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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori (US 2015/0158137, previously cited) in view of Nakajima (JP 2020-114072, see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a grinding apparatus used at a time of grinding a workpiece, the grinding apparatus comprising: a chuck table (31) that has a holding surface (fig 2; upper surface) for holding the workpiece (described in [0057]); a grinding unit that has a spindle (42) to which a grinding wheel (44) in which a plurality of grindstones (442; fig 11) are arrayed in an annular shape ([0062]) is mounted (fig 2); and an exterior cover (2 fig 1) that includes an opening facing the grinding unit and a door capable of covering the opening (not shown in figures, but described [0039]) and having an inner surface that covers both the chuck table and the grinding unit (as shown in fig 1, the chuck table and grinding unit are covered by cover 2 which includes door as described [0039]).
Mori does not teach a work bench fixed to an inner surface of the door having a plate which can be in a folded position and extended position. Nakajima teaches an apparatus (the teachings of Nakajima are pertinent to the problem addressed by applicant, which is providing a location to place tools) including a work bench (15; fig 3) fixedly attached to an inner surface of a door (3) and having a plate being positioned in a folded position (position shown by dotted line in fig 3), where a distal end of the plate is in contact with the door (upper end in contact with door 3 as shown in fig 3 and described [0022]), when the door is in a closed state in which the opening is covered by the door to prevent interference with the interior of the housing and being positioned in an extended position, where the plate is perpendicular to the door and the distal end is not in contact with the door, when the door is in an opened state in which the opening is exposed (the state shown by solid lines in fig 3). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the work bench of Nakajima on the inner surface of the door of Mori which faces the grinding unit, as this provides a convenient place to place tools for maintenance as taught by Nakajima ([0022]).
Regarding claim 3, Mori, as modified by Nakajima, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Nakajima further teaches the work bench (included in the apparatus of Mori as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) further includes a coupling member (16) attached to the door and coupled to the plate (shown in fig 3), wherein the plate is rotated about the coupling member to move from the folded position to the extended position (as indicated by arcing arrow in fig 3; [0022]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori and Nakajima as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 3210893, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Mori, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mori does not teach a shelf on the inner surface of the door configured to receive a case that houses a replacement grinding wheel. Jackson teaches a grinding apparatus including a shelf (62) on the inner surface of a door (12; shown in fig 2), wherein the shelf is configured to receive a case (elements 63) that houses a replacement grinding wheel (61; note that the case and replacement grinding wheel are not positively recited as a part of the claimed apparatus). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a shelf on the inner surface of the door of Mori, as this provides storage for a spare grinding wheel as taught by Jackson (col 3, lines 56-62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 Jan 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that Mori and Robinson to not teach the claimed work bench with the folded and extended positions. However, as detailed above, the newly cited Nakajima reference renders such a work bench obvious.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejection under 112b.
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 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
Prosecution Insights