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 .
Claim Objections
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-8, the claim should start with “A” or “The.” Within the claims, all structural terms like “transmission” should start with “a/an/the” to establish antecedent basis and make clear what terms are being referred back to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner will attempt to examine the claims to their best understanding, but Applicant is advised to go through the claims and correct grammatical errors like commas and semicolons (or lack thereof), as well as correcting consistency with terms, and the specific 35 USC 112(b) rejections addressed directly below.
Claim 1 - “the driven axle” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “the driven shaft”
Claim 1 – “coupled to the driven axle and/or the coupling and the other disc” is unclear what the alternatives are, such as “coupled to the driven axle, or the coupling and the other disc,” or “coupled to the driven axle or the coupling, and [coupled to] the other disc”
Claim 1 – “the other disc” lacks antecedent basis. When introducing a term like “other disc,” this should be introduced with a/an. If this disc is meant to be one of the claimed “at least two concentric discs,” then Applicant should claim as such (ex. “wherein at least two concentric discs comprises an other disc…” or “an other disc of the at least two concentric discs”)
Claim 1 – Terms should be consistent. If the claim introduces two concentric discs, then they should be referred to continuously as “the two concentric discs.” If the Applicant wishes to further define these as, for example, “a first disc” and a “second disc,” then Applicant may do so but must refer only to “the first disc,” “the second disc,” and “the two concentric discs,” respectively, as opposed to “the disc” or “the other disc.”
Claim 1 - When introducing more discs, ensure that these are not already meant to be claimed. For example, “the polishing and/or sanding head comprises three discs” may be confusing. While Applicant states that of the three discs, two are “said two discs.” However, this doesn’t make clear if they are part of the “at least two concentric discs,” or which two discs of the “at least two concentric discs,” etc.
Claim 1 – The claimed “said further transmission is such that during operation the other disc does not rotate but makes a circular movement about an imaginary axis.” This seems to contradict itself as making a circular movement about an imaginary axis would be considered rotation. So, as understood, the claim is essentially stating that the other disc “does not rotate but [rotates] about an imaginary axis,” thus contradicting that it’s not supposed to rotate.
Claim 2 – The claimed “wherein of the discs” and then claiming three new discs (a first disc, a second disc, and a third disc) creates antecedent issues as there are “at least two concentric discs” claimed, as well as “the other disc,” “the disc coupled to the drive axle,” “the polishing and/or sanding head comprises three discs of which said two discs form part” and “one of the said two discs.” Therefore, the phrase “of the discs” makes indefinite which discs, specifically, are being referred to.
Claim 3 – The term “can” renders the claim indefinite. The term “can” can be defined as used to indicate possibility. Therefore, having can means that it has the possibility that it “can” perform the function, making what precedes it indefinite as to whether the claim actually requires that limitation. Applicant is advised to change “can” to something akin to “is structurally capable to.”
Claim 4 – The claimed “the first disc,” “the second disc” and “the third disc” lack antecedent basis. The claim depends from claim 1. The first, second, and third discs are not introduced until claim 2.
Claim 7 – The claimed “wherein the polishing and/or sanding head comprises a frame and the at least one planet gear and the at least one third gear are rotatably connected to the frame” is indefinite. The claim could read either as the sanding head comprising “a frame and the at least one planet gear and the at least one third gear” or the sanding head comprising “a frame; and the at least one planet gear and the at least one third gear are rotatably connected to the frame.” For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be the latter.
Claim 8 – The claim states “according to claim of which the coupling…” which does not state which claim is being referred to. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be referring to claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castiglion (WO2022195493A1).
Regarding claim 1, Castiglion (WO2022195493A1) discloses a polishing and/or sanding head for a polishing and/or sanding machine for polishing and/or sanding a surface, comprising:
at least two concentric discs (see annotated Figure 3 below) provided with a front, which during operation faces the surface to be treated and on which a polishing or sanding sheet can be applied (Fig. 3), and a rear (Fig. 3), as well as –
a coupling (rotating shaft 12) for coupling a driven shaft of the polishing and/or sanding machine to one of the discs (“The primary disc 10 may advantageously be designed to couple to a portable apparatus equipped with a power take-off that may be coupled to the rotating shaft 12.”) [Castiglion; page 5, lines 28-29], and
a transmission (ring gear 20, at least one planet gear 22, and sun gear 18) present between the disc (24) coupled to the driven axle (of the polishing machine) and/or the coupling (rotating shaft 12) and the other disc (26), which transmission (ring gear 20, at least one planet gear 22, and sun gear 18) is such that the two discs (24, 26) rotate in opposite directions about a common center during operation (“These first and second supports for a treatment means 24, 26 are designed, respectively, as a circular element and an annular element that are concentric to each other, and the second support for a treatment means 26 counter-rotates around the outside of the first support for a treatment means 24 (i.e. is able to rotate in an opposite direction with respect to the direction of rotation of the latter, which is set by the rotating shaft 12).”) [Castiglion; page 4, lines 27-31], wherein:
the polishing and/or sanding head comprises three discs (24, 26, and bottom portion of body 14, as shown in annotated Figure 3 below) of which said two discs (24, 26) form part and of which the other disc (14) is connected via a further transmission to the coupling (rotating shaft 12) or to one of the said two discs (24, 26),
said further transmission (ring gear 20, at least one planet gear 22, and sun gear 18) is such that during operation the other disc (14) does not rotate but makes a circular movement about an imaginary axis (“These first and second supports for a treatment means 24, 26 are designed, respectively, as a circular element and an annular element that are concentric to each other, and the second support for a treatment means 26 counter-rotates around the outside of the first support for a treatment means 24 (i.e. is able to rotate in an opposite direction with respect to the direction of rotation of the latter, which is set by the rotating shaft 12).”) [Castiglion; page 4, lines 27-31].
PNG
media_image1.png
480
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Castiglion discloses the polishing and/or sanding head according to claim 1, wherein of the discs (discs 24, 26, and bottom portion of body 14 as annotated in Figure 3 above):
a first disc (disc 24) forms an inner disc (Fig. 3);
a second disc (disc 26) is annular and is present around the first disc (24) (Fig. 3), and
a third disc (bottom portion of body 14) is also annular and is present around the second disc (disc 26) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Castiglion discloses the polishing and/or sanding head according to claim 2, wherein the first and second discs (24, 26) can rotate in opposite directions about their center (“These first and second supports for a treatment means 24, 26 are designed, respectively, as a circular element and an annular element that are concentric to each other, and the second support for a treatment means 26 counter-rotates around the outside of the first support for a treatment means 24 (i.e. is able to rotate in an opposite direction with respect to the direction of rotation of the latter, which is set by the rotating shaft 12).”) [Castiglion; page 4, lines 27-31] and each point of the third disc (bottom part of body 14) can make a rotational movement about an imaginary axis (“These first and second supports for a treatment means 24, 26 are designed, respectively, as a circular element and an annular element that are concentric to each other, and the second support for a treatment means 26 counter-rotates around the outside of the first support for a treatment means 24 (i.e. is able to rotate in an opposite direction with respect to the direction of rotation of the latter, which is set by the rotating shaft 12).”) [Castiglion; page 4, lines 27-31], where the distance from each point to the imaginary axis about which this point revolves is the same for all points (Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Castiglion discloses a polishing and/or sanding machine comprising a drive provided with a driven shaft (driveshaft of a portable rotary apparatus), as well as a polishing and/or sanding head according to claim [1] of which the coupling (rotating shaft 12) is coupled to the driven shaft (“The primary disc 10 may advantageously be designed to couple to a portable apparatus equipped with a power take-off that may be coupled to the rotating shaft 12.”) [Castiglion; page 5, lines 28-29].
Allowable Subject Matter
Since claims 4-7 are rejected as being indefinite and, therefore, are not in their final form, then indication of allowability cannot be given for these claims. However, the limitation “an annular second gear with an external toothing an internal toothing is mounted on the back of the second disc, this second gear and the second disc being concentric” was neither anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art.
While such gearing as a gear “with an external toothing and an internal toothing” is known, see US-3,008,355) and WO2004/026215, wherein adding such a gear acts as a speed reducer, it is not considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art of record to mount it on the back of the second disc as claimed.
Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4 which contains this limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6,238,277, US-5,863,241, US-4,583,420, US-3,813,828, US-3,015,973, US-2021/0260714, US-20100267316, and US-2007/0077873 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights