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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the applied references do not teach the amended limitations of claim 1. Examiner notes that the amendment introduces a 112 second issues because it is not clear if applicant’s is claiming both a device and a process in the same claim. The limitations: “wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means” includes a method step which is a temporal element to the claim of a structure outside of the scope of the product (see 112 second rejection below). Since Tchakarov and Howle in view of Tchakarov discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed product or device the limitations: “wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means” are met by the references.
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.
Claim 1, 3-7 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: “wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means” which is a method steps. There is in the claim 1, a temporal element to the claim of a structure outside of the scope of the product (i.e. " the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means" It is thus unclear if the “means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means” is positively required by the claim or merely results in the claimed structure. (see also MPEP 2173 A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112 second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs).
Claim 3-7 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 as far as definite and understood 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 an 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 plurality of blades (Figs. 4A-5B), with the abrasive means (550) thereby being incorporated in the blades through said magnetic means (510), and with the same plurality of blades also being suitable and having movement capacity to allow floor polishing by means of the abrasive means incorporated therein (Figs. 4A-5B), wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means (note that the magnetic means and the abrasive means are both fixed on the plurality of blades (Figs. 4B, 5B and 6, note that Tchakarov teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 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 an 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 and wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means.
However, Tchakarov teaches an 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 plurality of blades (Figs. 4A-5B), with the abrasive means (550) thereby being incorporated in the blades through said magnetic means (510), and with the same plurality of blades also being suitable and having movement capacity to allow floor polishing by means of the abrasive means incorporated therein (Figs. 4A-5B), wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means (note that the magnetic means and the abrasive means are both fixed on the plurality of blades (Figs. 4B, 5B and 6, note that Tchakarov teaches all the structural limitations of the claim).
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 and wherein the magnetic means are first incorporated and reversibly fixed in the plurality of blades before the fixing thereof with the abrasive means in order to provide increased pull strength during lifting of the device (Tchakarov, Col. 2, lines 40-44).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached 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, NATHANIEL E WIEHE can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights