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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/11/2024 and 5/13/2024 were filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 10-11, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haydon (US Patent 4799283).
Regarding claim 1, Haydon teaches a foldable sander head for a sander (Haydon teaches a collapsible implement, wherein the pad will be replaced due to extensive wear after a prolonged period of use or if the operator wishes to carry out a different operation, for example, to employ a pad which is best suited to apply a polish, to apply a solvent, to scrub a surface with a pronounced abrasive action (col. 7, lines 29-35). Therefore, the device of Haydon teaches a foldable sander head for a sander), the foldable sander head comprising:
a head body including first and second head portions each having a lower surface (figs. 1-2, Haydon teaches the head 9 comprises two mirror symmetrical sections 2 (col. 4, lines 29-30)); and
a pivot joint connector (see annotated fig. 2 below) pivotably coupling the first and second head portions to one another (fig. 2, col. 4, lines 37-40) so that the first and second head portions are pivotable relative to one another about a pivot joint (the pivot joint is interpreted as including both hinges 8. The pivot joint provides that the first and second head portions are pivotable relative to one another about the pivot joint) between a planar configuration (configuration of fig. 1), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions are generally coplanar with respect to one another (fig. 1, flat configuration),
PNG
media_image1.png
796
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a folded configuration (fig. 2), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions define an included angle therebetween that is less than 180 degrees (fig. 2, the lower surface of the first and second head portions are capable of being positioned into a configuration wherein the lower surface of the first and second head portions define an included angle there between that is less than 180 degrees. Specifically, as shown in fig. 2, the angle is currently zero degrees but the angle increases from zero to 180 degrees as the first and second head portions are transitioned between the folded and flat configurations).
Regarding claim 2, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the pivot joint is a central pivot joint extending through and orthogonal to a central axis of the head body (fig. 1, the pivot joint is a central pivot joint which extends through and is orthogonal to a central vertical axis of the head body).
Regarding claim 3, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the pivot joint connector includes a track-bearing assembly (figs. 2-4, the socket 11 and the pintle 5 is interpreted as a track-bearing assembly because the pintle 5 slides within the socket 11 to allow the pivoting motion; (col. 4, lines 53-56)).
Regarding claim 4, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the track-bearing assembly includes
a first pair of opposing tracks fixedly coupled to the first head portion (see annotated fig. 3 below),
a second pair of opposing tracks fixedly coupled to the second head portion (corresponding structure on second head portion),
a first bearing (see annotated fig. 4 below) slidably coupled to the first pair of opposing tracks and configured to be slidable along the first pair of opposing tracks (the pintle 5 is slidably coupled to the first pair of opposing tracks which allows the head portion to pivot accordingly, wherein the pintle 5 is slidable along the first pair of opposing tracks), and
PNG
media_image2.png
702
951
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a second bearing slidably coupled to the second pair of opposing tracks and configured to be slidable along the second pair of opposing tracks (corresponding structure on second head portion).
Regarding claim 7, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 4. Additionally, Haydon teaches further comprising a latch coupled to the head body (fig. 3, female detent element 21 is interpreted as the latch), the latch configurable between a locked configuration (fig. 1 is interpreted as the locked configuration, which includes the female detent element and the male detent element engaging), which locks the head body in the planar configuration to inhibit pivoting of the first and second head portions relative to one another (configuration of fig. 1, wherein the structure releasably holds the sections in the extended positions (col. 5, lines 45-47)), and an unlocked configuration, in which the first and second head portions are freely pivotable relative to one another (fig. 2, wherein the female detent element and the male detent element are not engaged).
Regarding claim 10, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Haydon teaches further comprising a pole coupler coupled to the pivot joint connector (see annotated fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
592
772
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 10. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the pole coupler is rotatable coupled to the pivot joint connector (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 13, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the pivot joint connector comprises a slide coupler slidably coupled to the first and second head portions (figs. 2-4, wherein the sockets 11 and the pintles 5 are interpreted as a slide coupler slidably coupled to the first and second head portions because the pintles 5 respectively slide within the sockets 11 to allow the pivoting motion; (col. 4, lines 53-56)).
Regarding claim 14, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Haydon teaches further comprising at least one track coupled to the first and second head portions (sockets 11 coupled to the first and second head portions), wherein the slide coupler includes at least one bearing slidably coupled to the at least one track (pintles 5 respectively slidably coupled to the sockets 11).
Regarding claim 15, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the at least one track includes at least one first track coupled to the first head portion, and at least one second track coupled to the second head portion (respective sockets 11 located on each of the first head portion and the second head portion).
Regarding claim 16, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the at least one bearing includes at least one first bearing slidably coupled to the at least one first track, and at least one second bearing slidably coupled to the at least one second track (the respective pintle 5 is slidably coupled to the respective socket (fig. 4)).
Regarding claim 17, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 16. Additionally, Haydon teaches wherein the at least one first bearing includes at least one first plain bearing received in the at least one first track, wherein the at least one second bearing includes at least one second plain bearing received in the at least one second track (the respective pintles 5 are interpreted as the first plan bearing and the second plain bearing received in the respective track).
Regarding claim 20, Haydon teaches a foldable sander head for a sander (Haydon teaches a collapsible implement, wherein the pad will be replaced due to extensive wear after a prolonged period of use or if the operator wishes to carry out a different operation, for example, to employ a pad which is best suited to apply a polish, to apply a solvent, to scrub a surface with a pronounced abrasive action (col. 7, lines 29-35). Therefore, the device of Haydon teaches a foldable sander head for a sander), the foldable sander head comprising:
a head body including first and second head portions each having a lower surface (figs. 1-2, Haydon teaches the head 9 comprises two mirror symmetrical sections 2 (col. 4, lines 29-30)), wherein the first and second head portions are selectively pivotable relative to one another (fig. 2, col. 4, lines 37-40) about a pivot joint (the pivot joint is interpreted as including both hinges 8. The pivot joint provides that the first and second head portions are pivotable relative to one another about the pivot joint) between a planar configuration (configuration of fig. 1), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions are generally coplanar and fixed with respect to one another (fig. 1, flat configuration releasably fixed via detent mechanisms (col. 5, lines 45-52)), and a folded configuration (fig. 2), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions define an included angle therebetween that is less than 180 degrees (fig. 2, the lower surface of the first and second head portions are capable of being positioned into a configuration wherein the lower surface of the first and second head portions define an included angle there between that is less than 180 degrees. Specifically, as shown in fig. 2, the angle is currently zero degrees but the angle increases from zero to 180 degrees as the first and second head portions are transitioned between the folded and flat configurations),
wherein the pivot joint is a central pivot joint extending through and orthogonal to a central axis of the head body (fig. 1, the pivot joint is a central pivot joint which extends through and is orthogonal to a central vertical axis of the head body), and
wherein the head body is lockable in the planar configuration to inhibit pivoting of the first and second head portions relative to one another about the pivot joint (fig. 1, flat configuration releasably fixed via detent mechanisms (col. 5, lines 45-52)).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sigler et al. (US PGPUB 20200094378), hereinafter Sigler.
Regarding claim 18, Sigler teaches a foldable sander head for a sander (fig. 1a-2c), the foldable sander head comprising:
a head body including first and second head portions each having a lower surface (fig. 1a and 1b, wherein Sigler teaches a first head portion 22 and a second head portion 24), wherein the first and second head portions are selectively pivotable relative to one another about a pivot joint (hinge 20, [0057]) between a planar configuration (fig. 1a-2a), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions are generally coplanar and fixed with respect to one another (fig. 2a, fixed via locking indentation 30 and locking tab 28 [0069]), and a folded configuration (fig. 2c), in which the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions define an included angle therebetween that is less than 180 degrees (fig. 2c, wherein the second head portion is folded such that the lower surfaces of the first and second head portions define an included angle therebetween that is less than 180 degrees); and
a latch coupled to the head body (fig. 2a, handle 11 is interpreted as the latch [0069]), the latch configurable between a locked configuration (fig. 2a via locking indentation 30 and locking tab 28), which locks the head body in the planar configuration to inhibit pivoting of the first and second head portions relative to one another [0069], and an unlocked configuration (fig. 2c), in which the first and second head portions are freely pivotable relative to one another (fig.2c),
wherein the latch includes a lever coupled to the first head portion (rotatable handle 11 is interpreted as the lever), and a catch coupled to the second head portion (locking tab 28 in fig. 2b is interpreted as the catch), the lever selectively movable relative to the first head portion to i) engage the catch, thereby configuring the latch in the locked configuration [0069], and ii) disengage the catch, thereby configuring the latch in the unlocked configuration (fig. 2c).
Regarding claim 19, Sigler teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 18. Additionally, Sigler teaches wherein the latch extends across the pivot joint in the locked configuration (fig. 2a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haydon (US Patent 4799283) in view of LeCompte et al. (US PGPUB 20180353045), hereinafter LeCompte.
Regarding claim 12, Haydon teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Additionally, Haydon teaches the handle is connected via a universal or other suitable joint (col. 4, lines 24-28).
Haydon does not explicitly teach wherein the pole coupler includes a clevis rotatably coupled to the pivot joint connector and rotatable about a first rotational axis that is transverse to the pivot joint, and a pole connector rotatably coupled to the clevis and rotatable about a second rotational axis that is generally parallel to the pivot joint.
However, LeCompte teaches a joint configuration for attaching a handle to a head. The teachings of LeCompte are pertinent to the problem of attaching the handle to the head. Specifically, LeCompte teaches wherein the pole coupler includes a clevis (fig. 2, structure indicated by element 114) rotatably coupled to the pivot joint connector (fig. 2, via axis 118, [0035]) and rotatable about a first rotational axis that is transverse to the pivot joint (fig. 2, axis 118 is transverse to the pivot joint of which elements 430 pivot), and a pole connector (fig. 4, stem 112) rotatably coupled to the clevis (fig. 4, via axis 116, [0035]) and rotatable about a second rotational axis that is generally parallel to the pivot joint (fig. 1 and 4, axis 116).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haydon to incorporate the teachings of LeCompte to provide wherein the pole coupler includes a clevis rotatably coupled to the pivot joint connector and rotatable about a first rotational axis that is transverse to the pivot joint, and a pole connector rotatably coupled to the clevis and rotatable about a second rotational axis that is generally parallel to the pivot joint. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the joint configuration of LeCompte for the joint configuration of Haydon. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known joint configuration for another known joint configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing a joint configuration for attaching the handle to the head. Additionally, doing so would promote increased utility and ergonomics by providing a joint with two axes of rotation.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Haydon (US Patent 4799283) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of the first and second bearings are fixedly coupled to one another as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1, 3 and 4.
Claim 6 is indicated as allowable for depending from claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Haydon (US Patent 4799283) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the features of a lever, wherein the lever is selectively movable relative to the first head portion to engage the catch and disengage the catch as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7.
Claim 9 is indicated as allowable for depending from claim 8.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henke et al. (US PGPUB 20070212989) teaches a sander tool with a double pivot connection mechanism (fig. 5) similar to the claimed invention
Stubbs (US Patent 7485031) teaches an angle sander similar to the disclosed invention (fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights