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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: “removeably” should be spelled “removably” and “coupleable” should be spelled “couplable.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 objected to because of the following informalities: “removeably” should be spelled “removably” and “coupleable” should be spelled “couplable.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the centerpost receiving feature” in line 1 and the limitation “the backup pad mating feature” in line 2 There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the centerpost receiving feature” was assumed to be “a centerpost receiving feature,” and “the backup pad mating feature” was assumed to be “a backup pad mating feature.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the centerpost receiving feature” in line 1 and the limitation “the backup pad mating feature” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of examination, “the centerpost receiving feature” was assumed to be “a centerpost receiving feature,” and “the backup pad mating feature” was assumed to be “a backup pad mating feature.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a cavity" in line 2, the limitation “a cavity” was previously claimed in claim 1, from which it depends. Each limitation should only be used once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a cavity” in claim 7 was assumed to be “a second cavity.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a cavity" in line 2, the limitation “a cavity” was previously claimed in claim 1, from which it depends. Each limitation should only be used once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a cavity” in claim 8 was assumed to be “a second cavity.”
Claim 16 recites the limitation "a centerpost receiving feature" in line 2, the limitation “a centerpost receiving feature” was previously claimed in claim 13, from which it depends. Each limitation should only be used once in the claims. For the purpose of examination, “a centerpost receiving feature” in claim 8 was assumed to be “the centerpost receiving feature.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 26, 30-31, and 36-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 26 and 30 depend from canceled claim 21, while claims 31 and 36-37 depend on claim 30 and are thus also dependent on canceled claim 21. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination, it was assumed that claim 26 was dependent on claim 23 and that claim 30 was dependent on claim 22.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, 13, 16-17, 19, 22-23, 26, 30-31, 36-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce US 20030126729 A1 in view of Weber DE 4020461 C1.
PNG
media_image1.png
360
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pierce Figure 3, annotated (herein annotated figure 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
251
435
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pierce Figure 3
Regarding claim 1, Pierce teaches a backup pad assembly (20) comprising: a backup pad (40) with a cavity (see annotated figure 1); a centerpost (35) that is coupleable to the backup pad (40); and wherein the backup pad (40) is configured to couple to a tool (10) with the centerpost (35).
Pierce does not teach that the tool is operable without the centerpost.
PNG
media_image3.png
183
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Weber Figure 1
However, in a related device, Weber teaches a backup pad (10) with a centerpost (18) attached to the backup pad (10) so that an abrasive pad (14) is flush with the underside of the backup pad (10). Weber further teaches that the nut (20) may optionally secure the abrasive pad (14) to the backup pad (10), and that the nut (20) and its connection to the centerpost (18) is not necessary to operation, such that the hook and loop system (12) can hold the abrasive (14) to the backup pad (10) on its own (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 16-18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, that the centerpost attachment free setup of Weber would apply to the similar hook and loop apparatus of Pierce, making Pierce operable in a centerpost or centerpost free configuration thereby increasing the versatility of the apparatus. Furthermore, Piece would function normally and predictably when operated according to the teaching of Weber.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches a fastener (64 of Pierce) that fits within the cavity (see annotated figure 1 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the backup pad (40 of Pierce) comprises a centerpost receiving feature (47 of Pierce) that receives a corresponding backup pad mating feature (see annotated figure 1 of Pierce) of the centerpost (35 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the backup pad (40 of Pierce) comprises a driveshaft attachment mechanism (50 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the centerpost receiving feature (47 of Pierce) is a protrusion (see annotated figure 1 of Pierce) and the backup pad mating feature (see annotated figure 1 of Pierce) comprises a second cavity (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce, to couple with a protrusion in a snap lock, the backup pad mating feature must include a cavity).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the centerpost (35 is removably couplable (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce) to the backup pad (40 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches a method of converting a backup pad assembly from a centerpost-free configuration to a centerpost configuration (para 19, ln 14-18), the method comprising: coupling a centerpost (35) to a backup pad (40) (para 19, ln 14-18),
wherein the centerpost (35) has a backup pad connecting feature (para 19, ln 14-18) that couples to a centerpost receiving feature (47) of the backup pad (40);
applying an abrasive article (32) to an attachment surface (31) of the backup pad (40); and wherein the backup pad (40) is coupled to a drive shaft (62) of a powered tool (10 of Pierce), and wherein the backup pad (40) is operable, coupled to the powered tool (10 of Pierce), in a centerpost configuration.
Pierce does not teach that the tool is operable without the centerpost.
However, in a related device, Weber teaches a backup pad (10) with a centerpost (18) attached to the backup pad (10) so that it is flush with the underside of the backup pad (10). Weber further teaches that the nut (20) may optionally secure the abrasive pad (14) to the backup pad (10), and that the nut (20) and its connection to the centerpost (18) is not necessary to operation (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 16-18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, that the centerpost attachment free setup of Weber would apply to the apparatus of Pierce, making Pierce operable in a centerpost or centerpost free configuration. Furthermore, Piece would function normally and predictably when operated according to the teaching of Weber.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the backup pad (40 of Pierce) comprises the centerpost receiving feature (47 of Pierce) that receives a corresponding backup pad mating feature (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce) of the centerpost (35 of Pierce), and wherein uncoupling the centerpost (35 of Pierce) comprises uncoupling the backup pad mating feature (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce) from the centerpost receiving feature (47 of Pierce) (para 23, ln 9-11 of Pierce).
PNG
media_image4.png
252
556
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pierce Figure 2, cropped and annotated (herein annotated figure 2)
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the centerpost (35 of Pierce) comprises a feature (see annotated figure 2 of Pierce), and wherein the feature (see annotated figure 2 of Pierce) is angled with respect to a planar surface of the centerpost (35 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the feature (see annotated figure 2 of Pierce) is at an acute angle with respect to the planar surface such that an effective diameter of the centerpost (35 of Pierce) at an end of the feature opposite the planar surface is wider than a centerpost (35 of Pierce) diameter at the planar surface.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches backup pad kit (20) comprising: a backup pad (40) comprising a drive shaft receiving feature (44) configured to mount the backup pad (40) on a drive shaft (62) of a tool (10), an abrasive article connector (31) configured to couple an abrasive article (32) to the backup pad (40); a centerpost (35) comprising a backup pad connecting feature (see “backup pad mating feature” in annotated figure 1) configured to couple the centerpost (35) to the backup pad (40); and wherein the backup pad (40) is configured to operate in a centerpost configuration, such that the backup pad (40) is coupled to both the drive shaft (62) and the centerpost (40).
Pierce does not teach that the tool is operable without the centerpost.
However, in a related device, Weber teaches a backup pad (10) with a centerpost (18) attached to the backup pad (10) so that it is flush with the underside of the backup pad (10). Weber further teaches that the nut (20) may optionally secure the abrasive pad (14) to the backup pad (10), and that the nut (20) and its connection to the centerpost (18) is not necessary to operation (English Translation, pg. 3, ln 16-18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, that the centerpost attachment free setup of Weber would apply to the apparatus of Pierce, making Pierce operable in a centerpost or centerpost free configuration in which the backup pad is free of a coupling to the centerpost. Furthermore, Piece would function normally and predictably when operated according to the teaching of Weber.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches a fastener (64 of Pierce) that fits within a cavity (see annotated figure 1 of Pierce) of the backup pad (40 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the fastener (64 of Pierce) comprises a driveshaft attachment mechanism (50 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the centerpost (53 of Pierce) is removably couplable (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce) to the backup pad (40 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the coupling (47 of Pierce) comprises a snap (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the coupling (47 of Pierce) is a toolless coupling (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the coupling (47 of Pierce) is adhesive free (para 19, ln 14-18 of Pierce).
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pierce US 20030126729 A1 in view of Weber DE 4020461 C1 as applied to claims 1 and 13 above in further view of Zulauf et al. US 20190255678 A1 (herein Zulauf).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pierce and Weber teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
The combination of Pierce and Weber does not teach the centerpost comprising a protrusion and the backup pad a second cavity.
PNG
media_image5.png
437
315
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zulauf Figure 2
However in a related device, Zulauf teaches a backup pad (14) with a centerpost (18) comprising a centerpost receiving feature (52) which is a cavity, and a backup pad mating feature (50) which is a protrusion. Zulauf further teaches that the protrusions advantageously center the centerpost and act as an anti-rotation feature (para 48 ln 4-5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the protrusions and corresponding mating features of Zulauf to the backup pad of Pierce to advantageously aid in centering the centerpost and preventing rotation (para 48 ln 4-5). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image6.png
153
370
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Pierce Figure 6A, annotated
Regarding claim 11, Pierce teaches the limitations of claim 1 as claimed.
Pierce does not teach the centerpost comprising a wedge.
However in a related device, Zulauf teaches a wedge component (see annotated figure) configured to be fastened in place such that, on a first side, the wedge contacts a centerpost (18) and, on a second side, the wedge (see annotated figure) contacts a backup pad (14). Zulauf further teaches that this wedge component is a portion of a feature designed to advantageously prevent rotation between the backup pad and centerpost (para 23, ln 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the wedges of Zulauf to the centerpost of Pierce to advantageously prevent rotation between the backup pad and centerpost. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, Pierce teaches the limitations of claim 16 as claimed.
Pierce does not teach the centerpost comprising a wedge.
Regarding claim 20, a wedge component (see annotated figure) configured to be fastened in place such that, on a first side, the wedge (see annotated figure ) contacts the centerpost (18) and, on a second side, the wedge (see annotated figure ) contacts the backup pad (14). Zulauf further teaches that this wedge component is a portion of a feature designed to advantageously prevent rotation between the backup pad and centerpost (para 23, ln 1-2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, prior to filing date of instant application, to apply the wedges of Zulauf to the centerpost of Pierce to advantageously prevent rotation between the backup pad and centerpost. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights