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
The Information Disclosure Statements submitted on February 12, 2024, and August 12, 2024 are being considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of FIGS. 6A-7, and Claims 1-8 and 10-13 in the reply filed on July 8, 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Page 1, Paragraph [0004], the recitation, “The key able to close the first radially outward-extending slot in the first array to prevent removal of the guard from the housing”, is likely a typographical error. This is likely intended to read “The key is able to close…”, as to improve clarity. However, please amend the phrase to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Regarding FIG. 6B, element 7 is shown twice in the figure, but is not disclosed in the specification. To the best of the Examiner’s understanding, this appears to be drawn to a cutaway view plane of the structure in FIG. 6B, and this cutaway view is displayed in FIG. 7. However, without disclosure in the specification, the Examiner advises the Applicant to clarify what element 7 may be referring to.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “to close the one of radially outward-extending slot in the first array”. This is likely a typographical error, and is intended to read as “to close the one of the radially outward-extending slots in the first array”.
Claim 6 recites “received within one of the radially outward-extending slot in the first array”. This is likely a typographical error, and is intended to read as “received within one of the radially outward-extending slots”.
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 5-6 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 5 recites the limitation "the second circumferential groove" in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 is dependent upon Claim 1, wherein neither claims appropriately introduce “a second circumferential groove”. However, “a second circumferential groove” has been appropriately introduced in Claim 4. Please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention. An example of edits, per the Examiner’s suggestion, is as follows: “… in the housing and a second circumferential groove in the key…”, or by amending Claim 5 to depend upon Claim 4 instead of Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “wherein the flange portion of the key and the flange have equal thicknesses”. It is unclear to what dimension “thickness” is referring to. When seeking to ascertain the intended structure of the claimed invention, the Examiner reflected upon the intended claim scope in light of the specification. Page 6, Paragraph [0027] of the Specification recites, inter alia, “When the key 141 is installed, one of the slots 138 is blocked by a flange portion 190 of the key 141 (FIG. 5), which prevents any one of the projections 150 from exiting through its designated slot 138”, and “the key 141 includes a circumferential groove 192 aligned with the circumferential groove 134 in the gear case cover 120 with an equal thickness as the circumferential groove 134”. Based on the specification, the term “thickness” appears to be applicable towards the circumferential groove 192, and specifically, how the “thickness” dimension of the circumferential groove 192 should match the dimensions of the circumferential groove 134. However, the thickness of the flange portion of the key and the flange are not discussed. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting the term “thickness” to refer to the vertical, outer-circumference material of flange portion 190, wherein the vertical material is parallel with the orientation of rotation axis 126. However, please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey and Richards (US 20160016285 A1), herein after referred to as "Cooksey", in view of Boeck et al (US 8500521 B2), herein after referred to as "Boeck".
Regarding Claim 1, Cooksey discloses an angle grinder comprising:
an output shaft defining a rotational axis (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0015], "a hand-held power tool 100 (i.e., an angle grinder)"; see also Abstract, "an output shaft defining a rotational axis");
a housing from which the output shaft extends (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0015], "an output shaft 122 extending from the gear housing 116");
a flange coupled to the housing and at least partially surrounding the output shaft (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0016], "a flange 130 extending from the gear case cover 120 and surrounding the output shaft 122");
a first circumferential groove defined between the flange and the housing (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0016] in view of Annotated Figure 2, wherein the flange 130 "defines a circumferential groove 134 in conjunction with the gear case cover 120");
