DETAILED ACTION
ABRASIVE ARTICLE AND METHOD OF USE
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05-04-2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3,6-9,11-24 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 23-24 are newly added. The previous rejection has been updated due to applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-04-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant's argument that prior art Nevoret does not teach a plurality of abrasive bodies attached to a first surface including a first abrasive body and a second abrasive body, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim requires a singular abrasive article with a plurality abrasive bodies.
Nevoret discloses a singular abrasive article with multiple abrasive bodies with different material and different characteristics in attempt to improve abrasive performance. The claim requires a singular abrasive article with different bodies which Nevoret discloses. (see Nevoret discloses in figure 14 a substrate with a surface, and additionally discloses in figure 17 and para 0077-0078 multiple abrasive bodies with different material and different characteristics in attempt to improve abrasive performance)
Regarding applicant's argument that prior art prior art Nevoret does not teach an abrasive article with a vitreous bond material, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Nevoret discloses that fillers can be incorporated to modify the hardness and toughness of binders, and those fillers include glass beads and glass bubbles. Applicant argues that filler materials are distinct from creating vitreous bond materials. However, it is disclosed in Franke (WO2017173009A1) that additives such as fillers is what is used to make vitreous bonded material within abrasive articles to assist in making abrasive article vitrified and improve performance. Even further, the specification of the instant application discloses in para 00112 “a plurality of vitrified-bonded abrasive bodies was formed by initially creating a mixture of diamond abrasive, borosilicate glass frit, alumina glass sphere filler particles”. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive, and all claims remain rejected.
Regarding applicant's argument that prior art Nevoret does not teach a wear rate differential, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant's argument that Nevoret fails to teach a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body of at least 0.08 cc and not greater than 0.4 cc, Nevoret fails to recognize the importance of the claimed range, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant has not identified any criticality describing only generally “the wear rate differential is useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Further, prior art Nevoret discloses wear patterns and rate may vary (see para 0077-0078), to get desired results for different types of abrading applications.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3,6-9,11-20,22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevoret (US20060185257A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nevoret teaches
a substrate (substrate 1402, figure 14) comprising a first surface (top of substrate 1402, figure 14);
an abrasive body (abrasive structure 1404, figure 14) attached to the first surface (see figure 14),
Nevoret fails to teach wherein a plurality of abrasive bodies comprises:
a first abrasive body; and
a second abrasive body, wherein the first abrasive body and second abrasive body have at least one abrasive characteristic that are different, wherein the abrasive characteristic is selected from the group consisting of bond composition, bond content, porosity content, pore size distribution, average pore size, average abrasive particle size, abrasive particle composition, or any combination thereof and wherein the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body of at least 0.08 cc and not greater than 0.4 cc. and
wherein the first abrasive body comprises a vitreous bond material.
However, Nevoret teaches in a different embodiment with a plurality of abrasive (para 0077, figure 17) bodies comprises:
a first abrasive body (abrasive region 1702, figure 17); and
a second abrasive body (abrasive region 1706, figure 17), wherein the first abrasive body (abrasive region 1702, figure 17) and second abrasive body (abrasive region 1706, figure 17) have at least one abrasive characteristic that are different (para 0077, line 8), wherein the abrasive characteristic is selected from the group of bond composition, bond content, porosity content, pore size distribution, average pore size, average abrasive particle size, abrasive particle composition, or any combination thereof (para 0077, lines 8-16) and wherein the bond material comprises a vitreous material (see para 0053 discloses binders include fillers that can be made of glass beads or glass bubbles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nevoret to include the teachings of the different embodiment, where there is a plurality of abrasive bodies where the first body and second body have different characteristics, and first abrasive body comprises a vitreous bond material. This modification would help improve the grinding and polishing performance of the abrasive article.
Furthermore, Nevoret discloses the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary)
Further, Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the specific wear rate differential, describing only generally “the wear rate differential are useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nevoret teaches
a first content of superabrasive particles (para 0059, discloses grains can be made from diamond) and volume (see para 0059)
a first content of porosity (para 0024,0077, disclose porosity); and
a first content of bond material volume (para 0009,0018-0021,0056-0057, disclose binder material) , wherein the bond material comprises a vitreous material (see para 0053 discloses binders include fillers that can be made of glass beads or glass bubbles).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose a first content of superabrasive particles is least 12 vol% and not greater than 28 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of porosity is at least 52 vol% and not greater than 68 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; and a first content of bond material is at least 6 vol% and not greater than 18 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body,
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the porosity, and vol can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amounts for content, porosity and vol are changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include a first content of superabrasive particles is least 12 vol% and not greater than 28 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of porosity is at least 52 vol% and not greater than 68 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; and a first content of bond material is at least 6 vol% and not greater than 18 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nevoret teaches the abrasive article comprises an average compressive stress (see para 0071 discloses pressure exerted).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose an average compressive stress at maximum load of at least 50 MPa and not greater than 500 MPa.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include an average compressive stress at maximum load of at least 50 MPa and not greater than 500 MPa. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nevoret the abrasive article comprises an average compressive stress (see para 0071 discloses pressure exerted).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the abrasive article comprises an average compressive stress at maximum load of at least 50 MPa.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include an average compressive stress at maximum load of at least 50 MPa. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nevoret teaches the abrasive article comprises an average compressive stress (see para 0071 discloses pressure exerted).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the abrasive article comprises an average compressive stress at maximum load of not greater than 500 MPa.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the average compressive stress at maximum load is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include an average compressive stress at maximum load of not greater than 500 MPa. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nevoret the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.08 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.08 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nevoret the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of not greater than 1.0 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of not greater than 1.0 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nevoret teaches the second abrasive body comprises a non-vitreous bond material (para 0053 clays, talc).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nevoret teaches the second abrasive body comprises a metal bond material (para 0053 metal carbonates).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nevoret teaches the he plurality of abrasive bodies includes an alternating arrangement of the first abrasive body and the second abrasive body (para 0069).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nevoret the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.25 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.25 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 15, modified Nevoret the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of not greater than 1.0 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of not greater than 1.0 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 16, modified Nevoret teaches the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and the second abrasive body is not greater than 50% of the larger wear rate index.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the wear rate differential can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate differential is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and the second abrasive body is not greater than 50% of the larger wear rate index. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 22, modified Nevoret teaches the first abrasive body comprises a vitreous bond material (see para 0053 – glass; para 0077 discloses different bond strength ) and the second abrasive body comprises a metal bond material (see para 0053- metal carbonate; para 0077 discloses different bond strength ).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nevoret teaches discloses the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary), but fails teach a wear rate differential at least 0.2 cc and not greater than 0.4 cc.
Further, Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the specific wear rate differential, describing only generally “the wear rate differential are useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 24, modified Nevoret teaches discloses the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary), but fails teach a wear rate differential can be not greater than 200% of the lower wear rate.
Further, Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the specific wear rate differential, describing only generally “the wear rate differential are useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nevoret teaches
a first abrasive body (abrasive structure 1404, figure 14) coupled to a substrate (substrate 1402, figure 14), wherein the first abrasive body comprises abrasive particles (para 0071-0072) including a superabrasive (para 0059, discloses grains can be made from diamond)and a bond material comprising a vitreous material (see para 0053 discloses binders include fillers that can be made of glass beads or glass bubbles).
Nevoret fails to disclose a second abrasive body coupled to the substrate, wherein the second abrasive body comprises abrasive particles including a superabrasive and a bond material comprising at least one non-vitreous phase material; and a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body of at least 0.08 cc and not greater than 0.4cc.
However, Nevoret teaches in a different embodiment a plurality of abrasive (para 0077, figure 17) bodies comprises:
a first abrasive body (abrasive region 1702, figure 17); and a second abrasive body (abrasive region 1706, figure 17), wherein the second abrasive body comprises abrasive particles including a superabrasive (see para 0059 disclsoes abrasive grains can be diamond) and a bond material (see para 0053, 0058,0062,0081 binder and filler) comprising at least one non-vitreous phase material (see para 0053 clay); and
a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (para 0064 0077-0078 discloses varying wear rate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nevoret to include the teachings of the different embodiment, where there is a plurality of abrasive bodies where the first body and second body have different characteristics. This modification would help improve the grinding and polishing performance of the abrasive article.
Furthermore, Nevoret discloses the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary)
Further, Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the specific wear rate differential , describing only generally “the wear rate differential are useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 18, modified Nevoret the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.08 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the first abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.08 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 19, modified Nevoret the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary).
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.25 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of a wear rate index at maximum load can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amount of the wear rate index is changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to include the second abrasive body comprises a wear rate index of at least 0.25 cc. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Regarding claim 20, Nevoret teaches
a first abrasive body (abrasive structure 1404, figure 14) coupled to a substrate (substrate 1402, figure 14), wherein the first abrasive body comprises: a first content of superabrasive particles (para 0059, discloses grains can be made from diamond) a total volume of the first abrasive body (para 0059 discloses grains that have volume); a first content of porosity of at least a total volume of the first abrasive body (para 0024,0077, disclose porosity ; a first content of bond material of at least a total volume of the first abrasive body (para 0009,0018-0021,0056-0057, disclose binder material), wherein the bond material comprises a vitreous material (see para 0053 discloses binders include fillers that can be made of glass beads or glass bubbles).
Nevoret fails to teach a first content of superabrasive particles of at least 10 vol% and not greater than 30 vol%, a first content of porosity of at least 50 vol% and not greater than 70 vol%, a first content of bond material of at least 5 vol% and not greater than 20 vol% a second abrasive body coupled to the substrate, wherein the second abrasive body comprises: a bond material comprising metal; and
at least one abrasive characteristic selected from the group consisting of:
a second content of superabrasive particles in the second abrasive body different from the first content of superabrasive particles of the first abrasive body;
a second content of porosity in the second abrasive body that is different from the first content of porosity of the first abrasive body; or a second content of bond material in the second abrasive body that is different from the first content of bond material of the first abrasive body;
wherein the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body of at least 0.08 cc and not greater than 0.4 cc.
However, Nevoret teaches in a different embodiments a plurality of abrasive (para 0077, figure 17) bodies comprises: a first abrasive body (abrasive region 1702, figure 17); and a second abrasive body (abrasive region 1706, figure 17), wherein the second abrasive body comprises: a bond material comprising metal; and at least one abrasive characteristic selected from the group consisting of: a second content of superabrasive particles in the second abrasive body different from the first content of superabrasive particles of the first abrasive body; a second content of porosity in the second abrasive body that is different from the first content of porosity of the first abrasive body; or a second content of bond material in the second abrasive body that is different from the first content of bond material of the first abrasive body (see para 0077 teaches different characteristics).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nevoret to include the teachings of the different embodiment, where there is a plurality of abrasive bodies where the first body and second body have different characteristics. This modification would help improve the grinding and polishing performance of the abrasive article.
Nevoret fails to explicitly disclose a first content of superabrasive particles of at least 10 vol% and not greater than 30 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of porosity of at least 50 vol% and not greater than 70 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of bond material of at least 5 vol% and not greater than 20 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; wherein the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body of at least 0.08 cc and not greater than 0.4 cc.
However, the claimed ranges are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The amount of the porosity, and vol can vary depending on the design needed to solve a problem. If the amounts for content, porosity and vol are changed the polishing and grinding performance of the abrasive article is changed. Therefore since, the general conditions of claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Nevoret, it is not inventive to discover optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the abrasive article to a first content of superabrasive particles of at least 10 vol% and not greater than 30 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of porosity of at least 50 vol% and not greater than 70 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body; a first content of bond material of at least 5 vol% and not greater than 20 vol% for a total volume of the first abrasive body. Further, no criticality for the claimed recitation is apparent in applicant's disclosure.
Furthermore, Nevoret discloses the abrasive article comprises a wear rate differential between the first abrasive body and second abrasive body (see para 0077-78, wear patterns and rate may vary)
Further, Examiner notes Applicant has not assigned any criticality to the specific wear rate differential, describing only generally “the wear rate differential are useful to increase usable lifespan,” without explaining any criticality of the claimed ranges. Per MPEP 2144.05 II B, only result-effective variables can be optimized. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to select a specific wear rate differential based on the particular application and operational parameters, including a number in the claimed range.
Claim(s) 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevoret (US20060185257A1) in view of Nabeya (US20040048557A1).
Regarding claim 21, Nevoret teaches all limitations stated above ,but fails to teach first abrasive body and the second abrasive body are not in direct contact with each other.
However, Nevoret does disclose creating different patterns and designs of abrasive bodies (see para 0015 0061,0032)
Nabeya teaches an abrasive article that teaches wide range arrangements for abrasive bodies that include first abrasive body and the second abrasive body are not in direct contact with each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nevoret’s first and second abrasive arrangement based on the teachings of Nabeva. This modification would help improve performance of abrasive article (see para 0058 Nabeva).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-0390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30am - 5:30pm and Friday 6:00am-3:00pm.
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 571-272-4475. 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.
/SARAH AKYAA FORDJOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights