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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to claims filed on 07/08/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sogge discloses orbital tool (Col 1 lines 8-20), comprising:
a tool housing (Fig. 1) including a motor housing portion (Fig. 2) with a motor housing longitudinal axis and a handle housing portion (12) with a handle housing longitudinal axis, wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of relative to the motor housing longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. 2 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
572
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a motor (11) disposed in the motor housing portion (38) and including a motor shaft (28), wherein the motor is adapted to selectively cause the motor shaft to rotate in either of first and second rotational directions (Col 2 lines 3-20; “reversible motor”);
a balancer (27) operably coupled to the motor shaft (28); an output shaft (22) disposed in the balancer; and
a sprag clutch (30) disposed in the balancer (27) and operably coupled to the output shaft (22), wherein the sprag clutch (30) is adapted to allow rotation of the output shaft (22) relative to the balancer (27) when the motor shaft (28) is rotated in the first rotational direction, and prevent rotation of the output shaft (22) relative to the balancer (27) when the motor shaft is rotated in the second rotational direction (Col 2 lines 54-70).
Sogge does not expressly recite that it’s one way clutch is “a sprag clutch”.
Curtiss teaches that a sprag clutch is a known equivalent species of one-way/overrunning clutch for coupling a motor to a shaft in a handheld power tool (Col 2 lines 8-12; “The free-wheeling clutch portion of the clutch mechanism may be a sprag-type clutch or one of a number of other one-way or free-wheeling type devices intended to be mounted concentrically between a drive and driven element”).
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 power tool of Sogge by substituting a one-way clutch of Sogge with the known sprag type clutch as taught by Curtiss. Both are well known one-way/overrunning clutch mechanisms that perform the identical function of locking in one rotational direction and releasing/freewheeling in the opposite direction. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution would have been a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to achieve the predictable result of direction-dependent mode switching in an orbital sander. Sogge already provides the motivation to switch modes by reversing the motor direction.
Wherein applicant argues that Sogge does not teach the claimed handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 100 degrees to 120 degrees relative to the motor housing longitudinal axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 100 degrees to 120 degrees relative to the motor housing longitudinal axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The Sogge’s handle housing longitudinal axis angle relative to the motor housing longitudinal axis is adjacent to the claimed range (<=10); routine optimization to the precise claimed range is obvious and an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that the specific range of 100 degrees to 120 degrees, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a range of 90 degrees given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Sogge in view of Curtiss further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a bearing (24/29 of Sogge) disposed in the balancer (27) and operably coupled to the output shaft (22; Fig. 2).
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lampka (US 20090209182 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1 but is silent regarding a counterbalance coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer.
Lampka teaches that it is old and well known to provide a counterbalance (140, 141; Fig. 10) coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer (130).
Therefore, 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 tool of Sogge as modified by incorporating a counterbalance (counterweights) as taught by Lampka in order to minimize undesirable vibration. Attaching counterweights to the exterior surface of the orbiting had assembly (balancer) was a routine, well-known technique in the same field of orbitals to minimize vibration caused by eccentric motion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known counterweight attachment to Sogge’s short shaft/balancer to achieve even better control.
Claim 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A) and Lampka (US 20090209182 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 3 including counterbalance coupled to the balancer as modified above but is silent regarding the counterbalance is coupled to the balancer via a keyed engagement.
Neuhoff in a related invention teaches coupling counterbalance (73a, 73b) via keyed engagement ([0053]).
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 coupling of the counterbalance to the balancer of Sogge as modified by incorporating a keyed engagement coupling means as evidenced by Neuhoff to ensure that the counterweight is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components ([0053]). Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have keyed engagement as a coupling means to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known technique on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any coupling means. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Sogge as modified to obtain the invention specified in claim 4 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, Sogge as modified discloses the keyed engagement as rejected in claim 4 above including the use of keys ([0053]; “The use of the key allows the first counterweight parts 73a…”) but is silent with regards to the details of a key disposed in corresponding grooves of the balancer and the counterbalance.
it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a key disposed in corresponding grooves of the balancer and the counterbalance, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any coupling means to couple the balancer to the counterbalance. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Sogge as modified to obtain the invention specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Eicher et al. (US 20090038818 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1.
However, Sogge as modified does not disclose an auxiliary handle adapted to be coupled to the tool..
Eicher teaches that it is old and well known to provide an auxiliary handle (10a) adapted to be coupled to the tool (12a; Fig. 1).
Therefore 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 tool of Sogge as modified by incorporating an auxiliary handle as taught by Eicher in order to allow for an operator to guide hand-held power tools using the auxiliary handle and provide damping property. ([0006] of Eicher).
Claim 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Geiser et al. (US 20090239451 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1 including the backing pad (10, 17 of Sogge) coupled to the output shaft (12). However, wherein it is argued that Sogge’s pad (10, 17) is not a backing pad. Geiser in a related invention further teaches a backing pad (7 and/or 38)
Therefore, 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 power tool of Sogge as modified by substituting a pad of Sogge with the known backing pad as taught by Geiser. Both are well known accessory mechanisms that perform the identical function of essential accessories for power tools like angle grinders and orbital sanders that support abrasive, sanding, or polishing discs. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution would have been a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to achieve the predictable result of essential accessories for power tools like angle grinders and orbital sanders that support abrasive, sanding, or polishing discs with a motivation for reducing the cost of replacement backup pads and increasing the functionality of the dual-function tool (Abstract of Geiser).
Alternative rejection for claim 1
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in further view of Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nybacka discloses orbital tool (Fig. 1a), comprising:
a tool housing (600) including a motor housing portion (Figs. 3a-4 having the shaft 101 and motor 400) with a motor housing longitudinal axis (axis of motor 400/shaft 101; Figs. 1a and 4) and
a motor (400) disposed in the motor housing portion (Fig. 1a) and including a motor shaft (101), wherein the motor (400) is adapted to selectively cause the motor shaft to rotate in either of first and second rotational directions ([0023], [0047]-[0048], and claim 11);
a balancer (102) operably coupled to the motor shaft (101); an output shaft (201) disposed in the balancer (102); and
a sprag clutch (locking member 202, 203; described as a one-way switch, a latch, a clutch, a bearing, a clutch bearing, a one-way bearing, a one-way clutch; [0028]) disposed in the balancer (102) and operably coupled to the output shaft (201), wherein the sprag clutch (locking member 202, 203) is adapted to allow rotation of the output shaft (201) relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft (101) is rotated in the first rotational direction (First motor direction, lock disengaged; bearing 203 enables member 201 to spin about its own axis-random orbital mode; [0024]-[0025], [0027]-[0028] and [0034]), and prevent rotation of the output shaft (201) relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft is rotated in the second rotational direction (second direction: lock engaged, latch 202 locks 201 to balancer 102 so free spinning is prevented-rotating eccentric mode; [0026]-[0028] and [0035]).
Nybacka does not expressly recite
that it’s one way clutch is “a sprag clutch”.
a handle housing portion with a handle housing longitudinal axis, wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 100 degrees to 120 degrees relative to a motor housing longitudinal axis
Curtiss teaches that a sprag clutch is a known equivalent species of one-way/overrunning clutch for coupling a motor to a shaft in a handheld power tool (Col 2 lines 8-12; “The free-wheeling clutch portion of the clutch mechanism may be a sprag-type clutch or one of a number of other one-way or free-wheeling type devices intended to be mounted concentrically between a drive and driven element”).
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 power tool of Nybacka by substituting a one-way clutch of Nybacka with the known sprag type clutch as taught by Curtiss. Both are well known one-way/overrunning clutch mechanisms that perform the identical function of locking in one rotational direction and releasing/freewheeling in the opposite direction. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution would have been a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to achieve the predictable result of direction-dependent mode switching in an orbital sander. Nybacka already provides the motivation to switch modes by reversing the motor direction.
Regarding (B), Neuhoff teaches a tool housing (14) including a motor housing portion (18; [0046]) with a motor housing longitudinal axis (axis 62) and a handle housing portion (16) with a handle housing longitudinal axis (63; [0042]), wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis (63) is disposed at an angle (angle α′) relative to a motor housing longitudinal axis (62), the angle being of about 100 degrees to 120 degrees ([0047]; “Further, in a particular embodiment, A1 may be an oblique angle that is greater than 90 degrees. For example, A1 may be greater than or equal to 91 degrees, greater than or equal to 92 degrees, greater than or equal to 93 degrees, greater than or equal to 94 degrees, or greater than or equal to 95 degrees. In another embodiment, A1 may be less than or equal to 105 degrees” which falls in the range of 100-120 degree and therefore meets the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nybacka as modified by incorporating a handle housing portion with a handle housing longitudinal axis, wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 100 degrees to 120 degrees relative to a motor housing longitudinal axis, as suggested by Neuhoff, in order to reduce user fatigue and/or stress during periods of extended use, and give the user extra ground clearance from the workpiece and a comfortable grip ([0048], [0081] of Neuhoff).
Nybacka as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a bearing (203 of Nybacka) disposed in the balancer (102 Nybacka) and operably coupled to the output shaft (201 Nybacka; [0028], [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Nybacka discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1 including the balancer (102; [0020]) but is silent regarding a counterbalance coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer.
Neuhoff teaches that it is old and well known to provide a counterbalance (73, having part 73a and 73b; [0050]-[0053]) coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer (the counterweight 73 surrounds the outer cylindrical surface of eccentric carrier 66, with its arms extending long its outside, and the second part sits over the top; Figs 2D-2M, 2J-2K [0050]-[0054]).
Therefore, 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 tool of Nybacka by incorporating a counterbalance (counterweights) to exterior surface of the balancer as taught by Neuhoff in order to balance the rotational movement of the eccentric carrier as the drive shaft rotates ([0050]) and provide static and dynamic balance within a compact space inside the sander ([0050]-[0052]. Attaching counterweights to the exterior surface of the orbiting had assembly (balancer) was a routine, well-known technique in the same field of orbitals to minimize vibration caused by eccentric motion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known counterweight attachment to Nybacka to achieve even better control, which is a predictable result.
Regarding claim 4, Nybacka discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 3 including counterbalance coupled to the balancer as modified above but is silent regarding the counterbalance is coupled to the balancer via a keyed engagement.
Neuhoff in a related invention teaches coupling counterbalance (73a, 73b) via keyed engagement ([0053]-[0054]).
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 coupling of the counterbalance to the balancer of Nybacka by incorporating a keyed engagement coupling means as evidenced by Neuhoff to ensure that the counterweight is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components ([0053]). Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have keyed engagement as a coupling means to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known technique on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any coupling means.
Regarding claim 5, Nybacka as modified discloses the keyed engagement as rejected in claim 4 above including the use of keys ([0053]; “can include a keyway on or near the cylindrical hub portion to mate the second counterweight part 73b with the first counterweight part 73a such that the static (first counterweight part 73a) and dynamic (second counterweight part 73b) are opposed properly. The use of the key allows the first counterweight parts 73a, 73b to be eccentricity incorporated to form the counterweight 73 hub using a create poka-yoke assembly to ensure that the counterweight 73 is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components”) but is silent with regards to the details of a key disposed in corresponding grooves of the balancer and the counterbalance.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nybacka so that the keyed engagement between the counterbalance and the balancer part is a key disposed in corresponding groves of the balance part and counterbalance. This applies to the key and keyway connection that Neuhoff uses for its counterweight to the balancer connection. This ensures that the counterweight is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components. A key seated in mating grooves is a conventional alternative to a double flat connection for fixing angular positions and substituting it yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a backing pad (300 of Nybacka) coupled to the output shaft (Fig. 1a of Nybacka).
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Eicher et al. (US 20090038818 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nybacka as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 1.
However, Eicher as modified does not disclose an auxiliary handle adapted to be coupled to the tool.
Eicher teaches that it is old and well known to provide an auxiliary handle (10a) adapted to be coupled to the tool (12a; Fig. 1).
Therefore 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 tool of Nybacka as modified by incorporating an auxiliary handle as taught by Eicher in order to allow for an operator to guide hand-held power tools using the auxiliary handle and provide damping property. ([0006] of Eicher).
Claims 8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in further view of Dixon et al. (US 20130286635 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nybacka discloses orbital tool (Fig. 1a), comprising:
a tool housing (600) including a motor housing portion (inside shell surrounding motor 400; Fig. 4);
a motor (400) disposed in the motor housing portion (Fig. 1a) and including a motor shaft (101), wherein the motor is adapted to selectively cause the motor shaft to rotate in either of first and second rotational directions ([0023], [0047]-[0048], and claim 11);
a balancer (102) operably coupled to the motor shaft (101); an output shaft (201) disposed in the balancer (102); and the balancer (102) at an output end (Proximate 300; Fig. 1a and 4)
a sprag clutch (locking member 202, 203; described as a one-way switch, a latch, a clutch, a bearing, a clutch bearing, a one-way bearing, a one-way clutch; [0028]) disposed in the balancer (102) and operably coupled to the output shaft (201), wherein the sprag clutch (locking member 202, 203) is adapted to allow rotation of the output shaft (201) relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft (101) is rotated in the first rotational direction (First motor direction, lock disengaged; bearing 203 enables member 201 to spin about its own axis-random orbital mode; [0024]-[0025], [0027]-[0028] and [0034]), and prevent rotation of the output shaft (201) relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft is rotated in the second rotational direction (second direction: lock engaged, latch 202 locks 201 to balancer 102 so free spinning is prevented-rotating eccentric mode; [0026]-[0028] and [0035]).
Nybacka does not expressly recite
that it’s one way clutch is “a sprag clutch”.
a tool housing including a motor housing portion and an output assembly housing coupled to the motor housing portion; a motor disposed in the motor housing portion; and a balancer disposed in the output assembly housing.
a nose housing coupled to the output assembly housing and including a circuit board with an illumination element, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the nose housing and on an exterior surface of the output assembly housing
Regarding (A), Curtiss teaches that a sprag clutch is a known equivalent species of one-way/overrunning clutch for coupling a motor to a shaft in a handheld power tool (Col 2 lines 8-12; “The free-wheeling clutch portion of the clutch mechanism may be a sprag-type clutch or one of a number of other one-way or free-wheeling type devices intended to be mounted concentrically between a drive and driven element”).
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 power tool of Nybacka by substituting a one-way clutch of Nybacka with the known sprag type clutch as taught by Curtiss. Both are well known one-way/overrunning clutch mechanisms that perform the identical function of locking in one rotational direction and releasing/freewheeling in the opposite direction. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution would have been a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to achieve the predictable result of direction-dependent mode switching in an orbital sander. Nybacka already provides the motivation to switch modes by reversing the motor direction.
Regarding (B) and (C), Dixon teaches a tool housing (122; Fig. 15) including a motor housing portion (122; ) and an output assembly housing (123; “narrow diameter nosepiece”) coupled to the motor housing portion (122; [0075]); a motor (32) disposed in the motor housing portion ([0042]); A nose housing (140) coupled to the output assembly housing (123; [0075]-[0076]) and including a circuit board (PCB, 160) with an illumination element (138 and/or 184; [0071], [0075]-[0079]), wherein the circuit board (PCB, 160) is disposed in the nose housing (140) and on an exterior surface of the output assembly housing (123; Fig. 19). Note; Nybacka already teaches the balancer (102) at the output end. Dixon provides the output assembly housing (123) coupled to a motor housing portion (122) and enclosing the output drive (Fig. 15-19)
Therefore, 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 tool of Nybacka as modified by incorporating a tool housing including a motor housing portion and an output assembly housing coupled to the motor housing portion; a motor disposed in the motor housing portion, a nose housing coupled to the output assembly housing and including a circuit board with an illumination element, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the nose housing and on an exterior surface of the output assembly housing as taught by Dixon in order to illuminate at least a portion of the workpiece that is machined or worked on by the power tool so the user that adequately see the workpiece area even in substandard light conditions ([0004] and [0039]-[0040]) and to protect such lighting feature from the adverse environmental conditions ([0005]). Using a known light ring on hand-held power tool improves a similar device in the same way and applying a known two-part housing and work light package of the output end of a similar hand-tool yields a predictable result since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising a backing pad (300 of Nybacka) coupled to the output shaft (Fig. 1a of Nybacka).
Claims 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in view of Dixon et al. (US 20130286635 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nybacka as modified discloses orbital tool (Fig. 1a), according to claim 8 but is silent regarding wherein a handle having handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 90 degrees to 120 degrees relative to the motor housing longitudinal axis.
Neuhoff teaches a tool housing (14) including a motor housing portion (18; [0046]) with a motor housing longitudinal axis (axis 62) and a handle housing portion (16) with a handle housing longitudinal axis (63; [0042]), wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis (63) is disposed at an angle (angle α′) relative to a motor housing longitudinal axis (62), the angle being of about 90 degrees to 120 degrees ([0047]; “Further, in a particular embodiment, A1 may be an oblique angle that is greater than 90 degrees. For example, A1 may be greater than or equal to 91 degrees, greater than or equal to 92 degrees, greater than or equal to 93 degrees, greater than or equal to 94 degrees, or greater than or equal to 95 degrees. In another embodiment, A1 may be less than or equal to 105 degrees” which falls in the range of 90-120 degree and therefore meets the limitation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nybacka as modified by incorporating a handle housing portion with a handle housing longitudinal axis, wherein the handle housing longitudinal axis is disposed at an angle of about 90 degrees to 120 degrees relative to a motor housing longitudinal axis, as suggested by Neuhoff, in order to reduce user fatigue and/or stress during periods of extended use, and give the user extra ground clearance from the workpiece and a comfortable grip ([0048], [0081] of Neuhoff).
Regarding claim 10, Nybacka discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 8 including the balancer (102; [0020]) but is silent regarding a counterbalance coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer.
Neuhoff teaches that it is old and well known to provide a counterbalance (73, having part 73a and 73b; [0050]-[0053]) coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer (the counterweight 73 surrounds the outer cylindrical surface of eccentric carrier 66, with its arms extending long its outside, and the second part sits over the top; Figs 2D-2M, 2J-2K [0050]-[0054]).
Therefore, 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 tool of Nybacka by incorporating a counterbalance (counterweights) to exterior surface of the balancer as taught by Neuhoff in order to balance the rotational movement of the eccentric carrier as the drive shaft rotates ([0050]) and provide static and dynamic balance within a compact space inside the sander ([0050]-[0052]. Attaching counterweights to the exterior surface of the orbiting had assembly (balancer) was a routine, well-known technique in the same field of orbitals to minimize vibration caused by eccentric motion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply this known counterweight attachment to Nybacka to achieve even better control, which is a predictable result.
Regarding claim 11, Nybacka discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 10 including counterbalance coupled to the balancer as modified above but is silent regarding the counterbalance is coupled to the balancer via a keyed engagement.
Neuhoff in a related invention teaches coupling counterbalance (73a, 73b) via keyed engagement ([0053]-[0054]).
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 coupling of the counterbalance to the balancer of Nybacka by incorporating a keyed engagement coupling means as evidenced by Neuhoff to ensure that the counterweight is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components ([0053]). Additionally, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have keyed engagement as a coupling means to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known technique on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any coupling means.
Regarding claim 12, Nybacka as modified discloses the keyed engagement as rejected in claim 11 above including the use of keys ([0053]; “can include a keyway on or near the cylindrical hub portion to mate the second counterweight part 73b with the first counterweight part 73a such that the static (first counterweight part 73a) and dynamic (second counterweight part 73b) are opposed properly. The use of the key allows the first counterweight parts 73a, 73b to be eccentricity incorporated to form the counterweight 73 hub using a create poka-yoke assembly to ensure that the counterweight 73 is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components”) but is silent with regards to the details of a key disposed in corresponding grooves of the balancer and the counterbalance.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Nybacka so that the keyed engagement between the counterbalance and the balancer part is a key disposed in corresponding groves of the balance part and counterbalance. This applies to the key and keyway connection that Neuhoff uses for its counterweight to the balancer connection. This ensures that the counterweight is always positioned correctly relative to the eccentric components. A key seated in mating grooves is a conventional alternative to a double flat connection for fixing angular positions and substituting it yields predictable results.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in view of Dixon et al. (US 20130286635 A1) as applied to claim 8 above as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Eicher et al. (US 20090038818 A1).
Regarding claim 13 Nybacka as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 8.
However, Eicher as modified does not disclose an auxiliary handle adapted to be coupled to the tool.
Eicher teaches that it is old and well known to provide an auxiliary handle (10a) adapted to be coupled to the tool (12a; Fig. 1).
Therefore 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 tool of Nybacka as modified by incorporating an auxiliary handle as taught by Eicher in order to allow for an operator to guide hand-held power tools using the auxiliary handle and provide damping property. ([0006] of Eicher).
Claims 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in further view of Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Nybacka discloses orbital tool (Figs. 1b-4), comprising:
a housing (Implicit; 600 and see [0041]);
a motor (400) disposed in the housing (Fig. 4) and including a motor shaft ([0020]; “motor driven shaft”), wherein the motor is adapted to rotate in either of first and second rotational directions ([0020]; “The shaft is drivable by a motor in two operational directions” see also [0023]);
a balancer (102) including a balance shaft (101) operably coupled to the motor shaft (“shaft 101 is arranged to conjoin with the motor 400 axle” [0046]); and
an output shaft (201) disposed in the balancer (102)
a sprag clutch (202) disposed in the balancer (102) and operably coupled to the output shaft (201), wherein the sprag clutch (202) is adapted to allow rotation of the output shaft (201) relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft is rotated in the first rotational direction, and prevent rotation of the output shaft relative to the balancer (102) when the motor shaft is rotated in the second rotational direction ([0026]-[0028] and [0045]).
Nybacka does not expressly recite
that it’s one way clutch is “a sprag clutch”.
a housing including a handle housing portion and;
a first bearing disposed on an exterior surface of the balancer shaft and a counterbalance disposed on the exterior surface of the balancer shaft between the first bearing and the motor.
Curtiss teaches that a sprag clutch is a known equivalent species of one-way/overrunning clutch for coupling a motor to a shaft in a handheld power tool (Col 2 lines 8-12; “The free-wheeling clutch portion of the clutch mechanism may be a sprag-type clutch or one of a number of other one-way or free-wheeling type devices intended to be mounted concentrically between a drive and driven element”).
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 power tool of Nybacka by substituting a one-way clutch of Nybacka with the known sprag type clutch as taught by Curtiss. Both are well known one-way/overrunning clutch mechanisms that perform the identical function of locking in one rotational direction and releasing/freewheeling in the opposite direction. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the substitution would have been a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another to achieve the predictable result of direction-dependent mode switching in an orbital sander. Nybacka already provides the motivation to switch modes by reversing the motor direction.
Neuhoff teaches a housing (14) including a handle housing portion (16); and a first bearing (74) disposed on an exterior surface of the balancer shaft (68 and/or 70) and a counterbalance (73) disposed on the exterior surface of the balancer shaft (68 and/or 70) between the first bearing (74) and the motor (58; Fig. 3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nybacka as modified by incorporating a housing including a handle housing portion and; a first bearing disposed on an exterior surface of the balancer shaft and a counterbalance disposed on the exterior surface of the balancer shaft between the first bearing and the motor, as suggested by Neuhoff, in order to balance the rotational movement of the eccentric carrier as the drive shaft rotates ([0050]) and provide static and dynamic balance within a compact space inside the sander ([0050]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 16, further comprising a second bearing (203 of Nybacka) disposed in the balancer and operably coupled to the output shaft (201; Fig. 1a and 4 of Nybacka).
Regarding claim 18, further comprising a backing pad (300 of Nybacka) coupled to the output shaft (201 of Nybacka).
Regarding claim 20, further comprising a direction selector switch operably coupled to the motor and actuatable to select either of the first and second rotational directions ([0047] “mechanism for activating a selected operation mode by a user…. Generally any existing lever or alike controller may be utilized. A lever may be triple-clicked in order to change an operation mode” see also [0023], [0048], [0018] and claim 11).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Eicher et al. (US 20090038818 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Nybacka as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 15 but is silent regarding an auxiliary handle adapted to be coupled to the tool.
Eicher teaches that it is old and well known to provide an auxiliary handle (10a) adapted to be coupled to the tool (12a; Fig. 1).
Therefore 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 tool of Nybacka as modified by incorporating an auxiliary handle as taught by Eicher in order to allow for an operator to guide hand-held power tools using the auxiliary handle and provide damping property. ([0006] of Eicher).
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nybacka et al. (US 20190283202 A1) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Ahmad et al. (US 20220168863 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Nybacka as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 15 but is silent regarding a trigger operably coupled to the motor, wherein actuation of the trigger is adapted to cause power to be supplied to the motor.
Ahmad teaches that it is old and well known to provide a trigger (38) operably coupled to the motor, wherein actuation of the trigger is adapted to cause power to be supplied to the motor ([0015], [0017]).
Therefore, 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 tool of Sogge as modified by incorporating a trigger to cause power to be supplied to the motor as taught by Ahmad in order to allow for an operator to selectively activate the motor of the tool. ([0015] of Ahmad).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. 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.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