a first array of radially outward-extending slots defined in the flange, each of the slots in the first array in communication with the first circumferential groove (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0016] in view of Annotated Figure 2, wherein flange 130 has "six radially inward-extending slots 138", and also has an array of outward-extending slots defined in the flange adjacent to the inward-extending slots 138);
a guard including a second array of radially inward-extending projections configured to be received in the first array of radially outward-extending slots (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0017] in view of Annotated Figure 2, "The guard 146 includes six radially inward-extending projections 150", and "The projections 150 on the guard 146 are receivable through the slots 138 in the flange 130");
Cooksey discloses an angle grinder (Cooksey: Paragraph [0015]) with structural components including an output shaft defining a rotational axis (Cooksey: Abstract), a gear housing 116 from which the output shaft 122 extends (Cooksey: Paragraph [0015]), a flange 130 coupled to the gear case cover 120, and surrounding the output shaft 122 (Cooksey: Paragraph [0016]), and a first circumferential groove 134 defined between the flange 130 and gear case cover 120 (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0016] in view of Annotated Figure 2; see also Paragraph [0015], wherein the gear housing 116 includes “a gear case 118 and a gear case cover 120”). The flange 130 has “six radially inward-extending slots 138”, but also has an array of outward-extending slots defined in the flange that are adjacent to the inward-extending slots 138, as shown in Annotated Figure 2, which are similar in structure to the flange 130 of FIG. 2 of the instant application. These outwardly-extending slots function as a first array of slots, and are receivable within the first circumferential groove (Cooksey: Paragraph [0017], “projections 150 on the guard 146 are receivable through the slots 138 in the flange 130”). Similarly, the guard 146 also has six radially inward-extending projections 150 receivable through the six radially inward-extending slots 138 (Cooksey: Paragraph [0017]). The guard 146 is removable from the groove 134 when an “enlarged projection 158” on the guard is aligned with an “enlarged slot 142” on the flange 130 (Cooksey: Paragraph [0017]). In order to prevent removal of the guard 146 from the groove 134, a latch plate 162 having a detent member 174 is rotationally locked to the guard 146 as the detent member 174 is received in one of a plurality of apertures 155 (Cooksey: Paragraph [0018]). Lastly, to prevent over-rotation, a final stop projection 208 interacts with a stop finger 204 on the latch plate 162 (Cooksey: Paragraph [0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cooksey does not disclose a keyway defined in the housing and positioned inline with one of the radially outward- extending slots in the first array;
and a key positionable within the keyway to close the one of radially outward-extending slot in the first array to prevent removal of the guard from the housing.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Boeck discloses an angle grinder 10 (Boeck: Col. 7, line 18), including a housing 14, an output shaft 52 (Boeck: Col. 7, lines 18-21), and a flange neck 12 to accommodate a protective device 16 in the form of a wheel guard, of which the wheel guard is able to rotate “in the circumference direction 18, 20 on the flange neck 12” (Boeck: Col. 7, lines 31-34). The protective device 16 is fastened to the flange neck 12 “by means of frictional engagement through a clamping of the receiving collar 28, which is embodied in the form of a clamping band” (Boeck: Col. 7, lines 56-59). To stop rotation of the protective device 16, a stop 24 affixed on the protective device 16, and a counterpart stop 26 affixed to the housing 14 are utilized across the embodiments disclosed by Boeck (Boeck: Col. 8, lines 39-42). In the particular embodiment of FIG. 20, a flange neck 12n’, having an annular groove 26n’ for receiving a lug 24n, also has an insertable delimiting element 48n’ (i.e. a key) and a recess for receiving the delimiting element 48n’, wherein the delimiting element 48n’ functions as a stopping device to prevent the protective device 16n from rotating (Boeck: Col. 8, lines 43-57, and Col. 12, line 57). The lug 24n is “situated on an inside 42n of the clamping band 28n engages in this groove 26n” (Boeck: Col. 12, lines 48-50).
Regarding Claim 1, Boeck discloses a keyway defined in the housing and positioned inline with one of the radially inward-extending slots (Boeck: Col. 12, line 57 in view of FIG. 20, "a recess in the flange neck 12n′ " that is positioned inline with one of the radially inline-extending slots);
and a key positionable within the keyway to close the one of radially inward-extending slot in the first array to prevent removal of the guard from the housing (Boeck: Col. 12, lines 55-57 in view of FIG. 20, "a delimiting element 48n′ ").
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 combined the insertable delimiting element 48n’ and recess in the flange neck 12n’, as disclosed by Boeck, with the structure of the angle grinder, disclosed by Cooksey, such that a key and keyway can be incorporated onto the flange, intersecting the first circumferential groove, and positioned to prevent the guard from rotating such that the enlarged projection 158 does not align with the enlarged slot 142. One would be motivated to do this as to present a more efficient design, and also include the benefits of a simple and inexpensive design (Boeck: Col. 1, lines 35-37, and 46-48), through the implementation of an “adjustable counterpart stop on the housing” (Boeck: Col. 4, lines 20-25), as both angle grinders rely upon rotationally-locking elements that engage the flange with the guard components (see Boeck, Col. 12, lines 50-53, “groove delimitation 48 n causes the lug 24 n to experience an impact situation, i.e. the protective device 16 n is prevented from rotating”; see also Cooksey, Paragraph [0018], latch plate 162 has a detent 174 to engage with one of a plurality of apertures 155 to “rotationally lock the guard 146 relative to the gear housing 116”; see also Cooksey, Paragraph [0020], wherein the latch plate 162 also has a “stop finger 204” that engages with a “final stop projection 208 extending from an upper surface of the guard 146” to prevent “over-rotation of the guard 146 regardless of whether the detent member 174 is received in one of the apertures 155”).
Regarding Claim 2, Cooksey in view of Boeck discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Cooksey further discloses the angle grinder of claim 1, wherein the second array of radially inward-extending projections includes at least one alignment projection (Cooksey: see Paragraph [0017], "One of the projections 150 is an enlarged projection 158, corresponding to the enlarged slot 142 on the flange 130"; see also Paragraph [0016], "One of the slots 138 is an enlarged slot 142 used for alignment purposes"), and wherein the alignment projection has a larger width than a remainder of the radially inward-extending projections (Cooksey: see Paragraphs [0016-0017] in view of Annotated Figure 2, "enlarged projection 158").
Regarding Claim 3, Cooksey in view of Boeck discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Cooksey further discloses the angle grinder of claim 2, wherein the first array of radially outward-extending slots includes at least one alignment slot, wherein the alignment slot has a larger width than a remainder of the radially outward-extending slots (Cooksey: Paragraph [0016] in view of Annotated Figure 2, "enlarged slot 142"), and wherein the radially inward-extending projections on the guard are aligned with and receivable through the radially outward-extending slots in the flange when the alignment projection is aligned with the alignment slot (Cooksey: Paragraph [0017], "The projections 150 on the guard 146 are receivable through the slots 138 in the flange 130").
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey and Richards (US 20160016285 A1), herein after referred to as "Cooksey", in view of Boeck et al (US 8500521 B2), herein after referred to as "Boeck", and in further view of Meier et al (CN 109382798 A), herein after referred to as "Meier".
Meier discloses an angle grinder 13, having a housing 15, a dividing disc 19, and a protective cover 21 surrounding the dividing disc 19 (Meier: English Translation, Page 12, lines 10-12). Meier further discloses retaining a protective cover 21 to an angle grinder through the receiving device 23 (Meier: English Translation, Page 12, lines 22-25 in view of FIG. 2). In the particular embodiment of FIGS. 3-6, a protective cover 21 has a protective cover collar 35 with a material gap 45b for receiving a fastening element 37, specifically the threaded elements 43, which function to “form a form-locking and force-locking connection between the protective cover 21 and the flange neck 33” (Meier: English Translation, Page 14, lines 11, and 14-16). Here, the fastening element 37 functions as both a key and fastener, wherein by inserting the fastening element into the aligned receiving hole 55 and material gap 45b, an “anti-torsional structure of the protective cover 21 relative to the flange neck 33” is formed (Meier: English Translation, Page 13, lines 23-25).
Regarding Claim 7, Cooksey in view of Boeck disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Cooksey further discloses the angle grinder of claim 1.
Modified Cooksey does not disclose wherein the housing includes a hole configured to receive a fastener to secure the key within the keyway.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Meier discloses wherein the housing includes a hole configured to receive a fastener to secure the key within the keyway (Meier: see English Translation, Page 13, lines 20-25 in view of FIGS. 3-6, wherein the angle grinder 13 has a transmission housing 27 having a flange neck 33; see also Page 16, lines 25-28, wherein the flange neck 33 has a radial receiving hole 55 “configured to receive a threaded element 43).
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 combined the angle grinder structure with an insertable delimiting element, as disclosed by Modified Cooksey in Claim 1, with the fastening element 37 and the associated receiving holes 55, as disclosed by Meier, such that the delimiting element has a receiving hole 55 which receives a fastening element 37 for fastening the delimiting element to the flange neck. As both the delimiting element disclosed by Boeck and the fastening element disclosed by Meier are both intended to limit rotation of the guard relative to the flange neck (see Boeck, Page 12, lines 52-53, “the protective device 16n is prevented from rotating”; see also Meier, English Translation, Page 13, lines 23-25, “anti-torsional structure”), and when considering that Boeck discloses “the counterpart stop is screw-mountable situated on a transmission flange” (Boeck: Col. 5, lines 16-18) as an optional replacement, someone having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these structures to produce a more efficient design.
Regarding Claim 8, Cooksey in view of Boeck, and in further view of Meiers, disclose the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Modified Cooksey further discloses the angle grinder of claim 7, wherein the hole is oriented transverse to the rotational axis (Meier: see FIG. 4, “receiving hole 55”; see also Meier, English Translation, Page 13, line 30 in view of FIGS. 2-3, “output axis 41”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 10-13 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 4, the prior art does not anticipate or teach the limitations of Claim 4, specifically, wherein the key includes a second circumferential groove in which the radially inward-extending projections in the second array are movable when adjusting a rotational orientation of the guard relative to the housing, in combination with the limitations of Claim 1. For this aspect, Esenwein (US8454412B2) is representative of the prior art, providing a key (Esenwein: Col. 4, line 59 in view of FIG. 4, “detent slide 32c”) with a recess 28c for receiving a bolt 26c on the guard hood 20c (Col. 4, lines 58-60), wherein the guard hood 20c is rotatable in a circumferential direction 22c (Col. 5, lines 4-5), and wherein the apparatus can be modified to have a plurality of bolts 26c on the guard hood 20c (Esenwein: Col. 4, lines 60-65). However, one skilled in the art would not have found reason to apply such a key structure to Claim 4, as the instant application key structure includes a groove-like structure instead of a radial recess, and is otherwise a different design capable of locking a guard hood in comparison to Esenwein. In addition, Cooksey and Boeck do not teach the key may include a groove to permit the passage of elements of the guard, all while retaining the guard itself within its rotatable position on the flange of the angle grinder. In particular, Cooksey does not disclose a key or keyway, but instead secures the guard 146 in place by rotationally locking the guard with a latch plate 162. Boeck secures the protective device 16 by utilizing a clamping band 28n to retain a lug 24n within an annular groove 26n’. Boeck never discloses inserting a groove into their delimiting element 48n’, as the purpose of the delimiting element 48n’ is intended to receive impact from the lug 24n that is traveling in the annular groove 26n’. Additionally, Cooksey does not disclose a key or keyway. For these reasons, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated or have found suggestion to incorporate a second circumferential groove on the key.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not anticipate or teach the limitations of Claim 10, specifically wherein the key includes an indent aligned with the hole in the housing, in combination with the limitations of Claim 1. For this aspect, Makita Corporation (DE 202019100921 U1), herein after referred to as “Makita”, is representative of the prior art, providing a fastener (Makita, English Translation, Page 25, lines 11-12 in view of FIG. 14, “engagement screw 126”) which performs the same functionality of a set screw, and the fastener is received in a screw hole 108e of the wheel cover 104 (Makita, English Translation, Page 25, lines 11-12 in view of FIGS. 14-15). Here, the engagement screw 126 attaches the wheel cover 104 to the cover mounting section 84, wherein the cover mounting section 84 has a guide groove 86 for receiving the engagement screw 126, and wherein the wheel cover 104 can still be rotated about the cover mounting section 84 (Makita, English Translation, Page 27, lines 8-20 and 26-27 in view of FIGS. 14 and 19). While Makita discloses the aspect of a set screw fastener, the fastener itself is drawn to retaining the wheel cover 104 to the cover mounting section 84 of the grinding device 102 (Makita, English Translation, Page 27, line 15, and Page 28, line 14, in view of FIGS. 14 and 19), and in particular, is drawn to the engagement screw 126 in communication with a guide groove 86, and not specifically an indent. Someone having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine these aspects with Cooksey, Boeck, and Meier, or other similar devices, as there is no motivation or suggestion with the absence of specific structural components. Claims 11, 12, and 13 require the limitations of Claim 10, and are thus also allowable subject matter.
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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, as best understood by the Examiner, the prior art does not anticipate or teach the limitations of Claim 5, specifically, wherein the first circumferential groove in the housing and the second circumferential groove in the key have equal thicknesses, in combination with the limitations of Claim 1. For this aspect, Esenwein (US8454412B2) is representative of the prior art, wherein a key (Esenwein: Col. 4, line 59 in view of FIG. 4, “detent slide 32c”) with a recess 28c for receiving a bolt 26c on the guard hood 20c (Col. 4, lines 58-60), wherein the guard hood 20c is rotatable in a circumferential direction 22c (Col. 5, lines 4-5), and wherein the apparatus can be modified to have a plurality of bolts 26c on the guard hood 20c (Esenwein: Col. 4, lines 60-65). Similar to the Examiner remarks pertaining to Claim 4 of the “Allowable Subject Matter” section, Cooksey discloses a flange with a circumferential groove, but does not disclose a key or keyway (Cooksey: Abstract). Additionally, Boeck discloses a key and keyway in in the form of a delimiting element 48n’ inserted into a recess, but does not disclose a groove inserted on the key to complete the flange neck, as the delimiting element 48n’ requires the structure intersect the groove 26n’ as to prevent rotation of the protective device 16n along the groove 26n’ (Boeck: Col. 12, lines 43-61). Esenwein, in particular, does not disclose a second circumferential groove, but does disclose a recess 28c for engagement between the detent slide 32c and the guard hood 20c. For this reason, one having ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to combine the aspects disclosed by Esenwein with the structure of Cooksey in view of Boeck, as there is no motivation or suggestion with the absence of specific structural components.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood by the Examiner, the prior art does not anticipate or teach the limitations of Claim 6, specifically, wherein the flange portion of the key and the flange have equal thicknesses, in combination with the limitations of Claim 1. For this aspect, Vollmer et al (DE 102008044403 A1), herein after referred to as “Vollmer”, is representative of the prior art, providing a key with a flange portion (Vollmer: English Translation, Page 14, line 24 in view of FIG. 10a, “locking elements” 18i, and the flange portion represented by element 22i) received within one of the radially inward-extending slot in the first array when the key is positioned in the keyway (Vollmer: English Translation, Page 15, lines 1-3 in view of FIG. 10, “hook-shaped locking means 34i” has a “locking element 18i arranged in a recess 42i”, with an additional, unlabeled recess located on the circumference of the a cylindrical extension of a transmission flange 36i). However, one skilled in the art would not have found reason to apply such a key structure to Claim 6, as the locking element 18i is intended to be received within the depressions of locking element 20i to orient the protective hood 12i at “predefined angular positions” (Vollmer, English Translation, Page 10, lines 4, 17-18, and 21-25 in view of FIG. 10). That is, the engagement between locking elements 18i and 20i are drawn towards orienting a protective hood 12i rotatably about a rotation axis 70i of an output shaft 40i. While Vollmer discloses the aspect of a flange portion on the key, it is noted, based on FIG. 10, that the flange portion is not of an equal thickness to the surrounding transmission flange 36i, and the flange portion is functionally intended for orientating a protective hood 12i, but is not drawn to retaining it (i.e. the structure is drawn to a different functional purpose in the apparatus). A person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would not have found it obvious in view of Cooksey and Boeck to combine these elements to produce a more efficient design.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure.
Bernardi et al (US2015122526A1) discloses a guide member for an oscillating power tool, wherein the guide portion 32 is attached to a collar portion 102 through engagement of a key 108 (Bernardi et al, Paragraphs [0042-0044] in view of FIG. 4C).
Barth et al (CN104010769A) discloses a protective cover anti-torsion device for an angle grinder, wherein a hood unit 14 is clamped to an angle grinder, and an anti-torsion element 22 is inserted into an anti-torsion slot 100 on the clamping neck (Barth et al, see English Translation, Abstract; see also English Translation, Page 15, lines 8-9).
Maute et al (DE 102007052683 A1) discloses an angle grinder 10 with a flange neck 14 that receives a protective device 16 for mounting. In a particular embodiment, fixing device 20c functions as a key “for fixing the protective device 16c on the flange neck 14c and the protective device 16c” (Maute et al, see English Translation, Abstract; see also English Translation, Page 14, lines 16-22).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/JON M HEGEMIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights