DETAILED ACTION
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 action is in reply to the communications filed on 6/3/2026.
The Examiner notes claims 1, 3-6, & 8-11 are currently pending and have been examined; claim(s) 2 & 7 is/are canceled without prejudice, claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, & 11 is/are currently amended, and all other claims are original or previously presented.
Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
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 1, 3-6, & 8-11 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1
The claim states "wherein projections on a top of the grinding wheel extend through the extensions of the central opening.” It is unclear how the projections on the top of the grinding wheel can extend through the central hole which is also in the grinding wheel. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein projections on a top of the bottom flange extend through the extensions of the central opening.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, & 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by TAKEMURA et al. (JP 2010058177 A) in view of PARK (US 20180339400), hereinafter Takemura and Park, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Takemura discloses a grinding device [Fig 1], comprising: a grinding wheel [15] is a grinding wheel]; a hub attached to the grinding wheel [Fig 1; 20 is a hub attached to the grinding wheel], the hub movable relative to the grinding wheel in an axial direction of the hub [Fig 1; Abstract & Pg1:¶2 of the translation; 20 is moveable relative to 15 via the elastic bodies 31 & 32]; and a central opening in the grinding wheel for passage of the hub [Fig 1-2; Pg3:¶5 of the translation; 18 is a central opening in the grinding wheel which 20 passes through], the central opening having extensions [Fig 1-2; Pg3:¶5 of the translation; 18 is spline shaped and has extensions], wherein the hub comprises a bolt forming a top flange and body [Fig 1; Pg3:¶6 of the translation; 20 has a bolt (21) that has a top flange (23) and a body (26)] and a nut forming a bottom flange [Fig 1-2; Pg3:¶6 of the translation; 27 is a nut of 20 and has a bottom flange] releasably connected to the bolt [Fig 1-2; Pg3:¶6 of the translation; 27 is connected to 21 by the threads on 26], and wherein projections on a … flange extend through the extensions of the central opening [Fig 1-2; Pg3:¶6 of the translation; 25 are projections extending up from the flange (23).
Takemura may not explicitly disclose wherein projections on a top of the bottom flange extend through the extensions of the central opening.
However Park teaches a nut [Fig 4-5 & 7-8; 10] with projections on a top of the bottom flange [Fig 7-8; the projections form the cavities (14 & 17) and extend up from the bottom flange (the flat upward facing surface in 17 is the bottom flange)]extend through the extensions of the central opening [Fig 4-5; 10’s projections extend through the extensions (20) of the central opening of the grind wheel].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bolt and nut as disclosed by Takemura to reverse the projections being on the bolt to have the projections be on a top of the bottom flange of the nut as taught by Park as pursuant of MPEP 2144.04-VI-A, it has been held that mere reversal of parts has no patentable significance absent of new and unexpected results produced by the claimed invention as compared to the prior art, it considered to be matters of design/engineering choice which a person skilled in the art would have found obvious.
Regarding claim 4. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 1, further comprising a spring between the top flange and a top surface of the grinding wheel [Takemura: Fig 1; 31 is an elastic body and has a spring affect and is positioned between the top surface of the grinding wheel and the top flange].
Regarding claim 6. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 1, further comprising an abrasive surface [Takemura: 17] on a bottom surface of the grinding wheel [Fig 1].
Regarding claim 8. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 1, wherein the bolt has external threads mating with internal threads of the nut [Fig 1; Pg3:¶8 of the translation; the bolt has external thread (26) that mate with the internal threads (28) of the nut].
Regarding claim 9. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 8, wherein the bolt has internal threads configured to mate with a power tool [Fig 1; 22 of 21 mate with 12].
Claim(s) 3, 5, & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Takemura in view of Park further in view of Sumida et al. (US 20020066351); hereinafter Sumida
Regarding claim 3. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 1, wherein the grinding wheel is biased … with respect to the hub [Fig 1; the elastic bodies (31-32) bias the grinding wheel with respect to the hub].
Takemura as modified may not explicitly disclose wherein the grinding wheel is biased downwardly with respect to the hub.
Sumida teaches a hub [Fig 5-6; 1 & 9 comprise a hub] with an elastic body [17] on one side of the hub [Fig 5-6] and can therefore bias the grinding wheel downwardly with respect to the hub.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elastic bodies as taught by Takemura as modified to have the grinding wheel be biased downwardly with respect to the hub as taught by Sumida as pursuant of MPEP 2143(E), choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: up, down or both. Therefore, since modifying the elastic bodies of Takemura as modified to have a downwardly biasing affect can be made without any change in the operation of the hub of Takemura as modified to reduce vibrations; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to have an elastic body on only one side of the hub [Sumida: Fig 5-6] there will be reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 10. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 1, wherein the hub is biased downwardly with respect to the hub by a bias member, and wherein a top end of the bias member is fixed with respect to the hub and a bottom end of the bias member bears against the grinding wheel [Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3 as 17 of Sumida can be fixed with respect to the hub and bears against the grinding wheel as taught by Takemura as modified].
Regarding claim 5 & 11. Takemura as modified teaches the grinding device of claim 4, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the spring is a wave spring.
However Sumida further teaches that the elastic bodies can be a wave spring [Fig 5-6; ¶29; 17 is an elastic material in a wave spring shape]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace elastic bodies (O-ring) as taught by Takemura as modified with the elastic bodies (wave spring) as disclosed by Sumida as a simple substitution of a known element to produce predictable result of alternative elastic bodies.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Applicant's amendments and arguments, see Pages 5, filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4/7/2026 are withdrawn. However new rejections have arisen due to the amendments.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, see above for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Applicant's 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 EST].
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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights