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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the amended Figs. 2 and 3F are improperly rendered and have artifacts, including breaks in the structure where there should not be any.
Further, Figs. 4A and 4B are low resolution, dithered, and in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. Moreover, there are artifacts (e.g., gray patches and/or dithering in areas that are expected to be blank or white) that further obscure the drawings. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k). Examiner notes that the issue stems from the fact that Figs. 4A and 4B were exported as raster images (bitmap) instead of vector graphics and/or they were subsequently modified (e.g., to add annotations) and at that time outputted as raster images.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“the counterbalance mass” (claim 6, lines 2-3) should be changed to --the actively adjustable counterbalance mass-- (for clarity);
“are disposed therein” (claim 6, line 3) should be changed to --disposed therein--;
“the counterbalance mass” (claim 9, line 3) should be changed to --the actively adjustable counterbalance mass-- (for clarity).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “a carrier coupled to the eccentric portion of the drive shaft for orbital motion about the rotational axis”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does this “carrier” refer to the same “eccentric carrier” of claim 1 or is this another carrier? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 3-4 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 2.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Lindell
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20040082283 A1 (“Lindell”).
Regarding claim 1, Lindell discloses an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1, orbital sander 20) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, housing 24);
a drive unit within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor defining a rotational axis, a drive shaft coupled to the electric motor to receive torque therefrom, the drive shaft rotatable about the rotational axis and having an eccentric portion (Figs. 1, 1A-C, drive unit including electric motor 36 that provides torque to shaft 30 about axis 22, eccentric portion on lower end of shaft 30 that attaches to element 40; ¶¶ 0038-0041; Examiner interprets “eccentric portion” as the portion of the drive shaft that is in contact with an eccentric element and notes that the specification and figures do not describe that portion of the drive shaft itself as being eccentric (see Spec. ¶¶ 0021-0022; Fig. 2)),
and a radial bearing mounted on the eccentric portion of the drive shaft (Figs. 1, 1A-C, radial bearing 42 mounted on the eccentric portion);
an eccentric carrier mounted to the radial bearing (Figs. 1, 1A-C, eccentric carrier 40 mounted to radial bearing 42);
an accessory tool configured to orbit about the rotational axis in response to rotation of the eccentric portion of the drive shaft, the accessory tool defining a rotational imbalance (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, sanding pad 44 (“accessory tool”) is capable of orbiting about axis 22 as recited, where the rotation is eccentric relative to axis 22 and causes a rotational imbalance);
and a dynamic mass balancing system including an actively adjustable counterbalance mass to attenuate vibration caused by the rotational imbalance, wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a front mass balancing system located within the eccentric carrier (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including elements 34a-c, 37, 38, 40a-c (including weights 34b and 40b; including front mass balancing system 40a-c within eccentric carrier 40) performs the recited function; “front” is towards the pad 44).
Regarding claim 5, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes an annular dynamic mass balancer (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including annular dynamic mass balancer elements 34a-c, 40a-c).
Regarding claim 6, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 5 as applied above and further discloses wherein the annular dynamic mass balancer includes an annular main body having one or more moving elements comprising the [actively adjustable] counterbalance mass [] disposed therein (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, annular dynamic mass balancer includes annular main bodies 34a, 40a and moving weights 34b and 40b disposed therein).
Regarding claim 7, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 6 as applied above and further discloses wherein the one or more moving elements include one or more balls, one or more cylindrical rollers, one or more sliding arcs, or a combination thereof (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, moving weights 34b and 40b include balls and/or cylinders).
Regarding claim 8, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a pendulum shaped mass balancer (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38).
Regarding claim 10, Lindell discloses an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1, orbital sander 20) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, housing 24);
a drive unit within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor defining a rotational axis, a drive shaft coupled to the electric motor to receive torque therefrom, the drive shaft rotatable about the rotational axis and having an eccentric portion (Figs. 1, 1A-C, drive unit including electric motor 36 that provides torque to shaft 30 about axis 22, eccentric portion on lower end of shaft 30 that attaches to element 40; ¶¶ 0038-0041; Examiner interprets “eccentric portion” as the portion of the drive shaft that is in contact with an eccentric element and notes that the specification and figures do not describe that portion of the drive shaft itself as being eccentric (see Spec. ¶¶ 0021-0022; Fig. 2));
and a radial bearing mounted on the eccentric portion (Figs. 1, 1A-C, radial bearing 42 mounted on the eccentric portion);
an eccentric carrier mounted to the radial bearing (Figs. 1, 1A-C, eccentric carrier 40 mounted to radial bearing 42);
an accessory tool configured to orbit about the rotational axis in response to rotation of the eccentric portion of the drive shaft, the accessory tool defining a rotational imbalance (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, sanding pad 44 (“accessory tool”) is capable of orbiting about axis 22 as recited, where the rotation is eccentric relative to axis 22 and causes a rotational imbalance);
and a dynamic mass balancing system including an actively adjustable counterbalance mass to attenuate vibration caused by the rotational imbalance, wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a first counterbalance mass located on a first end of the drive shaft within the eccentric carrier (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including elements 34a-c, 37, 38, 40a-c (including weights 34b and 40b; including first counterbalance mass 40b at a first end of shaft 30 within eccentric carrier 40) performs the recited function).
Regarding claim 11, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 10 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system further comprises a second counterbalance mass located on an opposite, second end of the drive shaft (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system includes second counterbalance mass 34b located on second end of shaft 30).
Regarding claim 12, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 10 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes an annular dynamic mass balancer having an annular main body in which one or more moving elements comprising the first counterbalance mass are disposed therein (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including annular dynamic mass balancer elements 34, 40 with annular main bodies 34a, 40a, with first counterbalance mass 40b disposed in main body 40a).
Regarding claim 13, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 12 as applied above and further discloses wherein the one or more moving elements include one or more balls, one or more cylindrical rollers, one or more sliding arcs, or a combination thereof (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, moving weights 34b and 40b include balls and/or cylinders).
Regarding claim 17, Lindell discloses an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1, orbital sander 20) comprising:
a housing (Fig. 1, housing 24);
a drive unit within the housing, the drive unit including an electric motor defining a rotational axis, a drive shaft coupled to the electric motor to receive torque therefrom, the drive shaft rotatable about the rotational axis and having an eccentric portion (Figs. 1, 1A-C, drive unit including electric motor 36 that provides torque to shaft 30 about axis 22, eccentric portion on lower end of shaft 30 that attaches to element 40; ¶¶ 0038-0041; Examiner interprets “eccentric portion” as the portion of the drive shaft that is in contact with an eccentric element and notes that the specification and figures do not describe that portion of the drive shaft itself as being eccentric (see Spec. ¶¶ 0021-0022; Fig. 2));
and a radial bearing mounted on the eccentric portion (Figs. 1, 1A-C, radial bearing 42 mounted on the eccentric portion);
an eccentric carrier mounted to the radial bearing (Figs. 1, 1A-C, eccentric carrier 40 mounted to radial bearing 42);
an accessory tool configured to orbit about the rotational axis in response to rotation of the eccentric portion of the drive shaft, the accessory tool defining a rotational imbalance (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, sanding pad 44 (“accessory tool”) is capable of orbiting about axis 22 as recited, where the rotation is eccentric relative to axis 22 and causes a rotational imbalance);
and a dynamic mass balancing system including an actively adjustable counterbalance mass to attenuate vibration caused by the rotational imbalance, wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a first counterbalance mass located on a first end of the drive shaft within the eccentric carrier and a second counterbalance mass located on an opposite, second end of the drive shaft (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including elements 34a-c, 37, 38, 40a-c (including weights 34b and 40b; including first counterbalance mass 40b at a first end of shaft 30 within eccentric carrier 40; including second counterbalance mass 34b at a second, opposite end of shaft 30) performs the recited function).
Regarding claim 20, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 17 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes an annular dynamic mass balancer, a pendulum shaped mass balancer, or a combination thereof (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, dynamic mass balancing system including annular dynamic mass balancer elements 34a-c, 40a-c and pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Lindell in view of Ruhland
Claims 2-4, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040082283 A1 (“Lindell”) in view of US 20220126417 A1 (“Ruhland”).
Lindell pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Ruhland pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 2, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses a carrier coupled to the eccentric portion of the drive shaft for orbital motion about the rotational axis (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, carrier 40 on first end of shaft 30, coupled to the eccentric portion of the drive shaft for orbital motion about axis 22).
Lindell does not explicitly disclose a battery pack coupled to the housing for providing power to the electric motor.
However, the Lindell/Ruhland combination makes obvious this claim.
Ruhland discloses a battery pack coupled to the housing for providing power to the electric motor (¶ 0082, battery 18A in housing 12 powers motor 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ruhland with Lindell by adding a battery within the Lindell housing and modifying the Lindell device to operate via battery power. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because a battery provides for portability and allows use of the sanding device when an electrical power outlet is unavailable (Ruhland ¶ 0082).
Regarding claim 3, the Lindell/Ruhland combination makes obvious the orbital sander of claim 2 as applied above. Lindell further discloses wherein the front mass balancing system is located on a lower portion of the drive shaft (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, front mass balancing system 40a-c located on a lower portion of drive shaft 30).
Regarding claim 4, the Lindell/Ruhland combination makes obvious the orbital sander of claim 3 as applied above. Lindell further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system further comprises a rear mass balancing system located rearward of the electric motor on an upper portion of the drive shaft (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, rear mass balancing system 34a-c located on upper portion of shaft 30, rearward of electric motor 36).
Regarding claim 15, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 10 as applied above. Lindell does not explicitly disclose a plurality of compliant mounts disposed between the motor and the housing. However, the Lindell/Ruhland combination makes obvious this claim.
Ruhland discloses a plurality of compliant mounts disposed between the motor and the housing (Figs. 2, 4; ¶¶ 0086, 0118, motor 20 is mounted to housing 11 via compliant mounts (including elements 80, 95, 90, 91, 92)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ruhland with Lindell by modifying the mounting of the drive unit to the housing to include a compliant mount as taught by Ruhland. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would reduce vibrations transmitted from the drive unit to the housing, thereby improving comfort to the user in terms of better ergonomics and less felt vibrations (Ruhland ¶¶ 0054-0056, 0095).
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as claim 15, except as depending from claim 17.
Regarding claim 16, the Lindell/Ruhland combination makes obvious the orbital sander of claim 15 as applied above. Ruhland further discloses wherein the compliant mounts permit the motor to move relative to the housing as the dynamic mass balancing system counterbalances vibration of the orbital sander during use (Ruhland Figs. 1-4; ¶¶ 0054-0056, 0095, the compliant mounts perform the recited function).
The obviousness rationale for claim 16 is the same as for claim 15.
Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as claim 16, except as depending from claim 18.
Lindell in view of Taylor and Braun
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040082283 A1 (“Lindell”) in view of WO 9323687 A1 (“Taylor”) and US 4744177 A (“Braun”).
Lindell pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Taylor pertains to a counterbalancing apparatus for out-of-balance rotating members (Abstr.; Figs. 1-17). Braun pertains to an eccentric sander (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Taylor is not in the same field of endeavor, Taylor is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns methods and apparatuses to compensate for out-of-balance rotating members, such as the rotating elements of an eccentric orbital sander.
Regarding claim 9, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 8 as applied above and further discloses wherein the pendulum shaped mass balancer includes a mounting portion, a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion that comprises the [actively adjustable] counterbalance mass (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38 include a mounting portion (near shaft 30) and a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion (at references 37, 38 of Fig. 1B)).
Lindell does not explicitly disclose a bearing between the mounting portion and the drive shaft.
However, the Lindell/Taylor/Braun combination makes obvious this claim.
Taylor discloses a bearing between the mounting portion and the drive shaft (Fig. 14, bearing 300/301 is between the mounting portion (near reference 300) and shaft 302).
Braun discloses a pendulum shaped mass balancer includes a mounting portion, a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion that comprises the first counterbalance mass (Figs. 1-8, pendulum shaped mass balancer 13 and 14 include a mounting portion (near their centers) and a swing mass (towards their outer circumferences) suspended from the mounting portion, where balancer 13 and/or 14 are capable of rotating relative to each other and/or shaft 1 depending on the embodiment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Taylor and Braun with Lindell by adding a bearing between the mounting portion of the pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38 and shaft 30 of Lindell, allowing balancer elements 37, 38 to move relative to shaft 30. To the extent Lindell teaches pendulum shaped mass balancers (elements 37, 38) that are not rotatable relative to the shaft 30 (i.e., they are fixed to shaft 30) (Lindell Figs. 1, 1A-C), Braun teaches pendulum shaped mass balancers that are able to rotate relative to each other and to the shaft 1 (Braun Figs. 1-8), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement pendulum shaped mass balancers movable relative to the shaft because this relative rotation of the balancers allows for the automatic compensation of vibration under different operating conditions such as different speeds, directions, and loads (Braun 2:25-3:67). Further, the addition of bearings per Taylor provides for less friction between the balancers and the shaft, allowing for a smoother relative rotation and a more precise dynamic weight compensation that is unhindered by friction presented between the balancers and the shaft compared to a configuration without a bearing (e.g., a shaft to cylindrical bore (of the balancers) connection).
Lindell in view of Taylor, Braun, and Wiker
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040082283 A1 (“Lindell”) in view of WO 9323687 A1 (“Taylor”), US 4744177 A (“Braun”), and US 20080107492 A1 (“Wiker”).
Lindell pertains to an orbital sander (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Taylor pertains to a counterbalancing apparatus for out-of-balance rotating members (Abstr.; Figs. 1-17). Braun pertains to an eccentric sander (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8). Wiker pertains to a power tool with a balancing device, including grinders (Abstr.; Figs. 1-9; ¶ 0002). These references are in the same field of endeavor. To the extent Taylor is not in the same field of endeavor, Taylor is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it concerns methods and apparatuses to compensate for out-of-balance rotating members, such as the rotating elements of an eccentric orbital sander.
Regarding claim 14, Lindell discloses the orbital sander of claim 10 as applied above and further discloses wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a pendulum shaped mass balancer having a mounting portion, a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion that comprises the first counterbalance mass (Figs. 1, 1A-C, 4A-I; ¶¶ 0038-0041, pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38 (“first counterbalance mass”) include a mounting portion (near shaft 30) and a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion (at references 37, 38 of Fig. 1B)).
Lindell does not explicitly disclose:
[from claim 10] wherein the dynamic mass balancing system includes a first counterbalance mass located on a first end of the drive shaft within the eccentric carrier.
a pendulum shaped mass balancer having a mounting portion, a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion that comprises the first counterbalance mass,
a bearing between the mounting portion and the drive shaft.
However, the Lindell/Taylor/Braun/Wiker combination makes obvious this claim.
Taylor discloses a bearing between the mounting portion and the drive shaft (Fig. 14, bearing 300/301 is between the mounting portion (near reference 300) and shaft 302).
Braun discloses a pendulum shaped mass balancer includes a mounting portion, a swinging mass suspended from the mounting portion that comprises the first counterbalance mass (Figs. 1-8, pendulum shaped mass balancer 13 and 14 (“first counterbalance mass”) include a mounting portion (near their centers) and a swing mass (towards their outer circumferences) suspended from the mounting portion, where balancer 13 and/or 14 are capable of rotating relative to each other and/or shaft 1 depending on the embodiment).
Wiker discloses mass balancers located on a first end of the drive shaft within a carrier (Fig. 6; ¶ 0038, mass balancers 5, 6 (“first counterbalance mass”) located at first end of shaft 3 near tool 2 (shaft portion shown is driven by a motor located higher on the shaft (not shown)) and inside carrier 20; ¶ 0035).
For the same reasons stated for claim 9 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Taylor and Braun with Lindell by adding a bearing between the mounting portion of the pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38 and shaft 30 of Lindell, allowing balancer elements 37, 38 to move relative to shaft 30. Further, it would have been obvious to place one or both of the pendulum shaped mass balancer elements 37, 38 of Lindell (or add another pendulum shaped mass balancer) beneath eccentric carrier 40 located at the first end of the shaft (e.g., in the radial void between shaft 30 and element 40a). This would have been obvious because the eccentric carrier 40 would serve as a protective housing (Wiker ¶ 0038; Fig. 6, element 20) that would prevent any dust debris from accumulating on the balancer elements 37, 38, which would impact their vibration compensation function (e.g., due to friction or added mass due to the debris). Furthermore, regarding the placement of balancer elements 37, 38 (or another balancer) at the first end of shaft 30, this is a matter of design choice and would have been obvious to try in order to experimentally determine the optimal arrangement of the balancers (e.g., elements 37, 38, 34, 40) on shaft 30 to best reduce vibrations for the expected operating conditions (see US 6855040 B2 (“Huber”) Fig. 1A, eccentric balancer 54 is located at the first end of the shaft closest to the polishing pad 70).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered.
Drawings – The objections to the drawings are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. However, see new objections due to the amendments.
Specification – The objections to the specification and the abstract are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. For the reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 10, and 17 above, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of Lindell, arguing that Lindell does not disclose “a counterbalance mass within an eccentric carrier that is mounted to a radial bearing” (Reply at 10-11). Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights