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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 19 Nov 2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202011298291.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the weight increasing portion and weight reducing portion of claims 6-7 and 16-17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. 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” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 16 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 1, the claim recites “the second end is closer to a lower surface than the first end surface” in line 10. It is unclear what part the claimed “lower surface” is a part of. Is this a lower surface of the eccentric element, fan assembly, base plate, or some other element? The claim later recites “the lower surface of the base plate in the last three lines, which has no antecedent basis and is unclear if this is the previously recited “lower surface”. For the purposes of this examination, the recitation in line 10 will be read as “the second end is closer to a lower surface of the base plate than the first end surface” as this appears to be applicant’s intent and provides the antecedent basis for the later recitations.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim.
Claims 9 and 16 each recite “a ratio of a weight of the fan to a mass of the electric motor” and define this ratio in a percentage. However, without defining particular units, it is impossible to determine the ratio of these separate physical properties. For example, the ratio, which is a comparison of two numbers, will change depending on if the mass is defined in grams or kilograms, and/or if the weight is defined in pounds or Newtons. This makes the desired scope of the claim unclear.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2016/0212450) in view of Champayne (US 2751725).
Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a sander, comprising: a housing (210); an electric motor (230) at least partially disposed in the housing (fig 2C) and used for providing a power source ([0017]), wherein the electric motor comprises a motor shaft (220) that rotates about a motor axis (230A); a fan assembly comprising a fan (see annotated fig) connected to the electric motor; an eccentric element (see annotated fig) driven by the electric motor, wherein the eccentric element has a central axis (250A) separated from the motor axis; a base plate assembly comprising a base plate (260) and a support (250) for supporting the eccentric element, wherein the support comprises a first end surface and a second end surface opposite to each other (top and bottom surfaces), and the second end surface is closer to a lower surface (260A) of the base plate (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) than the first end surface (as shown in fig 2C); and a counterweight (280) connected to the eccentric element and driven by the electric motor to rotate about the central axis ([0017]); wherein a distance from a centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate is smaller than a distance from the first end surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate (counterweight is closer to lower surface than first end surface).
Miller does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance from the centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate to the distance from the first surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.5 (although it appears that fig 2C shows an arrangement close to this range). However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Champayne teaches a sander comprising a counterweight (44) wherein a distance from a centroid (on plane 45; fig 1) of the counterweight to a lower surface of a base plate (lower surface of base plate 28) can be optimized in order to allow a relatively thin counterweight to be used and match the center of gravity of the counterweight to the center of gravity of the orbiting pad (col 2, lines 60-70; col 3, lines 4-22 describe reasons for adjusting the vertical location of the counterweight). Changing of the counterweight height as described in Champayne necessarily leads to adjusting the claimed ratio. Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the vertical location of the counterweight of Miller to have the ratio of the distance from the centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate to the distance from the first surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.5, as this optimization involves only routine skill and predictably results in a machine which can accommodate a thin counterweight which balances with the sanding pad as taught by Champayne.
Regarding claim 2, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the counterweight comprises a body (central area near eccentric element) connected to the eccentric element and a centroid adjustment portion (lobed section on right side as viewed in fig 2C) fixedly connected to or integrally formed with the body for adjusting the centroid of the counterweight (the lobed portion adjust the position of the centroid by providing more mass on one side).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Miller as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Miller further teaches the base plate assembly further comprises a support base (240) for mounting the support and the support base is fixedly connected (by screws shown in fig 2C) to the base plate (260) and comprises a bypass groove (central hole shown in fig 2C) allowing the counterweight to rotate (as shown in fig 2C, the support base has a central hole which accommodates the counterweight 280); and the base plate (260) comprises a groove (central hole) allowing the counterweight to move and the counterweight at least partially overlaps with the base plate in an axial direction (as shown in fig 2C).
Regarding claim 5, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Miller further teaches the groove is a circular groove (as shown in fig 2B), a center of the groove is located on the central axis (as shown in fig 2C). Miller does not teach a particular ratio of an inner diameter of the groove to an outer diameter of the base plate. However, it has been held that changes in proportion are an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). Furthermore, Champayne further teaches a circular groove (46) may be appropriately sized to provide space for the counterweight, the groove size having a direct effect on the thickness of the desired counterweight which can be accommodated (col 3, lines 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the circular groove and base plate of Miller such that the ratio of the inner diameter of the groove to the outer diameter of the base plate is 0.15-0.5, as groove size is known to determine the size of the weight which can be accommodated based on the teachings of Champayne, and the diameter of the base plate will determine the size of the working area of the sander, both of which are optimizable within the prior art.
Regarding claims 6-7, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miller further teaches the counterweight comprises a weight increasing portion (protruding portion on top) and a weight reducing portion (cutaway portion on bottom), the weight reducing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the base plate, and the weight increasing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the fan (see annotated fig pointing out weight increasing and decreasing portions on top and bottom); and the counterweight comprises a weight increasing portion (protruding portion on bottom) and a weight reducing portion (cutaway portion on top), the weight reducing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the fan, and the weight increasing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the base plate (see annotated fig pointing out weight increasing and decreasing portions on bottom and top).
Regarding claim 10, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 10 narrows the range of the centroid distance ratio of claim 1 and is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
678
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller and Champayne as applied to claims 4 and 1 above, and further in view of Kuehne (US 2015/0151422).
Regarding claim 8, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Miller does not teach a particular product of a weight of the fan and a square of an outer diameter of the fan. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Kuehne teaches a sander including a fan, and describes that the weight of the fan, which necessarily effects the product of the weight and square of the diameter, can be optimized in order to reduce the overall amount of power necessary to drive the tool ([0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fan of Miller such that a product of a weight of the fan and a square of an outer diameter of the fan falls within the claimed range, as the weight of the fan (and thus a product of the weight with a square of the diameter thereof) is a known results effective variable which determines the power necessary to drive the tool.
Regarding claim 9, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Miller does not teach a particular ratio of a weight of the fan and a mass of the electric motor. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Kuehne teaches a sander including a fan, and describes that the weight of the fan, which necessarily effects the ratio of the fan weight and motor mass, can be optimized in order to reduce the overall amount of power necessary to drive the tool ([0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fan of Miller such that a product of a weight of the fan and a mass of the electric motor falls within the claimed range, as the weight of the fan (and thus a ratio of the fan weight to the motor mass) is a known results effective variable which determines the power necessary to drive the tool.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2016/0212450) in view of Champayne (US 2751725) and Kuehne (US 2015/0151422).
Regarding claim 11, Miller teaches a sander, comprising: a housing (210); an electric motor (230) at least partially disposed in the housing (fig 2C) and used for providing a power source ([0017]), wherein the electric motor comprises a motor shaft (220) that rotates about a motor axis (230A); a fan assembly comprising a fan (see annotated fig) connected to the electric motor; an eccentric element (see annotated fig) driven by the electric motor, wherein the eccentric element has a central axis (250A) deviating from the motor axis; a base plate assembly comprising a base plate (260), a sanding member (265) fixed to a lower surface (260A) of the base plate (fig 2C), and a support (250) for supporting the eccentric element, wherein the support comprises a first end surface and a second end surface opposite to each other (top and bottom surfaces), and the second end surface is disposed on a side of the support facing the lower surface relative to the first end surface (as shown in fig 2C) than the first end surface (as shown in fig 2C); and a counterweight (280) connected to the eccentric element and driven by the electric motor to rotate about the central axis ([0017]); wherein a distance from a centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate is smaller than a distance from the first end surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate (counterweight is closer to lower surface than first end surface).
Miller does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the distance from the centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate to the distance from the first surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.5 (although it appears that fig 2C shows an arrangement close to this range). However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Champayne teaches a sander comprising a counterweight (44) wherein a distance from a centroid (on plane 45; fig 1) of the counterweight to a lower surface of a base plate (lower surface of base plate 28) can be optimized in order to allow a relatively thin counterweight to be used and match the center of gravity of the counterweight to the center of gravity of the orbiting pad (col 2, lines 60-70; col 3, lines 4-22 describe reasons for adjusting the vertical location of the counterweight). Changing of the counterweight height as described in Champayne necessarily leads to adjusting the claimed ratio. Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the vertical location of the counterweight of Miller to have the ratio of the distance from the centroid of the counterweight to the lower surface of the base plate to the distance from the first surface of the support to the lower surface of the base plate is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.5, as this optimization involves only routine skill and predictably results in a machine which can accommodate a thin counterweight which balances with the sanding pad as taught by Champayne.
Miller does not teach a particular product of a weight of the fan and a square of an outer diameter of the fan. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Kuehne teaches a sander including a fan, and describes that the weight of the fan, which necessarily effects the product of the weight and square of the diameter, can be optimized in order to reduce the overall amount of power necessary to drive the tool ([0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fan of Miller such that a product of a weight of the fan and a square of an outer diameter of the fan falls within the claimed range, as the weight of the fan (and thus a product of the weight with a square of the diameter thereof) is a known results effective variable which determines the power necessary to drive the tool.
Regarding claim 12, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Miller further teaches the fan is located on an upper side of the counterweight along a direction of the motor axis (fig 2C; fan is above counterweight). Miller does not teach a particular fan density. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Kuehne teaches a sander including a fan, and describes that the density of the fan can be optimized in order to reduce the overall amount of power necessary to drive the tool ([0062]; density is adjusted by changing materials which determine the overall mass of the fan). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fan of Miller such that the density falls within the claimed range, as the density of the fan is a known results effective variable which determines the power necessary to drive the tool.
Regarding claim 13, Miller as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Miller further teaches the base plate (260) comprises a groove (central hole) allowing the counterweight to move and the counterweight at least partially overlaps with the base plate in an axial direction (as shown in fig 2C).
Regarding claim 14, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 13 as described above. Miller further teaches the groove is a circular groove (as shown in fig 2B), a center of the groove is located on the central axis (as shown in fig 2C). Miller does not teach a particular ratio of an inner diameter of the groove to an outer diameter of the base plate. However, it has been held that changes in proportion are an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). Furthermore, Champayne further teaches a circular groove (46) may be appropriately sized to provide space for the counterweight, the groove size having a direct effect on the thickness of the desired counterweight which can be accommodated (col 3, lines 7-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the circular groove and base plate of Miller such that the ratio of the inner diameter of the groove to the outer diameter of the base plate is 0.15-0.5, as groove size is known to determine the size of the weight which can be accommodated based on the teachings of Champayne, and the diameter of the base plate will determine the size of the working area of the sander, both of which are optimizable within the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Miller does not teach a particular ratio of a weight of the fan and a mass of the electric motor. However, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (MPEP 2144.05 II) and applicant has shown no criticality to the claimed range. Furthermore, Kuehne teaches a sander including a fan, and describes that the weight of the fan, which necessarily effects the ratio of the fan weight and motor mass, can be optimized in order to reduce the overall amount of power necessary to drive the tool ([0062]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the fan of Miller such that a product of a weight of the fan and a mass of the electric motor falls within the claimed range, as the weight of the fan (and thus a ratio of the fan weight to the motor mass) is a known results effective variable which determines the power necessary to drive the tool.
Regarding claims 16-17, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Miller further teaches the counterweight comprises a weight increasing portion (protruding portion on top) and a weight reducing portion (cutaway portion on bottom), the weight reducing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the base plate, and the weight increasing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the fan (see annotated fig pointing out weight increasing and decreasing portions on top and bottom); and the counterweight comprises a weight increasing portion (protruding portion on bottom) and a weight reducing portion (cutaway portion on top), the weight reducing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the fan, and the weight increasing portion is disposed on a side of the counterweight facing the base plate (see annotated fig pointing out weight increasing and decreasing portions on bottom and top).
Regarding claim 18, Miller, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. Claim 18 narrows the range of the centroid distance ratio of claim 11 and is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar sanders are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723