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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the convexly shaped supporting portion must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The written description does not provide details regarding the configuration of the convex shape of the supporting portion; therefore, amendments to the drawings will almost certainly result in incorporation of new matter and for this reason, it is suggested Applicant cancel the feature from the claims.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Segment in each of claims 1, 3 and 4 should be pluralized (segments) as a plurality of sets thereof are required. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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 1 requires the grinding head be provided with a rack between every two adjacent ones of the plurality of first helical grooves in lines 3-4. Lines 6-9 of claim 1 require the plurality of sets of large tooth segment consist of a plurality of racks, where an arrangement density of the racks is from dense to sparse, sparse to dense or alternating. It is unclear if the racks of lines 3-4 are the same or different from the plurality of racks of line 6-9. It is believed they are the same and for purposes of examination this interpretation will be applied; however, the claim requires amending to clarify the scope thereof.
Claim 2 recites a plurality of grinding teeth where it is unclear if these teeth are the same or different from the large tooth segments of claim 1.
Claim 3 requires the plurality of sets of large tooth segment comprise a plurality of sets of small tooth segment, where this language is indefinite as it is unclear large teeth provide small teeth. Additionally, claim 3 requires the spacing between every two adjacent racks of the small teeth be equal, while also requiring the arrangement densities of these racks be different. As the densities is based on the spacing it is unclear how the densities are different while the spacing is the same, for the same size/type of teeth.
Claim 4 recites different sets of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment have a same arrangement rule, where it is unclear what is intended by the language “arrangement rule”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecke et al. (US 20150216537).
Regarding claim 1, Hecke et al. disclose a multifunctional polishing head capable of being used on nails (Refer to Figures 1-4), comprising a grinding head (2) and a grinding handle (1), wherein a plurality of first helical grooves (grooves formed between adjacent pointed cutting edges/racks 3) are defined on a circumferential wall of the grinding head at intervals, the grinding head is provided with a rack (3) between every two adjacent ones of the plurality of first helical grooves, in a radial section of the grinding head, a plurality of sets of large tooth segment (teeth of 3, Refer to Figure 1)are formed along a circumferential direction of the grinding head, each set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment consists of a plurality of racks (pointed cutting edge portion of 3), an arrangement density of the plurality of racks in one set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment is from sparse to dense, or from dense to sparse, or alternates dense and sparse along the circumferential direction of the grinding head (Refer to Figures 2 and 3 depicts alternating densities between spare and dense).
Regarding claim 2, Hecke et al. disclose a plurality of second helical grooves (7) are defined on the circumferential wall of the grinding head at intervals, a rotation direction of the plurality of second helical grooves is opposite to a rotation direction of the plurality of first helical grooves, the plurality of second helical grooves divide each of the plurality of racks into a plurality of grinding teeth (Refer to Figure 1), and each of the plurality of grinding teeth is symmetrically provided along a connection line between an edge of each of the plurality of racks and a center of the grinding head as a symmetry line (Refer to Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hecke et al. disclose each set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment comprises a plurality of sets of small tooth segment (within the plurality of teeth, there are smaller teeth and larger teeth Refer to Figures 1-3) that are sequentially arranged, each set of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment consists of at least two racks of the plurality of racks, a spacing between every two adjacent racks of the at least two racks in each set of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment is equal, and arrangement densities of the at least two racks of different small tooth segments of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment are different (Refer to Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Hecke et al. disclose a quantity of the at least two racks of corresponding sets of small tooth segment of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment in different sets of large tooth segment of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment is equal, and different sets of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment have a same arrangement rule (Refer to Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 8, Hecke et al. disclose a spacing between every two adjacent racks of the plurality of racks is proportional to a depth of a respective one of the plurality of first helical grooves (Refer to Figures 2 and 3).
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meier et al. (US 20120009543).
Regarding claim 1, Meier et al. disclose a multifunctional polishing head capable of being used on nails (Refer to Figures 1-7), comprising a grinding head (3) and a grinding handle (2), wherein a plurality of first helical grooves (grooves formed between adjacent pointed cutting edges/racks 4,5) are defined on a circumferential wall of the grinding head at intervals, the grinding head is provided with a rack (4,5) between every two adjacent ones of the plurality of first helical grooves, in a radial section of the grinding head, a plurality of sets of large tooth segment (teeth of 4,5) are formed along a circumferential direction of the grinding head, each set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment consists of a plurality of racks (4,5), an arrangement density of the plurality of racks in one set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment is from sparse to dense, or from dense to sparse, or alternates dense and sparse along the circumferential direction of the grinding head (Refer to Figures 6 and 7 depict alternating densities between spare and dense).
Regarding claim 2, Meier et al. disclose a plurality of second helical grooves (grooves 7) are defined on the circumferential wall of the grinding head at intervals, a rotation direction of the plurality of second helical grooves is opposite to a rotation direction of the plurality of first helical grooves, the plurality of second helical grooves divide each of the plurality of racks into a plurality of grinding teeth (Refer to Figures 1-3), and each of the plurality of grinding teeth is symmetrically provided along a connection line between an edge of each of the plurality of racks and a center of the grinding head as a symmetry line (Refer to Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 3, Meier et al. disclose each set of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment comprises a plurality of sets of small tooth segment (smaller teeth 5) that are sequentially arranged, each set of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment consists of at least two racks of the plurality of racks, a spacing between every two adjacent racks of the at least two racks in each set of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment is equal, and arrangement densities of the at least two racks of different small tooth segments of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment are different (Refer to Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Meier et al. disclose a quantity of the at least two racks of corresponding sets of small tooth segment of the plurality of sets of small tooth segment in different sets of large tooth segment of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment is equal, and different sets of the plurality of sets of large tooth segment have a same arrangement rule (Refer to Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 5, Meier et al. disclose a supporting part (portion of teeth below rack/cutting edge 4,5) is convexly formed on a sidewall of each of the plurality of grinding teeth facing a respective one of the plurality of first helical grooves, and the supporting part is provided along the rotation direction of the plurality of first helical grooves (Refer to Figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 6, Meier et al. disclose tooth heights of the plurality of racks increase with an increase of a sparsity of the plurality of racks, wherein the tooth heights of the plurality of racks decrease with an increase of a density of the plurality of racks (Refer to Figures 6 and 7, tooth heights are greatest in the upper right and lower left quadrants where the density is sparse, while tooth heights are smaller in the upper left and lower right quadrants where the teeth are more densely arranged).
Regarding claim 8, Meier et al. disclose a spacing between every two adjacent racks of the plurality of racks is proportional to a depth of a respective one of the plurality of first helical grooves (Refer to Figures 1-7).
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.
Claim 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecke et al.
Regarding claim 7, Hecke et al. disclose the multifunctional polishing head of claim 1 above; however, Hecke et al. are silent regarding the cross-section of each of the plurality of first helical grooves being an inverted trapezoid. Although Hecke et al. are silent with regard to the shape of the first helical grooves, the Examiner takes of official notice that it is well known and conventional in the art for such grooves to have an inverted trapezoid cross-sectional shape. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the head of Hecke et al. such that the first helical grooves have an inverted trapezoid cross-section, as such shaped cross sections are known and conventional; additionally, it would have been obvious to make the aforementioned modification since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a component. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Hecke et al. disclose the polishing head of claim 2 above, wherein an angle exists between the plurality of first helical grooves and the plurality of second helical grooves in a helical direction. Although Hecke et al. do not explicitly state the angle being 30-120°, Figure 1 appears to depict an angle within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle to be between 30 and 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 219225319 U demonstrates it is known for such helical grooves to have an inverted trapezoid cross section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights