DETAILED ACTION
Dual-Use Guard of Angle Grinder
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
There is an abstract ,and applicant should note that it does contain language directed to the purported merits “Debris can be effectively prevented from splashing out from the side face of the guard.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the an arc-shaped notch must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US20170072534A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a first guard (720, figure 31), a connecting portion (750, figures 31-33) and a second guard (770, figures 31-33) wherein the first guard comprises a semicircular or fan-shaped base (731, figure 32) and an enclosure (733, figure 32) arranged on an edge (734, figure 32) of the semicircular or fan-shaped base, the enclosure (733, figures 31-33) extends towards a side of the semicircular or fan-shaped base by a predetermined length (figure 31), an arc-shaped notch (para 0073-0089 0165-0168) allowing a spindle (24, figure 2) of the angle grinder to penetrate through is formed in a center of the semicircular or fan-shaped base, an extension (figures 23,31-33) raised towards a side away from the enclosure is arranged at the arc-shaped notch of the semicircular or fan-shaped base, the connecting portion (750, figures 31-33) connected to the angle grinder is fixedly arranged on the extension of the semicircular or fan-shaped base, and the second guard (770, figures 31-33) is fixedly arranged on a side (para 0164-0165), away from the semicircular or fan-shaped base, of the enclosure and shaped as a small cut circle (figures 31-33).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches wherein an arc edge (see edge 734, figure 32) bending towards the center of the semicircular or fan-shaped base is arranged at an end, away from the semicircular or fan-shaped base, of the enclosure (see 733, figures 31-33).
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches wherein a slope (see annotated figure below) corresponding to the arc edge is arranged on an edge of the second guard, and the slope on the edge of the second guard is attached to an outer side or an inner side of the arc edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
593
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches wherein the arc edge is connected to the second guard by welding or riveting (790; para 0168; figure 31).
Additionally, regarding claim 4, this is a product by process limitation. MPEP
2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product- by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes."
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches wherein the connecting portion is a hoop (750,figure 33).
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) 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US20170072534A1).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches all limitation stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the second guard is arranged adjacent to a middle area in a length direction of the enclosure.
However, Nakamura teaches in a different embodiment guard for an angle grinder that includes the second guard (534, figure 19) is arranged adjacent to a middle area (para 0132-0138) in a length direction of the enclosure (537, figure 14-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura’s second guard is arranged adjacent to a middle area in a length direction of the enclosure based on the teachings of within different embodiment of Nakamura. This modification would help that reduce the possibility of losing the second protective cover (see para 0147-0148 of Nakamura).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach wherein the hoop is fixedly connected to the extension by welding
However, Nakamura teaches in a different embodiment components of the guard of the angle grinder can be connected by welding (see para 0176).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura using a known alternative process of joining the hoop to be fixedly connected to the extension. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing a process of joining components together within the guard.
Further, this is a product by process limitation. MPEP
2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product- by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights