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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/27/2026 has been entered.
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 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 (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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections over Meana-Esteban.
Applicants argue that the amendment to the claims overcome the reference of Meana-Esteban. This is not persuasive and the rejection has been modified to show how Meana-Esteban discloses the amended limitations.
Applicants argue against the prior art rejections over Meana-Esteban in view of Woo. As the reference of Woo is no longer applied these arguments are mainly moot, but will be replied to, to the extent they are pertinent to the rejection.
Applicants argue that para 0072-0073 of Mean-Esteban list the shortcomings of cloth backings. While this may be true it is not persuasive Meana-Esteban repeatedly discloses that a cloth backing may be used (paras 0005, 0062, and 0064), making it obvious if not anticipated to use a cloth backing.
Applicants argue against the reasoning that the laminated material would be expected to have less surface roughness than the untreated cloth, Applicants then argue that Meana-Esteban discloses die casting, extrusion and injection molding, and that molds and extrusion dies can be made with surface structure. While this may be true it is not persuasive as Meana-Esteban does not disclose a surface structure to the mold or extrusion dies and also discloses that the layers may be process by lamination(para 0066).
Applicants argue that Mean-Esteban can be used to provide channels which is opposite of providing a substantially flat landing as described in the application. While this may be true it is not persuasive as the claims do not recite a substantially flat landing.
Applicants argue that Meana-Esteban is silent as to lowering the relative surface roughness and that logic and reasoning cannot lead to functional layers in Meana-Esteban having a surface adjacent to the abrasive layer that is relatively lower in surface roughness because Meana-Esteban discloses channels. This is not persuasive as the skilled artisan would expect a cloth backing to display a certain amount of surface roughness, and would expect the surface to be less rough after a hot melt thermoplastic polymer is laminated thereto.
The remaining arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive e for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
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