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
In response to the amendment filed on 06/15/2026, claim 1 has been amended. Claims 11-15 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-10 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard, Jr. et al. (US 5392568, cited on 06/07/2023 IDS, hereinafter Howard), in view of Walker (US 2003/0017795).
Regarding claim 1, Howard discloses, in figs. 1 and 2, a random orbital sanding tool (random orbit sander 10), comprising a power motor (motor 30), a driving spindle (drive spindle 34) connected to the power motor, an eccentric block (shroud 14) connected to the driving spindle, a tool holder disposed on the eccentric block, and a sanding pad (sand paper 19) connected to the tool holder and indirectly driven by the power motor, wherein the random orbital sanding tool comprises a friction ring (braking member 48) disposed on the tool holder, the friction ring contacts a surface of the eccentric block facing the sanding pad, the friction ring controls rotation of the tool holder and the sanding pad; the friction ring comprises a base part protruding into a gap between the tool holder and the eccentric block, a sleeve part diverged and extended from the base part, and a friction part connected to the base part and constantly in direct contact with the surface of the eccentric block (fig. 1, annotated Howard figs. 2 and 3 below, col. 4:25-6:17, the drive spindle 34 is connected to the motor 30. The shroud 14 [corresponds to the recited eccentric block] includes an eccentric arbor 36c. The recited tool holder includes a bearing 42, which is eccentrically disposed to the drive spindle 34, a platen 18, and threaded screws 38, 44. The components of the tool holder are disposed on the shroud 14 and the sand paper 19. The braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] disposed on the platen 18 and is coupled to the shroud 14. The sand paper 19 rotates because it is attached to the platen 19, which is driven by the motor 30. The braking member 48 prevents the platen 18 from rotating exceeding a certain rpm when the platen is lifted off a work surface. A recited base part of the braking member 48 protrudes into a gap between the platen 18 and the shroud 14. The braking member 48 frictionally rides and exerts spring force to the platen to limit the rotational speed. The claim does not define structure of the eccentric block. The eccentric block is just connected to the driving spindle and the tool hoder, and the friction ring contacts the eccentric block, thus a lower body of the Howard’s tool is designated as the recited eccentric block because the shroud 14 is connected to the drive spindle 34 and the bearing, and the braking member 48 directly contacts the shroud 14), but does not disclose the rotation control of the friction ring is stopping rotation of the tool holder and the sanding pad when the power motor stops operation. The braking member of Howard limits the rotation speed. Because the speed limiting is done by applying friction force, the platen could be stopped eventually when the power motor stops, but Howard does not disclose it explicitly.
Walker teaches, in an analogous random orbit sander field of endeavor, the friction ring stops rotation of the tool holder and the sanding pad when the power motor stops operation (fig. 1 and ¶ 0032, a sander comprises a brake pad 99 including a resilient ring 52. The brake not only limits the speed but also stops the rotation of the tool in a very reduced time when the tool is switched off).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the random orbital sanding tool of Howard to make the friction ring to stop the rotation when the power motor stops as taught by Walker so that it provides safety to a user because there is no rotating component soon after the motor stops.
PNG
media_image1.png
893
1044
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Howard Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
566
838
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Howard Fig. 3
Regarding claim 2, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the eccentric block comprises an accommodating slot provided for disposal of the tool holder therein, and the friction part is in constant contact with an edge of a slot opening of the accommodating slot (annotated Howard figs. 2 and 3 above, the shroud 14 [corresponds to the recited eccentric block] comprises an accommodating slot to hold the eccentric bearing 42 and the threaded screws 38, 44 of the recited tool holder, and the recited friction part of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] makes constant contact with an edge of the recited tool holder/accommodating slot).
Regarding claim 3, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein a level height of the friction part in a free state is higher than that of the base part (see annotated Howard fig. 3 above, the friction part of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] is positioned higher than the base part. The braking member 48 shown in fig. 3 is does not show deformation, thus it is a free state configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the friction part extends obliquely toward the eccentric block (see annotated Howard figs. 2 and 3 above, the friction part of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] extends obliquely toward the retainer 40 [corresponds to the recited eccentric block]).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claims 4 and 1 respectively, wherein a level height of a bottom edge of the friction ring is higher than that of the tool holder (see annotated Howard figs. 2 and 3 above, a bottom edge of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] is positioned higher than the threaded screw 38 and the platen 18, which form the recited tool holder).
Regarding claim 6, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 4, wherein the friction ring is made of rubber (Walker ¶ 0032, the resilient ring 52 of the brake pad 99 is formed from a synthetic rubber resilient material. By combining Howard with Walker, the braking member of Howard can be made of rubber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the friction ring of Howard as modified by Walker to be made of rubber as taught by Walker. The rubber material provides resilience so that the brake pad can perform its function repeatedly (Walker ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 7, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the friction part is disc-shaped (annotated Howard fig. 3 above, the figure shows a cross-sectional view of the friction part of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the friction ring]. A circular form of the friction part would be disc-shaped).
Regarding claim 8, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the friction ring is recessed at a junction between the base part and the friction part (see annotated Howard fig. 3 above for the recited recess).
Regarding claim 9, Howard as modified by Walker teaches the random orbital sanding tool as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the friction ring comprises a ring inner space, and a shape of the ring inner space in the base part is different from that in the sleeve part (annotated Howard fig. 3, above, the figure shows a cross-sectional view of the braking member 48 [corresponds to the friction ring]. A circular form of the base part and the sleeve part would form different configuration of a ring inner space because they have different cross-sectional configuration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues Howard and Nace do not teach or suggest the amended claim limitations that the friction part is in direct contact with the surface of the eccentric block.
In the previous non-final office action dated on 03/23/2026, Examiner has defined the recited eccentric block is the retainer 40 which includes the eccentric arbor 36c (see Howard fig. 3). Then, the braking member 48 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] of Howard does not contact the surface of the retainer 40, and Nace was combined to teach that the spring member 130 [corresponds to the recited friction ring] makes contact with the bearing 122 through a spacer 132. The bearing of the instant application is attached to the eccentric block, therefore, Nace was cited to teach the claimed limitations.
Applicant has amended the claim that the friction part of the friction ring is in direct contact with the surface of the eccentric block. On the other hand, claims of the instant application presents the eccentric block of the sanding tool such that the driving spindle is connected to the eccentric block, the tool holder is disposed on the eccentric block, the friction ring/friction part contacts the eccentric block, and the eccentric block comprises the accommodation slot for disposing the tool holder therein. The claims do not define structure or composition of the eccentric block. Instead of the retainer 40, therefore, the shroud 14 of Howard can be designated as the recited eccentric block, and the shroud 14 satisfies the amended claim limitations that the friction part of the friction ring is in direct contact with the surface of shroud 14 constantly.
The arguments are not persuasive.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights