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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024 and 12/05/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 06/04/2024 and 07/12/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the phrase may be amended as “… in [[a ]]the direction of [[a]]the drive axis” in line 2.
In claim 11, the term may be amended as “[[a]]the handle recess” in line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “ a drive unit configured to drive the tool holder” in claims 1 and 6.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN 110039420A, cited on 12/05/2024 IDS, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses, in fig. 1, a sander (sander 100) comprising;
a tool holder (bottom plate assembly 20);
a drive unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive unit preferably comprises an electric motor of the like as described in ¶ 0009) configured to drive the tool holder (figs. 11-13 and Wang English translation, p. 11:7-12, a motor 11 [corresponds to the recited drive unit] transmits power to a transmission part of a torque output part so that the motor 11 moves the bottom plate assembly 20 [corresponds to the recited tool holder]); and
a housing unit having a bow-shaped handle defining a handle recess (fig. 5, a main housing 13 [corresponds to the recited housing unit] has a holding housing 14 [corresponds to the recited handle] which defines a holding cavity 142 [corresponds to the recited handle recess]. With the holding cavity 142, the holding housing 14 is bow shaped), but does not disclose a ratio between a maximum longitudinal extent of the handle recess of the bow-shaped handle and a maximum longitudinal extent of the tool holder is at least 0.35 and at most 0.5.
Wang discloses a length of the holding chamber 142 is 90 – 105 mm in a longitudinal extent, thus the maximum longitudinal extent of the handle recess is 105 mm (Wang English translation, p. 10:33-40), but Wang does not disclose a dimension of the bottom plate assembly 20.
However, 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 tool holder of Wang to change its size so that the ratio between the maximum longitudinal extents of the handle recess and the tool holder to be between 0.35 and 0.5. The recited ratio range enables a user gripping the handle of the power tool comfortably, and the user can exert enough force to the tool holder for effective sanding of an object. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches the sander as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose a center of gravity of the sander is arranged in the handle recess.
Fig. 7 of Wang shows a center of gravity of the sander without a battery pack is not located in the handle recess. However, the center of gravity of the sander can be located at a different position if a motor 11 and the bottom plate assembly 20 are disposed closer to the handle recess. If the handle 14 is longer in the longitudinal extent, it would also make the center of gravity to be located at a different position.
Therefore, 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 Wang to rearrange positions of the drive unit and the tool holder. It has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Alternatively, 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 Wang to make the long handle since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
By shifting positions of the components or changing size of the component, it is possible to make the sander to have the center of gravity in the handle recess so that the sander has a weight balance along a front and rear direction of the tool. If the center of gravity is located at a non-optimal position, especially at far rear end of the tool, it would require a user to exert extra force to the tool holder, located at a front of the tool, to sand an object.
Regarding claim 3, Wang teaches the sander as in the rejection of claim 2, but does not disclose a ratio between a maximum distance of the tool holder from the center of gravity in a direction of a drive axis of the drive unit and a minimum distance between the drive axis and the center of gravity is at least 2.8 and at most 3.5.
Wang discloses the center of gravity (G3) in figs. 6-9 and a drive axis (axis X, X0) in fig. 6-8. Therefore, the minimum distance between the drive axis and the center of gravity can be defined. Additionally, a maximum distance between the center of the gravity and the bottom plate assembly 20 [corresponds to the recited tool holder] along the drive axis can be defined. Then, the lengths of two distances can be modified by changing horizontal and vertical dimensions of the housing unit of the sander so that the tool holder can be positioned ideally considering a weight balance of the sander.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance between the tool holder and the center of gravity and the distance between the drive axis and the center of gravity such that the recited ratio falls between 2.8 and 3.5. It has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The recited ratio allows a user to exert appropriate normal force and torque for effective sanding of an object.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches the sander as in the rejection of claim 3, but does not disclose a maximum height of the sander in the direction of a drive axis of the drive unit has a ratio of at least 2.8 and at most 3.2 to the maximum distance of the tool holder and the center of gravity in the direction of the drive axis.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 3, the maximum distance between the center of the gravity and the bottom plate assembly 20 [corresponds to the recited tool holder] along the drive axis can be defined. Additionally, the maximum height of the sander 100 in the direction of the drive axis can be defined. The relation of the sander height and the center of gravity determines whether a user can apply strong normal force to the tool holder. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the height of the sander and the distance between the tool holder and the center of gravity such that the recited ratio falls between 2.8 and 3.2. It has been held such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The recited ratio allows a user to exert appropriate normal force for effective sanding of an object because it would be difficult to apply the effective normal force if the height of the sander is too high.
Regarding claim 5, Wang teaches the sander as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the handle recess is ovally closed (fig. 5, the holding cavity 142 [corresponds to the recited handle recess] is ovally closed).
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses, in fig. 1, a handheld power tool system comprising:
a sander (sander 100) including (i) a tool holder (bottom plate assembly 20), (ii) a drive unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The drive unit preferably comprises an electric motor of the like as described in ¶ 0009) configured to drive the tool holder (figs. 11-13 and Wang English translation, p. 11:7-12, a motor 11 [corresponds to the recited drive unit] transmits power to a transmission part of a torque output part so that the motor 11 moves the bottom plate assembly 20 [corresponds to the recited tool holder]), and (iii) a housing unit having a bow-shaped handle defining a handle recess (fig. 5, a main housing 13 [corresponds to the recited housing unit] has a holding housing 14 [corresponds to the recited handle] which defines a holding cavity 142 [corresponds to the recited handle recess]. With the holding cavity 142, the holding housing 14 is bow shaped); and
a battery pack configured to be arranged on the sander (Wang English translation, p. 8:42-44, battery pack 16 is attached to the sander 100), but does not disclose a ratio between a maximum longitudinal extent of the handle recess of the bow-shaped handle and a maximum longitudinal extent of the tool holder is at least 0.35 and at most 0.5.
Wang discloses a length of the holding chamber 142 is 90 – 105 mm in a longitudinal extent, thus the maximum longitudinal extent of the handle recess is 105 mm (Wang English translation, p. 10:33-40), but Wang does not disclose a dimension of the bottom plate assembly 20.
However, 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 tool holder of Wang to change its size so that the ratio between the maximum longitudinal extents of the handle recess and the tool holder to be between 0.35 and 0.5. The recited ratio range enables a user gripping the handle of the power tool comfortably, and the user can exert enough force to the tool holder for effective sanding of an object. Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches the handheld power tool system as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein an overall center of gravity of the handheld power tool system is arranged in the handle recess of the bow-shaped handle when the battery pack is arranged on the sander (fig. 9, a center of gravity (G3) of the handheld power tool system including the battery pack 16 is arranged in the holding cavity 142 [corresponds to the recited handle recess]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches the handheld power tool system as in the rejection of claim 6, but does not disclose a ratio between a minimum distance between a battery pack center of gravity of the battery pack in a state arranged on the sander and a drive axis of the drive unit and a maximum longitudinal extent of a handle recess of the bow-shaped handle is at least 2.0 and at most 3.0.
However, Wang discloses a center of gravity (G2) of the battery pack 16, and a drive axis X0 as shown in fig. 6. Therefore, a minimum distance between the battery pack center of gravity and the drive axis can be defined. Wang also discloses a length of the holding chamber 142 is 90 – 105 mm in a longitudinal extent, thus the maximum distance of the handle recess is 105 mm (Wang English translation, p. 10:33-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the distance between the battery pack center of gravity and the drive axis, which can be done by modifying the size of the handle such that the recited ratio falls between 2.0 and 3.0. It has been held such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). The recited ratio range would determine a position of the handle recess between the battery pack and the drive axis, and an appropriate ratio would allow a user to handle the sander comfortably in applying force to the tool holder.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Masatoshi et al. (US 2021/0359461, hereinafter Masatoshi).
Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches the handheld power tool system as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein the battery pack has a battery pack center of gravity (fig. 6, the battery pack 16 has a center of gravity G2), but does not disclose when the battery pack is in a state arranged on the sander, the battery pack center of gravity is offset from a main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle. The battery pack 16 of Wang is disposed symmetrically with respect to a main extension plane of the handle as shown in fig. 1, thus the battery pack center of gravity of Wang is not offset from the main extension plane.
Masatoshi teaches, in an analogous handheld power tool field of endeavor, when the battery pack is in a state arranged on the sander, the battery pack center of gravity is offset from a main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle (¶ 0042, a handheld electric tool can be a sander; figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0045, a battery pack 300 is attached to the tool 100 perpendicular to a main extension plane of a housing 210 [corresponds to the recited handle]. The battery pack 300 includes a connection portion 310 on one side of the battery pack such that when the battery pack 300 is attached to the tool 100, its center of gravity does not lie on the main extension plane of the handle).
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 handheld power tool system of Wang to provide the battery pack center of gravity to be offset from the main extension plane of the handle as taught by Masatoshi. The battery pack of Masatoshi can be attached to or detached from the tool by sliding it in a sideway transverse to the longitudinal direction of the handle. It may provide convenience in exchanging the battery pack during the sanding operation where the sanding job is done in a vertically tight space.
Regarding claim 9, Wang as modified by Masatoshi teaches the handheld power tool system as in the rejection of claim 7, but does not disclose when the battery pack is arranged on the sander a ratio between a minimum distance between the battery pack center of gravity and a drive axis of the drive unit and a maximum longitudinal extent of the tool holder is at least 0.85 and at most 1.2.
However, Wang teaches a distance between the battery pack center of gravity (G2) and the drive axis (X) can be defined in the longitudinal extent as shown in fig. 8. Wang does not disclose the dimension of the bottom plate assembly 20 [corresponds to the recited tool holder]. The distance between the battery pack center of gravity and the drive axis can be modified by changing a length of the handle. Then, 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 length of the handle and the length of the tool holder to provide the recited ratio to be at least 0.85 and at most 1.2. It has been held that such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). An appropriate ratio would ensure the tool holder exerts good normal force to an object for effective sanding. If the distance between the battery pack and the drive axis is too long, it would be difficult to handle the power tool for a user.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Esenwein (US 2022/0118581) and Masatoshi.
Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches the handheld power tool system as in the rejection of claim 6, wherein: the sander comprises a dust outlet (fig. 5 and Wang English translation, p. 21:4-26, the sander 100 comprises a dust collection device 40. Thus, there is a dust outlet), but does not disclose the dust outlet is arranged on one side of the main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle.
Esenwein teaches, in an analogous handheld power tool field of endeavor, the dust outlet is arranged on one side of the main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle (fig. 1 and ¶ 0043, a handheld grinding machine 10a comprises an ejection port 76a [corresponds to the recited dust outlet] arranged on a right side of a main extension plane of a driving housing 16a [corresponds to the recited handle]. The ejection port 76a is used for ejecting materials such as dust. Examiner notes Wang teaches the bow-shaped handle).
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 handheld power tool system of Wang to provide the dust outlet as taught by Esenwein so that dust and chips can be directed to a material collection container instead of being scattered to environment (Esenwein ¶ 0046).
Wang as modified by Esenwein does not disclose the battery pack center of gravity is arranged on the other side of the main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle.
Masatoshi teaches, in an analogous handheld power tool field of endeavor, the battery pack center of gravity is arranged on the other side of the main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle (figs. 1-2 and ¶ 0045, a battery pack 300 is attached to the tool 100 perpendicular to a main extension plane of a housing 210 [corresponds to the recited handle]. The battery pack 300 includes a connection portion 310 on one side of the battery pack such that when the battery pack 300 is attached to the tool 100, the battery pack center of gravity is arranged to be on a left side of the main extension plane of the housing 210 [corresponds to the recited handle]).
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 handheld power tool system of Wang as modified by Esenwein to provide the battery pack center of gravity to be on the other side of the main extension plane of the handle as taught by Masatoshi. The battery pack of Masatoshi can be attached to or detached from the tool by sliding it in a sideway transverse to the longitudinal direction of the handle. It may provide convenience in exchanging the battery pack during the sanding operation where the sanding job is done in a vertically tight space.
Wang as modified by Esenwein and Masatoshi teaches the battery pack center of gravity and the dust outlet are arranged on different sides of the main extension plane of the bow-shaped handle.
As discussed above, by combining Wang with Esenwein and Masatoshi, the dust outlet can be arranged in the right side of the main extension plane, and the batter pack center of gravity can be arranged in the left side of the main extension plane.
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 handheld power tool system of Wang as modified by Esenwein and Masatoshi to arrange the battery pack center of gravity and the dust outlet on different sides of the main extension plane so that the power tool has a weight balance with respect to the right and left side of the tool. It would help a user to apply a balanced force on to an object during the sanding operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boeck et al. (US 2016/0342142) discloses a machine tool device comprising a tool holder, a drive unit, a housing having a bow-shaped handle defining a handle recess.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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.
/SUKWOO JAMES CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights