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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/03/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2025 was filed with the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) dated 10/03/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 10/03/2025:
claims 1-7, 10-15 and 18-23 are currently pending;
claims 10-15 and 18-20 are withdrawn;
the 112(b) rejection to claim 4 is withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to independent claim 1 incorporating “one of the first surface or the second surface is a working surface; and the other one of the first surface or the second surface is a non-working surface”; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smithson et al. (WO 2018/118566 A1) (“Smithson” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Smithson teaches a fixed abrasive article (see Smithson at page 1 line 21 teaching the present disclosure is directed to polymer bonded abrasive articles). The polymer bonded abrasive article is taken to meet the claimed fixed abrasive article based on the specification at [0034] disclosing the abrasive bodies can be disposed in any fixed abrasive article, for example, in… bonded abrasive), comprising
a body (see Smithson at page 3 line 20 teaching Fig. 11 is a photograph of the 3D printed parts, see Smithson at Fig. 11, also shown below with Examiner annotation illustrating claimed body), comprising
abrasive particles contained in a bond material (see Smithson at page 2 lines 1-2 teaching a polymer bond abrasive article including a polymer bond material having abrasive particles retained in a polymer matrix therein), the polymer matric is taken to meet the claimed bond material,
PNG
media_image1.png
501
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the body comprises a first surface and a second surface, wherein the first surface shares an edge with the second surface (see Smithson at Fig. 11, shown with Examiner’s annotation above, illustrating the claimed recitations),
one of the first surface… is a working surface; and the other one of… the second surface is a non-working surface (see Smithson at Fig. 11, shown with Examiner’s annotation above, illustrating the claimed recitations).
first surface having a first developed interfacial ratio (Sdr1) and second surface having a second developed interfacial ratio (Sdr2), wherein the difference between Sdr1 and Sdr2 is at least 35% (Smithson teaches this recitation as outlined below).
Smithson teaches the polymer bonded abrasive articles can be made directly with a binder jetting three-dimensional (3D) printer, avoiding the need for producing a mold… in this method, a thin layer of powdered particles including polymer precursor particles and abrasive particles is temporarily bonded at desired locations by a jetted binder dispensed by an inkjet printing head… the printed powder layer is then at least partially dried and lowered so that a next powder layer can be spread… the powder spreading, temporary bonding and drying processes can be repeated to create a green abrasive article preform, which is then removed from the printer and extracted from the surrounding powder that remains unbound… the abrasive article preform is then further processed to convert the polymer precursor particles into a polymer matrix that retains the abrasive particles and forms a polymer bonded abrasive article (see Smithson at page 1 lines 25-34). Smithson further teaches powder bed jetting 3D printing equipment suitable for making the polymer bonded abrasive articles of the present disclosure are commercially available from, for example, from ExOne (see Smithson at page 10 lines 27-29). Since the polymer bonded abrasive article as taught by Smithson and the claimed fixed abrasive article of recited in independent claim 1 and disclosed in specification at [0045]-[0046] and [0228] employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., first surface having a first developed interfacial ratio (Sdr1) and second surface having a second developed interfacial ratio (Sdr2), wherein the difference between Sdr1 and Sdr2 is at least 35%) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Smithson (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claims 2-6 and 21, Smithson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Smithson further teaches wherein Sdr1 is at least 60% (claim 2), wherein Sdr2 is not greater than 110% (claim 3), wherein the body comprises at least one second surface having a developed interfacial surface area of not greater than 70% (Sdr2) (claim 4), wherein the difference between Sdr1 and Sdr2 is at least 50% (claim 5), wherein the body comprises at least one first surface having developed interfacial surface area of at least 90% (Sdr1) (claim 6), and wherein the working surface has a higher developed interfacial surface area than the other one of the first or second surface (claim 21) (Smithson teaches this recitation as outlined below).
Smithson teaches the polymer bonded abrasive articles can be made directly with a binder jetting three- dimensional (3D) printer, avoiding the need for producing a mold… in this method, a thin layer of powdered particles including polymer precursor particles and abrasive particles is temporarily bonded at desired locations by a jetted binder dispensed by an inkjet printing head… the printed powder layer is then at least partially dried and lowered so that a next powder layer can be spread… the powder spreading, temporary bonding and drying processes can be repeated to create a green abrasive article preform, which is then removed from the printer and extracted from the surrounding powder that remains unbound… the abrasive article preform is then further processed to convert the polymer precursor particles into a polymer matrix that retains the abrasive particles and forms a polymer bonded abrasive article (see Smithson at page 1 lines 25-34). Smithson further teaches powder bed jetting 3D printing equipment suitable for making the polymer bonded abrasive articles of the present disclosure are commercially available from, for example, from ExOne (see Smithson at page 10 lines 27-29). Since the polymer bonded abrasive article as taught by Smithson and the claimed fixed abrasive article of recited in independent claim 1, dependent claims 2-6 and 21, and disclosed in specification at [0045]-[0046] and [0228] employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., wherein Sdr1 is at least 60% (claim 2), wherein Sdr2 is not greater than 110% (claim 3), wherein the body comprises at least one second surface having a developed interfacial surface area of not greater than 70% (Sdr2) (claim 4), wherein the difference between Sdr1 and Sdr2 is at least 50% (claim 5), wherein the body comprises at least one first surface having developed interfacial surface area of at least 90% (Sdr1) (claim 6), and wherein the working surface has a higher developed interfacial surface area than the other one of the first or second surface (claim 21)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Smithson (see MPEP 2112.01).
Regarding claim 7, Smithson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Smithson further teaches wherein the first surface and the second surface are oriented to each other by an angle of at least 5o and at most 90o (see Smithson at Fig. 11, shown with Examiner’s annotation above, illustrating that the first and second surface are oriented by 90o).
Regarding claim 22, Smithson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Smithson further teaches wherein the bond material comprises… a ceramic material (see Smithson at page 9 lines 13-14 teaching alternatively, or in addition, the liquid binder precursor… may be an aqueous sol including a ceramic precursor).
Regarding claim 23, Smithson teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Smithson further teaches wherein the abrasive particles comprise a material including one or more of… superabrasive particles (see Smithson at page 4 line 33 teaching in certain embodiments, the abrasive particles include superabrasive particles).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731