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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "102" and "112" have both been used to designate a motor axis and a housing in figures 2 and 3. 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. 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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, and 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recites “the battery pack” that should be “the removable battery pack”.
Claims 1 and 2 recites “the work plane” that should be “the horizontal work plane”.
Claims 3, 4, 6, and 9-10 recites “the battery angle” that should be “the acute battery angle”.
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 2 is 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 2 recites “the work plane is parallel to a work surface on which the orbital sander is used”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends to positively recite the work surface as part of the claim or not. Further given that work surfaces can be of many shapes and textures it is unclear to the examiner how curved or non-linear work surfaces are parallel to the work plane. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the work surface to not be positively recited and the claim limitation to be intended use on a flat work surface.
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, 5-9, 11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kuntheeya (2022/0016738).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuntheeya teaches An orbital sander (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (Ref. 20, Fig. 3, [0026]);
a motor (Ref. 50, Fig. 4) within the housing (Fig. 4, [0027] teaches a motor within the housing), the motor (50) including a drive shaft (Ref. 52, Fig. 4, [0024) defining a motor axis (Fig. 4 annotated below);
an eccentric drive unit (Ref. 61, fig. 4) coupled to the drive shaft ([0024])and configured to convert rotation of the drive shaft to an orbit motion around the motor axis ([0031]);
a sanding pad (Ref. 31, Fig. 4) defining a horizontal work plane (Fig. 4 bottom surface of the pad) and coupled to the eccentric drive unit (Fig. 4) for orbital motion about the motor axis (Fig. 4, [0031&0036])); and
a battery receptacle (Ref. 45, Fig. 1-2) extending along the housing (Fig. 2), the battery receptacle (45) operable to receive a removable battery pack (Ref. 40, Fig. 2, [0038]) for providing electrical current to the motor ([0038] describes terminals to transfer electrical current to the motor), wherein the battery receptacle defines a battery axis (Fig. 4 annotated below) along which the battery pack is installed (Fig. 1-4, [0039] describes the receptacle (45) is inclined), and wherein the battery axis forms an acute battery angle relative to the work plane (Fig. 2 below shows an acute angle, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane).
PNG
media_image1.png
606
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the work plane is parallel to a work surface on which the orbital sander is used (fig. 2 shows the bottom surface as the work plane and would be capable of being parallel to the work surface).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the battery angle is greater than or equal to two and one-half degrees (2.5°) (Fig. 2, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane)).
Regarding Claim 5, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the battery axis extends within a guide plane (Fig. 4, the plane that creates the cross sectional view of Fig. 4) that is parallel to the motor axis (Examiner notes the guide plane is parallel to the motor axis when looking from the front and rear directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches a battery isolator ([0039] describes guide rails) within the battery receptacle ([0039], Fig. 4), wherein the battery isolator (guide rails) is configured to receive the removable battery pack ([0039]), and wherein the battery isolator is aligned along the battery angle (Fig. 3&4,, [0039).
Regarding Claim 7 , Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and further teaches wherein the battery isolator includes at least one guide rail ([0039] describes guide rail) that is parallel to the battery axis (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8 , Kuntheeya teaches An orbital sander (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a motor housing (Ref. 20, Fig. 3, [0026]);
a motor (Ref. 50, Fig. 4) within the motor housing (Fig. 4, [0027] teaches a motor within the housing), the motor (50) including a drive shaft (Ref. 52, Fig. 4, [0024) defining a motor axis (Fig. 4 annotated below);
a grip portion (Ref. 22, Fig. 3 upper part of the housing, [0026]) extending along a top of the motor housing (Fig. 2-3, [0026]), the grip portion defining
a grip axis (Fig. 4 annotated below) perpendicular to the motor axis (Fig. 4 below), and
an end face (Fig. 4 annotated below) that is parallel to the motor axis (Fig. 4);
an eccentric drive unit (Ref. 61, fig. 4) coupled to the drive shaft ([0024])and configured to convert rotation of the drive shaft to an orbit motion around the motor axis ([0031]);
a sanding pad (Ref. 31, Fig. 4) defining a horizontal work plane (Fig. 4 bottom surface of the pad) and coupled to the eccentric drive unit (Fig. 4) for orbital motion about the motor axis (Fig. 4, [0031&0036])); and
a battery receptacle (Ref. 45, Fig. 1-2) extending along the motor housing (Fig. 2), the battery receptacle including a battery contact face (Fig. 1, [0039] the inner face of the receptacle) that is parallel to the motor axis (Examiner notes the contact face is parallel to the motor axis when looking from the front and rear directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required), perpendicular to the grip axis (Examiner notes the top of the contact face is perpendicular to the grip axis when looking from the up and down directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required), and inset from the end face of the grip portion (Fig. 4 shows the bottom section inset from the end face), wherein the battery receptacle (45) operable to receive a removable battery pack (Ref. 40, Fig. 2, [0038]) for providing electrical current to the motor ([0038] describes terminals to transfer electrical current to the motor), wherein the battery receptacle defines a battery axis (Fig. 4 annotated below) along which the battery pack is installed (Fig. 1-4), and wherein the battery axis forms an acute battery angle relative to the work plane (Fig. 2 below shows an acute angle, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches wherein the battery angle is greater than or equal to two and one-half degrees (2.5°) (Fig. 2, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane).
Regarding Claim 11, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches wherein the end face of the grip portion is spaced a first distance D1 from the motor axis (Fig. 4 below), wherein the battery contact face is spaced a second distance D2 from the motor axis (Fig. 4 below), and wherein the second distance D2 is less than the first distance D1 (Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
635
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and further teaches wherein the battery contact face is inset from the end face of the grip portion by an amount equal to the first distance D1 minus the second distance D2 (Fig. 4 annotated above)
Regarding Claim 15, Kuntheeya teaches an orbital sander (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a motor housing (Ref. 20, Fig. 3, [0026]);
a motor (Ref. 50, Fig. 4) within the motor housing (Fig. 4, [0027] teaches a motor within the housing), the motor (50) including a drive shaft (Ref. 52, Fig. 4, [0024) defining a motor axis (Fig. 4 annotated below);
a grip portion (Ref. 22, Fig. 3 upper part of the housing, [0026]) extending along a top of the motor housing (Fig. 2-3, [0026]), a grip axis (Fig. 4 annotated below) perpendicular to the motor axis (Fig. 4 above);
an eccentric drive unit (Ref. 61, fig. 4) coupled to the drive shaft ([0024])and configured to convert rotation of the drive shaft to an orbit motion around the motor axis ([0031]);
a sanding pad (Ref. 31, Fig. 4) defining a horizontal work plane (Fig. 4 bottom surface of the pad) and coupled to the eccentric drive unit (Fig. 4) for orbital motion about the motor axis (Fig. 4, [0031&0036]));
a battery receptacle (Ref. 45, Fig. 1-2) extending along the motor housing (Fig. 2-4); and
a battery isolator ([0039] describes guide rails) disposed within the battery receptacle ([0039], Fig. 4), the battery isolator including at least one guide rail ([0039] describes guide rails) operable to receive a portion of a removable battery pack ([0039] describes receiving grooves in battery pack (40)), wherein the at least one guide rail extends within a guide plane (Fig. 4, the plane that creates the cross sectional view of Fig. 4) that is parallel to the motor axis (Examiner notes the guide plane is parallel to the motor axis when looking from the front and rear directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required) and perpendicular to the grip axis (Examiner notes the top of the guide plane is perpendicular to the grip axis when looking from the up and down directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required), and wherein the at least one guide rail forms an acute battery angle relative to the work plane (given the guide rail sits within the battery receptacle, Fig. 2 below shows an acute angle, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane).
PNG
media_image2.png
605
851
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches wherein the grip portion defines an end face (Fig. 4 annotated above) and the battery receptacle includes a battery contact face (Fig. 1, [0039] the inner face of the receptacle) that is inset from the end face of the grip portion (Fig. 4 shows the bottom section inset from the end face).
Regarding Claim 17, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the end face of the grip portion is spaced a first distance D1 from the motor axis (Fig. 4 below) and the battery contact face is spaced a second distance D2 from the motor axis (Fig. 4 below) that is less than the first distance D1 (Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
635
830
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further teaches wherein the end face of the grip portion and the battery contact face are parallel to the motor axis (Examiner notes the contact face and end face of the grip portion are parallel to the motor axis when looking from the front and rear directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required)and perpendicular to the grip axis (Examiner notes the top of the contact face is perpendicular to the grip axis when looking from the up and down directions, if applicant intends for the plane to be parallel in a specific view such a limitation is not required).
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.
Claims 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntheeya (2022/0016738).
Regarding Claim 13, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and teaches the second distance (D2) is less than the first distance (D1). Kuntheeya fails to explicitly teach wherein the second distance D2 is less than or equal to 0.95 times the first distance D1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second distance of Kuntheeya to be less than 0.95 times the first distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the device of Kuntheeya would not operate differently with the claimed first distance and since the first distance is smaller than the second distance the device would function appropriately having the claimed first distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp [0018]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and teaches the second distance (D2) is less than the first distance (D1). Kuntheeya fails to explicitly teach wherein the second distance D2 is greater than or equal to 0.6 times the first distance D1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second distance of Kuntheeya to be greater than 0.6 times the first distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the device of Kuntheeya would not operate differently with the claimed first distance and since the first distance is smaller than the second distance the device would function appropriately having the claimed first distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp [0018]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, and teaches the second distance (D2) is less than the first distance (D1). Kuntheeya fails to explicitly teach wherein the second distance D2 is less than or equal to 0.95 times the first distance D1 and wherein the second distance D2 is greater than or equal to 0.6 times the first distance D1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second distance of Kuntheeya to be less than 0.95 times the first distance and greater than 0.6 times the first distance since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case the device of Kuntheeya would not operate differently with the claimed first distance and since the first distance is smaller than the second distance the device would function appropriately having the claimed first distance. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp [0018]).
Claims 4, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuntheeya as applied to claims 3, 9, and 20 above, and further in view of Bublitzz (2009/0202894).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Bublitzz teaches a sander with a detachable batter at an angle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Bublitzz teaches wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery angle, as taught by Kuntheeya, to be less than or equal to thirty degrees, to allow for a more streamlined tool configuration and to not interfere with the user during operation of the power tool ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Bublitzz teaches a sander with a detachable batter at an angle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Bublitzz teaches wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery angle, as taught by Kuntheeya, to be less than or equal to thirty degrees, to allow for a more streamlined tool configuration and to not interfere with the user during operation of the power tool ([0021]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kuntheeya teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, and further teaches wherein the acute battery angle is greater than or equal to two and one-half degrees (2.5°) (Fig. 4, [0039] describes the battery is tilted at an acute angle from 50-70 degrees with respect to the work plane). Kuntheeya fails to explicitly teach wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Bublitzz teaches a sander with a detachable batter at an angle and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Bublitzz teaches wherein the battery angle is less than or equal to thirty degrees (30°) (Fig. 1, [0021] describes the angle being 25 degrees). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the battery angle, as taught by Kuntheeya, to be less than or equal to thirty degrees, to allow for a more streamlined tool configuration and to not interfere with the user during operation of the power tool ([0021]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tan (2016/0199962) and Sugita (2013/0165026) teach sanders with removable battery packs that are at an acute angle and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights