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
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“and wherein” (claim 1, line 11) should be changed to --, and wherein--;
“configured to” (claim 2, line 3) should be changed to --is configured to--;
“configured to” (claim 2, line 4) should be changed to --is configured to--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“rotation limiting structure” (claims 1, 9);
“rotation limiting feature” (claim 9).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s patents: US 10,898,989 B2, titled “GRINDING WHEEL ASSEMBLY”; and US 11,931,866 B2, titled “GRINDING WHEEL ASSEMBLY”, which have pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and issued patents are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the issued patents. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
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.
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 3 and 9-15 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.
Claims 3 and 9 recites the limitation “a mounting hub” (claim 3, line 2; claim 9, line 7). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does the limitation refer to the “mounting hub” recited earlier in each of claims 3 and 9 or does this limitation refer to another mounting hub? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 10-15 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 9.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Tseng in view of Sun
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Tseng discloses an abrasive article (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, device shown) comprising:
a mounting plate...a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 with bottom contact surface of mounting plate 12 contacting abrasive body 1);
and a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises a generally cylindrical support hub extending axially from a contact surface of the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13 has a cylindrical support hub 1311 that extends axially from the upper contact surface (at reference 13 in Fig. 3) of the cover plate 13),
wherein the mounting plate and cover plate are configured to be coupled to each other and form a head assembly including a channel region disposed between the mounting plate and the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 and cover plate 13 are capable of being coupled to each other to form a head assembly, which includes a channel region in which the abrasive body 1 is held (see Fig. 4)),
wherein the head assembly further comprises a rotation limiting structure adjacent to the channel region, the rotation limiting structure configured to engage an abrasive body within the channel region and prevent rotation of the abrasive body relative to the head assembly (Figs. 2-5, notches 120 of mounting plate 12 and/or notches 1313 of cover plate 13 engage tabs 111 of abrasive body 1 within the channel region and are capable of preventing rotation of the abrasive body 1 relative to the head assembly; the limitation “rotation limiting structure” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes grooves, notches, and tabs, and equivalents thereof (Spec. ¶ 00168; Figs. 74, 78-79)),
and wherein the cylindrical support hub is configured to extend into and support the abrasive body (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13 has a cylindrical support hub 1311 that extends axially into and supports abrasive body 1).
Tseng does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate.
However, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious this claim.
Sun discloses:
a mounting plate wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 1-2, mounting plate 3 has a cylindrical hub 311 extending axially from contact surface 316);
and a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises a generally cylindrical support hub extending axially from a contact surface of the cover plate (Figs. 1-2, cover plate 2 has a cylindrical hub 211 extending axially from contact surface 215).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Sun with Tseng to modify the mounting plate 12 and cover plate 13 such that the mounting plate 12 has a cylindrical hub that extends partially into an abrasive body, where the cylindrical hub 1311 of cover plate 13 is reduced in height to only extend partially into the abrasive body, as taught by Sun. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this would allow the mounting plate and cover plate to still tightly clamp onto an abrasive article even if the abrasive article was axially undersized. In Sun, there is a gap between the two cylindrical hubs when assembled to a properly sized abrasive body 1 (Sun Fig. 2, gap between elements 211 and 311). This construction accounts for some tolerance where the abrasive body 1 is axially undersized, allowing for proper clamping up to a difference amounting to the gap size. By contrast, if the abrasive body 1 of Tseng is undersized, the abrasive body 1 would not be properly clamped between elements 12 and 13 because the inner portion of element 12 (near reference 121) would abut against the cylindrical hub 1311.
Regarding claim 2, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 1 as applied above. Sun further discloses wherein the contact surface of the mounting plate [is] configured to engage a portion of the abrasive body and the mounting hub [is] configured to receive the abrasive body there around (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 with bottom contact surface of mounting plate 12 contacting abrasive body 1; as modified by the Tseng/Sun combination, the mounting hub receives the abrasive body 1 around it).
Regarding claim 3, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 1 as applied above. Sun further discloses wherein the rotation limiting structure comprises a notch extending radially inwardly from a mounting hub of the mounting plate (Figs. 2-5, notches 120 of mounting plate 12 extend radially inward from a mounting hub of mounting plate 12 (the outer circumferential surface is a hub) ; Examiner notes that the recited structure takes the limitation “rotation limiting structure” out of a § 112(f) interpretation for this claim and any dependent claims).
Regarding claim 5, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 1 as applied above. Tseng further discloses wherein the rotation limiting structure comprises a notch extending radially into an inner wall of a backing of the abrasive body (Figs. 2-5, notches 120 of mounting plate 12 extend radially into an inner wall (defined by tabs 111) of a backing (the central area including tabs 111 and ring structure adjacent to tabs 111) of abrasive body 1; Examiner notes that the recited structure takes the limitation “rotation limiting structure” out of a § 112(f) interpretation for this claim and any dependent claims).
Regarding claim 6, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 5 as applied above. Tseng further discloses wherein the notch comprises a depth, D, and the backing comprises a wall thickness, TW, and wherein D is less than TW (Figs. 2-5, notches 120 have a radial depth (“D”) as shown, which is less than the radial wall thickness (“TW”) of the backing (i.e., distance from radially inward tips of tabs 111 outward towards the abrasive portion of abrasive body 1 (including the ring structure)); see Spec. Fig. 82 for interpretation and orientation of “depth, D” and “wall thickness, TW”).
Regarding claim 7, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 6 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein D is less than 50% TW. However, Tseng makes obvious this claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to modify the size of the notches 120 of Tseng to be of a smaller size, such that the radial depth (“D”) is less than 50% of the radial wall thickness (“TW”) of the backing (e.g., the ring structure and the portion of tabs 111 adjacent to the ring structure would be thickened). This would have been obvious because the size of the notches in this context is a design choice balancing the strength/size needed for the tabs vs. saving material used for the mounting and cover plates (i.e., elements 12 and 13 could be smaller in diameter). Applicant has not disclosed that having this geometric configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this configuration. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 9, Tseng discloses an abrasive article (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, device shown) comprising:
a mounting plate...a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 with bottom contact surface of mounting plate 12 contacting abrasive body 1);
and a cover plate (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13),
wherein the mounting plate and cover plate are configured to be coupled to each other and form a head assembly including a channel region disposed between the mounting plate and the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 and cover plate 13 are capable of being coupled to each other to form a head assembly, which includes a channel region in which the abrasive body 1 is held (see Fig. 4)),
and further comprising a gap region defining a gap distance of at least 0.25 mm between a mounting hub of the mounting plate and a support hub of the cover plate in a pre-assembled state (Figs. 2-5, mounting hub (the outer circumferential surface of the mounting plate 12 is a hub) and support hub 1311 of the cover plate 13 define a gap distance of at least 0.25 mm between the two in a pre-assembled state (e.g., Fig. 3 demonstrates a pre-assembled state); Examiner notes that this limitation is very broad as in a pre-assembled state, the mounting hub of mounting plate 12 can be at various distances away from the support hub; see § 112(b) rejection for this second instance of “a mounting hub”);
an abrasive body disposed between the mounting plate and the cover plate within the channel region (Figs. 2-5, abrasive body 1 is disposed between the mounting plate 12 and the cover plate 13 in the channel region) comprising:
a backing (Fig. 2-5, backing (the central area including tabs 111 and adjacent ring structure) of abrasive body 1);
an abrasive portion affixed to the backing (Figs. 2-5, the outer abrasive portion of the abrasive body 1 is affixed to the backing (the central area including tabs 111) of the abrasive body 1),
wherein the backing includes at least one rotation limiting feature configured to engage a complimentary rotation limiting structure on the mounting plate (Figs. 2-5, tabs 111 of backing of abrasive body 1 engage notches 120 of mounting plate 12; the limitations “rotation limiting feature” and “rotation limiting structure” are interpreted under § 112(f), which includes grooves, notches, and tabs, and equivalents thereof (Spec. ¶¶ 00168, 00281-00284; Figs. 74, 78-79));
and wherein the support hub of the cover plate is configured to extend into and support the abrasive body (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13 has a cylindrical support hub 1311 that extends axially into and supports abrasive body 1).
Tseng does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate.
However, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious this claim.
Sun discloses:
a mounting plate wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 1-2, mounting plate 3 has a cylindrical hub 311 extending axially from contact surface 316);
and a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises a generally cylindrical support hub extending axially from a contact surface of the cover plate (Figs. 1-2, cover plate 2 has a cylindrical hub 211 extending axially from contact surface 215).
The obviousness rationale for claim 9 is the same as for claim 1.
Tseng in view of Sun and Nelson
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”) and US 20030166385 A1 (“Nelson”).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Nelson pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 4). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 8, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 1 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the cover plate, the mounting plate, or both comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a metal and a metal alloy. However, the Tseng/Sun/Nelson combination makes obvious this claim.
Nelson discloses wherein the cover plate, the mounting plate, or both comprises a material selected from the group consisting of a metal and a metal alloy (Fig. 4; ¶¶ 0033, 0045, mounting plate 130 comprises metal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nelson with the Tseng/Sun combination by making the mounting plate 12 and/or the cover plate 13 of Tseng out of metal because it is a common material that is suited for the particular application of Tseng, i.e., having sufficient strength and capable of being manufactured into the shape of mounting plate 12 and/or cover plate 13. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 198-99 (CCPA 1960) (“the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”); MPEP § 2144.07.
Tseng in view of Sun and Ramanath
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”) and US 6093092 A (“Ramanath”).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Ramanath pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the backing comprises a material selected from the group consisting of metal and a metal alloy. However, the Tseng/Sun/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Ramanath discloses wherein the backing comprises a material selected from the group consisting of metal and a metal alloy (Fig. 1; 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54, core 2 (“backing”) is made of metal; see obviousness rationale below claim 12).
Regarding claim 11, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the backing comprises bronze. However, the Tseng/Sun/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Ramanath discloses wherein the backing comprises bronze (Fig. 1; 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54, core 2 (“backing”) is made of bronze; see obviousness rationale below claim 12).
Regarding claim 12, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the backing comprises a composite material. However, the Tseng/Sun/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Ramanath discloses wherein the backing comprises a composite material (Fig. 1; 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54, core 2 (“backing”) is made of a composite material (e.g., “bronze composites”)).
Regarding claims 10-12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ramanath with the Tseng/Sun combination by making the backing of Tseng out of the various claimed materials because the claimed materials are common materials that are suited for the particular application of Tseng, i.e., having sufficient strength and capable of being manufactured into the shape of the backing of an abrasive body 1 (see Ramanath 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54). In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 198-99 (CCPA 1960) (“the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”); MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the abrasive portion is brazed to the backing, sinter-bonded to the backing, or adhered to the backing. However, the Tseng/Sun/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Ramanath discloses wherein the abrasive portion is brazed to the backing, sinter-bonded to the backing, or adhered to the backing (Fig. 1; 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54, 6:55-7:25, the abrasive portion is sintered or adhered to the core 2 (“backing”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ramanath with the Tseng/Sun combination by sintering or adhering the abrasive portion to the backing because this results in a strong bond between those two portions to withstand use (Ramanath 6:63-65, “The adhesive bond should be very strong mechanically to withstand the destructive forces existing during rotation of the grinding wheel and during the grinding operation.”).
Regarding claim 15, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the abrasive portion has a thickness, TA, and the backing has a thickness, TB, and TB is greater than TA. However, the Tseng/Sun/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Ramanath discloses wherein the abrasive portion has a thickness, TA, and the backing has a thickness, TB, and TB is greater than TA (Fig. 1; the thickness of core 2 (“backing”) is greater than the thickness of the abrasive portion 5; see Spec. Fig. 82 for interpretation and orientation “thickness”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Ramanath with the Tseng/Sun combination to have a backing thickness larger than the abrasive portion thickness, as taught by Ramanath, because a larger backing would provide better rotational stability of the tool (with a smaller abrasive portion thickness) during grinding operations. Further, this would have been obvious because the choice of geometric configuration in this context is a mere design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that having this geometric configuration provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of this configuration as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this configuration. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Tseng in view of Sun, Nelson, and Ramanath
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”), US 20030166385 A1 (“Nelson”), and US 6093092 A (“Ramanath”).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Nelson pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 4) Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Ramanath pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 14, the Tseng/Sun combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 9 as applied above. Tseng and Sun do not explicitly disclose wherein the backing has a hardness, HB, and the cover plate has a hardness, HCP, and HB is less than HCP. However, the Tseng/Sun/Nelson/Ramanath combination makes obvious this claim.
Nelson discloses wherein the cover plate is made of various materials, such as steel (Fig. 4, cover plate 114; ¶ 0037).
Ramanath discloses wherein the backing is made of various materials, such as bronze (Fig. 1, core 2 (“backing”); 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Nelson and Ramanath with the Tseng/Sun combination to choose materials for the cover plate and the backing such that the backing has a hardness, HB, and the cover plate has a hardness, HCP, and HB is less than HCP. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the claimed materials are common materials that are suited for the particular application of Tseng (see Ramanath 2:47-3:53, 5:60-6:54), and choosing a backing material (e.g., bronze) that has less hardness than the cover plate material (e.g., steel) would allow the cover plate to last longer; the lower hardness backing is part of the abrasive body, which is a consumable item that could be replaced. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 198-99 (CCPA 1960) (“the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”); MPEP § 2144.07.
Tseng in view of Sun and Heinl
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”) and DE 102005021635 A1 (“Heinl”) (citations are to the machine translation filed on 03/21/2024).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Heinl pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 16, Tseng discloses an abrasive article (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5, device shown) comprising:
a mounting plate...a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 with bottom contact surface of mounting plate 12 contacting abrasive body 1);
and a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises a generally cylindrical support hub extending axially from a contact surface of the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13 has a cylindrical support hub 1311 that extends axially from the upper contact surface (at reference 13 in Fig. 3) of the cover plate 13),
wherein the mounting plate and cover plate are configured to be coupled to each other and form a head assembly including a channel region disposed between the mounting plate and the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, mounting plate 12 and cover plate 13 are capable of being coupled to each other to form a head assembly, which includes a channel region in which the abrasive body 1 is held (see Fig. 4)),
and wherein the cylindrical support hub is configured to extend into and support the abrasive body (Figs. 2-5, cover plate 13 has a cylindrical support hub 1311 that extends axially into and supports abrasive body 1).
Tseng does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate.
wherein the head assembly further comprises a vibration dampening member adjacent to the mounting plate or the cover plate, the vibration dampening member configured to reduce vibration of an abrasive body installed within the channel region.
However, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination makes obvious this claim.
Sun discloses:
a mounting plate wherein the mounting plate comprises a generally cylindrical mounting hub extending axially from a contact surface of the mounting plate (Figs. 1-2, mounting plate 3 has a cylindrical hub 311 extending axially from contact surface 316);
and a cover plate wherein the cover plate comprises a generally cylindrical support hub extending axially from a contact surface of the cover plate (Figs. 1-2, cover plate 2 has a cylindrical hub 211 extending axially from contact surface 215).
Heinl discloses wherein the head assembly further comprises a vibration dampening member adjacent to the mounting plate or the cover plate, the vibration dampening member configured to reduce vibration of an abrasive body installed within the channel region (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0074-0075, 0019-0048, damper 5 is adjacent to cover plate 12 and is capable of reducing vibration of the abrasive body 4 installed in the channel region (between elements 12 and 13); Examiner notes that the limitation “vibration dampening member” does not invoke interpretation under § 112(f) because the term has an ordinary and customary meaning to person of ordinary skill in the art and denotes the type of structural device that includes dampers, and there is no express intent in the specification to disavow the full scope of the plain meaning of this limitation (see Spec. ¶¶ 00144, 00273-00275)).
Regarding the combination of Sun with Tseng, the obviousness rationale for claim 16 is the same as for claim 1. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Heinl with the Tseng/Sun combination to add a damper as taught by Heinl because this would reduce vibrations from the grinding operation and would result in less vibrations transmitted to a user (if used in a handheld tool) for better comfort (Heinl ¶ 0007, “As a result of long-term exposure to vibration, nerve damage in the craftsman’s hand or cramping of the finger vessels can occur”).
Regarding claim 17, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 16 as applied above. Heinl further discloses wherein the vibration dampening member comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of an organic material, an inorganic material, a metal, a metal alloy, a ceramic, a glass, a thermoset, a thermoplastic, an elastomer, and any combination thereof (¶ 0033, “polymers...includ[ing] urethane rubber”; ¶¶ 0074-0075, 0019-0048).
The obviousness rationale for claim 17 is the same as for claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 16 as applied above. Heinl further discloses wherein the vibration dampening material comprises a polymer material (¶ 0033, “polymers...includ[ing] urethane rubber”; ¶¶ 0074-0075, 0019-0048).
The obviousness rationale for claim 18 is the same as for claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 16 as applied above. Tseng further discloses wherein the abrasive body disposed within the channel region is between the mounting plate and the cover plate (Figs. 2-5, abrasive body 1 is disposed between the mounting plate 12 and the cover plate 13 in the channel region).
Tseng in view of Sun, Heinl, and Lubke
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 6332836 B1 (“Tseng”) in view of US 7465222 B1 (“Sun”), DE 102005021635 A1 (“Heinl”) (citations are to the machine translation filed on 03/21/2024), and US 20020004362 A1 (“Lubke”).
Tseng pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 2-5). Sun pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). Heinl pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Lubke pertains to an abrasive grinding tool (Abstr.; Fig. 1). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 19, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination makes obvious the abrasive article of claim 18 as applied above. Tseng, Sun, and Heinl do not explicitly disclose wherein the polymer comprises polyamid. However, the Tseng/Sun/Heinl/Lubke combination makes obvious this claim.
Lubke discloses wherein the polymer comprises polyamid (Fig. 1, damper 14 is made of polyamide; ¶ 0029).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Lubke with the Tseng/Sun/Heinl combination to use polyamide as the material for the damper because it has “good vibration-damping characteristics” (Lubke ¶ 0029). Further, polyamide is a common material that is suited for use as a damper as taught by Heinl. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 198-99 (CCPA 1960) (“the selection of the plastics being on the basis of suitability for the intended use, would be entirely obvious”); MPEP § 2144.07.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are rejected.
Claims – In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, the § 112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the amended claims are premature and moot in view of the new rejection above due to the amended limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 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 KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights