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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CN202111192829 filed on 2021-10-13. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202111192829 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Additionally, no certified copies of other priority documents, application CN202311247654 filed on 2023-09-25 or PCT/CN2022/118810 2022-09-14, have been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/14/2024 and 01/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS’s are considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 9 & 10, claims generally recite relative measurements and relationships between structures while using relative and generally indefinite terminology as:
Claim 9, line 3: “a certain point on the central axis” (emphasis added)
Claim 9, line 4: “with a direction of a line between” (emphasis added)
Claim 10, line 2-3: “an endpoint of the first projection line near the outer edge” (emphasis added)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 & 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer (US 6758731 B2) in view of Sperl (US 20150083450 A1) and Robson et al. (US 7828630 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dutterer discloses a sander (element 10, fig. 1), comprising:
an airflow element (element 36, 38, fig. 3) rotatable about a central axis (element 14, fig. 3) along a preset direction of rotation to generate a dust removal airflow (col. 3, line 17-20; “a fan 36 for cooling the motor and for collecting dust”);
an electric motor (element 22, fig. 3) for providing a power source for the airflow element (col. 3, line 3-5; “Motor output shaft 24 is affixed to eccentric drive hub 26”; col. 3, line 17-18; “the eccentric drive hub 26 further includes a fan 36”); and
a power supply (element 60, fig. 3) for providing an energy source for the electric motor (col. 5, line 9-13; note, energy source (“power supply”, element 60) has multiple elements, for supplying power to motor);
However, Dutterer fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein, the power supply is a battery, and
when the sander is in a load-free state, a working duration of the sander when the battery pack consumes 10 W·h of energy is defined as a functional time T of the sander and a product of a load-free rotational speed N of the electric motor and the functional time T of the sander is greater than or equal to 63000 rpm·min and less than or equal to 120000 rpm·min.
Sperl teaches a sander (element 10, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 26, fig. 1) and a battery pack (element 36, fig. 1),
wherein, when the sander is in a load-free state, a load-free rotational speed N of the electric motor is in the range of 3000 rpm to 15000 rpm (para. [0042]).
Sperl further teaches “The battery-operated hand power tool according to the disclosure has the advantage of being particularly compact and powerful while, at the same time, being ergonomically easy to handle” (para. [0003]).
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 sander of Dutterer by incorporating the combination of a motor and a battery, as taught by the sander of Sperl. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the compactness and portability offered by a battery-operated power tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would further appreciate the range of rpm values offered by the battery and motor combination.
However, Dutterer modified, as modified above in view of Sperl, fails to explicitly teach sizing the battery and motor combination specifically for the work application.
Robson teaches a tool body, including in one embodiment, a sander (element 48, fig. 8) comprising an electric motor (element 22, fig. 1) and a battery pack (element 16, fig. 1).
Robson teaches “Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the choice of batteries for powering the tool (2) depends upon the work which the tool is required to undertake” (col. 2, line 32-35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the sander of Dutterer modified by incorporating the battery teachings of Robson. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the motor and battery to achieve a desired duration of run time or work performance, including configurations in which the recited performance relationships were met. As provided in the example described above and considering the lack of evidence of the criticality of this range and lack of unexpected results, the claimed work duration range is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the product of the load-free rotational speed N of the electric motor and the functional time T of the sander is greater than or equal to 77000 rpm·min and less than or equal to 110000 rpm·min (note, see rationale for claim 1 above).
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sander of Dutterer modified according to the claimed configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the motor and battery to achieve a desired duration of run time or work performance, including configurations in which the recited performance relationships were met. As provided in the example described above and considering the lack of evidence of the criticality of this range and lack of unexpected results, the claimed work duration range is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 1 in view of Sperl and Robson, in further view of Chen (US 20130137348 A1) .
Regarding claim 3, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
further comprising a housing (element 12, fig. 1) configured to accommodate the airflow element and guide the dust removal airflow generated by the airflow element (col. 3, line 23-27; “The fan additionally causes the air to swirl in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from the bottom in FIG. 4) within the fan cavity 44 which is formed in the second end 20 of housing assembly 12”), wherein the housing comprises an upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 3 below) and a lower sidewall opposite to the upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 3), a distance (see annotated fig. 3) from the lower sidewall to the upper sidewall along a direction of the central axis is defined as a third distance D3.
PNG
media_image1.png
571
709
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 3 but fails to teach:
the third distance D3 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation.
Chen teaches a dust collection hood (element 32, fig. 5) for a sander (element 1, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 1, fig. 1; note, since invention is directed to dust hood, both sander and electric motor labeled as element 1), an upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 5 below) and a lower sidewall (see annotated fig. 5),
wherein a third distance D3 (see annotated fig. 5) gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation (element 33, 35, fig. 4; note, see arrows which indicate direction of airflow as a result of direction of rotation).
Chen teaches “Incorporating with the airflow guiding portion 35 and dust collection cap 32, the dust generated during grinding at high speed or large area can be easily and smoothly discharged through the dust discharge port 34” (para. [0027]).
PNG
media_image2.png
411
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 sidewalls of Dutterer modified by incorporating taper of the sidewalls of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefit of improved airflow and dust removal of a sidewall structure, wherein the sidewalls gradually increase in distance, as taught in Chen.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 3 in view of Sperl, Robson, and Chen, with evidence provided by Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/science/spiral-mathematics).
Regarding claim 4, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 3 but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the upper sidewall comprises at least one connecting section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral direction.
However, as evident by definition of a spiral by Britannica, spirals are well known. In particular, the “two most famous spirals” are the Archimedean spiral and the logarithmic spiral. Further, Britannica defines an Archimedean spiral according to the equation “r = aθ, in which a is a constant, r is the length of the radius from the centre, or beginning, of the spiral, and θ is the angular position (amount of rotation) of the radius”.
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 upper sidewall of Dutterer modified by providing the gradual increase of the sidewall to satisfy an Archimedean spiral equation. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the viability of the Archimedean spiral as a design consideration in forming the sidewall. Further, considering the lack of evidence of a criticality in satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation and the lack of any unexpected results as a result of satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the gradually increasing sidewall geometry taught by Chen to function similarly to a sidewall geometry satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 4 in view of Sperl, Robson, and Chen, in further view of Fabritius (EP 0215476 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches:
wherein a guide wall (element 20, fig. 4) is formed on an inner wall (element 20, 44, fig. 4) of the housing, a distance from the guide wall to the central axis is defined as a first distance D1 (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
586
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 3 but fails to teach:
the first distance D1 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation, and the inner wall comprises at least a structural section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral equation along a plane perpendicular to the central axis
Fabritius teaches a sander (element 7, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (no element # given; para. [0006]; “ensures effective dust extraction even when the drive motor is not operated by compressed air”), a guide wall (element 22, fig. 2; para. [0010]; “The radial fan 6 is arranged in the upper part of the bell 2, which is formed here from a cover part 21 and a side wall 22”), an inner wall (element 22, fig. 2; see annotated fig. 2 below) and a central axis (element 73, fig. 2; note, central axis defined by center of “output shaft” (element 73)),
wherein the first distance D1 (see annotated fig. 2) gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation, and the inner wall comprises at least a structural section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral equation along a plane perpendicular to the central axis.
Fabritius teaches “conveyance of the air-particle flow from the interior 83 of the bell into the dust discharge duct 23 is supported by the spirally expanding configuration of the side wall 22” (para. [0013]). Fabritius further teaches this fan arrangement and structure offers “high efficiency of the fan and thus a very effective dust extraction” (para. [0006]).
PNG
media_image4.png
663
619
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 guide wall of Dutterer modified by providing a gradual increase of the guide wall to satisfy an Archimedean spiral equation for the high fan efficiency and very effective dust extraction described by Fabritius above. .
Regarding claim 6, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 but fails to teach:
wherein a farthest end of the airflow element from the central axis forms a circle when the airflow element rotates about the central axis along the preset direction of rotation, a guide wall is formed on an inner wall of the housing, a distance from the guide wall to the circle is defined as a second distance D2, the second distance D2 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation, and the inner wall comprises at least a structural section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral equation along a plane perpendicular to the central axis.
Fabritius teaches a sander (element 7, fig. 1),
wherein a farthest end of the airflow element from the central axis forms a circle (element 6, fig. 2; para. [0010]; “radial fan 6”) when the airflow element rotates about the central axis along the preset direction of rotation, a guide wall (element 22, fig. 2; para. [0010]; “The radial fan 6 is arranged in the upper part of the bell 2, which is formed here from a cover part 21 and a side wall 22”) is formed on an inner wall (element 22, fig. 2; see annotated fig. 2) of the housing, a distance from the guide wall to the circle is defined as a second distance D2 (see annotated fig. 2), the second distance D2 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation (claim 2; “the interior (83) of the upper part (21, 22) of the bell (2) widens spirally”; “the dust discharge duct (23) in the region of the largest spiral radius in the direction of rotation of the fan (6)”), and the inner wall comprises at least a structural section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral equation along a plane perpendicular to the central axis.
Fabritius teaches “conveyance of the air-particle flow from the interior 83 of the bell into the dust discharge duct 23 is supported by the spirally expanding configuration of the side wall 22” (para. [0013]). Fabritius further teaches this fan arrangement and structure offers “high efficiency of the fan and thus a very effective dust extraction” (para. [0006]).
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 inner wall of Dutterer modified by providing a gradual increase of the inner wall to satisfy an Archimedean spiral equation. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improved dust extraction and would understand the viability of the Archimedean spiral as a design consideration in forming the inner wall.
Regarding claim 7, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 4 and further teaches
wherein the airflow element comprises a bottom plate (element 38, fig. 3) rotatable around the central axis and a plurality of fan blade portions (element 40, fig. 3; col. 3, line 19-21; “Fan 36 has a disc portion 38 and a plurality of lower fan blades 40”) fixedly connected to or integrally formed with the bottom plate, wherein a fan blade portion (element 40, fig. 3) of the plurality of fan blade portions extends along a curve (col. 3, line 46-50; “The fan blades curve inwardly and are generally cupped in the direction of rotation as shown in FIG. 4. Other fan blade shapes can be utilized, such as a backward incline, backward curve, an airfoil forward curve, or a radial blade”).
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 4 but fails to teach:
an extension direction of the curve is opposite to the preset direction of rotation of the airflow element.
Fabritius teaches a sander (element 7, fig. 1) comprising a bottom plate (element 61, fig. 3), a plurality of fan blade portions (element 62, fig. 2), and a curve of a fan blade portion (see annotated fig. 3(a) below),
wherein an extension direction of the curve is opposite to the preset direction of rotation of the airflow element (para. [0013]; “the fan 6 has eight blades 62 which extend outwards and are bent backwards in the direction of rotation”).
Fabritius teaches the geometry of the fan blade portions provides for a “very effective air delivery” and that “a strong air flow is generated” (para. [0006]).
Dutterer teaches that, while it is preferred for the invention of Dutterer that the fan blades curve inwardly (the extension of the curve is aligned with the direction of rotation, see Fig 4, above), that other fan blade shapes can be utilized, including a backward curve (the extension of the curve is opposite the direction of rotation). Further, Dutterer teaches optimizing the fan blade configuration, taking into consideration efficiency, noise, and performance characteristics (col. 3, line 44-57).
PNG
media_image5.png
771
861
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 fan blade orientation Fig 4 of Dutterer modified by incorporating the backward blade curve described by Dutterer above, as a known configuration that would perform as intended.
Regarding claim 8, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 and further teaches:
wherein the airflow element comprises the bottom plate rotatable around the central axis, the plurality of fan blade portions are fixedly connected to or integrally formed with the bottom plate, a first fan blade surface and a second fan blade surface of the fan blade portion are defined (see annotated Fabritius fig. 3(a)), the first fan blade surface is disposed on a front side (see annotated fig. 3(a)) of the second fan blade surface along the preset direction of rotation, two opposite ends of the first fan blade surface and two opposite ends of the second fan blade surface separately merge into a front edge and a rear edge (see annotated fig. 3(a)), the front edge is away from the central axis relative to the rear edge, and an outer edge of the bottom plate at least partially contact with the front edge (see annotated fig. 3(a)).
Regarding claim 9, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 8 and further teaches:
further comprising an eccentric element (element 26, fig. 3; col. 3, line 3-6; “Motor output shaft 24 is affixed to eccentric drive hub 26”) driven by the electric motor, wherein the eccentric element has an axis deviating from the central axis (col. 3, line 3-8; “Motor output shaft 24 is affixed to eccentric drive hub 26 which has an output member 28 which is eccentrically offset from the motor central axis”) and a base plate (col. 3, line 8-11; “Interposed between the eccentric drive hub 26, drive member 28 and the sanding platen 30 is the bearing 34”) drivable by the electric motor.
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 9 but fails to explicitly teach:
a coordinate system is established with a certain point on the central axis as an origin with a direction of a line between the central axis and the axis as an X-axis and with a direction perpendicular to the direction of the line between the central axis and the axis as a Y-axis, a projection of the first fan blade surface on a plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis is defined as a first projection line, a tangent line at a position of the first projection line farthest from the central axis is defined as a first tangent line, in the plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis, a tangent line at an intersection of the outer edge of the bottom plate and the first projection line is defined as a second tangent line, and an included angle between the first tangent line and the second tangent line is greater than or equal to 20 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees.
Fabritius teaches a sander (element 7, fig. 1),
a coordinate system is established with a certain point on the central axis as an origin with a direction of a line between the central axis and the axis as an X-axis and with a direction perpendicular to the direction of the line between the central axis and the axis as a Y-axis, a projection of the first fan blade surface on a plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis is defined as a first projection line (see annotated fig. 3(b) below), a tangent line at a position of the first projection line farthest from the central axis is defined as a first tangent line, in the plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis (see annotated fig. 3(b)), a tangent line at an intersection of the outer edge of the bottom plate and the first projection line is defined as a second tangent line (see annotated fig. 3(b)), and an included angle between the first tangent line and the second tangent line (see annotated fig. 3(b)).
As previously mentioned, Dutterer teaches optimizing fan blade configuration (col. 3, line 44-57).
PNG
media_image6.png
626
609
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 fan blade orientation of Dutterer modified by incorporating the curved fan blade geometry of Fabritius. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improved efficiency and air flow/dust extraction characteristics, as taught by Fabritius.
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 9, but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein an included angle between the first tangent line and the second tangent line is greater than or equal to 20 degrees and less than or equal to 45 degrees.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the fan blade geometry of the Dutterer modified according to the claimed configuration. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improved efficiency and air flow/dust extraction characteristics, as taught by Fabritius. Further, considering the lack of evidence of the criticality in providing an included angle between the first tangent line and the second tangent line within the claimed range and the lack of unexpected results as a result of providing this angle within this range, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the fan blade geometry disclosed in Fabritius to function similarly to a fan blade geometry having an included angle within the claimed range.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 9 in view of Sperl, Robson, Chen, and Fabritius, in further view of Sugita et al. (US 9114500 B2).
Regarding claim 10, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 but fails to teach
wherein, in the plane formed by the X-axis and the Y-axis, an endpoint of the first projection line near the outer edge of the bottom plate is defined as A, an endpoint of the first projection line near the central axis is defined as B, and a ratio of a radius of the airflow element to a distance L1 between the endpoint A and the endpoint B of the first projection line is greater than or equal to 4 and less than or equal to 7.5.
Sugita teaches a sander (element 1, fig. 2) comprising an airflow element (element 9, fig. 2), an electric motor (element 30, fig. 2), a battery pack (element 40, fig. 2), a housing (element 2, fig. 2), and a plurality of fan blade portions (element 9c, d, e, f, fig. 2),
wherein the fan blade portions have a reduced length relative to the diameter of the airflow element (see annotated fig. 2 below).
Sugita teaches optimizing fan size and characteristics for desired performance. This includes, as shown in the figures, reducing blade length to accommodate structures (outer bearing retainer, element 20) and increasing or decreasing airflow element width for improved airflow or improved compactness respectively (col. 2, line 17-33)
PNG
media_image7.png
486
771
media_image7.png
Greyscale
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 fan blade orientation of Dutterer modified by incorporating the blade geometry of Sugita. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate modifying the fan blade geometry to accommodate other structures of the apparatus while maintaining desires air flow characteristics. Further, considering the lack of evidence of the criticality in providing a ratio of a radius of the airflow element to a distance L1 within the claimed range and the lack of unexpected results as a result of providing this ratio within this range, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the fan blade geometry disclosed in Sugita to function similarly to a fan blade geometry having a ratio of a radius of the airflow element to a distance L1 within the claimed range.
Claims 11 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer (US 6758731 B2) in view of Sperl (US 20150083450 A1), Fabritius (EP 0215476 A2), and Sugita et al. (US 9114500 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Dutterer discloses a sander (element 10, fig. 1), comprising:
an airflow element (element 36, 38, fig. 3) rotatable about a central axis (element 14, fig. 3) along a preset direction of rotation to generate a dust removal airflow (col. 3, line 17-20; “a fan 36 for cooling the motor and for collecting dust”);
an electric motor (element 22, fig. 3) for providing a power source for the airflow element (col. 3, line 3-5; “Motor output shaft 24 is affixed to eccentric drive hub 26”; col. 3, line 17-18; “the eccentric drive hub 26 further includes a fan 36”);
a power supply (element 60, fig. 3) for providing an energy source for the electric motor (col. 5, line 9-13; note, energy source (“power supply”, element 60) has multiple elements, for supplying power to motor); and
a housing (element 12, fig. 1) configured to accommodate the airflow element and guide the dust removal airflow generated by the airflow element (col. 3, line 23-27; “The fan additionally causes the air to swirl in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from the bottom in FIG. 4) within the fan cavity 44 which is formed in the second end 20 of housing assembly 12”);
wherein a guide wall (element 20, fig. 4) is formed on a back of the housing, a distance from the guide wall to the central axis is defined as a first distance D1 (see annotated fig. 4), an inner wall (element 20, 44, fig. 4) comprises a first end and a second end along a plane perpendicular to the central axis, the guide wall connects the first end to the second end (see annotated fig. 4).
Dutterer discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 11, but fails to disclose:
wherein the power supply is a battery pack;
wherein the first distance D1 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation; and
wherein a distance from the first end to the central axis is greater than or equal to 40 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
Sperl teaches a sander (element 10, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 26, fig. 1) and a battery pack (element 36, fig. 1),
Sperl teaches “The battery-operated hand power tool according to the disclosure has the advantage of being particularly compact and powerful while, at the same time, being ergonomically easy to handle” (para. [0003]).
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 sander of Dutterer by incorporating the battery of Sperl. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the compactness and portability offered by a battery-operated power tool.
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach:
wherein the first distance D1 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation; and
wherein a distance from the first end to the central axis is greater than or equal to 40 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
Fabritius teaches a sander (element 7, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (no element # given; para. [0006]; “ensures effective dust extraction even when the drive motor is not operated by compressed air”), a guide wall (element 22, fig. 2; para. [0010]; “The radial fan 6 is arranged in the upper part of the bell 2, which is formed here from a cover part 21 and a side wall 22”), an inner wall (element 22, fig. 2; see annotated fig. 2) and a central axis (element 73, fig. 2; note, central axis defined by center of “output shaft” (element 73)),
wherein the first distance D1 (see annotated fig. 2) gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation.
Fabritius teaches “conveyance of the air-particle flow from the interior 83 of the bell into the dust discharge duct 23 is supported by the spirally expanding configuration of the side wall 22” (para. [0013]). Fabritius further teaches this fan arrangement and structure offers “high efficiency of the fan and thus a very effective dust extraction” (para. [0006]).
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 guide wall of Dutterer modified by providing the guide wall as a spiral. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the improved dust extraction taught by Fabritius.
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 11, but fails to teach:
wherein a distance from the first end to the central axis is greater than or equal to 40 mm and less than or equal to 60 mm.
Sugita teaches a sander (element 1, fig. 2) comprising an airflow element (element 9, fig. 2), an electric motor (element 30, fig. 2), a battery pack (element 40, fig. 2), a housing (element 2, fig. 2), and a plurality of fan blade portions (element 9c, d, e, f, fig. 2).
Sugita teaches optimizing fan size and characteristics for desired performance. This includes, as shown in the figures, reducing blade length to accommodate structures (outer bearing retainer, element 20), and increasing or decreasing airflow element width for improved airflow or improved compactness respectively (col. 2, line 17-33).
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 airflow element and guide wall of Dutterer modified by incorporating the airflow element and fan blade geometries, as taught by Sugita. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the diameter of the airflow element within the cavity provided by the guide wall to optimize airflow efficiency or volume. Further, considering the lack of evidence of the criticality in providing a distance between the first end the central axis within the claimed range and the lack of unexpected results as a result of providing this distance within this range, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect airflow element structure in Fabritius to function indistinguishably from a fan blade geometry having a distance from the first end to the central axis within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 but fails to teach:
wherein a range of a product of weight of the airflow element and a square of an outer diameter of a centrifugal fan is greater than or equal to 3000 g·mm2 and less than or equal to 10000 g·mm2.
Sugita teaches a sander (element 1, fig. 2) comprising an airflow element (element 9, fig. 2), an electric motor (element 30, fig. 2), a battery pack (element 40, fig. 2), a housing (element 2, fig. 2), and a plurality of fan blade portions (element 9c, d, e, f, fig. 2).
Sugita teaches optimizing fan size and characteristics for desired performance. This includes, as shown in the figures, reducing blade length to accommodate structures (outer bearing retainer, element 20), and increasing or decreasing airflow element width for improved airflow or improved compactness respectively (col. 2, line 17-33).
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 airflow element and fan blade portions of Dutterer modified by incorporating the teachings of Sugita. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the airflow element and fan blade portions to optimize airflow efficiency or volume. Further, considering the lack of evidence of the criticality in providing a range of a product of weight of the airflow element and a square of an outer diameter of a centrifugal fan within the claimed range and the lack of unexpected results as a result of providing this ratio within this range, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect airflow element structure in Sugita to function indistinguishably from an airflow element having a range of a product of weight of the airflow element and a square of an outer diameter of a centrifugal fan within the claimed range.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 11 in view of Sperl, Fabritius, and Sugita, in further view of Esenwein (US 12370645 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 but fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the first end and the second end are provided with air outlets for dust removal and air exhaust and a ratio of a distance between the air outlets along the plane perpendicular to the central axis to a distance from the central axis to a farthest end of the airflow element is greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to 1.5.
Esenwein teaches a sander (element 10a, fig. 1) comprising an airflow element (element 66a, fig. 3), an electric motor (element 134a, fig. 3), a battery pack (element 138a, fig. 3), a housing (element 16a, fig. 3), a plurality of fan blade portions (element 66a, fig. 3), and a first and second end provided with air outlets (element 76a, 78a, fig. 6).
Esenwein teaches an angled air outlet for improving dust discharge and defining a main flow direction of the air through the ejection port (col. 21, line 7-13). Esenwein further teaches sizing the outlet relative to other dimensions of the sander to further optimize air flow (col. 23, line 66 – col. 24, line 16).
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 air outlet of Dutterer modified by incorporating the geometry of the airflow element and of the fan blade portions, as taught by Esenwein. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand to size the airflow element and the air outlets according to the claimed configuration to optimize airflow efficiency or volume. Further, considering the lack of evidence of the criticality in providing a ratio of a distance between the air outlets to a radius of the airflow element within the claimed range and the lack of unexpected results as a result of providing this ratio within this range, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect air outlet structure of Esenwein to function similarly to a fan blade geometry having a ratio of a distance between the air outlets to a radius of the airflow element within the claimed range.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer modified, as modified in claim 12 in view of Sperl, Fabritius, Sugita, and Esenwein, in further view of Chen (US 20130137348 A1), with evidence provided by Britannica.
Regarding claim 13, Dutterer modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 and further teaches:
wherein the housing comprises an upper sidewall and a lower sidewall opposite to the upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 3, above), a distance from the lower sidewall to the upper sidewall along a direction of the central axis is defined as a third distance D3 (see annotated fig. 3),
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, but fails to teach:
wherein a third distance D3 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation, and the upper sidewall comprises at least one connecting section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral direction.
Chen teaches a dust collection hood (element 32, fig. 5) for a sander (element 1, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 1, fig. 1; note, since invention is directed to dust hood, both sander and electric motor labeled as element 1), an upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 5) and a lower sidewall (see annotated fig. 5),
wherein a third distance D3 (see annotated fig. 5) gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation (element 33, 35, fig. 4; note, see arrows which indicate direction of airflow as a result of direction of rotation).
Chen teaches “Incorporating with the airflow guiding portion 35 and dust collection cap 32, the dust generated during grinding at high speed or large area can be easily and smoothly discharged through the dust discharge port 34” (para. [0027]).
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 sidewalls of Dutterer modified by incorporating the spiral of the sidewalls of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefit of improved airflow and dust removal of a sidewall structure, wherein the sidewalls gradually increase in distance, as taught in Chen.
Dutterer modified teaches the aforementioned limitations of claim 13, but fails to teach:
wherein the upper sidewall comprises at least one connecting section that satisfies an Archimedean spiral direction.
However, as evident by definition of a spiral by Britannica, spirals are well known. In particular, the “two most famous spirals” are the Archimedean spiral and the logarithmic spiral. Further, Britannica defines an Archimedean spiral according to the equation “r = aθ, in which a is a constant, r is the length of the radius from the centre, or beginning, of the spiral, and θ is the angular position (amount of rotation) of the radius”.
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 upper sidewall of Dutterer modified by providing the gradual increase of the sidewall to satisfy an Archimedean spiral equation. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the viability of the Archimedean spiral as a design consideration in forming the sidewall. Further, considering the lack of evidence of a criticality in satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation and the lack of any unexpected results as a result of satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation, the claimed structure is understood to be routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably expect the sidewall geometry disclosed in Chen to function indistinguishably to a sidewall geometry satisfying the Archimedean spiral equation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutterer (US 6758731 B2) in view of Sperl (US 20150083450 A1) and Chen (US 20130137348 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dutterer discloses a sander, comprising:
an airflow element (element 36, 38, fig. 3) rotatable about a central axis (element 14, fig. 3) along a preset direction of rotation to generate a dust removal airflow (col. 3, line 17-20; “a fan 36 for cooling the motor and for collecting dust”);
an electric motor (element 22, fig. 3) for providing a power source for the airflow element (col. 3, line 3-5; “Motor output shaft 24 is affixed to eccentric drive hub 26”; col. 3, line 17-18; “the eccentric drive hub 26 further includes a fan 36”);
a power supply (element 60, fig. 3) for providing an energy source for the electric motor (col. 5, line 9-13; note, energy source (“power supply”, element 60) has multiple elements, for supplying power to motor); and
a housing (element 12, fig. 1) configured to accommodate the airflow element and guide the dust removal airflow generated by the airflow element (col. 3, line 23-27; “The fan additionally causes the air to swirl in a counter-clockwise direction (when viewed from the bottom in FIG. 4) within the fan cavity 44 which is formed in the second end 20 of housing assembly 12”);
wherein the housing comprises an upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 3) and a lower sidewall opposite to the upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 3), a distance (see annotated fig. 3) from the lower sidewall to the upper sidewall along a direction of the central axis is defined as a third distance D3.
Dutterer discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 11, but fails to disclose:
wherein the power supply is a battery pack;
wherein the third distance D3 gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation.
Sperl teaches a sander (element 10, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 26, fig. 1) and a battery pack (element 36, fig. 1),
Sperl teaches “The battery-operated hand power tool according to the disclosure has the advantage of being particularly compact and powerful while, at the same time, being ergonomically easy to handle” (para. [0003]).
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 sander of Dutterer by incorporating the battery of Sperl. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the compactness and portability offered by a battery-operated power tool.
With regard to the third distance D3 gradually increasing along the preset direction of rotation, Chen teaches a dust collection hood (element 32, fig. 5) for a sander (element 1, fig. 1) comprising an electric motor (element 1, fig. 1; note, since invention is directed to dust hood, both sander and electric motor labeled as element 1), an upper sidewall (see annotated fig. 5) and a lower sidewall (see annotated fig. 5),
wherein a third distance D3 (see annotated fig. 5) gradually increases along the preset direction of rotation (element 33, 35, fig. 4; note, see arrows which indicate direction of airflow as a result of direction of rotation).
Chen teaches “Incorporating with the airflow guiding portion 35 and dust collection cap 32, the dust generated during grinding at high speed or large area can be easily and smoothly discharged through the dust discharge port 34” (para. [0027]).
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 sidewalls of Dutterer modified by incorporating taper of the sidewalls of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the benefit of improved airflow and dust removal of a sidewall structure, wherein the sidewalls gradually increase in distance, as taught in Chen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
King et al. (US 8172642 B2), Takata et al. (US 11872682 B2), Kuntheeya (US 11872668 B2), Lamprecht (GB 2322581 A), and Fisher et al. (US 10632589 B2) all disclose or otherwise teach relevant inventions to a sander having unique housing and airflow element configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEEGAN T MARTIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEEGAN T MARTIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights