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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 and Species B in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Chad Thorson on 7/10/2026, the attorney of record has been notified that upon further review, claims 2-3 have been determined to be proper for Species A in the restriction and have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner. Claims 1, 6-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 are thus under the examination of Group 1 and Species B per the election made pursuant to the restriction requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a floor grinder for processing a concrete surface (grinding apparatus 40 shown in FIG. 10), the floor grinder comprising:
one or more rotatable abrasive tool holders arranged in a plane to hold respective abrasive tools, (see FIG. 4: tool holders 61d arranged in a plane to hold respective elements 61d-1, 61d-2, and 61d-3; see also Eng. Trans. ¶[0035]-[0036]),
at least one power source arranged to drive the tool holders, (motor unit 50 arranged to drive the tool holders; see ¶[0028]-[0030])
a cover body fixedly arranged in relation to the plane, (see FIG. 8: tool box 67 fixedly arranged in relation to the plane)
and a dust skirt [attached to a rim of the cover body] (a dust skirt attached to a rim of tool box 67 highlighted in the annotated FIG. 10 below)
wherein the floor grinder comprises at least one tool wear indicator configured to indicate a current tool wear based on a displacement of [the tool tips] relative to the cover body in a direction normal to the plane (see FIG. 8: tool wear detection sensors 95 configured to indicate a current tool wear based on the displacement of the tool tips 61d-1, 61d-2, and 61d-3; see also ¶[0019]-[0022]).
PNG
media_image1.png
702
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference Drawing 1: Kim, Annotated FIG. 10
Kim does not teach that the dust skirt is movably attached around a rim of the cover body to engage the concrete surface during floor grinding operation and that the tool wear indicator indicates the current tool wear based on a displacement of the dust skirt relative to the cover body in a direction normal to the plane.
Ye (CN105538075A), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to floor grinders with sensors, teaches a floor grinder in which the dust skirt is movably attached around a rim of the cover body to engage the concrete surface during floor grinding operation (see Ye Fig. 1 and Trans. Pg. 6, Lines 19-25: the dust skirt of grinding base 1 is movably attached around a rim of the cover body to engage the surface during floor grinding operation; “the bottom plate is connected at the bottom of the support frame 2, and the top portion is connected with the grinding base 1 to ensure…the grinding base 1 is controlled to be lifted and lowered”),
and the current tool wear is used to determine the displacement of a dust skirt relative to a referential point on the floor grinder (with the equation Z=H-(F-F1)-H1, in which (F-F1) is the amount of tool wear and Z is the relative height of the dust skirt (1) to the referential laser receiver (9) (see Ye Trans. Page 5, Lines 17-31)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the means of determining the current tool wear of Kim based on a displacement of the tool tips with the means of determining the current tool wear based on the displacement of the dust skirt relative to the cover body, as taught by Ye. The equation provided by Ye establishes the relationship between the tool wear and a displacement of the dust skirt relative to a stationary reference point, the cover body of Kim, and would lead to the predictable result of determining the current tool wear from the displacement of the dust skirt relative to the cover body.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, further teaches that the at least one tool wear indicator comprises a linear position sensor (the tool wear detection sensor 95, substituted with the photoelectric sensor of Ye, is a linear position sensor; see Ye Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 1-4 and Pg. 3, Line 27-Pg. 4, Line 2).
and wherein the floor grinder comprises a control unit arranged to receive an output signal from the linear position sensor and to determine a current tool wear based on the output signal from the linear position sensor (system controller 100 is arranged to receive output signals from the sensors and provides a tool wear status based on the output signal from the sensor; see Kim Trans. ¶[0058]-[0059]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, further teaches that the linear position sensor comprises a distance sensor arranged to measure a distance to the dust skirt relative to the cover body (tool wear detection sensors 95 are distance sensors, modified to measure the distance of the dust skirt relative to the cover body as discussed in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, further teaches that the position sensor is configured to output an absolute position output signal, and wherein the control unit is arranged to determine a tool wear based on the absolute position output signal (with the modification of Ye discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the tool wear detection sensor outputs an absolute position output signal and system controller 100 determines a tool wear based on the signal; see Kim ¶[0019], [0050], [0058] signal level /signal amplitude used to determine tool wear).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, further teaches that the dust skirt is arranged to be biased in direction of the concrete surface during use (the dust skirt is arranged to be biased in or face the direction of the concrete surface during use).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, teaches that the dust skirt is movably attached around the rim of the cover body to permit relative rotation of the cover body and dust skirt about a central axis normal to the plane or relative movement of the cover body and dust skirt in a direction normal to the plane along a central axis (as modified in the rejection of claim 1, the dust skirt is movably attached around the rim of tool box 67 to permit relative movement of the dust skirt to the cover body in a vertical direction normal to the plane along a central axis).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A), further in view of Wuersch (DE102007000280A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, does not teach that the linear position sensor is any of: a capacitive displacement sensor, a Hall effect sensor, and inductive sensor, a linear variable differential transformer, a photodiode array, and a linear mechanical encoder.
However, Wuersch, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to floor grinders with sensors, teaches a linear position sensor is a capacitive displacement sensor (see Wuersch Trans.¶[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the linear position sensor of Kim, as modified, with a capacitive sensor, as taught by Wuersch. The equation provided by Ye establishes the relationship between the tool wear and a displacement of the dust skirt relative to a stationary reference point, the cover body of Kim, to provide the predictable result of determining the current tool wear from the displacement of the dust skirt relative to the cover body.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A), further in view of Edwin (US 3841149 A).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, teaches that the position sensor is configured to output a differential position output signal (as modified by Ye as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the position sensor outputs a signal with the differential position of the dust skirt relative to the cover body).
Kim, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to receive a reset signal, and to determine a tool wear based on the differential position output signal and on the reset signal.
Edwin, in the same or similar field of endeavor related to means of detecting tool wear, teaches a control unit arranged to receive a reset signal (computer 20 is arranged to receive a signal to reset the reference tool wear condition; see Edwin Col. 4, Lines 15-35) and determine a tool wear based on an output signal and on the reset signal (tool wear is determined based on a received signal against the referential value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Kim, as modified, to be arranged to receive a reset signal, and to determine a tool wear based on the differential position output signal and on the reset signal, as taught by Edwin. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the reference value may be established at any point in the life of the tool” depending on the needs of the user and the application of the machine (Edwin Col. 4, Lines 15-35).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to determine a current tool wear rate based on the output signal from the linear position sensor and on a time reference or wherein the control unit is arranged to determine an estimated time to next tool shift based on the output signal from the linear position sensor and on abrasive tool data.
However, Edwin teaches a control unit arranged to determine a current tool wear rate based on the output signal from the linear position sensor and on a time reference (computer 20 is arranged to determine a current tool wear conditioned based on the reference value signal representing the tool in a first relatively unworn condition at discrete times; see Edwin Col. 2, Lines 12-26 and Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Kim, as modified, to determine a current tool wear rate based on the output signal from the linear position sensor and on a time reference, as taught by Edwin, to “maintain the running average of successively taken digital samples” so as to “prevent either inferior work products or catastrophic failure” (Edwin Col. 2, Lines 12-26 and Col. 1, Lines 11-21).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A), further in view of Chen (CN 108490880 B).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the control unit is arranged to average, or low-pass filter the output signal from the linear position sensor to suppress disturbances from vibration or wherein the control unit is arranged to inactivate the at least one power source in response to detecting excessive tool wear.
However, Chen (CN 108490880 B), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to machines monitoring tool wear teaches the that the control unit is arranged to average, or low-pass filter the output signal from a sensor (the control machine low-pass filters the output sensor signal; see Claim 3 and Chen Eng. Trans. Page 3, Lines 19-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit of Kim, as modified, to low-pass filter the output signal from the linear sensor to suppress disturbances from vibration, as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification “to remove noise and improve the signal-to-noise ratio” to provide more accurate results (Chen Eng. Trans. Page 3, Lines 19-20).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A), further in view of Zack (US 4731895 A).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, does not further teach that the dust skirt is spring loaded in direction of the concrete surface during use.
However, Zack (US 4731895 A) further teaches the dust skirt is spring loaded in direction of the surface during use (shroud 20 is spring loaded via spring mount 23 in the direction of the surface during use; see Zack Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust skirt of Kim, as modified, to be spring loaded in the direction of the concrete surface during use, as taught by Zack, to mount the dust skirt for independent movement relative to the cover body (see Zack Col. 2, Lines 40-52).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20160125580 A) in view of Ye (CN105538075A), further in view of Tempero (US 3129539 A).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. Kim, as modified, teaches that the dust skirt is movably attached around the rim of the cover body to permit relative movement of the cover body and dust skirt in a direction normal to the plane (as modified by Ye in the discussion of claim 1, the dust skirt is attached to the rim of the tool box 67 to permit relative movement of the dust skirt to the tool box 67 in a vertical direction normal to the plane).
Kim, as modified, does not teach that the dust skirt is movably attached around the rim of the cover body to prevent relative rotation of the cover body and dust skirt about a central axis normal to the plane.
However, Tempero (US 3129539 A), in the same or similar field of endeavor related to floor grinders, teaches that the dust skirt is movably attached around the rim of a cover body to prevent relative rotation of the cover body and dust skirt about a central axis normal to the plane (housing 20 is attached around the rim of housing 80 to move axially and prevent relative rotation of the housing 20 with respect to housing 80 about a central vertical axis normal to the plane of the tools; see Tempero Col. 5, Lines 6-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dust skirt of Kim, as modified, so that it is movably attached around the rim of the cover body to prevent relative rotation of the cover body and dust skirt about a central axis normal to the plane, as taught by Tempero. One would have been motivated to make such a modification for added stability of the connection between the cover body and the dust skirt.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arcona (US20080153402A1) teaches displacement sensors disposed on a grinding apparatus to determine the blade wear and cut depth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights