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 amendments filed 09-12-2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3,6-9,11-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09-12-2025 has been entered.
Affidavit
The affidavits under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09-12-2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3,6-9,11-20,22 based upon as being unpatentable over Nevoret as set forth in the last Office action because: facts presented are not germane to the rejection at issue.
It refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716 for a detailed discussion of Affidavits or Declarations under 37 CFR 1.132.
Section I-II: It states that the claimed range for the wear rate differential of the abrasive article formed using both metal bonded segments and vitrified bonded segments demonstrated an improvement in grinding performance; however, examiner does not agree this is an unexpected result as required by MPEP 716.02. It is an expected result; applicant took what was known which is an abrasive article formed having different compositions/regions that include a bonded area and vitrified area and different wear rates, and through routine experimentation found the claimed range. The claimed range for the wear rate differential is an obvious variable to optimize since one would expect to find a range that ensures that there is a balanced benefit from each composition and region that forms the improved abrasive article.
Further, the examiner would like to point out that experimental procedure disclosed by the applicant are routine and could be conducted by one of ordinary skill in the art. The experiment primarily consists of observing the performance of the abrasive article having different wear rate differentials. Experiments that observe the effects of changing a particular variable of interest are notoriously well known and routine. Analyzing the result is simple of using ubiquitous software (e.g. Excel) to perform known functions such as scatter plots or statistical tests.
Therefore as stated in MPEP 716.02(c) “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of obviousness thereof.”
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09-12-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8 the applicant argues that the claimed wear rate differential range plays a critical role, that the range would produce a device that performs different and unexpected results. However, the examiner does not agree the applicant has properly established that range of wear rate differential of the independent claims Examiner believes that a person with ordinary skill in the art would expect that having a wear rate differential that ensures a balanced benefit from materials that form the improved abrasive article. Therefore as stated in MPEP 716.02(c) “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof.
The applicant has not provided any evidence that the specific range/proportion (i.e. 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) is anything more than an optimal or workable range that could be found through routine experimentation. Criticality of a range is generally shown by establishing the range achieves unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05). But as discussed above, the applicant has not shown any evidence of unexpected results.
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 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 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
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