Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/730,577

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PRODUCING ABRASIVE PRODUCTS

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 30, 2019
Examiner
ALIE, GHASSEM
Art Unit
3724
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
VIRTUAL MACHINES INC.
OA Round
8 (Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
9-10
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
878 granted / 1275 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1333
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
39.0%
-1.0% vs TC avg
§102
30.6%
-9.4% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1275 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s reaffirmation of the election of Species Ia (Disk 22 in Fig. 1-2); Species IIa (abrasive 28 in Fig. 1-2); Species VIIa (Fig. 16) and Species Vih (Fig. 13), as stated during the telephone interview dated October 17, 2022 is acknowledged. 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 connector directly connected to and contacting the backer disk as set forth in claim 1 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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Figs. 16-17 are not listed under “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “its” in “its entirety” and “its exterior” should be replaced with the appropriate proper noun for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 5 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 6. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 2, the original disclosure does not disclose “adhesive material positioned between adjacent pieces.” The adhesive material 56 is places on the backer disk 22. The bottom of the adhesive pieces 28 contact the adhesive material 56. See Figs. 3 of the drawings. The specification does not explicitly and clearly disclose that the adhesive material is located between the abrasive pieces 28. Regarding claim 2, the original disclosure does not disclose, “a connector formed separately and directly connected to and contacting the backer disk.” The original disclosure does not describe a connector with a protruding shaft that has threadless exterior and is directly connected to and in contact with the backer disk. The elected Species IIA (Fig. 16) includes a backer disk 26 with a central bore and a coupler 32 that passes through the central bore and captured by a nut 50. See Fig. 16 of the drawings and lines 5-7 of the specification. The coupler 32 is directly connected to and contacts the backer disk 26. However, the coupler 32 is not threadless on its exterior. The disclosure does not identify a “connector” in the drawings. The shaft that can be attached to the coupler 32 in Fig. 16 is the shaft or mandrel which is threadless. In this configuration, the shaft or the mandrel would directing connect to and contact the coupler 32, rather that the backer dick 26. Therefore, the specification explicitly and clearly does not disclose a connector having a shaft with a threadless exterior that directly contacts and is directly connected to the backer dick 26. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 7. 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. 8. Claims 2 and 12, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin (2005/0026556 A1). Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches an abrasive product 100 (Fig. 3) comprising: a backer disk 110 without an arbor section and having a central mounting area (defined by area around the bore 111) and a periphery, the central mounting area being coplanar with the periphery in its entirety (as being a flat disk 110 form it central portion to its periphery); a plurality of abrasive pieces 120, each of the pieces secured to the backer disk 304 by adhesive (as an epoxy adhesive; paragraph [0021]), the abrasive pieces 120 of the plurality of abrasive pieces being disposed in a circular array, each of the pieces of the plurality being overlapped in part by and overlapping in part adjacent pieces of the array and being directly adhesively (via adhesive deposited on the backer disk and the adjacent pieces) secured to said adjacent pieces of the array with adhesive material (as epoxy adhesive) positioned between adjacent abrasive prices 120; and a connector (132-134, 136; Fig. 3) formed separately from and directly connected to and contacting the backer disk 110, the connector defining a shaft (136b) that protrudes from the backer disk in central relation thereto and is threadless on its exterior. See Figs. 1-3 in Shin. It should be noted that each abrasive piece is directly adhesively secured to the adjacent abrasive pieces. Each abrasive piece is secured by adhesive to the backer disk 110 and is also directly secured to the adjacent abrasive pieces, since adjacent pieces are tightly in an overlapping manner secured together. Therefore, there is abrasive material at least between the overlapping bottom portions of the abrasive pieces where the abrasive pieces are attached to the surface of the backer disk 110. It should also be noted that the connector, defined as “a fixing unit” in paragraph [0021], includes a bolt 132, a nut 134, a washer 133, and a holder 136. The connector (132-134, 136), as a fixing unit, is directly connected to the backer disk 110. The claim does not require the connector to be formed from a single, integral piece. Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches everything noted above including that the abrasive product is an abrasive disk. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 9 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. To the degree that it could be argued Shin does not explicitly teach that the abrasive material positioned between adjacent abrasive pieces, the rejection below is applied. 10. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (2005/0026556 A1) in view of Gilles (7,727,056 B2) or Hettes et al. (5,951,389), hereinafter Hettes. Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Shin teaches an abrasive product 100 (Fig. 3) comprising: a backer disk 110 without an arbor section and having a central mounting area (defined by area around the bore 111) and a periphery, the central mounting area being coplanar with the periphery in its entirety (as being a flat disk 110 form it central portion to its periphery); a plurality of abrasive pieces 120, each of the pieces secured to the backer disk 304 by adhesive (as an epoxy adhesive; paragraph [0021]), the abrasive pieces 120 of the plurality of abrasive pieces being disposed in a circular array, each of the pieces of the plurality being overlapped in part by and overlapping in part adjacent pieces of the array and being directly adhesively (via adhesive deposited on the backer disk and the adjacent pieces) secured to said adjacent pieces of the array with adhesive material (as epoxy adhesive) positioned between adjacent abrasive prices 120; and a connector (132-134, 136; Fig. 3) formed separately from and directly connected to and contacting the backer disk 110, the connector defining a shaft (136b) that protrudes from the backer disk in central relation thereto and is threadless on its exterior. See Figs. 1-3 in Shin. It should be noted that each abrasive piece is directly adhesively secured to the adjacent abrasive pieces. Each abrasive piece is secured by adhesive to the backer disk 110 and is also directly secured to the adjacent abrasive pieces, since adjacent pieces are tightly in an overlapping manner secured together. Therefore, there is abrasive material at least between the overlapping bottom portions of the abrasive pieces where the abrasive pieces are attached to the surface of the backer disk 110. It should also be noted that the connector, defined as “a fixing unit” in paragraph [0021], includes a bolt 132, a nut 134, a washer 133, and a holder 136. The connector (132-134, 136), as a fixing unit, is directly connected to the backer disk 110. The claim does not require the connector to be formed from a single, integral piece. It could be argued that Shin does not explicitly teach that abrasive material is positioned between adjacent abrasive pieces. However, Gilles teaches an abrasive product 1 comprising: a backer disk 2 having a bore 5 (Fig. 1); a plurality of abrasive pieces (3-4), each of the pieces secured to the backer disk 2 by adhesive 8; the abrasive pieces of the plurality of abrasive pieces being disposed in a circular array, each of the pieces of the plurality being overlapped in part by and overlapping in part adjacent pieces of the array and being directly adhesively (via adhesive bed 8, similar to the adhesive 58 in Fig. 3 of the current application) secured to said adjacent pieces of the array. It should be noted that the adhesive material 8 are located between the bottom sections of the adhesive pieces 3-4. See Fig. 2 in Gilles. Hettes likewise teaches an abrasive product 300 including a backing disk 304; and a plurality of abrasive pieces 302, each of the pieces secured to the backer disk 304 by adhesive (120, shown in Fig. 4; in the same manner the abrasive pieces 302 are secured to the backer disk 304), the abrasive pieces of the plurality of abrasive pieces being disposed in a circular array, each of the pieces of the plurality being overlapped in part by and overlapping in part adjacent pieces of the array and being directly adhesively (via adhesive 120, similar to the adhesive 58 in Fig. 3 of the current application) secured to said adjacent pieces of the array. It should be noted that the adhesive material 120 are located between the bottom sections of the adhesive pieces 120. See Figs. 1-11 in Hettes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Shin’s abrasive pieces with adhesive material in a manner such that adjacent pieces adhere to one another, as taught by Gilles or Hettes, in order to firmly hold the abrasive pieces together and enhance grinding performance on the abrasive product. Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches everything noted above including that the abrasive product is an abrasive disk. Response to Arguments 11. Applicant ’s argument that Shin does not teach a connector which is separately from and directly connected and contacting the backer disk is not persuasive. As stated above, the connector, defined as “a fixing unit” in paragraph [0021], includes a bolt 132, a nut 134, a washer 133, and a holder 136. The connector (132-134, 136), as a fixing unit, is directly connected to the backer disk 110. The claim does not require the connector to be formed from a single, integral piece. Conclusion 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Hettes (6,945,863) teaches an abrasive product. 13. All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 mailing date of this final action. 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST. 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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. /GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 November 15, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2019
Application Filed
Nov 02, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
May 08, 2023
Response Filed
May 24, 2023
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Nov 30, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 06, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 12, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
May 13, 2024
Response Filed
May 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 21, 2024
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 22, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 26, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Dec 30, 2024
Response Filed
Feb 06, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Jun 10, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 11, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Oct 16, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 15, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592452
SEPARATOR CUTTING DEVICE AND SEPARATOR CUTTING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589518
HAND-HELD PLANING TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583139
DEVICE, SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SLICING FILM MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583135
CUTTING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12557839
CIGAR CUTTING DEVICE AND METHODS OF CUTTING CIGARS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

9-10
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1275 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month