have yielded obvious results.
In regards to claim 15, Schuster as modified discloses
[[an]]the air blade as claimed in claim 12, further comprising deflectors (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25) in
an air chamber (chamber defined by front and rear walls 34 and 35, and side walls 36; fig. 4) of the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52),
the deflectors (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25) being configured to cause uniform escape of the ambient air from the air chamber (chamber defined by front and rear walls 34 and 35, and side walls 36; fig. 4).
Col. 7 lines 17-25: In its normal open position, the damper 52 is parallel to the lower flange 51 of the V-shaped wall section 50 and coacts therewith to direct the high velocity air debouching from the air supply duct against the area of the upwardly traveling stretch of the abrasive belt that lies just above the line of tangency between the belt and the contact drum. The angle at which the air forcibly impinges upon the abrasive belt has been found to be critical.
In regards to claim 16, Schuster as modified discloses
the method of claim 10 further comprising regulating an amount of the ambient air forced through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) by a valve (at least damper 52, lever 57, and surface shield 60; fig. 3; col. 7 lines 17-25; damper acts as a valve) or switch.
In regards to claim 19, Schuster as modified discloses
the method as claimed in Claim 10, wherein forcing the stream of ambient air through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) comprises forcing the stream of air through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) in a direction that is non-perpendicular to the surface of the abrasive belt (see fig. 3 - ann. 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
648
795
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 22, Schuster as modified discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in Claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose a width of the elongate air discharge gap (see fig. 4 - ann. 1) is in a range of from 1 mm to 5 mm.
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int he prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive, given a lack of evidence indicating the claimed range is critical:
Page 4: In order to achieve an air jet (3) of preferably 25-40m/s velocity, the slot width of the air outlet gap (2) will generally be about 1-5 mm
As such, it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention, as the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" is a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. In the case of the instant application, air outlet will have a specific dimensionality, and finding the correct dimensions for the opening in order to accommodate the proper airflow within the structure and being efficient and not create unwanted turbulence would address design needs and market demands.
In regards to claim 24, Schuster as modified discloses
the grinding unit as claimed in Claim 12, wherein the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) is configured to direct the stream of air through the air blade (air supply duct 33, fig. 1-6; col. 4 lines 38-52) against the surface of the abrasive belt in a direction that is non-perpendicular to the surface of the abrasive belt (see fig. 3 - ann. 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights