DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: The Office does not understand Applicant’s disclosure to provide support for a distinct “flattened arc travel path portion” of a “workpiece attachment mechanism” (which the Office understands corresponds to the disclosed “workpiece securement portion 92”). Rather, Paragraph [0035] of Applicant’s disclosure provides “a dwell occurs so that the workpiece mounting assembly 36 follows a somewhat linear, flattened arc, path along the ring gear 106 before moving to the other side of plate 66.” This is the only portion of Applicant’s disclosure which contains the words “flattened arc” and/or “dwell(s).” Accordingly, the Office recommends deleting the word “portion” (Line 12 of Claim 1) because the word “portion” is suggestive of structure.
Claims 2 and 5: The limitation “stroke adjuster” (Lines 1-2 of Claim 2 and Line 2 of Claim 5) needs to correspond to whatever element Applicant decides to maintain in Claim 1 (i.e., a “stroke adjuster” or a “stroke adjuster assembly”).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1: The antecedent basis surrounding the term “stroke adjuster assembly” (Lines 10-11) remains unclear. This issue was raised in the 01/15/2026 Non-Final Rejection. The Office recommends amending the limitation “stroke adjuster assembly” (Lines 10-11) to recite “stroke adjuster” or amending the limitation “stroke adjuster” (Line 9) to recite “stroke adjuster assembly.”
Claim 1: The antecedent basis surrounding the term “shaft” (Line 13) remains unclear. This issue was raised in the 01/15/2026 Non-Final Rejection. It is unclear whether the “shaft” (Line 13) is related in any way to the “shaft portion” introduced at Line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0120413 to McLain et al.
Claim 1: McLain discloses an automatic adjustable stroke device for a random orbital machine (intended use) comprising:
a housing 102 having a central axis and a wall 104 defining a cavity 106;
a counterbalance shaft assembly 128, 148 rotatably disposed at least partially within the cavity 106 and a shaft portion 148 of the counterbalance shaft assembly 128, 148 aligned with the central axis;
a mounting assembly 136 disposed at least partially within the cavity 106, the mounting assembly 136 including a workpiece attachment mechanism 151 (see Paragraph [0084] “Additionally, FIG. 10 shows an inner thread 151 disposed within the backing plate mount 152, in order to assist with coupling the adjustable stroke mechanism 100 to a tool”); and
a stroke adjuster 114 coupling the counterbalance shaft assembly 128, 148 with the mounting assembly 136, and wherein the workpiece attachment mechanism 151 dwells to provide a flattened arc travel path portion of the workpiece attachment mechanism 151 during rotation of the shaft (the Office understands that the shaft portion 148 moves in a substantially linear/slightly arcuate path, which reads on a “flattened arc travel path”).
Because the workpiece attachment mechanism 151 is not directly driven rotationally (e.g., a pinion is not directly connected to the workpiece attachment mechanism 151 to transmit rotational motion to the workpiece attachment mechanism 151), and the adjuster ring 114 (analogized in this Office Action as a "stroke adjuster") is configured to be driven to rotate, the Office finds that it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of filing that the mounting assembly 136 rotates at a slower speed than the stroke adjuster 114.
Claim 2: The automatic adjustable stroke device of Claim 1, wherein the stroke adjuster 114 includes a bore 118 for receiving the mounting assembly 136.
Claim 3: The automatic adjustable stroke device of Claim 1, wherein the counterbalance shaft assembly 128, 148 includes a counterweight portion 128.
Claim 4: The automatic adjustable stroke device of Claim 1, wherein the counterweight portion 128 is coupled with a base plate 110, wherein the base plate 110 is rotatable with respect to the housing 102.
Claim 6: The automatic adjustable stroke device of Claim 4, wherein the mounting assembly 136 extends through the base plate 110 (see FIG. 10) to couple the workpiece attachment mechanism 151.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's 04/07/2026 arguments have been considered but are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that “the McLain reference fails to illustrate the mounting assembly rotating at a slower speed than the stroke adjuster.” To be fair, Applicant’s disclosure fails to illustrate relative speeds between elements. Applicant further suggests that “the Examiner has failed to provide any logical nexus with a rationale underpinning to illustrate such features.” The Office respectfully disagrees – the Examiner presented its argument in the last paragraph of the rejection of Claim 1.
Applicant’s second argument is that “the [McLain] reference fails to illustrate the workpiece attachment mechanism dwelling to provide a flattened arc travel path of the workpiece attachment mechanism during rotation of the counterbalance shaft assembly.” In response, the Office submits that the shaft portion 148 of McLain moves in a substantially linear/slightly arcuate path, which reads on a “flattened arc travel path.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and rewritten to overcome the pending clarity issues under 35 U.S.C. 112.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0120413 to McLain et al. is the closest prior art.
Claim 5: McLain does not disclose or suggest wherein the counterbalance shaft assembly includes a bore for receiving the stroke adjuster.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDELL J KRUG whose telephone number is (313) 446-6577. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00-14:00 AZ time.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached on 571-270-7778. 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.
/RANDELL J KRUG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights