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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/3/2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooksey et al. (US PGPUB 20160016285), hereinafter Cooksey.
Regarding claim 1, Cooksey teaches an angle grinder (fig. 1) comprising:
a motor housing (fig. 2, motor housing 114);
a motor supported within the motor housing [0015];
a spindle (output shaft 122) oriented transverse to the motor (the output shaft is oriented transverse to at least a portion of the motor including being oriented transverse to an axis that extends along the longitudinal direction of the motor housing) and configured to receive torque therefrom, causing the spindle to rotate [0015];
a spindle housing from which the spindle extends (fig. 2, gear case 118, [0015]);
a guard coupled to the spindle housing (figs. 1-2, guard 146) and including a shroud that at least partially surrounds the spindle (fig. 1) and an attached grinding disc coupled to the spindle (fig. 1), an orientation of the guard being adjustable relative to the spindle housing by rotating the guard about a rotational axis of the spindle (fig. 4a-4e); and
a locking mechanism (latch plate 162) operable between a locking state, in which the guard is rotationally immovable relative to the spindle housing [0018], and a release state, in which the guard is rotatable about the rotational axis to adjust the orientation of the guard [0018],
PNG
media_image1.png
654
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the locking mechanism includes a lever (latch plate 162, being actuable [0018]) having a first actuation portion proximate a first side of the spindle housing (see annotated fig. 2 above, wherein the interpreted portion qualifies as a “first actuation portion”. The examiner recommends further structurally defining the “first actuation portion”) configured to be pressed by a user to adjust the locking mechanism from the locking state to the release state [0018], and a second actuation portion proximate a second side of the spindle housing (see annotated fig. 2 above, wherein the interpreted portion qualifies as a “second actuation portion”. The examiner recommends further structurally defining the “second actuation portion”) configured to be alternately pressed by the user to adjust the locking mechanism from the locking state to the release state [0018].
Regarding claim 2, Cooksey teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cooksey teaches wherein the first and second actuation portions are located on opposite ends of the lever (fig. 2, wherein the interpreted first and second actuation portions are located on opposite lateral ends of the lever).
Regarding claim 3, Cooksey teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cooksey teaches wherein the locking mechanism includes a spring configured to bias the lever into a first position coinciding with the locking state of the locking mechanism (fig. 2, spring 182, [0018]).
Regarding claim 5, Cooksey teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Cooksey teaches wherein the lever is pivotable from the first position (locked position wherein detent member is received in one of the apertures [0018]) toward a second position coinciding with the release state of the locking mechanism in response to the first actuation portion being pressed (the second position is interpreted as wherein force is applied to the first actuation portion to remove the detent from the aperture, wherein the second position coincides with the maximum displacement of the first actuation portion [0018]), and wherein the lever is pivotable from the first position (locked position wherein detent member is received in one of the apertures [0018]) toward a third position coinciding with the release state of the locking mechanism in response to the second actuation portion being pressed (the third position is interpreted as wherein force is applied to the second actuation portion to remove the detent from the aperture, wherein the displacement of the actuating portion 170 in the third position is slightly less than the displacement of the actuating portion in the second position).
Regarding claim 13, Cooksey teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Cooksey teaches wherein the lever includes a detent between the first actuation portion and the second actuation portion (detent member 174 located between the first actuation portion and the second actuation portion as interpreted above), wherein the locking mechanism further includes a plurality of recesses formed in the guard (apertures 155), and wherein the detent is engaged with one of the plurality of recesses when the locking mechanism is in the locking state [0018].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooksey et al. (US PGPUB 20160016285), hereinafter Cooksey, in view of Sugiura et al. (US PGPUB 20230119351), hereinafter Sugiura.
Regarding claim 4, Cooksey teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Cooksey does not explicitly teach wherein the spring is a first spring, and wherein the locking mechanism further includes a second spring configured to bias the lever into the first position, and wherein the first and second springs are individually compressible in response to the first and second actuation portions being pressed by the user.
However, Sugiura teaches an angle grinder, including utilizing two springs 68 to operationally support the structure 60, wherein the first and second springs are configured to bias the structure to the same position, wherein the first and second springs are individually compressible in response to actuation of the structure 60 (fig. 6, [0079-0080]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Cooksey to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura to provide wherein the spring is a first spring, and wherein the locking mechanism further includes a second spring configured to bias the lever into the first position, and wherein the first and second springs are individually compressible in response to the first and second actuation portions being pressed by the user.
Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Sugiura to provide two springs biasing the lever of Cooksey, wherein the first and second springs bias the lever to the locking position and wherein the first and second springs are individually compressible in response to the actuation portions being pressed by the user. Doing so would promote increased stability of the actuating lever of Cooksey. Additionally, doing so would promote longevity of the biasing function of the lever due to the inclusion of two springs.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Cooksey et al. (US PGPUB 20160016285), hereinafter Cooksey, is the closest prior art to the claimed invention but fails to teach or make obvious in combination with the additionally cited prior art the feature of wherein, in addition to pivoting movement, the lever also undergoes translating movement from the first position toward the third position as particularly claimed in combination with all other elements of claims 1, 3, 5 and 6.
Claims 7-12 are indicated as allowable for depending from claim 6.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US PGPUB 20070117499) teaches a locking lever similar to Cooksey.
Esenwein (US PGPUB 20090209184) teaches a pivoting lever similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights