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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments/Response filed on December 15, 2025. Claim 1 has been amended. No additional claims have been added. Claims 6 and 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The examiner fully acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 filed on December 15, 2025.
The applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims, as presented in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection, which previously indicated the claims as being anticipated by Nauche (US PG Pub No. 20020021404) by including limitations from the presently cancelled claim 6.
However, upon further consideration, the amended claim 1 includes redundancy resulting in a 112(b) rejection. Please the rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in lines 9-17, “wherein the first core and the second core are fixed to each other, without the rough machining grindstone and the finish machining grindstone being fixed at least at outer peripheral portions of end surfaces thereof that face toward each other;
wherein the first core and the second core are fixed to each other, without the rough machining grindstone and the finish machining grindstone being fixed to each other, and
wherein the rough machining portion and the finish machining portion are fixed to each other, with only the first core and the second core being bonded at end surfaces thereof to each other.”
As the final clause (lines 14-17) is the most complete, as it reflects that the connection between the machining portions is through the first and second core being bonded at end surfaces between each other. As a result, the repeated phrases of “the first core and second core are fixed to each other” create confusion due to the repetition. For clarity, the examiner suggests the following language in place of lines 9-17 in order to address the limitations in question:
“wherein the rough machining portion and the finish machining portion are fixed to each other,
with only the first core and the second core being bonded at end surfaces thereof to each other,
without the rough machining grindstone and the finish machining grindstone being bonded to each other.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Nauche, the art of record relied upon in the previous aciton, when evaluated as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipates nor renders obvious the complete combination of the recited elements as presented within the claim.
Nauche discloses a multilayer grindstone (beveling tool, fig. 1-4), comprising a rough machining portion (abrasive periphery 19’ and intermediate part 22'; see fig. 1 - ann. 1) and a finish machining portion (at least abrasive periphery 19 and intermediate part 22, see fig. 1 - ann. 1) adjacent to each other on a rotational axis (see fig. 1 – ann. 1), each includes a core (intermediate part 22’, see fig. 1 - ann. 1), wherein the first core (intermediate part 22’, see fig. 1 - ann. 1) and the second core (intermediate part 22, see fig. 1 - ann. 1) are fixed to each other, without the rough machining grindstone and the finish machining grindstone being fixed (disk 24 between the two active peripheries, see fig. 1) at least at outer peripheral portions of end surfaces thereof that face toward each other (see fig. 1 – ann. 1), the cores are fixed to each other ([0033]), without the rough machining grindstone and the finish machining grindstone being fixed to each other.
However, it fails to show but fails to disclose the cores as being bonded “at end surfaces thereof to each other.”
Fig. 1-4 of Nauche show an embodiment with first and second core being attached to each other through sharing a connection with tubular hub 15.
They are not structurally bonded by their respective end surfaces to each other. Additionally, disk 24 is seated between the two intermediate parts (cores) and is necessitated by Nauche in order to compensate for any deflections that may occur during the grinding process with the beveling tool. To remove disk 24 in order to allow for such a connection between cores would impair Nauche’s ability to perform as originally designed.
Another reference considered was Kaul (US PG Pub No. 20140323020; see fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
276
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While showing a plurality of grinding portions which could be adapted for fine and rough grinding, the core they are fixed upon is a single, solid core. For the core to be separated into multiple cores and then rebounded to reach the claimed apparatus would be an instance of improper hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KHALIL HAWKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-5446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8-5PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/JASON KHALIL HAWKINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3723