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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving, processing and storing data, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent Claim 1 recites An abrasive system comprising:
a consumable abrasive product (additional element) comprising:
an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder (additional element); and
a data storage device embedded within the abrasive layer (additional element);
an abrasive tool configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product (additional element), the abrasive tool comprising:
a drive component configured to rotationally urge the consumable abrasive product against a worksurface (additional element);
a sensor (additional element) configured to sense an operational parameter of the abrasive tool during an abrasive operation (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
a feedback indicator positioned on the housing of the abrasive tool (additional element);
a drive controller operatively coupled to the drive component and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation (additional element);
a computing system comprising one or more computing devices (additional element) configured to:
receive a consumable abrasive product data from the data storage device (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
receive a sensed operational parameter from the sensor wherein a first dataset comprises the received sensed operational parameter and the consumable abrasive product (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
identify, based on the first dataset, that the sensed operational parameter falls outside a predetermined operating parameter range thereby defining a threshold condition (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
generate a second dataset comprising an indication of the sensed operational condition(observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
store the second dataset in a quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals, wherein each successive interval is at least an order of magnitude greater than the preceding interval, and wherein datasets stored at earlier intervals are retained without overwriting when later datasets are stored, thereby forming a non-linear, multi-resolution historical record of the sensed operational parameter ((observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determine the threshold condition based at least in part on consumable specific operational data retrieved from the embedded data storage device and correlated with the sensed operational parameter (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
in response to a determination, based on the second dataset, that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, perform at least one of: (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state (additional element), (ii) transmit a control signal to the drive controller to adjust an operational parameter of the drive component (additional element), or (iii) disable operation of the abrasive tool to prevent further use with the consumable abrasive product (additional element).
Further, independent Claim 12 recites An abrading system comprising:
a consumable abrasive product (CAP) (additional element) comprising a data storage device embedded within a layer of the CAP, the data storage device comprising a CAP dataset, the CAP dataset comprising use data, quality data or safety data regarding the CAP (additional element);
an abrading tool with a housing, the abrading tool being configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product (additional element), the abrading tool comprising:
a abrading tool sensor (additional element) configured to sense an operational condition of the abrading tool (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
an feedback indicator positioned on the housing (additional element); and
a drive controller operatively coupled to the drive component of the abrading tool and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation (additional element);
a computing system comprising one or more computing devices (additional element) configured to:
receive the CAP dataset from the data storage device (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));;
receive the sensed operational condition from the abrading tool sensor (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
identify, based on the first dataset, that the sensed operational condition falls outside a predetermined operating parameter range thereby defining a threshold condition (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
generate a second dataset comprising an indication of the sensed operational condition, the second dataset being a based on the first data set (observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
store the second dataset in a quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals, wherein each successive interval is at least an order of magnitude greater than the preceding interval, and wherein datasets stored at earlier intervals are retained without overwriting when later datasets are stored, thereby forming a non-linear, multi-resolution historical record of the sensed operational parameter ((observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
determine the threshold condition based at least in part on consumable specific operational data retrieved from the embedded data storage device and correlated with the sensed operational parameter (judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and
in response to a determination, based on the second dataset, that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, perform at least one of: (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state (additional element), (ii) transmit a control signal to the drive controller to adjust an operational parameter of the drive component (additional element), or (iii) disable operation of the abrasive tool to prevent further use with the consumable abrasive product (additional element).
Further, dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 13-14, 16-20 and 22-24 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed. For example, dependent Claim 9 recites various additional elements, e.g., a timer configured to measure elapsed time from a reference time (additional element); a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature within the system (additional element); an ammeter configured to measure an electrical current draw of the abrading tool during use of the abrading tool (additional element); a tachometer configured to measure rotation of the consumable abrasive product (additional element); a pressure sensor configured to measure force applied to the abrading tool by a user of the abrading tool (additional element), which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims 4 and 21 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the drive controller is deemed to be an additional element that integrates the above-recited abstract ideas into a practical application thereof.
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 13-14, 16-20 and 22-24) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12, e.g.,
a consumable abrasive product (CAP) comprising a data storage device embedded within a layer of the CAP, the data storage device comprising a CAP dataset, the CAP dataset comprising use data, quality data or safety data regarding the CAP; an abrading tool with a housing, the abrading tool being configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product, wherein the abrading tool comprises an abrading tool sensor and an feedback indicator positioned on the housing; a drive controller operatively coupled to the drive component of the abrading tool and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation; and a computing system comprising one or more computing devices; , in response to a determination, based on the second dataset, that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a consumable abrasive product (CAP) comprising a data storage device embedded within a layer of the CAP, an abrading tool sensor, a feedback indicator positioned on the housing; a drive controller operatively coupled to the drive component of the abrading tool; a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, timer, temperature sensor, ammeter, tachometer and pressure sensor are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (a computing system or a computing device as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of a consumable abrasive product (CAP) comprising a data storage device embedded within a layer of the CAP, the data storage device comprising a CAP dataset, the CAP dataset comprising use data, quality data or safety data regarding the CAP; an abrading tool with a housing, the abrading tool being configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product, wherein the abrading tool comprises an abrading tool sensor and an feedback indicator positioned on the housing; a drive controller operatively coupled to the drive component of the abrading tool and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation; and a computing system comprising one or more computing devices; , in response to a determination, based on the second dataset, that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state; timer, temperature sensor, ammeter, tachometer and pressure sensor.
These additional elements include generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the computing system (4) can comprise one or more computing devices, such as personal computers, server devices, mainframe computers, and other types of devices ([pg. 11, lines 1-2]). The data storage device 6 comprises the database with an organized collection of data, such as one or more relational databases such as a quasi-logarithmic database discussed in reference to FIG. 10, object-oriented databases, data cubes, and so on ([pg. 11, lines 4-7]). The abrading tool 8 can comprise various types of abrading tools, such as but not limited to: orbital sanders, random orbital sanders, belt sanders, angle grinders, die grinders, floor buffers, reciprocating sanders, file sanders, and other tools for abrading surfaces ([pg. 11, lines 11-14]). The consumable abrasive product (CAP) 10 can comprise but is not limited to: a sanding disk, sanding belt, grinding wheel, burr, wire wheel, polishing discs/belts, deburring wheels, convolute wheels, unitized wheels, flap discs, flap wheels, cut-off wheels, and other products for physically abrading workpieces ([pg. 11, lines 14-17]). Additionally, the CAP 10 can have the communication unit mounted therein or mounted thereto. The communication unit in this case can be a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) or Near Field Communication (NFC) interface (i.e., a tag) (page 11, lines 27-28 and page 12, lines 13-14). Sensors 19 can be implanted in one or more of the abrading tool 8, workpiece 9 and CAP 10 (page 9, lines 4-5) such that the computing system 4 can receive at least one operating parameter of one or more of the abrading tool 8, the CAP 10 and the workpiece 9 from the communication unit regarding the sensor 19 ([pg. 9, lines 14-17]). [[[[[[ we need to discuss (1) Drive controller – (2) Drive component – (3) feedback indicator – we can use the specification based on the following description, or point out more specifically like the above description ]]]]] None of an electronic identifier and a readout system, a timer configured to measure elapsed time from a reference time, a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature within the system, an ammeter configured to measure an electrical current draw of the abrading tool during use of the abrading tool, a tachometer configured to measure rotation of the consumable abrasive product, or a pressure sensor configured to measure force applied to the abrading tool by a user of the abrading tool are described with more specificity than claimed.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “data storage device,” “sensor,” “communication unit”, “feedback indicator”, “drive controller” “computing system comprising one or more computing devices” “timer” “ammeter” and “tachometer” are reasonably construed as generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the above-identified generic computing devices. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)). Examiner notes the BRI of the claim would merely include actuating the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper state. This action would fall within insignificant extra solution activity identified in the MPEP (e.g. Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems of Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 12 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g).. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12-14, 16-17, 18-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forgues (US 2012/0007748) in view of Mandl (US 2021/0023675).
Regarding Claim 1, Forgues teaches an abrasive system comprising:
a consumable abrasive product (Ref. 24, Fig. 1b, [0032])comprising:
a data storage device (Ref. 100, Fig. 7, [0041]);
an abrasive tool (Ref. 8, Fig. 1a, [0032]) configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product ([0032]), the abrasive tool comprising:
a drive component (Ref. 78, Fig. 7, [0039]) configured to rotationally urge the consumable abrasive product against a worksurface ([0039] Fig. 7);
a sensor (Ref. 18, Fig. 1a, [0032]) configured to sense an operational parameter of the abrasive tool ([0032]) during an abrasive operation ([0032]);
a feedback indicator (Ref. 44, Fig.4) positioned on the housing of the abrasive tool (Fig. 4); and
a drive controller (Ref. 88, Fig. 7, [0039]) operatively coupled to the drive component (78, Fig. 7) and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation ([0039]);
a computing system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a, [0032]) comprising one or more computing devices configured to:
receive a consumable abrasive product data from the data storage device ([0032&0035] describes the transponder of the disc to transmit a list of parameters of the abrasive product based upon the specific abrasive product);
receive a sensed operational parameter from the sensor ([0032]), wherein a first dataset comprises the received sensed operational parameter and the consumable abrasive product data ([0035] describes identifying the abrasive product and data on the abrasive product);
identify, based on the first dataset, that the sensed operational parameter falls outside a predetermined operating-parameter range, thereby defining a threshold condition ([0035] describes identifying the disc and whether the operating parameters are within the ok range);
generate a second dataset comprising an indication of the sensed operational parameter ([0041] describes being able to continuously save process parameters including parameters outside the first dataset), the second dataset being based on the first dataset ([0035] describes the first dataset modifying the controller to maintain optimal process parameters);
store the second dataset in a quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals (examiner interprets quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals as capable of plotting sequences with large ranges over a spaced time), wherein each successive interval is at least an order of magnitude greater than the preceding interval ([0041] describes having a data saved in a continuous manner with at least a first interval, while this is continuous there would be some time associated to the continuous interval having a first and second point with a magnitude of greater than the proceeding interval, if applicant wishes for no data to be collected in the interim when stored such a limitation is not required), and wherein datasets stored at earlier intervals are retained without overwriting when later datasets are stored, thereby forming a non-linear, multi-resolution historical record of the sensed operational parameter ([0041] describes having a data saved in a continuous manner the datasets would not be overwritten thereby forming a historical record of the sensed operation parameter);
determine the threshold condition based at least in part on consumable-specific operational data retrieved from the embedded data storage device and correlated with the sensed operational parameter ([0035] describes reading and writing data from the consumable ); and
in response to a determination, based on the second dataset, that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, perform at least one of: (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state ([0035]), (ii) transmit a control signal to the drive controller to adjust an operational parameter of the drive component, or (iii) disable operation of the abrasive tool to prevent further use with the consumable abrasive product ([0037]).
Forgues fails to explicitly teach wherein the consumable abrasive product comprises an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder and the data storage device embedded within the abrasive layer. Mandl teaches an abrading tool with a consumable abrasive product with a sensor and communication unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Mandl further teaches a consumable abrasive product (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising an abrasive layer (Fig. 2) comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder (Fig. 2, [0005]) and an electronic device (Ref. 15, Fig 1&2) embedded within the abrasive layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the consumable abrasive product and the data storage device, as taught by Forgues, to have an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder and be embedded within the abrasive layer, as taught by Mandl, to add an identification number or type number to adjust polishing depending upon a particular abrasive consumable product [0017].
Regarding Claim 2, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Forgues further teaches wherein the consumable abrasive product data comprises one or more of safety related data, quality related data and use related data ([0035-0036]).
Regarding Claim 3, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Forgues further teaches wherein the consumable abrasive product data comprises one or more of:
revolutions per minute of the abrading tool or the consumable abrasive product, a type of the abrading tool ([0032] describes the first data can be rotational speed);
a type of the consumable abrasive product ([0034] Fig. 3a-c);
a force applied on one or more of the abrading tool, the consumable abrasive product and the workpiece([0032 and 0037] describe the first data can be pressure on the abrasive);
a temperature of one or more of the abrading tool, the consumable abrasive product and the workpiece ([0032 and 0037] describe the first data can include temperature).
Regarding Claim 4, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Forgues further teaches wherein the data storage device embedded within the abrasive layer comprises a passive wireless communication device selected from a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag or Near-Field Communication (NFC) tag (Fig. 5, [0042] describes an RFID as a wireless communication and the data storage device).
Regarding Claim 5, Forgues teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches further wherein the consumable abrasive product data is regarding the consumable abrasive product ([0032]), and wherein the computing system is configured to identify the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged based upon the at least one operating parameter falling outside the predetermined operating parameter range ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 7, Forgues teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein, in response to receiving data indicating that the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged, the computing system is configured to perform one or more of:
generate a warning ([0037] describes sounding an alarm),
send instructions to the abrading tool or a robotic device configured to operate the abrading tool, prevent use of the abrading tool while the consumable abrasive product is attached to the abrading tool ([0037] describes shut down of the device preventing use of the abrading tool), and
store the data indicating that the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged as the second data ([0038] describes having real time transmission of data).
Regarding Claim 8, Forgues teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches wherein the data indicating that the consumable abrasive product has been damaged ([0037-0038]) or is about to be potentially damaged is derived from one or more of a voltage measurement from a crack detection system, the temperature of the consumable abrasive product ([0038] describes measuring the temperature), the heat flux into or out of the consumable abrasive product, the revolutions per minute of the consumable abrasive product and the force on the consumable abrasive product ([0037] describes measuring the speed and force on the abrasive product).
Regarding Claim 9, Forgues teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the sensor comprises one or more of:
an electronic identifier (ref. 26, Fig. 1B, [0032]) and a readout system ([Ref. 28, Fig. 1A, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 12, Forgues teaches An abrading system comprising:
a consumable abrasive product (CAP) (Ref. 24, Fig. 1b, [0032]) comprising a data storage device (Ref. 100, Fig. 7, [0041]), the data storage device comprising a CAP dataset, the CAP dataset comprising use data, quality data or safety data regarding the CAP ([0035-0036]);
an abrading tool (Ref. 8, Fig. 1a, [0032]) with a housing (Ref. 104, Fig. 1&7, [0043]), the abrading tool being configured to removably couple to the consumable abrasive product ([0032]), the abrading tool comprising:
an abrading tool sensor (Ref. 18, Fig. 1a, [0032]) configured to sense an operational condition of the abrading tool ([0032]);
a feedback indicator (Ref. 92, Fig. 7) positioned on the housing (Fig. 1A&4); and
a drive controller (Ref. 88, Fig. 7, [0039]) operatively coupled to a drive component of the abrading tool (78, Fig. 7) and configured to modify at least one operational parameter of the drive component during operation ([0039]);
a computing system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a, [0032]) comprising one or more computing devices configured to:
receive the CAP dataset from the data storage device ([0032&0035] describes the transponder of the disc to transmit a list of parameters of the abrasive product based upon the specific abrasive product);
receive the sensed operational condition from the abrading tool sensor ([0032]);
identify, based on the first dataset, whether the sensed operational condition falls outside a predetermined operating-parameter range, thereby defining a threshold condition ([0035] describes identifying the disc and whether the operating parameters are within the ok range);
generate a second dataset comprising an indication of the sensed operational condition ([0041] describes being able to continuously save process parameters including parameters outside the first dataset), the second dataset being based on the first dataset ([0035] describes the first dataset modifying the controller to maintain optimal process parameters);
store the second dataset in a quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals (examiner interprets quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals as capable of plotting sequences with large ranges over a spaced time), wherein each successive interval is at least an order of magnitude greater than the preceding interval ([0041] describes having a data saved in a continuous manner with at least a first interval, while this is continuous there would be some time associated to the continuous interval having a first and second point with a magnitude of greater than the proceeding interval, if applicant wishes for no data to be collected in the interim when stored such a limitation is not required), and wherein datasets stored at earlier intervals are retained without overwriting when later datasets are stored, thereby forming a non-linear, multi-resolution historical record of the sensed operational condition ([0041] describes having a data saved in a continuous manner the datasets would not be overwritten thereby forming a historical record of the sensed operation parameter);
determine the threshold condition based at least in part on consumable-specific operational data retrieved from the embedded data storage device and correlated with the sensed operational condition ([0035] describes reading and writing data from the consumable )
in response to determining that the threshold condition has been met or exceeded, perform at least one of: (i) actuate the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state ([0035]); (ii) transmit a control signal to the drive controller to adjust the operational parameter of the drive component; or (iii) disable operation of the abrading tool to prevent further use with the consumable abrasive product ([0037]).
Forgues fails to explicitly teach wherein the data storage embedded within a layer of the CAP. Mandl teaches an abrading tool with a consumable abrasive product with a sensor and communication unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Mandl further teaches a data storage device (Ref. 15, Fig 1&2) is embedded within a layer of the consumable abrasive product (Fig. 1-2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the CAP and the data storage device, as taught by Forgues, to be within the consumable abrasive product, as taught by Mandl, to add the functionality of keeping information about a particular polishing pad with the correlating pad ([0017]).
Regarding Claim 13, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the abrading tool comprises the computing system (Ref. 10, Fig. 1a, [0032]).
Regarding Claim 14, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the feedback indicator comprises an LED (Ref. 98, Fig. 7) coupled to a housing of the abrasive tool ([0042] describes the indicator (92) to have LEDs).
Regarding Claim 16, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the computing system is configured to generate a consumable-abrasive-product risk score based on the quasi-logarithmic history of operational-parameter excursions stored in the data storage device, including at least one of temperature-excursion events, overspeed events, or force-excursion events ([0037] describes using the data and measuring strain data when the applied force becomes unbalanced); and
wherein the abrading tool is further configured to disable operation of the drive component when the risk score exceeds a predetermined limit ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 17, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein determining the threshold condition comprises fusing two or more sensor-derived operational-condition measurements, including at least two of:
vibration-spectral data;
temperature-gradient data ([0038]);
force time-derivative data ([0037]);
revolutions-per-minute variance; or electrical-impedance measurements from the consumable abrasive product;
to determine whether the operational condition falls outside the predetermined operating-parameter range ([0035-0038]).
Regarding Claim 18, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the computing system is configured to modify an acceleration ramp rate of the drive component ([0032]) based at least in part on:
consumable-specific operational data stored in the data storage device embedded within the consumable abrasive product ([0035]); and
the quasi-logarithmic history of temperature, force, or overspeed events stored as datasets in the data storage device ([0036-0038]).
Regarding Claim 19, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Forgues fails to explicitly teach wherein the CAP comprises a bonded abrasive article, and wherein the datastore is stored within an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained in a binder. Mandl teaches an abrading tool with a consumable abrasive product with a sensor and communication unit and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Mandl further teaches a consumable abrasive product (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising an bonded abrasive article (Fig. 2) comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder (Fig. 2, [0005]) and an electronic device (Ref. 15, Fig 1&2) embedded within the abrasive layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the consumable abrasive product and the data storage device, as taught by Forgues, to have an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder and be embedded within the abrasive layer, as taught by Mandl, to add the functionality of keeping information about a particular abrasive consumable product with the product.
Regarding Claim 20, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the sensed operational condition comprises one or more of:
revolutions per minute of the abrading tool or the consumable abrasive product, a type of the abrading tool ([0032] describes the first data can be rotational speed);
a type of the consumable abrasive product ([0034] Fig. 3a-c);
a force applied on one or more of the abrading tool, the consumable abrasive product and the workpiece([0032] describes the first data can be pressure on the abrasive);
a temperature of one or more of the abrading tool, the consumable abrasive product and the workpiece ([0032] describes the first data can include temperature).
Regarding Claim 21, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and further Forgues teaches wherein the data storage device embedded within the abrasive layer comprises a passive wireless communication device selected from a Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tag or Near-Field Communication (NFC) tag ([0042], Fig. 5 shows an RFID tag),
and wherein the computing system or abrading tool is configured to write updated operational-history data to the passive wireless communication device during operation of the consumable abrasive product using energy harvested from a communication field generated by the abrading tool (fig. 7, [0041]).
Regarding Claim 22, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Forgues further teaches wherein the second CAP dataset is retrievable from the data storage device after the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or potentially damaged ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 24, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, and Forgues further teaches wherein the data storage device comprises a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag (Fig. 5, [0042] describes an RFID as a wireless communication and the data storage device).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forgues as modified as applied to claims 1-17, and 19-22 above, and further in view of Sullivan (US 2020/0156210).
Regarding Claim 23, Forgues as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and the limitations with respect to 24 are merely nominal recitations of data gathering without specific language on how it affects the actual operation of the device. Further, there is no recitation as to how the data specifically impacts an operation of the system. Therefore, examiner is interpreting the limitations as merely data gathering and as such Forgues reference is capable of such data gathering measures in when the consumable abrasive product has been damaged due to its continuous saving of data ([0041], based upon the amount of continuous data, depending on the amount of data we are storing there is some kind of time interval to keep the constant saving of data) and Haller teaches a controller that stores a first set of data and compares the data to a parameter and determines if the parameter has been met, then the controller stores a second set of data in the data storage device based upon the first set of data ([Col. 6, Line 47-57]). Forgues as modified fails to explicitly teach receiving data indicating that the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged. Sullivan teaches a system for obtaining abrasion data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sullivan teaches receiving data indicating that the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged ([0163]) and storing that data ([0163-0164]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the second CAP dataset, as taught by Forgues as modified, to begin storing when the consumable abrasive product has been damaged or is about to be potentially damaged, as taught by Sullivan, to ensure normal operations of the abrasive tool is noted to indicate if any polishing errors have occurred ([0163]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to the claim and has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. However, due to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims having the response of “actuating the feedback indicator to provide a warning of an unsafe or improper operating state” is understood as an insignificant extra solution activity. Examiner has updated the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 12 thereby necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of prior art. Applicant's arguments filed 11 March, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Applicant’s arguments in regards to the prior art failing to teach storing the second dataset in a quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner has applied Forgues to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Examiner notes that quasi-logarithmic sequence of temporally spaced storage intervals has been interpreted as plotting sequences with large ranges over a spaced time, as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Thereby, the storage of Forgues being able to have having a data saved in a continuous manner with at least a first interval, while this is continuous there would be some time associated to the continuous interval having a first and second point with a magnitude of greater than the proceeding interval, if applicant wishes for no data to be collected in the interim when stored such a limitation is not required ([0041]). If applicant wishes for no data to be collected in the interim when stored such a limitation is not required.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art fails to teach a data-storage device embedded within the abrasive layer has been fully considered and is not persuasive, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Forgues teaches a consumable abrasive product (Ref. 24, Fig. 1b, [0032])comprising a data storage device (Ref. 100, Fig. 7, [0041]). Mandl further teaches a consumable abrasive product (Ref. 2, Fig. 1) comprising an abrasive layer (Fig. 2) comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder (Fig. 2, [0005]) and an electronic device (Ref. 15, Fig 1&2) embedded within the abrasive layer (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the consumable abrasive product and the data storage device, as taught by Forgues, to have an abrasive layer comprising abrasive particles retained within a binder and be embedded within the abrasive layer, as taught by Mandl, to add an identification number or type number to adjust polishing depending upon a particular abrasive consumable product [0017]. Examiner is merely using the Mandl reference to teach the location of the data storage device.
Further applicant’s arguments that the tool does not adjust speed based upon data-derived threshold conditions from the correlated consumable abrasive historical datasets have been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Forgues to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Examiner notes Forgues teaches receive a sensed operational parameter from the sensor ([0032]), wherein a first dataset comprises the received sensed operational parameter and the consumable abrasive product data ([0035] describes identifying the abrasive product and data on the abrasive product) and identify, based on the first dataset, that the sensed operational parameter falls outside a predetermined operating-parameter range, thereby defining a threshold condition ([0035] describes identifying the disc and whether the operating parameters are within the ok range); and generate a second dataset comprising an indication of the sensed operational parameter ([0041] describes being able to continuously save process parameters including parameters outside the first dataset), the second dataset being based on the first dataset ([0035] describes the first dataset modifying the controller to maintain optimal process parameters). Currently the claims only require receiving data from the CAP, including threshold conditions, and having sensed operation parameters from sensors to create a first dataset. If applicant intended for the data to be processed in a machine learning style architecture such a limitation is not required by the current claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights