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 .
Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 15, 24, 31-32 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meana-Esteban et al. (US 2016/0001422).
Regarding claim 1
Meana-Esteban discloses an abrasive article and method of making an abrasive article (100) including providing a backing substrate (101), applying a thermoplastic laminate (102-108; and paras 0039 and 0048), applying a maker resin to be cured (112; and paras 0061, 0072, 0078 and 0079) to the laminate opposite the backing substrate (Figures 3-8), applying a plurality of abrasive particles (113; and paras 0061, 0072, 0078 and 0079).
Meana-Esteban discloses that the thermoplastic can be melted (i.e., hot melt polymer) (para 0066)
Meana-Esteban discloses that the backing can be cloth (i.e., fabric) (paras 0005, 0062, 0064 and 0072). In such a case it is expected and obvious that the surface roughness of a cloth backing would decrease after being laminated with a thermoplastic resin. Further, this is a product-by-process limitation which only serves to limit the claim when it can be shown that the process used will result in a materially different product.
Meana-Esteban discloses that the abrasive product has openings (i.e., apertures) (226) that may be provided to convey abraded material away through the backing layer, and discloses that the opening(s) extend through the backing layer and the abrasive layer (i.e., fabric comprising first strands that form a first void space between the strands, and wherein a plurality of second void spaces extend through the laminate and coincide with the first void spaces in the fabric) (Figures 7-8; and para 0085).
Regarding claim 2
Meana-Esteban discloses that the laminate layers (102-108) may be applied to the backing by extrusion (para 0088), which would be expected to at least partially wrap around the strands of the cloth backing.
Regarding claim 3
Meana-Esteban discloses that the laminate layers (102-108) may be applied to the backing by extrusion (para 0088), which would be expected to at least partially wrap around the strands of the cloth backing.
Regarding claim 5
Meana-Esteban discloses that the substrate comprising cloth or paper may need pre-treatment, such as by soaking for several hours (i.e., pretreatment with a saturant) (para 0072).
Regarding claim 7
It is obvious and expected that the stiffness of the composite of backing with laminate layers will be stiffer than the backing alone.
Regarding claim 15
Meana-Esteban discloses materials for the laminate that have a melting point of 115 C (Table 1, LD-PE).
Regarding claim 24
The laminate covering the backing would necessarily prevent the resin from contacting the backing.
Regarding claims 31-32
Meana-Esteban discloses the use of adhesion promoting layers (para 0039, 0044), and that the adhesion promoting layer maybe use as a top layer of the backing comprising multiple functional layers (para 0071), which would help adhere the resin layer to the laminated backing, while the laminate is adhered to the backing layer.
Regarding claim 58
Meana-Esteban discloses that the backing layer may be a polyester (para 0067).
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections over Meana-Esteban.
Applicants argue that Meana-Esteban cuts the openings, where their apertures are made from the first void spaces coinciding with the second void spaces to form the plurality of apertures. While this may be true it is not persuasive as even if cut this will make first void spaces which spaces between the strands, and which coincide with the laminate layer. Further based on the broadest reasonable interpretation these through holes are apertures.
Applicants argue that Meana-Esteban’s opening is dictated by channel patterns and not any fabric strand geometry. This is not persuasive as when the fabric is cut the holes will be formed and surrounded by the fabric geometry, and said hole will be between strands.
Applicants argue that the office action has no finding that the openings extend through a laminate at all. This is not persuasive and looking at Figure 8 we can see a hole extending through a laminate (101).
Applicants argue that the surface roughness is not a product-by-process limitation and is not supported by the record. This is not persuasive as the rejection provided reasoning why the skilled artisan would expect the process of Meana-Esteban to provide a cloth with a smother surface after lamination than before.
Applicants argue that Meana-Esteban teaches away from a cloth backing. This is not persuasive as Meana-Esteban explicitly discloses that the backing may be cloth (paras 0005, 0062, 0064).
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive e for the same reasons given above.
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 JAMES E MCDONOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-10.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
JAMES E. MCDONOUGH
Examiner
Art Unit 1734
/JAMES E MCDONOUGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights