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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-12 are pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11 are currently amended. Claim 12 is new.
Claim Objections
In claim 1 consider -- and the radial extraction channel opens into one of the peripheral air intake openings--
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“fastening device” in claim 8, corresponding to fastening device 32.
Furthermore, the following limitations, incorporating the term “means” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“fastening means” in claim 1, and 11, described as “adhesive layer in the form of the hook and loop closure” (spec page 6 lines 1-11)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes the other recitations incorporating the word “means”, is not interpreted under section 112(f) because “a grinding means” is provided with explicit structure in the form of an abrasion layer in claim 1, is functional in terms of what the apparatus is attached to in claim 1, and is provided with a structure in claim 11 as an abrading disk; “means of a dust extraction device” is , is functional in terms of what the apparatus is attached to/interfaced with in claim 1; “means of a channel-shaped section” in claim 6 is sufficiently descriptive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randecker (EP 3187305 A2) and further in view of Nied (DE 9002801 U1).
PNG
media_image1.png
349
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2 (Randecker)
PNG
media_image2.png
507
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 5 (Randecker)
With respect to claim 1, Randecker discloses: A grinding disc for a grinding device (30, fig. 2; [0065]) comprising a fastening interface (33, fig. 2; [0067]) formed on a device side (top side of fig. 2) of the grinding disc facing the grinding device (10, fig. 1; [0061]), wherein the fastening interface is formed for rotationally fixed fastening to a driven member of the grinding device ([0067], describing rotationally fixed manner of attachment) such that the grinding disc limited by a peripheral disc rim surface (peripheral rim surface at 43, fig. 2; [0082]), can be driven into a grinding movement suitable for grinding machining of a workpiece ([0060]), wherein the grinding disc has a fastening surface on a working side axially opposite the device side (surface 42, fig. 2; [0068-0069], the abrasive is attached to such surface by hook and loop fasteners and adhesive) to which on a fastening surface to which fastening surface a grinding means provided that is provided with an abrasion layer can be or is detachably fastened via fastening means ([0068-0069], the abrasive 80, fig. 3 is attached to such surface by hook and loop fasteners and adhesive [fastening means])
wherein the grinding disc has dust extraction openings arranged on the fastening surface (extraction openings 44-47, fig. 2; [0076], [0076] also mentions openings 48 which are shown in fig. 4) and peripheral air intake openings arranged on the peripheral disc rim surface (air intake openings 62, figs. 2, 4, and 5; [0085]) wherein the dust extraction openings and the peripheral air intake openings are respectively connected via an extraction channel system (channels 78, fig. 5; [0076, 0078], the openings 62 are also connected via such channels as they are connected as shown in fig. 4 to opening 48, see also fig. 6; which are in turn connected to the extraction channel 78 as in [0078] and fig. 5) running in the grinding disc (as shown in fig. 5, it is part of the grinding disk) to dust outlet openings arranged on the device side of the grinding disc (openings 50, figs. 2, 3, and 5; [0078]) with the result that, during grinding, resulting grinding dust can be removed by means of a dust extraction device coupled to the grinding device ([0079]), wherein the dust outlet openings are respectively connected via axial through- channels to first dust extraction openings arranged on the fastening surface (axial through channels shown by upward arrow flow in ann. fig. 2 above, symmetrically placed, and there are corresponding openings 50 and 46 in figs. 4-5), wherein radial extraction channels (at end of leader line 78, fig. 5; [0076, 0078], see plurality of them) extend radially outwards and branch off respectively from the axial through-channels (see arrangement in fig. 5) and the extraction channel opens into one of the peripheral air intake openings (see ann. fig. 5 above), and wherein an axial extraction channel branches off respectively from the radial extraction channels and opens on the fastening surface via a second dust extraction opening (axial extraction channel at 44, fig. 2 through upward arrow at end of leader line, that leads to the opening 44 itself on the bottom, see also arrangement in fig. 5, [0076, 0078], and the unlabeled detail view in fig. 3) however does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two of the axial through-channels are arranged adjacent to one another in a circumferential direction of the grinding disc and are connected to one another via a connecting channel running in the circumferential direction, and wherein the connecting channel comprises at least one connecting channel, wherein an axial additional extraction channel branches off from the at least one connecting channel, wherein the additional extraction channel opens out via a third dust extraction opening on the fastening surface.
Neid, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading provides for a grinding disk wherein at least two of the axial channels (axial channels forming the opening at 17, fig. 1, [0014] analogous to the part of the axial through channels forming the dust outlets 50 in Randecker), arranged adjacent to one another in circumferential direction of the grinding disc (there are multiple adjacent openings 17, fig. 1, in a circumferential arrangement, [0014]), are connected to one another via a connecting channel running in circumferential direction (connecting channel 16, fig. 1; [0014]), Neid teaches that this arrangement improves dust extraction performance, and enables use with an abrasive with different hole patterns ([0007]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the grinding channel of Neid in Randecker, for the purpose of improving dust extraction performance. The arrangement would result in wherein the connecting channel comprises at least one connecting channel (there is at least one as explained in Neid, above), an axial additional extraction channel branches off from the at least one connecting channel which additional extraction channel opens out via a third dust extraction opening on the fastening surface (additional [vertical shown by arrow] extraction channel leading to third extraction opening 47, fig .2; [0078] in Randecker is connected to the outlets 50, fig. 2, which as explained above in structure relative to Neid, is connected to the connecting channel, and thus branches off this channel though connection to 50).
With respect to claim 4, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the additional extraction channels is a curved additional extraction channel that branches off from the at least one connecting channel, wherein the extraction channel has a radial channel section connected to the connecting channel and an axial channel section abutting against the radial channel section, which axial channel section opens onto the fastening surface via a fourth dust extraction opening on the fastening surface (additional extraction channel which is radially curved 63, fig. 4 leading to fourth extraction opening at the bottom of 49, figs. 3-4; [0080], in Randecker is connected to the outlets 50, fig. 2, as shown by the air flow arrows, which as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, is connected to the connecting channel, and thus branches off this channel though connection to 50, this includes a axial channel section at the arrow of 47, fig. 2, [0078], abutting against the curved radial section 63; see also the angled view in fig. 6).
With respect to claim 5, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the at least one connecting channel (42a, b) is formed curved in arc shape in circumferential direction of the grinding disc (Neid, connecting channel 16, fig. 1; [0014] is of a curved annular shape, with arcs between the openings 17).
With respect to claim 6, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the peripheral air intake openings respectively open out by means of a channel-shaped section (Randecker, channel shaped section 61, fig. 4-5; [0086]).
With respect to claim 9, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein a base part equipped with the fastening surface and the dust extraction openings (Randecker, base part being the grinding disk 40, as pointed to at the end of the leader line in fig. 2, with, the machining surface 42 [fastening surface] as in [0068], and with the dust extraction openings 44-48; [0076]) and a cover part which is or can be detachably fastened to the base part via a fastening device wherein the cover part is equipped with the fastening interface for fastening to the driven member and the dust outlet openings (cover part 51, fig. 2; [0081-0083], with a fastening device as shown in ann. fig. 2 above, 112(f) equivalent to instant fastening device 32 being an arrangement where the cover is attached to the base part; and fastening interface is shown at 33, fig. 2; [0067], and also described in [0083], and the dust extraction holes 50 in [0084]).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 4 (Randecker)
With respect to claim 10, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the fastening surface of the grinding disc has an annular outer edge section in which the second dust extraction openings are exclusively arranged (Randecker, annular outer edge section being the circumference from which second openings 44, fig. 4, [0076-0077] are placed; see ann. fig. 4 above, the examiner notes that the instant annular region does not otherwise define the “section”, which can be an imaginary drawn section)
With respect to claim 11, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: A grinding system, with a grinding disc according to claim 1 (rejection of claim 1 addressed the grinding disk), and with a grinding means in the form of an abrading disc which is or can be fastened to the fastening surface of the grinding disc via the fastening means (abrasive material 80, fig. 1 attached with adhesive and hook/loop as in [0069], the fastening means is 112(f) equivalent as the instant disclosure provides for adhesive and hook/loop, the abrasive material is conventionally a disk in [0005]; examiner notes that “grinding disk” in the reference refers to both the abrasive material 80, and the disk shaped body 40 to which it is attached) and has intake through holes which are flush with the dust extraction openings arranged on the fastening surface of the grinding disc (the abrasive material has holes to permit dust as in [0076-0077], the examiner notes that in this case the grinding disk is referred to as 14, but it points to workpiece W in fig. 1, instead of the abrasive disk 80)
With respect to claim 12, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches: wherein the at least one connecting channel has a closed channel wall (the connecting channel has at least a wall, by being bounded [at least above and to the sides] as shown by the channel 12 in Neid, and it can be deemed that the abrasive also closes it off, and this interpretation would be consistent with the instant disclosure because the connecting channel is not completely closed off)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randecker (EP 3187305 A2) and Nied (DE 9002801 U1) and further in view of Chang (US 20050202769 A1)
With respect to claim 7, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6 above, and further teaches: wherein the channel-shaped section is formed edge-less, in particular tangent-constant (Randecker, curved profile in [0087-0088], which is a tangent curve to a line as shown in fig. 4, and consistent with instant spec at page 16 lines 9-19, in that the curbed section doesn’t have any straight or sharp edges in its curved channel from a view above [examiner notes that edge-less is interpreted consistent with fig. 6 in that portions of it do not have sharp edges as ultimately channel instant 44 leads to an edge at 36 figs. 3 and 6]).
Alternatively, Chang, in the same field of endeavor, relating to abrading, provides for a channel shaped section formed edge-less, in particular tangent-constant arrangement for a channel shaped section (14, figs. 1 and 3, there are tangent lines from outlets 12, fig. 3; and the shape is edgeless because of the oval cross section [0015]). Chang teaches that this arrangement provides smooth and quick airflow to help exhaust the dust ([0015]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the channel shaped arrangement of Chang, in Randeker, for smooth and quick airflow.
With respect to claim 8, Randecker, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 7 above, and further teaches: wherein the channel-shaped section is formed in a parabola shape in a cross-section (Chang, the entrance 14, figs. 1 and 3 have a parabola shape in cross section, as viewed from above in fig. 1 of Chang, in that there is a stretched oval shape with portions being parabola shaped; this interpretation is consistent with instant fig. 8 as the parabola shape also includes other shaped portions)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7-9 of the response dated 08/07/2026, the applicant first argues that Randecker does not suggest the limitations that were added to claim 1. The examiner’s position is that this is addressed in Neid, as with the previous action. The applicant also suggests that Neid is directed to sandpaper and not to the instant grinding disk, with a particular channel arrangement specific for that need. This is not persuasive because sandpaper is abrasive (and sanding is synonymous with grinding - see dictionary below), and Neid discusses removal of grinding dust (in the applicant’s response, it specifically states “grinding dust”). It is thus submitted that it would be reasonable to apply concepts from Neid in Randecker.
PNG
media_image4.png
743
818
media_image4.png
Greyscale
From Merriam-Webster at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/grinding
The applicant also suggests that since Neid is directed to an arrangement is for hand sanders with sandpaper, that the combination fails as they have different features compared to the grinding disk [while still referring to a grinding disk in the applicant’s own characterization of Neid) - for example the sandpaper has no openings. The motivation cited from Neid in the previous action was that the sandpaper has openings, and the arrangement of Neid would allow use with abrasives of different openings (see Neid at [0007]) so the applicant’s argument here is not persuasive. As for axial through channels, since there are axial openings 50 in Randecker and analogous axial openings 17 in Neid, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the combined arrangements to be predictable.
The applicant also argues that the limitations of previous claim 3 can not be found in the combination of Randecker and Neid because of alleged difficulties in efforts and costs [which are not supported by evidence] in achieving the combination. The examiner again submits that the combination would be predictable, and a POSITA would find that the additional extraction channel 47 in Randecker would branch off from the annular/circumferential channel because it is connected to outlet 50, which in turn is connected to the circumferential connecting channel.
Then the applicant concludes, with respect to amended claim 1, that the combination there is no motivation to combine a grinding disk and sander (which are both abrasive, and sanding is also synonymous with grinding), because of a lack of holes in the sandpaper (also addressed, particularly because that is the motivation, in part to combine to be useful with differing hole arrangements), therefore a POSITA would not be prompted to do so. The examiner believes that the motivation was sufficiently addressed in the action, and Neid also addresses the lack of holes.
As for claim 12, applicant alleges that the suction slots 15 in Neid are open to the outside, and do not meet the claim. The examiner’s position is that the claim text only requires a “closed channel wall” with no mention on how it is closed (which can be through the grinding disk) and any partial closure [for example circumferentially and on the top] meets the claim since in the instant case, it also ends up opening to the outside.
No specific arguments were directed towards the other dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ROBERT F NEIBAUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
