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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 and 07/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more inlet openings provided in the base and one or more outlet openings provided in a handle recited in claim 8, a first plug and a second plug recited in claim 9, and a first end wall and a second end wall recited in claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to PCT/US2021/055530 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 10/19/2021, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application. See MPEP 608.01(p) I B: For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date and MPEP 1893.03(b): An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office as well as: PCT Article 11(3) - ...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State. The specification amendment filed on 12/21/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to PCT/ US2021/055530.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the term may be amended as “the handle body”.
In claim 2, line 4, the phrase may be amended as “… corresponding in a profile …”
In claim 4, line 1, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a thickness”.
In claim 8, line 1, the term may be amended as “the internal cavity”.
In claim 10, line 8, the term may be amended as “[[the]]a sanding surface”.
In claim 11, line 8, the term may be amended as “an extruded member”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill (US 2009/0124177, cited on 07/30/2024 IDS), in view of Poole et al. (US 6296558, cited on 12/21/2023 IDS, hereinafter Poole) and Flooring Industries Ltd. (DE 202005020345U1, hereinafter FIL).
Regarding claim 1, Berryhill discloses a sanding block (fig. 1B sanding block 10) comprising:
a handle body configured for an ergonomic fit in a user's hand, the body having a substantially constant cross-section along a full length of the handle body, wherein the handle body is a unitary body, and wherein the handle body is made from a first polymeric material (fig. 1B and ¶ 0057, a handle block 14 [corresponds to the recited handle body] has an ergonomic design permitting easy grasping by a user. The handle block has a unitary body and has substantially constant cross-section along a full length of the block. The handle block 14 may be constructed from plastics);
a base is made from a second polymeric material different from than the first polymeric material (¶ 0066 and fig. 1B, a bottom plate 20 [corresponds to the recited base] may be constructed from plastics which can be different material as that used in the construction of the handle block 14), and wherein the base has an externally facing surface that provides a smooth sanding surface of the sanding block (¶ 0023 and fig. 1B, a bottom surface of the bottom plate provides a flat surface for attaching a sanding pad), but does not disclose the handle body defines all but one of a plurality of circumferential walls of an internal cavity defined by the sanding block and the base provides the one of the plurality of circumferential walls that encloses the internal cavity.
Poole teaches, in an analogous sanding device field of endeavor, the handle body defines all but one of a plurality of circumferential walls of an internal cavity defined by the sanding block and the base provides the one of the plurality of circumferential walls that encloses the internal cavity (see annotated Poole fig. 1 below and col. 3:9-15, 3:49-60, a sanding apparatus 20 [corresponds to the recited sanding block] comprises a first sanding section 21 [corresponds to the recited handle body] constructed of extruded plastic and a second sanding section 22 [corresponds to the recited base] constructed of extruded plastic. The first sanding section 21 defines a plurality of circumferential walls and the second sanding section 22 also provides a remaining circumferential wall to form an internal cavity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill to provide the internal cavity as taught by Poole. The sanding block having an internal cavity would be light so that a user can handle it easily.
Berryhill as modified by Poole does not disclose the handle body and the base are formed and joined together via a co-extrusion process. Berryhill discloses the handle block 14 and the bottom plate 20 may be constructed from different materials (¶ 0066) and constructed as one unit by molding (¶ 0070), but it does not disclose explicitly whether the molding is a co-extrusion process.
FIL teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the handle body and the base are formed and joined together via a co-extrusion process (FIL English translation, p. 6:14-17, a holder of floor covering includes a foldable part which is made by co-extrusion with the rest of the holder. The foldable part is also made of more flexible material as the material of the holder. Therefore, FIL teaches components of a mechanical device made of different materials can be made by the co-extrusion process. Because the sanding block of Berryhill is made as one unit by the molding process, the recited molding process can be the co-extrusion process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing process of Berryhill as modified by Poole to make the sanding block by the co-extrusion process as taught by FIL. Compared with a method of multiple molding processes to make each component of an apparatus, the co-extrusion process produces the apparatus in less time.
PNG
media_image1.png
844
1279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Poole Fig. 1
Regarding claim 2, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the cross-section of the handle body is defined by an outer extrusion surface defining, in part, an exterior of the sanding block and an inner extrusion surface defining, in part, the internal cavity, the inner extrusion surface substantially corresponding in profile to the outer extrusion surface (Poole, col. 3:9-15, 3:49-60, a sanding apparatus 20 [corresponds to the recited sanding block] comprises a first sanding section 21 [corresponds to the recited handle body] constructed of extruded plastic and a second sanding section 22 [corresponds to the recited base] constructed of extruded plastic, and the first and second sanding sections form the internal cavity as shown in annotated Poole fig. 1 above, therefore, an outer extrusion surface defines an exterior of the sanding block and an inner extrusion surface defines a contour of the internal cavity wherein the inner contour of the first sanding section 21 corresponds to the outer contour of the first sanding section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide the outer and inner extrusion surfaces as taught by Poole in order to make the handle body of the sanding block to fit more easily and comfortably in a user’s hand (Poole, col. 3:8-15).
Regarding claim 3, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the handle body has a substantially constant thickness as defined between the outer extrusion surface and the inner extrusion surface (Poole, fig. 1, a thickness of the first sanding section 21 [corresponds to the recited handle body] is substantially constant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle body of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide the constant thickness as taught by Poole. It helps the handle body not to deform after repeated use so that the handle keeps the configuration which comfortably fits in a user’s hand.
Regarding claim 4, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 2, wherein the thickness of the handle body is greater than a thickness of the base (see Berryhill fig. 1, a thickness of the handle block 14 [corresponds to the recited handle body] is greater than a thickness of the bottom plate 20 [corresponds to the recited base]).
Regarding claim 5, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose explicitly the first polymeric material is softer than the second polymeric material.
Berryhill discloses the handle block and the bottom plate may be plastics and constructed from different materials (¶ 0066). Thus, the two different plastics would have different hardness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide the first polymeric material to be softer than the second polymeric material. The second polymer makes the base of the sanding block used for sanding an object. Therefore, it requires greater hardness than the handle so that sanding operation can be repeated for a long period of time without being damaged.
Regarding claim 8, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein internal cavity is substantially sealed except for one or more inlet openings provided in the base, and one or more outlet openings provided in a handle formed at least in part by the handle body such that suction can be applied on the sanding block to draw air through the sanding block from the inlet to the outlet openings (Berryhill, figs. 5A, 5B and ¶ 0061, a bottom surface 20b the bottom plate 20 [corresponds to the recited base] includes a plurality of apertures 20c [correspond to the recited inlet openings]; ¶ 0067, the handle block 14 includes a tube 12 [corresponds to the recited outlet opening]; ¶ 0062-64 and 0067, a vacuum system removes sanding dust and particulate matter created by the sanding process through the apertures 20c and the tube 12).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill in view of Poole and FIL, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Watanabe et al. (DE 10082051B3, hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 6, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 5, but does not disclose explicitly the first polymeric material is a thermoplastic elastomer. Berryhill teaches the handle block 14 may be constructed from plastics (¶ 0057), but does not disclose whether the plastic is thermoplastic elastomer.
Watanabe teaches, in an analogous extrusion molding field of endeavor, the first polymeric material is a thermoplastic elastomer (Watanabe English translation, p. 7:9-11, thermoplastic elastomer is a generic term for polymeric substance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide the first polymeric material to be thermoplastic elastomer as taught by Watanabe. The thermoplastic elastomer exhibits rubbery elasticity at normal temperature (Watanabe English translation, p. 7:9-11). Because the first polymeric material is used for the handle body, it provides comfortable grip to a user.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill in view of Poole, FIL, and Watanabe, as applied to claim 6 above, and supported by Park et al. (US 2020/0324521, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, Berryhill as modified by Poole, FIL, and Watanabe teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the second polymeric material is an acrylic. Berryhill teaches the bottom plate 20 may be constructed from plastics (¶ 0066), but does not disclose whether the plastic is acrylic.
Watanabe teaches a molded article can be prepared by copolymerization of acrylic-based elastomers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill as modified by Poole, FIL, and Watanabe to provide the second polymeric material to be acrylic as taught by Watanabe. Acrylic has high hardness when resin is hardened (Park ¶ 0111). Thus, acrylic is an appropriate material to be used for a sanding surface.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill in view of Poole and FIL, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ryan et al. (US 2017/0320194, cited on 12/21/2023 IDS, hereinafter Ryan).
Regarding claim 9, Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL teaches the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a first plug fixed to the handle body and base proximate and sealing a first longitudinal side of the sanding block and a second plug fixed to the handle body and base proximate and sealing a second longitudinal side of the sanding block, whereby the internal cavity is substantially fully enclosed.
Ryan teaches, in an analogous sanding apparatus field of endeavor, a first plug fixed to the handle body and base proximate and sealing a first longitudinal side of the sanding block and a second plug fixed to the handle body and base proximate and sealing a second longitudinal side of the sanding block, whereby the internal cavity is substantially fully enclosed (fig. 1 and ¶ 0036, a locking end cap 20 [corresponds to the recited first plug] is fixed to a top hand grip surface 12 [corresponds to the recited handle body] and proximate to a sandpaper holder 72 [corresponds to the recited base] to seal a first longitudinal side of the sanding block. A locking end cap 50 [corresponds to the recited second plug] is fixed to a top hand grip surface 12 [corresponds to the recited handle body] and proximate to a sandpaper holder 72 [corresponds to the recited base] to seal a second longitudinal side of the sanding block. They seal an internal cavity of the sanding block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide the first and second plugs as taught by Ryan. By combining with Poole, the end walls would allow access to the internal cavity of the sanding block. It would enable cleaning accumulated dust within the internal cavity.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill (US 2009/0124177, cited on 07/30/2024 IDS), in view of Mazzolini (EP 2283970A1), Ryan et al. (US 2017/0320194, cited on 12/21/2023 IDS, hereinafter Ryan), and Flooring Industries Ltd. (DE 202005020345U1, hereinafter FIL).
Regarding claim 10, Berryhill discloses a method of manufacturing a sanding block comprising: integrally forming a handle and a base, each formed of a different polymer having a different hardness (fig. 1B and ¶ 0057, 0066, and 0070, a sanding block 10 is formed by a handle block 14 [corresponds to the recited handle] and a bottom plate 20 [corresponds to the recited base]. The handle block 14 and the bottom plate 20 are constructed by extruded plastics, and they can be different materials. Therefore, they have different hardness. The sanding block may be constructed as one unit by molding, thus it is integrally formed);
drilling one or more inlet openings through the sanding surface (figs. 5A, 5B and ¶ 0061, a bottom surface 20b the bottom plate 20 [corresponds to the recited base] includes a plurality of apertures 20c [correspond to the recited inlet openings]) and one or more outlet openings through a wall of the handle of the sanding block (fig. 1B and ¶ 0067, a wall of the handle block 14 includes a tube 12 [corresponds to the recited outlet opening]); and
adhering an abrasive layer to the sanding surface (¶ 0023 and 0065, a sanding paper [corresponds to the recited abrasive layer] is attached to a bottom surface of the bottom plate [corresponds to the recited the sanding surface] by an adhesive backing), but does not disclose the internal cavity is provided in communication with ambient air; securing respective one or more hose fittings to the one or more outlet openings in the handle, and adhering an abrasive layer to the sanding surface.
Mazzolini teaches, in an analogous sanding apparatus field of endeavor, the internal cavity is provided in communication with ambient air; and securing respective one or more hose fittings to the one or more outlet openings in the handle (figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0031, 0046, a sanding block 1 comprises a handpiece 4 and a frame 7 [corresponds to the recited base] and a cavity 15 [corresponds to the recited internal cavity] is formed between the handpiece 4 and the frame 7. An anchoring surface 3 of the frame 7 has holes 11, and the handpiece 4 has a mouth 12 for air to flow from the holes 11 to the mouth 12. Thus, the cavity 15 is in communication with ambient air; ¶ 0032, the mouth 12 has a joint 13 [corresponds to the recited hose fitting] for connecting an opening of the handpiece 4 to a tube 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Berryhill to provide the internal cavity and the hose fitting as taught by Mazzolini so that air and dust are collected and evacuated out of the sanding block through the mount (Mazzolini ¶ 0046).
Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini does not disclose fixing a first end wall to a first open longitudinal end of the sanding block thereby sealing the first open longitudinal end and a second end wall to a second open longitudinal end of the sanding block, thereby sealing an internal cavity of the sanding block.
Ryan teaches, in an analogous sanding apparatus field of endeavor, fixing a first end wall to a first open longitudinal end of the sanding block thereby sealing the first open longitudinal end and a second end wall to a second open longitudinal end of the sanding block, thereby sealing an internal cavity of the sanding block (fig. 1 and ¶ 0036, a locking end cap 20 [corresponds to the recited first end wall] is fixed at a first open end of a sanding block 10 and a locking cap 50 [corresponds to the recited second end wall] is fixed at a second open end of the sanding block 10 to seal an internal cavity of the sanding block).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini to provide the first and second end walls as taught by Ryan. By combining with Mazzolini, the end walls would allow access to the internal cavity of the sanding block. It would enable cleaning accumulated dust within the internal cavity.
Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini and Ryan does not disclose co-extruding to produce a sanding block.
FIL teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, co-extruding to produce a sanding block. (FIL English translation, p. 6:14-17, a holder of floor covering includes a foldable part which is made by co-extrusion with the rest of the holder. The foldable part is also made of more flexible material as the material of the holder. Therefore, FIL teaches components of a mechanical device made of different materials can be made by the co-extrusion process. Because the sanding block of Berryhill is made as one unit by the molding process, the recited molding process can be the co-extrusion process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing process of Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini and Ryan to make the sanding block by the co-extrusion process as taught by FIL. Compared with a method of multiple molding processes to make each component of an apparatus, the co-extrusion process produces the apparatus in less time.
Regarding claim 12, Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, and FIL teaches a sanding block is produced by the method of claim 10 (a sanding block is produced as discussed in the rejection of claim 10).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill in view of Mazzolini, Ryan, and FIL, as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Messier (US 2009/0253327) and Ribi (CN 104144624A).
Regarding claim 11, Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, and FIL teaches the method of producing the sanding block as in the rejection of claim 10, but does not disclose providing a supply of a thermoplastic elastomer into a first hopper of an extrusion machine; providing a supply of a second polymer into a second hopper of the extrusion machine.
Messier teaches, in an extrusion field of endeavor, providing a supply of a thermoplastic elastomer into a first hopper of an extrusion machine; providing a supply of a second polymer into a second hopper of the extrusion machine (¶ 0018-22 and 0027-28, in a co-extruding process, granules of polymer 2 are added to a first hopper 1 and different polymer 2 is added to a second hopper 2 then fed into extruders 2 and 12 respectively, and then directed to die assemblies 4 and 13 respectively. The polymer can be styrene-poly elastomers which is a thermoplastic elastomer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, and FIL to provide two polymers into two hoppers as taught by Messier so that an object formed by two different materials can be produced by co-extrusion process.
Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, and Messier does not disclose the second polymer is harder than the thermoplastic elastomer.
However, Berryhill discloses the handle block and the bottom plate may be plastics and constructed from different materials (¶ 0066). Thus, the two different plastics would have different hardness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, and Messier to provide the second polymer to be harder than the first polymer/thermoplastic elastomer. The second polymer can make the base of the sanding block used for sanding an object. Therefore, it requires greater hardness than the handle so that sanding operation can be repeated for a long period of time without being damaged.
Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, and Messier teaches feeding the thermoplastic elastomer material into a contoured portion of a die of the extrusion machine while concurrently feeding the second material into a substantially flat portion of the die to co-extrude a extruded member (Berryhill ¶ 0070, the sanding block is constructed by molding. The handle block 14 has a contoured configuration and the bottom plate 20 has a flat configuration; Messier ¶ 0027-28, polymers are fed into the die assemblies 4, 13 in the co-extrusion process. Therefore, a die for producing the handle body has a contoured configuration so that the handle body is produced to have the contoured profile, and a die for producing the base has a flat configuration so that the base is produced to have the flat profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, and Messier to provide the dies so that the sanding block having the required configuration is produced.
Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, and Messier does not disclose cutting the extruded member into sanding blocks, each having a desired length ranging between 4 inches and 20 inches.
Ribi teaches, in an analogous extrusion molding field of endeavor, cutting the extruded member into sanding blocks, each having a desired length ranging between 4 inches and 20 inches (¶ 0252, in an extrusion manufacturing process, an extrusion puller maintains speed of extruded object and a rotary cutter cuts the extruded object in segments of an 8-inch cut length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extrusion process of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide cutting a segment from the extrusion as taught by Ribi in order to produce a plurality of extruded objects having the same size.
Regarding claim 14, Berryhill as modified by Mazzolini, Ryan, FIL, Messier, and Ribi teaches a sanding block is produced by the method of claim 11 (a sanding block is produced as discussed in the rejection of claim 11).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berryhill (US 2009/0124177, cited on 07/30/2024 IDS), in view of Poole et al. (US 6296558, cited on 12/21/2023 IDS, hereinafter Poole), Flooring Industries Ltd. (DE 202005020345U1, hereinafter FIL), and Ribi (CN 104144624A).
Regarding claim 13, Berryhill disclose a sanding block produced by simultaneously extruding a first polymer and a second polymer to produce an extrusion having a first wall formed of the first polymer and a second wall opposite the first wall and formed of the second polymer (fig. 1B and ¶ 0057, 0066, and 0070, a sanding block 10 is formed by a handle block 14 and a bottom plate 20. The handle block 14 and the bottom plate 20 are constructed by extruded plastics, and they can be different materials. The handle block 14 is designated as a first wall made of a first kind of plastic, and the bottom plate 20 is designated as a second wall made of a second kind of plastic), fixing an abrasive layer to an outer surface of the second wall (¶ 0023 and 0065, a sanding paper [corresponds to the recited abrasive layer] is attached to a bottom surface of the bottom plate [corresponds to the recited the outer surface of the second wall] by an adhesive backing), but does not disclose explicitly whether the second polymer is harder than the first polymer when cured.
Berryhill discloses the handle block and the bottom plate may be plastics and constructed from different materials (¶ 0066). Thus, the two different plastics would have different hardness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill to provide the second polymer to be harder than the first polymer. The second polymer makes the base of the sanding block used for sanding an object. Therefore, it requires greater hardness than the handle so that sanding operation can be repeated for a long period of time without being damaged.
Berryhill still does not disclose the first and second walls spaced apart by a cavity defined therebetween.
Poole teaches, in an analogous sanding device field of endeavor, the first and second walls spaced apart by a cavity defined therebetween (see annotated Poole fig. 1 above and col. 3:9-15, 3:49-60, a sanding apparatus 20 [corresponds to the recited sanding block] comprises a first sanding section 21 [corresponds to the recited handle body/first wall] constructed of extruded plastic and a second sanding section 22 [corresponds to the recited base/second wall] constructed of extruded plastic. The first sanding section 21 and the second sanding section 22 are spaced apart by a cavity defined therebetween).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sanding block of Berryhill to provide the cavity as taught by Poole. The sanding block having an internal cavity would be light so that a user can handle it easily.
Berryhill as modified by Poole does not disclose explicitly the simultaneous extruding is done in a co-extrusion process.
FIL teaches, in a mechanical device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, the simultaneous extruding is done in a co-extrusion process (FIL English translation, p. 6:14-17, a holder of floor covering includes a foldable part which is made by co-extrusion with the rest of the holder. The foldable part is also made of more flexible material as the material of the holder. Therefore, FIL teaches components of a mechanical device made of different materials can be made by the co-extrusion process. Because the sanding block of Berryhill is made as one unit by the molding process, the recited molding process can be the co-extrusion process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified manufacturing process of Berryhill as modified by Poole to make the sanding block by the co-extrusion process as taught by FIL. Compared with a method of multiple molding processes to make each component of an apparatus, the co-extrusion process produces the apparatus in less time.
Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL does not disclose the sanding block being further produced by cutting a segment from the extrusion.
Ribi teaches, in an analogous extrusion molding field of endeavor, the sanding block being further produced by cutting a segment from the extrusion (¶ 0215, in an extrusion manufacturing process, an extrusion puller maintains speed of extruded object and a rotary cutter cuts the extruded object in segments of a uniform length).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the extrusion process of Berryhill as modified by Poole and FIL to provide cutting a segment from the extrusion as taught by Ribi in order to produce a plurality of extruded objects having the same size.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723