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 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 1-2, 5, 7, and 9-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “both sides.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if, for example, the sides are orthogonal or opposite in parallel to each other. As such, the limitation is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “two sides.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “both ends of the stable shaft.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if, for example, the ends are the same ends of the “both sides” in claim 1 or orthogonal or opposite in parallel to each other. As such, the limitation is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “two opposite ends.”
Claim 2 also recites “a stable shaft fit at both ends of the stable shaft.” For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “a stable shaft fit at both ends of the soft shaft body.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the Positioning Ribs I” in “the interior of the soft shaft body is further provided with limit ring ribs inside the Positioning Ribs I...” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “the interior of the soft shaft body is further provided with limit ring ribs inside Positioning Ribs I…”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the positioner.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A positioner has not been set forth in the claims upon which claim 7 is dependent on. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “a positioner.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “both ends of the moving cavity.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear which ends are being referred to. As such, the limitation is considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “two ends of the moving cavity.”
Claim 10 recites “the outer diameter of the positioner is higher than that of the soft shaft body.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the outer diameter of the positioner” and it is not clear what this limitation is being compared to. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed to be “an outer diameter of the positioner is greater than an outer diameter of the soft shaft body.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by James (US20210370476A1).
Regarding claim 1, James (US20210370476A1) discloses a grinding block suitable for different radians, which comprises a grinding block body (adjustable flexibility sanding apparatus 10 comprises a body shown in James FIGS. 1-2; “suitable for different radians” is an intended use, as the grinding block would be capable of bending at different angles, and thus be suitable for different radians) and is characterized in that:
at least one soft shaft is set in the grinding block body, (see James FIG. 6: rod reception tubes 30, which are flexible and thus considered soft, set in the body of apparatus 10; see also ¶[0033])
connecting grooves are set on two sides of the grinding block body, (see Ref. Pic. 1 below: rod reception channels 28a and 28b, which connect to corresponding rod reception channels 26 and are thus connecting grooves, are set on the front and back sides of the body of apparatus 10)
and a grinding surface is set at the bottom of the grinding block body (abrasive material 18 bonded to the bottom side 14 of body 10; see ¶[0029]).
PNG
media_image1.png
906
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 1: Annotated James FIG. 6
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated in this rejection. James further discloses that the soft shaft comprises a soft shaft body (rod reception tubes 30 each comprise a body) and a stable shaft fit at two opposite ends of the soft shaft body (flexibility adjustment rods 24 are fit within either axial end of rod reception tubes 30;
Note: the flexibility adjustment rods 24 provide support or stabilize the structure by dictating the resistance to bending of the grinding block, and can thus be considered stable, meeting the limitations of the claim. See ¶[0035]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. James further discloses that a positioner is set at a stable shaft end away from the soft shaft body (rod handle portion 32 is set at an end of reception tube 30 facing away from the flexibility adjustment rod 24;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The specification does not provide a definition of “a positioner.” Rod handle portion 32 is capable of being used to position the orientation of the flexibility adjustment rod 24 and is thus a positioner, meeting the limitations of the claim).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. James further discloses that both ends of the soft shaft body are internally provided with moving grooves, (both ends of rod reception tubes 30 are internally provided with openings—long narrow channels capable of moving as the apparatus is elastically deformed and thus moving grooves)
and a stable shaft end away from a positioner extends to the interior of the moving grooves (see Ref. Pic. 2 below: end A of reception tube 30, located away from rod handle portion 32, extends into the interior of rod reception tube 30 in the direction shown by the dashed line;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The specification does not provide a definition of “a positioner.” Rod handle portion 32 is capable of being used to position the orientation of the flexibility adjustment rod 24 and is thus a positioner, meeting the limitations of the claim).
PNG
media_image2.png
906
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 2: Annotated James FIG. 6
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. James further discloses that a moving cavity is provided inside the grinding block body, and the soft shaft body is movably fit inside the moving cavity (James FIG. 6: there is a cavity within the grinding block between handle 20 and member 16, which is capable of moving as the apparatus is elastically deformed and thus a moving cavity, and the rod reception tubes 30 movably fit inside said moving cavity; see ¶[0034]).
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US20210370476A1) in view of Tobey (US3835598A).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. James does not disclose that several Positioning Ribs I are evenly and circularly spaced in the soft shaft body.
However, Tobey (US3835598A) teaches a flexible grinding tool with several Positioning Ribs I evenly and circularly spaced around a stable shaft (see Ref. Pic. 3 below: elements X1-X6 evenly and circularly spaced around a core 19a;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The specification does not provide a definition of “Positioning Ribs I.” The plain meaning of “Positioning Ribs I” has been construed to be structural elements that add internal support to a structure with the intended use of “positioning,” or putting something in a particular position. Elements X1-X6 are structural elements that add radial support to the grinding tool 18a and contribute to positioning the tool, thus meeting the limitations of the claim; see also Col. 4, Lines 41-68.
Additionally, the core 19a is a shaft that provides support or stabilize the structure by dictating the resistance to bending of grinding tool 18a, and thus considered a stable shaft, further meeting the limitations of the claim).
PNG
media_image3.png
680
724
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 3: Annotated Tobey FIG. 5
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding block of James to comprise several Positioning Ribs I evenly and circularly spaced around the stable shaft, as taught by Tobey, within the soft shaft body. Increasing the cross-sectional area of a rod is known to provide axial reinforcement and thus better resist bending without breaking. Such a configuration of wires is known to deter buckling or kinking, making them commonly used in the art, as with electrical cables. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to divide the stress the stable shaft is subject to, increasing the bending strength of the stable shaft and longevity of the grinding tool.
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. James does not disclose that Positioning Ribs II are set in the stable shaft.
However, Tobey teaches a flexible grinding tool with Positioning Ribs II set in a stable shaft (there is a plurality of strands 25 set in the central core 19a, shown in FIG. 5 and Col. 4, Lines 41-68;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01. The specification does not provide a definition of “Positioning Ribs II.” The plain meaning of “Positioning Ribs II” has been construed to be structural elements that add internal support with the intended use of “positioning,” or putting something in a particular position. Strands 25 are structural elements that add radial support to the grinding tool 18a and contribute to positioning the tool, thus meeting the limitations of the claim).
Given that both James and Tobey teach flexible grinding tools with a stable shaft that dictates the degree of which the grinding tools bend, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the stable shaft of James with the stable shaft of Tobey to provide the predictable result of permitting the grind tool to bend to the desired curvature.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US20210370476A1) in view of Foster (US 8834235 B1).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated in this rejection. James does not disclose that the interior of the soft shaft body is further provided with limit ring ribs inside Positioning Ribs I, and the number of the limit ring ribs should be at least one.
However, Foster (US 8834235 B1) teaches a flexible grinding block wherein the interior of a soft shaft body is provided with limit ring ribs inside Positioning Ribs I, and the number of the limit ring ribs should be at least one (FIG. 7: the interior of the is provided with multiple, which is ‘at least one,’ individual coils inside coil spring members 104;
Note: The examiner reminds the applicant that claims are given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification—see MPEP 2111.01.
The specification does not provide a definition of “limit ring ribs.” The plain meaning of “limit ring ribs” has been construed to be ring-shaped structural elements that add internal support to a structure and limit some component in some manner. As the individual coils are ring-shaped, add internal support to the sander, and limits convex flexing of the tool, the coils meet the plain meeting of limit ring ribs and thus the limitations of the claim; see Abstract.
The specification also does not provide a definition of “Positioning Ribs I.” The plain meaning of “Positioning Ribs I” has been construed to be structural elements that add internal support to a structure with the intended use of “positioning,” or putting something in a particular position. Coil spring members 104 are structural elements that add radial support to the grinding tool 18a and contribute to positioning the tool, meeting the plain meeting of Positioning Ribs I and thus meeting the limitations of the claim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the interior of the soft shaft body of James to be provided with more than one limit ring rib inside Positioning Ribs I, as taught by Foster. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to control the amount of desired convex flexing depending on the application of the grinding tool (see Foster Col. 6, Lines 36-49).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US20210370476A1).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated in this rejection. James further teaches that two ends of the moving cavity are provided with a limit cavity, (see Ref. Pic. 4 below: ends 1 and 2 of the moving cavity are provided with a limit cavity that limits the movement of the rods, and thus a limit cavity) and the positioner is fastened to the limit cavities (James FIG. 10: rod handles 232 are fastened to the limit cavities).
PNG
media_image4.png
518
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ref. Pic. 4: Annotated James FIG. 10
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated in this rejection. James does not explicitly teach that an outer diameter of the positioner is greater than an outer diameter of the soft shaft body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the grinding block of James so that an outer diameter of the positioner is greater than an outer diameter of the soft shaft body. Such a modification is viewed as a change in size, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Depending on the materials of the tool, the strength of the tool changes, and the dimensions in which the tool is manufactured also changes. Depending on the sizes and materials of the positioner and the soft shaft, the tool may change due to the requirement to make the tool stronger. Further, when looking to the specification, namely ¶[0012] and [0037] of the instant application, there is no discussion of criticality or unexpected results concerning the claimed relation between the outer diameters of the positioner and the soft shaft body.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jenkins (US20240001512A1) discloses a sanding apparatus with adjustable flexibility comprising rods running through the apparatus.
Travis (US5203123A) discloses a deformable sanding block with metal rods running through the block.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights