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. 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. Drawings Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites: “for the incorporation thereof” in lines 1-2 and lines 5-6 which should read: “for incorporation thereof”. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that § 112(f) (pre-AIA § 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-7 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 the limitations: “the blades” in line 6 and line 7; “the same blades” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend to: “the plurality of blades”. Claim 2 recites the limitations: “can be previously incorporated”. The phrase “can be” is a non-affirmative statement and it is unclear whether the magnetic means are actually previously incorporated or not. The metes and bounds of the claim are unknown. Claims 2, 4-5 each recites the limitation "the blades". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant may amend to: “the plurality of blades”. Claims 3, 6-7 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1. 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. Claim(s) 1 -3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tchakarov (US 11,458,595 B2) . Regarding claim 1 , Tchakarov teaches a n accessory for a polishing machine, suitable for the incorporation thereof in a polishing machine comprising : a plurality of blades (300, 400 , 500 ) (Figs. 2, 4A -4B ; Col. 4, lines 19-25; Col. 5, lines 60-67 ) , the accessory comprising abrasive means (550) and magnetic means (510) (Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 8), wherein the abrasive means (550) and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable, the magnetic means in turn being fitted out for the incorporation thereof in the blades (Figs. 4A-5B) , with the abrasive means (550) thereby being incorporated in the blades through said magnetic means (510) , and with the same blades also being suitable and having movement capacity to allow floor polishing by means of the abrasive means incorporated therein (Figs. 4A-5B) . Regarding claim 2 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means can be previously incorporated and reversibly fixed in the blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means (Figs. 4B, 5B and 6). Regarding claim 3 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means incorporate hook and loop type fastener sheets ( Col. 4, lines 29-39) and the abrasive means are in turn fitted out for the connection thereof with said hook and loop type fastener sheets (Col. 4, lines 29-39). Regarding claim 5 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Tchakarov further teaches the abrasive means (550) and the magnetic means (510) are already mutually fixed in an integral manner before the incorporation of the magnetic means in the blades (Figs. 4B-6). Regarding claim 6 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means (510) comprise magnetized elements (510) (Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 8). Regarding claim 7 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Tchakarov further teaches the abrasive means comprise diamond-coated elements (Col. 3, line 66-Col. 4, line 5). 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(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchakarov . Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1 including the abrasive means and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable before the incorporation of the magnetic means in the blades but is a silent to the as to the abrasive means and the magnetic means fixable in a reversible manner before the incorporation. However, having the abrasive means and the magnetic means fixable in a reversible manner before the incorporation is not invent ive and it is simply a reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts since the reversing would not have modified the operation of the device ( In re Gazda , 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the abrasive means and the magnetic means in the manner claim to allow only the replacement of a worn abrasive means. Claim(s) 1 -7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howle (US 2019/0211517 A1) in view of Tchakarov . Regarding claim 1 , Howle teaches a n accessory for a polishing machine, suitable for the incorporation thereof in a polishing machine comprising : a plurality of blades (2) (Fig. 1, para. 0042) , the accessory comprising abrasive means (10) (paras. 0043, 0049-0053; Figs. 3A, 3) and , with the abrasive means thereby being incorporated in the blades (paras. 0043, 0049-0053; Figs. 1-3A) , and with the same blades also being suitable and having movement capacity to allow floor polishing by means of the abrasive means incorporated therein (Figs. 1-3A; paras. 0043, 0049-0053). Howle fails to teach magnetic means, wherein the abrasive means and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable, the magnetic means in turn being fitted out for the incorporation thereof in the blades through the magnetic means. However, Tchakarov teaches a n accessory for a polishing machine, suitable for the incorporation thereof in a polishing machine comprising : a plurality of blades (300, 400, 500) (Figs. 2, 4A-4B; Col. 4, lines 19-25; Col. 5, lines 60-67) , the accessory comprising abrasive means (550) and magnetic means (510) (Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 8), wherein the abrasive means (550) and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable, the magnetic means in turn being fitted out for the incorporation thereof in the blades (Figs. 4A-5B) , with the abrasive means (550) thereby being incorporated in the blades through said magnetic means (510) , and with the same blades also being suitable and having movement capacity to allow floor polishing by means of the abrasive means incorporated therein (Figs. 4A-5B) . Since both Howle and Tchakarov teaches the similar device for surface polishing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Howle by including magnetic means such that the abrasive means and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable, the magnetic means in turn being fitted out for the incorporation thereof in the blades through the magnetic means in order to provide increased pull strength during lifting of the device ( Tchakarov , Col. 2, lines 40-44). Regarding claim 2 , Howle as modified by Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Howle as modified by Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means can be previously incorporated and reversibly fixed in the blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means ( Tchakarov , Figs. 4B, 5B and 6). Regarding claim 3 , Howle as modified by Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 2. Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means incorporate hook and loop type fastener sheets ( Tchakarov ; Col. 4, lines 29-39) and the abrasive means are in turn fitted out for the connection thereof with said hook and loop type fastener sheets ( Tchakarov ; Col. 4, lines 29-39). Regarding claim 4 , Howle as modified by Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Howle as modified by Tchakarov further teaches the abrasive means and the magnetic means are mutually fitted out so as to be mutually fixable before the incorporation of the magnetic means in the blades but is a silent to the as to the abrasive means and the magnetic means fixable in a reversible manner before the incorporation. However, having the abrasive means and the magnetic means fixable in a reversible manner before the incorporation is not inventive and it is simply a reversal of parts or rearrangement of parts since the reversing would not have modified the operation of the device ( In re Gazda , 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the abrasive means and the magnetic means in the manner claim to allow only the replacement of a worn abrasive means. Regarding claim 5 , Howle as modified by Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Howle as modified by Tchakarov further teaches the abrasive means (550) and the magnetic means (510) are already mutually fixed in an integral manner before the incorporation of the magnetic means in the blades ( Tchakarov , Figs. 4B-6). Regarding claim 6 , Howle as modified by Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Howle as modified by Tchakarov further teaches the magnetic means (510) comprise magnetized elements (510) ( Tchakarov ; Figs. 5A-5B; Col. 6, line 57-Col. 7, line 8). Regarding claim 7 , Tchakarov teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Tchakarov further teaches the abrasive means comprise diamond-coated elements ( Tchakarov , Col. 3, line 66-Col. 4, line 5 and Howle ; para. 0044). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0317669 A1 discloses a polishing machine comprising a plurality of blades and magnetic means. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4920 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8-6 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-8648 . 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. /MAXIME M ADJAGBE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745