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 03/04/2024.
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 about 90 degrees to 120 degrees 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.
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).
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), and in further view of Servais et al. (US 20240173822 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sogge discloses orbital tool (Col 1 lines 8-20), comprising:
a tool housing (Fig. 1);
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 (22 and/or 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.
Sogge as modified does not disclose a nose housing including an illumination element and coupled to the tool housing.
Servais in a related invention teaches an orbital tool (Figs. 1, 21, and 40) having a nose housing including an illumination element (24 and/or 812) and coupled to the tool housing (Figs. 1 and 38; [0101], and [0161]-[0162]).
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 illumination element as taught by Servais in order to illuminate at least a portion of the workpiece in front of the sanding pad. ([0009] of Servais). 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 the illumination element on the nose housing, 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. Servais in Paragraph ([0101]) teaches some or all of which may be LED work lights, may be positioned in various locations on the sander 10.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the tool housing includes a motor housing portion with a motor housing longitudinal axis and 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 the motor housing longitudinal axis (See Annotated Fig. 2 above of Sogge).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A) and Servais et al. (US 20240173822 A1), and in further view of Lampka (US 20090209182 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 8 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 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sogge (US 3364625 A) in view of Curtiss (US 4232414 A), Lampka (US 20090209182 A1) and Servais et al. (US 20240173822 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Neuhoff et al. (US 20240009795 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sogge as modified 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]).
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 11 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Sogge as modified discloses the keyed engagement as rejected in claim 11 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 12 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 13 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 Servais et al. (US 20240173822 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Eicher et al. (US 20090038818 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 8.
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 14 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 Servais et al. (US 20240173822 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Geiser et al. (US 20090239451 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sogge as modified discloses essentially the claimed elements according to claim 8 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).
Claims 15-17 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 Lampka (US 20090209182 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”);
a balancer (102) operably coupled to the motor shaft ([0020]-[0023]); an output shaft (201) disposed in the balancer (Fig. 1a); and
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]).
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.
Sogge as modified does not disclose a counterbalance coupled to an exterior surface of the balancer and a handle housing portion.
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), and a handle housing portion (14).
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) and handle housing portion as taught by Lampka in order to further minimize undesirable vibration, and stability for an operator to guide hand-held power tools. 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.
Regarding claim 16, further comprising a bearing (203 of Nybacka) disposed in the balancer (102 of Nybacka) and operably coupled to the output shaft (201; Fig. 1a and 4).
Regarding claim 17, Nybacka as modified discloses the claimed invention according claim 15, but does not disclose an auxiliary handle adapted to be coupled to the tool.
Lampka teaches that it is old and well known to provide an auxiliary handle (12) adapted to be coupled to the tool (10; Figs. 1-2).
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 Lampka in order to improve control, and stability for an operator to guide hand-held power tools by enabling a two-handed grip.
Regarding claim 18, further comprising a backing pad (300 of Nybacka) coupled to the output shaft (201 of Nybacka).
Regarding claim 19, further comprising a trigger (Examiner Notes that this is implicit because it is necessary to activate the motor) operably coupled to the motor (400), wherein actuation of the trigger is adapted to cause power to be supplied to the motor (Examiner Notes that this is implicit because it is necessary to activate the motor).
However, Lampka further teaches a trigger (16) wherein actuation of the trigger is adapted to cause power to be supplied to the motor ([0039]).
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 trigger as taught by Lampka in order to provide power to rotary tool ([0039]).
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”).
Conclusion
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731