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 .
Claims
Note that the most recent claims submitted 12 Apr 2024 appear to be a submission of the original claims and do not include the amendments from the amended claims submitted 18 Aug 2023. The latter filed claims appear to be in response to the Notification of Defective Reply sent by the office on 29 Mar 2024, which requested an English translation of the original claims. As the 18 Aug 2023 claims appear to be the newer, amended version of the claims, this version will be examined in this 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-7 and 9 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a press-on area,” “base body,” and “at least one press-on element.” Each of these limitations already has antecedent basis in claim 1, making it unclear if the limitations from claim 2 are intended to further limit these already recited elements, or to introduce additional elements into the claim. It appears that the “base body” of claim 1 which includes at least one press-on element as recited in claim 1, is intended to be comprised by the “endless press-on belt” recited in claim 2 and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of this examination.
Claim 9 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “a press-on area,” “a base body,” and “at least one press-on element.” Similarly as described in the rejection of claim 2 above, each of these limitations already has antecedent basis in claim 1, making it unclear if the limitations from claim 3 are intended to further limit these already recited elements, or to introduce additional elements into the claim. It appears that the “base body” of claim 1 which includes at least one press-on element as recited in claim 1, is intended to be comprised by the “press-on beam” recited in claim 3 and will be interpreted as such for the purposes of this examination.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a first hook and loop adhesive layer” and “a second hook and loop adhesive layer.” However, claim 1, from which claim 4 depends recites the use of “a hook and loop or adhesive connection,” indicating that the use of a hook and loop connection or adhesive connection are alternatives to each other. It is unclear if the first and second “hook and loop adhesive” layers of claim 4 are intended to further limit one or both of the alternatives recited in claim 1. It is further unclear if “adhesive” in claim 4 is intended to impart the structure of an adhesive layer additional to the hook and loop layer, or if the hook and loop layer itself is considered an adhesive due to the fact that it connects two elements together. For the purposes of this examination, the first and second “hook and loop adhesive” layers of claim 4 will be read as further defining the “hook and loop connection” of claim 1, and the hook and loop layers themselves will be considered adhesive as they connected two elements together.
Claims 5-7 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. “Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims.” See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the base body of the press-on belt" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a press-on belt in the claim. It is unclear if a belt is necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the above-quoted phrase will be read as “the base body,” as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the base body of the press-on beam" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for a press-on beam in the claim. It is unclear if a beam is necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, the above-quoted phrase will be read as “the base body,” as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, each of the claims recites the base body “comprises or consists of” a particular material. The use of two different transitional phrases is confusing and unclear. For the purposes of this examination, this phrase will be read as “comprises,” as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the press-on beam" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent upon claim 2, which defines the base body as an endless press-on belt, which is a completely different embodiment from the beam recited in claim 9. It is unclear how the recitations relating to the beam of claim 9 are intended to be interpreted in light of the recitation of the endless press-on belt of claim 2. As claim 9 recites the endless press-on belt and press-on beam as alternatives, for the purposes of this examination, only the belt will be considered in claim 9, as this appears to be the only alternative compatible with claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “a plurality of press-on elements.” There is already antecedent basis for “at least one press-on element” in claim 1, making it unclear if the “press-on elements” recited in claim 10 are intended to further limit the “at least one press-on element” or to introduce a separate plurality of press-on elements. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as defining that the at least one press-on element of claim 1 comprises a plurality of press-on elements, as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boggs (US 2012/0295522).
Regarding claim 1, Boggs discloses a grinding device with at least one endless grinding belt (12) guided over deflection elements (20a-20c; fig 2) in at least one direction of circulation (horizontal direction in fig 2), with a press-on arrangement (14) which is configured and arranged such that it exerts a force from an in inner side of the grinding belt in a press-on area (as shown in fig 2) wherein the press-on arrangement comprises a base body (belt 14) and at least one press-on element (38; fig 5) arranged on a side of the base body facing the inner side of the grinding belt ([0056]) characterized in that the at least one press-on element is connected to the base body by one of a hook and loop or adhesive connection ([0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Boggs further discloses the press-on arrangement comprises an endless press-on belt (14; [0029]; as shown in fig 2) configured and arranged to exert a force from the inner side on the grinding belt (fig 2) in the press-on area (area above workpiece as shown in fig 2), wherein the endless press-on belt comprises an endless base body and the at least one press-on element disposed on a lateral surface (34) of the base body (as shown in fig 5).
Regarding claim 9, Boggs further discloses the endless press-on belt is drivable by means of a drive unit ([0029]; “driven by a motor or drive”).
Regarding claim 10, Boggs further discloses the at least one press-on element (38) comprises a plurality of press-on elements (fig 5) which can be freely positioned on the base body (as described [0051], the pattern 36 formed by press-on elements 38 can be positioned to form any of several shapes or patterns).
Regarding claim 12, Boggs discloses a belt grinding machine (10) for grinding a flat workpiece in which the workpiece (18) passes through the belt grinding machine in a predetermined direction of travel (indicated by arrow W in fig 1), having at least one grinding device according to claim 1 (as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Boggs discloses a press-on belt (14) for exerting a force in a press-on area from the inside on a grinding belt of a grinding device (as shown in fig 2; note that the grinding device and grinding belt are not positively recited as elements of the claimed belt in this claim), having a base body (belt 14) and having at least one press-on element (38) arranged on the base body (as shown in fig 5), characterized in that the at least one press-on element is connected to the base body via an adhesive connection ([0051]).
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) 1, 3-7, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giese (US 2018/0111243) in view of Rivard (US 2009/0919800).
Regarding claim 1, Giese teaches a grinding device with at least one endless grinding belt (2) guided over deflection elements (elements 4, 6; fig 1) in at least one direction of circulation (circulates in a loop as shown in fig 1), with a press-on arrangement (14) which is configured and arranged such that it exerts a force from an in inner side of the grinding belt in a press-on area (as shown in fig 1 and described [0024]) wherein the press-on arrangement comprises a base body (beam 14) and at least one press-on element (18; fig 1) arranged on a side of the base body facing the inner side of the grinding belt ([0025]) characterized in that the at least one press-on element is connected to the base body (as described [0025]).
Giese does not teach a hook and loop or adhesive connection between the press-on at least one press-on element and base body, but does describe that the press-on elements are preferred to be removable ([0012]). Rivard teaches a grinding device including a press-on arrangement with a base body (30) with at least one press-on element (40) connected to the base body by a hook and loop connection ([0048], [0051]; fig 1). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the press-on elements of Giese to the base body by a hook and loop connection, as hook and loop attachments achieve the predictable result of providing an easily removable and replaceable connection between the elements without the use of external tools as taught by Rivard ([0013], [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Giese, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Giese further teaches the press-on arrangement comprises a press-on beam (element 14 is a beam as shown in fig 1) which is configured and arranged such that it exerts force from the inner side on the grinding belt in the press-on area (as shown in fig 1 and described [0024]), wherein the base body is the press-on beam (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) and the at least one press-on element (18) arranged on the side of the base body facing the inner side of the grinding belt ([0025]).
Regarding claims 4-5, Giese, as modified by Rivard, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Rivard further teaches the hook and loop connection (included in the combination as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above) includes the base body (30) comprising a first hook and loop adhesive layer (described [0047] as “releasable attachment mechanism” for attaching to press-on element 40; releasable attachment mechanism described as cooperating hook and loop fasteners in [0045]) and the at least one press-on element (40) having a second hook and loop adhesive layer (50; [0048], [0051]) on the side facing the base body (as shown in fig 1); wherein the first or second hook and loop adhesive layer comprises a hook layer ([0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Giese, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Giese further teaches the base body comprises (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) a metal strip ([0015]).
Regarding claim 7, Giese, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 4 as described above. Giese further teaches the base body comprises (see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation) a metal ([0015]).
Regarding claims 10-11, Giese, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Giese further teaches the at least one press-on element (18) comprises a plurality of press-on elements (fig 1) which can be freely positioned on the base body ([0012]); and wherein at least two press-on elements differ in shape or size (as shown in fig 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giese and Rivard as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buetfering (EP 1070567).
Regarding claim 8, Giese, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Giese further teaches the base body comprises a ferromagnetic material ([0015]; steel). Giese is silent as to a material of the at least one press-on element. Buetfering teaches a grinding device wherein a press-on element (4a; fig 1) comprises a magnet ([0027]). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the at least one press-on element of Giese from a magnet, as magnets are known way to achieve the predictable result attaching a press-on element to a base such that they move together as taught by Buetfering ([0027]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar grinding devices are cited, including those with similar connections for press-on elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723