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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 5 recites “the level” which lacks proper antecedent basis and should be changed to “a level”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “conveying unit” in claim 1, “first driving unit” in claim 1, “second driving unit” in claim 1, “third driving unit” in claim 1, “a plurality of fixing members” in claim 2, and “incline-adjusting structure” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “unit” is defined by the function of “conveying” and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, page 7, lines 18-20 describe the “conveying unit 30” has having a first axle 31, a second axle 32, a plurality of fixing members 33, a support plate 34, and a conveying belt 35. Figure 2 similarly shows a conveyor belt around axles. Accordingly, the “conveying unit” will be interpreted as a conveyor belt around axles and equivalents thereof.
The examiner notes claim 2 further defines the “conveying unit” by adding structures capable of performing the function (a first axle, a second axle, a plurality of fixing members, a support plate, and a conveying belt), and therefore is interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
The generic, non-structural term “unit” is defined by the function of “driving” and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f) for each of the first driving unit, the second driving unit, and the third driving unit. Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, page 5, lines 2-12 describe the functions of the first driving unit 41, the second driving unit 42, and the third driving unit 43. First 2 shows the first driving unit is a type of motor and the third driving unit is a type of motor. Figure 3 shows the second driving unit is a type of motor. Accordingly, each driving unit will be treated as a motor and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “member” is defined by the function of “fixing” and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, page 10, lines 6-9 describe “fixing members 33” being at two ends of the second axle. The structure of the fixing members are not defined. Figures 2 and 5 show the fixing members as plate-like structure which connect to the axles. Accordingly the fixing members will be interpreted as plates and equivalents thereof.
The generic, non-structural term “structure” is defined by the function of “adjusting the incline” and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, page 10, line 6 through page 11, line 13 describe an incline-adjusting structure 36 as having a first fixing section 361, a second fixing section 362, and an adjusting bolt 363. The adjusting bolt is screwed to close the distance between the first and second fixing sections, the position of the second axle 32 changes and the axle moves upward. Accordingly, the “incline-adjusting structure” will be treated as a bolt fixed to two components and equivalents thereof.
The examiner notes claim 6 adds limitations defining the incline-adjusting structure as having a first fixing section, a second fixing section, and an adjusting bolt, which defines the structure capable of performing the function. Accordingly, claim 6 will be interpreted using the broadest reasonable interpretation standard.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 2, 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,708,817 to Rhine.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Rhine teaches:
An oscillating sanding machine (front section 5 and rear section 6), comprising:
a base column (vertical wall 7, and front portion of 70 near vertical wall 7) (see column 2, lines 34-37);
an oscillating sanding spindle (rotary brush 10), being installed on the base column (see column 2, lines 37-45 and Figure 3);
a conveying unit (conveying belt 9, first axle 19, second axle 20, fixing members 14 and 15, and support plate 17), being installed on the base column so that the conveying unit is located under the oscillating sanding spindle and separated from the oscillating sanding spindle by a predetermined distance (see Figure 3);
a first driving unit (motor 58, and belt 63 around two pulleys), being installed on the base column and connected to a rotating shaft (spindle 48) of the oscillating sanding spindle so as to drive the oscillating sanding spindle to rotate about an axis (rotation axis of brush 48) thereof (see column 4, lines 46-49, 60-67 and Figures 3 and 4);
a second driving unit (motor 58, and belt 60 around pulleys 47, 57, and 59, gearbox 56, eccentric 54, and connecting rod 55), being installed on the base column and connected to the oscillating sanding spindle so as to drive the oscillating sanding spindle to move to and fro along the axis (see column 4, lines 37-54 and Figure 4); and
a third driving unit (motor 58, belt 60, pulley 47, gearbox 46, shaft 19’), being installed on the base column and connected to the conveying unit so as to drive the conveying unit (see column 3, line 62 through column 4, line 7, column 4, lines 46-54 and Figure 4).
The examiner considers the motor using a series of pulleys and belts to be an equivalent of merely a motor, and therefore Rhine is considered to teach the first, second, and third driving units.
In Reference to Claim 2#
Rhine teaches:
The oscillating sanding machine of claim 1, wherein the conveying unit comprises a first axle (19), a second axle (20), a plurality of fixing members (14, 15), a support plate (17), and a conveying belt (9), in which the support plate is mounted on the base column so that two laterals (sides of the support plate adjacent coupled to the fixing members 14, 15) of the support plate are coupled to the first axle and the second axle through the fixing members, and the first axle is connected to the third driving unit, while the conveying belt is routed around the support plate, the first axle, and the second axle (see column 2, lines 52-65 and Figures 3 and 4).
In Reference to Claim 7#
Rhine teaches:
The oscillating sanding machine of claim 1, wherein the oscillating sanding spindle is cased in a first casing part (71), and the first driving unit is partially cased in a second casing part (rear portion of 70), in which the first casing part and the second casing part are both fixed to the base column (see Figures 1 and 2).
In Reference to Claim 10#
Rhine teaches:
The oscillating sanding machine of claim 1, wherein the second driving unit comprises a gear box (56), a cam (54), a link (55) and a slider (bearing block 49), in which the cam is coupled to an output shaft (shaft of bearing block 49 connected to spindle 48) of the gear box, and the link has one end thereof eccentrically coupled with the cam and an opposite end thereof coupled with the slider, while the slider is transmissively coupled with the oscillating sanding spindle (see column 4, lines 37-55 and Figure 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3,708,817 to Rhine as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 4,742,650 to Sauder Jr et al.
In Reference to Claim 3
Rhine teaches:
The oscillating sanding machine of claim 2, wherein the base column further comprises a baseplate (11), and the baseplate has an edge (left side of 11 in Figure 3) that is coupled with the support plate (see Figure 3).
Rhine fails to teach:
The edge is provided with a height adjuster that is coupled with the support plate, in which the height adjuster is formed by assembling a bolt to a rotating unit and used to make the conveying unit move upward or downward.
Sauder teaches:
An oscillating sanding machine (10) comprising a base plate (floor F) provided with a height adjuster (screws 18, wheel 19 connected to shafts) that is coupled with a support plate (15), in which the height adjuster is formed by assembling a bolt (18) to a rotating unit (19) and used to make a conveying unit (conveyor belt 16 on axles, see Figure 1) move upward or downward (see column 3, line 55-68 and Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oscillating sanding machine of Rhine by adding a height adjuster having a bolt and rotating unit as taught by Sauder Jr as both references are directed to sanding machines having conveying belts, and for the purpose of being able to raise and lower the conveying belt to accommodate work pieces of different thicknesses (column 3, lines 63-67 of Sauder).
In Reference to Claim 4
Rhine as modified by Sauder Jr teaches:
The oscillating sanding machine of claim 3, wherein the conveying unit is laterally provided with a plurality of positioning members (not numbered, threads along 18 of Sauder Jr), which servers to limit relative displacement between the conveying unit and the baseplate (see Figure 2 of Sauder). The threads of the bolt 18 of Sauder limit how far the flanges which support the conveying belt can move up and down.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 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:
The prior art of record fails to teach the fixing members are each coupled to a respective incline-adjusting structure, and the incline-adjusting structures are used to adjust an incline angle of the second axle with respect to a level as recited in claim 5. Rhine fails to teach an incline-adjusting structure. While Sauder teaches a device which elevates the entire conveying unit, Sauder fails to teach incline-adjusting structures – as interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) which are designed to adjust an incline angle of the second axle. The next nearest prior art is US 3,945,153 to Williams which teaches a sanding machine comprising a conveyor belt which is at an inclined angle, however Williams fails to teach adjusting the inclined angle. Rather, the inclined angle is static (see Figure 3).
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and contains its limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
The prior art of record fails to teach an end of the first casing part is provided with a positioning hole that receives a bearing seat which holds a bearing of the oscillating sanding spindle as recited in claim 8. The first casing part of Rhine does not have a positioning hole which secures a bearing seat. Rather, the first casing part has a door (75) to allow access to the spindle.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and contains its limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 7,004,818 to Haney teaches a sanding machine comprising a conveyor belt which has a height adjuster.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745