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 § 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 1-19 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 recites “a second portion having a second angle smaller than the first angle as the inclination angle” which renders the claim indefinite. There is a lack of antecedent basis to “the inclination angle” in ll. 5 of the claim. It is unclear to the Examiner whether “the inclination angle” in ll. 5 is the same inclination angle from ll. 3 of the claim or whether “the inclination angle” in ll. 5 is different from the first angle inclination angle. As best understood from the instant disclosure, both the first angle and the second angle have an inclination angle with respect to the flat surface that gradually transition into one another. For examination purposes, a first portion has a first angle as an inclination angle with respect to the flat surface, and a second portion has a second angle as a second inclination angle with respect to the flat surface, wherein the second angle is smaller than the first angle.
Claim 1, ll. 4-5, --with respect to the flat surface, and a second portion having a second angle as a second inclination angle with respect to the flat surface, wherein the second angle is smaller than the first angle
The term “generally” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes and as best understood from instant disclosure, the Examiner will interpret the limitation(s) as:
--wherein the pad has a
the first portion is formed on at least one of three corner portions respectively containing three vertexes of the
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a generally triangular outer shape" in ll. 1 of the claim. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, the term “generally” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes and as best understood from instant disclosure, the Examiner will interpret the limitation(s) as:
--wherein a pad has [[a]]the
Claims 10 and 19 recite “wherein the inclination angle of the side surface of the pad” which render the claims indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis of “the inclination angle of the side surface” as the side surface is best understood to include a first angle as an inclination angle and a second angle as a second inclination angle that gradually transition into one another (from 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above). As best understood from fig. 6, the inclination angle of the second portion, which is defined as the second angle having a second inclination angle, is smaller than the inclination angle of the side surface of the base. For examination purposes claim 10 recites:
--wherein the second inclination angle of the second portion of the side surface of the pad is smaller than an inclination angle of the side surface of the base with respect to the flat surface.—
Claims 4-9 and 11-18 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy (US Patent No. 6,179,696) in view of Clabunde (US 2014/0378034).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Duffy (US Patent No. 6,179,696) discloses a pad (item 36; figs. 1 and 3) for a sander (item 10; fig. 1) comprising:
a flat surface (lower face surface of item 38; fig. 1) for attaching sanding paper (col. 2, ll. 56-59; not explicitly shown); and
a side surface (designated in annotated fig. 3 below by gray highlighted portion) including a first portion (designated in annotated fig. 3 below) having a first angle as an inclination angle with respect to the flat surface (defined as angle between line extending along first portion surface and flat surface; designated in annotated fig. 3 below), and a second portion (designated in annotated fig. 3 below) having a second angle (defined as angle between line extending along second portion and flat surface; designated in annotated fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Duffy First Annotated Fig. 3.
Though Duffy discloses the first and second portions are angled relative to the flat surface, i.e. tapered, Duffy is silent on the exact angle dimensions of the first and second portions relative to the flat surface. However, Clabunde (US 2014/0378034) discloses a pad (item 20; fig. 1) for a sander (item 10; fig. 1) comprising: a flat surface (item 28; figs. 2-3), a side surface (item 26; fig. 2) including a first portion (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) having a first angle as an inclination angle with respect to the flat surface (defined as angle between line extending along first portion surface and flat surface), and a second portion (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) having a second angle (defined as angle between line extending along second portion and flat surface) smaller than the first angle as the inclination angle (pp. [0079-0080]; in the triangular corner areas, i.e. first portion, the wall is made steeper, i.e. with a greater slope, than the sides between the corners).
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 pad, as disclosed in Duffy, with the second angle smaller than the first angle, as taught in Clabunde, in order to achieve greater strength and rigidity in the corner portion(s) of the pad, which are subject to particularly high stress during use (pp. [0021], [0037], and [0080] in Clabunde).
PNG
media_image2.png
487
600
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clabunde Annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Duffy as modified discloses the pad as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pad has a triangular outer shape (fig. 3) as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the flat surface (pad 36 is triangular when viewed from above, fig. 3; similar to applicant’s disclosure), and
the first portion is formed on at least one of the three corner portions respectively (designated in annotated fig. 3 above and as modified above from Clabunde) containing three vertexes of the triangular shape (three vertexes designated in annotated fig. 3 above, including first portion defined at one of the vertexes).
Regarding claim 5, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 2, wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 6, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 1, wherein the side surface includes a transition portion (designated in second annotated fig. 3 below) connecting the first portion and the second portion in such a manner that the inclination angle gradually changes from the first angle to the second angle (second portion leads into first portion at a transition portion gradually, i.e. no sharp edges).
PNG
media_image3.png
342
515
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Duffy Second Annotated Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 7, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 1, wherein, when H is defined to represent a thickness of the pad in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as distance from flat surface to top of second portion, i.e. thickness) and L is defined to represent a protruding distance of a distal edge from a proximal edge of the inclination of the second portion as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as horizontal distance from upper edge of second portion to lower edge of second portion).
Duffy does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the thickness of the pad and protruding distance of the second portion and therefore, does not disclose a ratio L/H is equal to or higher than 0.5 and equal to or lower than 2.5.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ratio L/H to between 0.5 and 2.5. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The ration value can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the ratio L/H is smaller, then the protruding distance of the second portion is low and the thickness of the pad is high thereby, the pad may be able to adsorb some of the impact and vibration more efficiently (due to the higher thickness) but may have less sandpaper area and require more time to reach all areas and corners to polish (due to the lower protruding distance); while, if the ratio L/H is higher, then the protruding distance of the second portion is higher and the thickness of the pad is lower, thereby, the pad may be worn down quicker (due to the lower thickness) but may be more efficient in reaching areas that need to be polished since there is more sandpaper area (due to the higher protruding distance). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the ratio L/H to be between 0.5 and 2.5. Further in the instant application, pp. [0041], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Duffy discloses a sander (item 10; fig. 1) comprising the pad as claimed in claim 1 (figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Duffy discloses a sander (item 10; fig. 1) comprising:
the pad as claimed in claim 1,
a motor (item 4; fig. 1);
a base (item 16; figs. 1-2) having a shape and a size corresponding to the outer shape of the pad (according to Dictionary.com, “corresponding” is defined as associated in a working or other relationship, and similar in position, purpose, form, etc.; therefore, base 16 directly engages with the size and shape of pad 36 in order to function) and smaller than the pad as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (base 16 is smaller than pad 36 in order to insert within grooves 62 and walls; figs. 1-3), the base being coupled with a portion opposite form the flat surface of the pad (base 16 couples with surface of pad 36 on an opposing side of flat surface; designated by gray highlighted surface in second annotated fig. 3 above) and configured to perform a sanding motion together with the pad by a driving force of the motor (col. 2, ll. 48-56),
PNG
media_image4.png
358
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Duffy Annotated Fig. 2.
wherein the base includes a side surface (designated in annotated fig. 2 above by gray highlighted surface of base 16) inclined in the same direction as the side surface of the pad at least on a portion corresponding to the second portion (designated in annotated fig. 1 below) .
PNG
media_image5.png
238
606
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Duffy Annotated Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Duffy discloses the sander as claimed in claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the inclination angles, such as wherein the second inclination angle of the second portion of the side surface of the pad is smaller than an inclination angle of the side surface of the base with respect to the flat surface.
First, 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 inclination angle of the side surface of the base relative to the second inclination angle. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The inclination angle of the side surface of the base can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the inclination angle of the side surface of the base is smaller than the second inclination angle of the second portion, then the thickness of the base at an outer edge may be small, thereby resulting in less cushion and vibration control of the pad during use which may result in lower tool longevity and wear; while if the inclination angle of the side surface of the base is larger than the second inclination angle of the second portion, then the thickness of the base at an outer edge may be larger, thereby resulting in better vibration control and stability of the pad during use which may result in improved finish quality and tool longevity. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the inclination angle of the side surface of the base to be larger than the second inclination angle of the second portion of the side surface of the pad. Further in the instant application, pp. [0042], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 2, wherein the side surface includes a transition portion (designated in second annotated fig. 3 above) connecting the first portion and the second portion in such a manner that the inclination angle gradually changes from the first angle to the second angle (second portion leads into first portion at a transition portion gradually, i.e. no sharp edges).
Regarding claim 13, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 2, wherein, when H is defined to represent a thickness of the pad in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as distance from flat surface to top of second portion, i.e. thickness) and L is defined to represent a protruding distance of a distal edge from a proximal edge of the inclination of the second portion as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as horizontal distance from upper edge of second portion to lower edge of second portion).
Duffy does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the thickness of the pad and protruding distance of the second portion and therefore, does not disclose a ratio L/H is equal to or higher than 0.5 and equal to or lower than 2.5.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ratio L/H to between 0.5 and 2.5. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The ration value can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the ratio L/H is smaller, then the protruding distance of the second portion is low and the thickness of the pad is high thereby, the pad may be able to adsorb some of the impact and vibration more efficiently (due to the higher thickness) but may have less sandpaper area and require more time to reach all areas and corners to polish (due to the lower protruding distance); while, if the ratio L/H is higher, then the protruding distance of the second portion is higher and the thickness of the pad is lower, thereby, the pad may be worn down quicker (due to the lower thickness) but may be more efficient in reaching areas that need to be polished since there is more sandpaper area (due to the higher protruding distance). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the ratio L/H to be between 0.5 and 2.5. Further in the instant application, pp. [0041], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 18, Duffy discloses a sander (item 10; fig. 1) comprising:
the pad as claimed in claim 2,
a motor (item 4; fig. 1);
a base (item 16; figs. 1-2) having a shape and a size corresponding to the outer shape of the pad (according to Dictionary.com, “corresponding” is defined as associated in a working or other relationship, and similar in position, purpose, form, etc.; therefore, base 16 directly engages with the size and shape of pad 36 in order to function) and smaller than the pad as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (base 16 is smaller than pad 36 in order to insert within grooves 62 and walls; figs. 1-3), the base being coupled with a portion opposite form the flat surface of the pad (base 16 couples with surface of pad 36 on an opposing side of flat surface; designated by gray highlighted surface in second annotated fig. 3 above) and configured to perform a sanding motion together with the pad by a driving force of the motor (col. 2, ll. 48-56),
wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above), and
wherein the base includes a side surface (designated in annotated fig. 2 above by gray highlighted surface of base 16) inclined in the same direction as the side surface of the pad at least on a portion corresponding to the second portion (designated in annotated fig. 1 above) .
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Duffy discloses the sander as claimed in claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the inclination angles, such as wherein the second inclination angle of the second portion of the side surface of the pad is smaller than an inclination angle of the side surface of the base with respect to the flat surface.
First, 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 inclination angle of the side surface of the base relative to the second inclination angle. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The inclination angle of the side surface of the base can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the inclination angle of the side surface of the base is smaller than the second inclination angle of the second portion, then the thickness of the base at an outer edge may be small, thereby resulting in less cushion and vibration control of the pad during use which may result in lower tool longevity and wear; while if the inclination angle of the side surface of the base is larger than the second inclination angle of the second portion, then the thickness of the base at an outer edge may be larger, thereby resulting in better vibration control and stability of the pad during use which may result in improved finish quality and tool longevity. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the inclination angle of the side surface of the base to be larger than the second inclination angle of the second portion of the side surface of the pad. Further in the instant application, pp. [0042], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 3, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy (US Patent No. 6,179,696) in view of Clabunde (US 2014/0378034) and further in view of Pretzell (DE 10606974).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 2, wherein the pad has the triangular outer shape (fig. 3), and the first portion is formed at least on a corner portion containing a vertex between two sides (both sides designated in annotated fig. 3 above).
Though Duffy appears to disclose the pad having two relatively long sides and one relatively short side, Duffy is silent on the exact dimensions of the triangular pad, such as having two long sides and one short side.
However, Pretzell (DE 10606974) teaches an analogous pad (item 6; figs. 1-2) for a sander (item 1; fig. 1), wherein the pad has an outer triangular shape (fig. 2) including two long sides (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) and one short side (item 8; fig. 2), thereby forming an isosceles triangular shape (pp. [0031]; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the triangular pad, as disclosed in Duffy, to include two long sides and one short side, as disclosed in Pretzell, in order for the device to function as intended.
PNG
media_image6.png
480
386
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Pretzell Annotated Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 11, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 14, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 3, wherein the side surface includes a transition portion (designated in second annotated fig. 3 above) connecting the first portion and the second portion in such a manner that the inclination angle gradually changes from the first angle to the second angle (second portion leads into first portion at a transition portion gradually, i.e. no sharp edges).
Regarding claim 15, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above), and
the side surface includes a transition portion (designated in second annotated fig. 3 above) connecting the first portion and the second portion in such a manner that the inclination angle gradually changes from the first angle to the second angle (second portion leads into first portion at a transition portion gradually, i.e. no sharp edges).
Regarding claim 16, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above), and
wherein, when H is defined to represent a thickness of the pad in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as distance from flat surface to top of second portion, i.e. thickness) and L is defined to represent a protruding distance of a distal edge from a proximal edge of the inclination of the second portion as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as horizontal distance from upper edge of second portion to lower edge of second portion).
Duffy does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the thickness of the pad and protruding distance of the second portion and therefore, does not disclose a ratio L/H is equal to or higher than 0.5 and equal to or lower than 2.5.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ratio L/H to between 0.5 and 2.5. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The ration value can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the ratio L/H is smaller, then the protruding distance of the second portion is low and the thickness of the pad is high thereby, the pad may be able to adsorb some of the impact and vibration more efficiently (due to the higher thickness) but may have less sandpaper area and require more time to reach all areas and corners to polish (due to the lower protruding distance); while, if the ratio L/H is higher, then the protruding distance of the second portion is higher and the thickness of the pad is lower, thereby, the pad may be worn down quicker (due to the lower thickness) but may be more efficient in reaching areas that need to be polished since there is more sandpaper area (due to the higher protruding distance). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the ratio L/H to be between 0.5 and 2.5. Further in the instant application, pp. [0041], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 17, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 3, wherein the second portion is formed on at least one of the three side edge portions located between the three corner portions (first annotated fig. 3 above),
the side surface includes a transition portion (designated in second annotated fig. 3 above) connecting the first portion and the second portion in such a manner that the inclination angle gradually changes from the first angle to the second angle (second portion leads into first portion at a transition portion gradually, i.e. no sharp edges), and
wherein, when H is defined to represent a thickness of the pad in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as distance from flat surface to top of second portion, i.e. thickness) and L is defined to represent a protruding distance of a distal edge from a proximal edge of the inclination of the second portion as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface (not explicitly shown; defined as horizontal distance from upper edge of second portion to lower edge of second portion).
Duffy does not explicitly disclose the dimensions of the thickness of the pad and protruding distance of the second portion and therefore, does not disclose a ratio L/H is equal to or higher than 0.5 and equal to or lower than 2.5.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the ratio L/H to between 0.5 and 2.5. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The ration value can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the ratio L/H is smaller, then the protruding distance of the second portion is low and the thickness of the pad is high thereby, the pad may be able to adsorb some of the impact and vibration more efficiently (due to the higher thickness) but may have less sandpaper area and require more time to reach all areas and corners to polish (due to the lower protruding distance); while, if the ratio L/H is higher, then the protruding distance of the second portion is higher and the thickness of the pad is lower, thereby, the pad may be worn down quicker (due to the lower thickness) but may be more efficient in reaching areas that need to be polished since there is more sandpaper area (due to the higher protruding distance). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Duffy, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the ratio L/H to be between 0.5 and 2.5. Further in the instant application, pp. [0041], the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffy (US Patent No. 6,179,696) in view of Clabunde (US 2014/0378034) and further in view of Everts (US Patent No. 5,637,034).
Regarding claim 4, Duffy discloses the pad as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first portion is formed on a corner portion (designated in third annotated fig. 3 below) having an angle (defined in third annotated fig. 3 below; similar to applicant’s disclosure).
PNG
media_image7.png
327
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Duffy Third Annotated Fig. 3.
Duffy is silent on the angle dimension, such as wherein the angle is equal to or smaller than 90 degrees as viewed in the direction perpendicular to the flat surface.
Everts (US Patent No. 5,637,034) teaches a pad (item 18) for a sander (fig. 1), wherein the pad includes a corner portion (item 110; fig. 11) having an angle equal to 90 degrees (col. 6, ll. 52-54) as viewed in direction perpendicular to a flat surface of the pad (defined as view in fig. 11). 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 angle at the corner portion, as disclosed in Duffy, to be equal to 90 degrees, as taught in Everts, in order to reduce the wear on the tip portion of the pad over time since the forward most tip of the sandpaper wears the quickest (Everts; col. 7, ll. 10-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiss (US 2006/0068689) discloses a pad for a sander comprising a flat surface and a side surface including first portion having a first angle as an inclination angle relative to the flat surface and a second portion having a second angle smaller than the first angle, wherein the pad has a triangular outer shape.
Neuhoff (US 2024/0009795) discloses a pad for a sander comprising a flat surface and side surface including a first portion having a first inclination angle relative to the flat surface and a second portion having a second inclination angle, wherein the second inclination angle is smaller than the first inclination angle (fig. 10D).
Leung (US 2012/0003905) discloses a pad for sander comprising a flat surface and a side surface including a first portion having a first inclination angle and a second portion defined at the corner portion of the pad, wherein the second portion has a second inclination angle, and wherein the second inclination angle is smaller than the first inclination angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights