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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's arguments in regards to the election of species requirement has been fully considered and is persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the restriction requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woo (2007/0028525).
Regarding Claim 28, Woo teaches An abrasive article (Fig. 4) comprising:
a fabric substrate (Ref. 410, Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of strands (Ref. 412,436&438, Fig. 4) forming first void spaces (Ref. 324, Fig. 3) between the strands (Fig. 1&3);
an adhesive layer (Ref. 440&434, Fig. 4) comprising adhesive bonded to the plurality of strands (Fig. 3&4, [0055&0058-0059]), wherein the adhesive layer comprises a heat activated adhesive ([0055&0058&0072] describes heat activated adhesives); and
abrasive particles (Ref. 430, Fig. 4) embedded within the adhesive layer (fig. 4 shows the abrasive particles embedded in the adhesive layer (434)).
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-12, 18-19, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (2007/0028525) in view of Han (2015/0055030) and as evidence by Zhu (NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Woo teaches an abrasive article (Ref. 410, Fig. 4) comprising:
a fabric substrate (Ref. 412, Fig. 4) comprising strands (Ref. 436&438, Fig. 4) forming first void spaces between the strands ([0037] describes openings between spaces), the fabric substrate comprising an abrasive side (Fig. 4, top surface) and an attachment side (Fig. 4, bottom surface)
a coating on the attachment side (Fig. 3 bottom side);
a make layer (Ref. 432, Fig. 4) joined to the fabric substrate on the abrasive side (Fig. 4, top side);
abrasive particles (Ref. 430, Fig. 4) joined to the make layer (Fig. 4, [0037]);
a plurality of second void spaces extending through the make layer coinciding with first void spaces in the fabric substrate ([0037] describes the openings through all the layers, Fig. 3 shows voids through all coating layers); and
wherein the attachment side of the fabric substrate is substantially free of make layer (Fig. 4).
Woo fails to explicitly teach a coating on an wherein the coating on the fabric substrate reduces the surface energy and features both hydrophobic and lipophobic properties. Han teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Han teaches the concept of a fluorinated coating that reduces the surface energy and lipophobic properties ([0045] describes a fluorine coating to lower surface energy and is lipophobic). Further it is old and well known in the art that fluorinated coatings are hydrophobic ([Abstract], Zhu, NPL). Given that the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating on the fabric substrate, as taught by Woo, to be a fluorinated coating that reduces the surface energy and features both hydrophobic and lipophobic properties, as taught by Han and Zhu, to reduce the coefficient of friction ([0045]) to allow for easier flow of particles through the abrasive article and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of allowing grinding of a surface.
Regarding Claim 2, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Woo further teaches wherein the coated attachment side includes one part of a two-part hook and loop attachment system (Ref. 420, Fig. 4 shows hooks).
Regarding Claim 3, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Woo further teaches wherein the fabric substrate comprises a woven or knitted material ([0037] describes a weft that is a woven material).
Regarding Claim 8, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Woo further teaches wherein the make layer comprises a resin or a hot melt ([0072] describes the make coat as a resin).
Regarding Claim 9, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teachings of the fluorinated coating, Woo as modified further teaches wherein the coating comprises applying a plasma treatment ([0061, Han] describes a plasma treatment and the coating would be capable of receiving a plasma treatment).
Regarding Claim 11, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, given the teachings of the fluorinated coating, Woo as modified further teaches wherein the coating comprises a hydrophobic and lipophobic chemical ([0045, Han] describes a fluorine coating that is hydrophobic and lipophobic).
Regarding Claim 12, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, given the teachings of the fluorinated coating, Woo as modified further teaches wherein the hydrophobic and lipophobic chemical is a fluorinated compound, a silane or a silicone ([0045, Han] describes a fluorinated compound).
Regarding Claim 18, Woo teaches A method of making an abrasive article (Ref. 410, Fig. 4) comprising:
coating an attachment side (Fig. 4, bottom surface) of a fabric substrate (Ref. 412, Fig. 4);
joining a make layer composition (Ref. 432, Fig. 4) to the fabric substrate on an abrasive side of the fabric substrate (Fig. 4); and
joining abrasive particles (Ref. 430, Fig. 4) to the make layer composition (Fig. 4, [0037]);
wherein the fabric substrate comprises strands (Ref. 436&438, Fig. 4) forming first void spaces between the strands ([0037] describes openings between spaces), wherein the attachment side of the fabric substrate is substantially free of the make layer composition (Fig. 4).
Woo fails to explicitly teach a hydrophobic coating material. Han teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Han teaches the concept of a fluorinated coating that reduces the surface energy ([0045] describes a fluorine coating to lower surface energy and is lipophobic). Further it is old and well known in the art that fluorinated coatings are hydrophobic ([Abstract], Zhu, NPL). Given that the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating on the fabric substrate, as taught by Woo, to be a fluorinated coating that reduces the surface energy and features both hydrophobic and lipophobic properties, as taught by Han and Zhu, to reduce the coefficient of friction ([0045]) to allow for easier flow of particles through the abrasive article and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of allowing grinding of a surface.
Regarding Claim 19, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and Woo further teaches curing the make layer composition to provide a make layer (Fig. 3 shows the abrasive layers have multiple coatings, [0072] describes the coating process curing a resin), wherein the curing creates a plurality of second void spaces coinciding with the first void spaces (Fig. 3 shows each layer of coating creating voids coinciding with the first voids).
Regarding Claim 24, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and Woo further teaches wherein the make layer composition comprises a resin ([0072] describes the make coat as a resin).
Regarding Claim 26, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and Han further teaches wherein the coating comprises a fluorinated compound ([0045] describes a fluorine coating that is hydrophobic and lipophobic).
Claims 4 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claims 1 and 28 above, and further in view of Rosenflanz (2015/0267097)
Regarding Claim 4, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the abrasive particles comprises shaped abrasive particles. Rosenflanz teaches an abrasive article with coatings and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Rosenflanz further teaches wherein the abrasive particles comprise shaped abrasive particles (Ref. 100, Fig. 1, [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive particles, as taught by Woo as modified, to be a shaped abrasive particles, as taught by Rosenflanz, to provide a cheaper and more efficient abrading solution ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 30, Woo teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the abrasive particles comprise agglomerate abrasive particles and wherein the agglomerate abrasive particles comprise shaped abrasive particles. Rosenflanz teaches an abrasive article with coatings and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Rosenflanz further teaches wherein the abrasive particles comprise agglomerate abrasive particles (Fig. 5 shows agglomerate abrasive particles on strands (550)), and wherein the agglomerate abrasive particles comprise shaped abrasive particles (Ref. 540, Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the abrasive particles, as taught by Woo as modified, to be agglomerate shaped abrasive particles, as taught by Rosenflanz, to provide a cheaper and more efficient abrading solution ([0030]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Onyemezu (2019/0255676).
Regarding Claim 13, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the coating comprises nanoparticles. Onyemezu teaches an abrasive article with coatings and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Onyemezu further teaches wherein the coating comprises nanoparticles ([0006] describes nano particle binders). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating, as taught by Woo as modified, to have nanoparticles, as taught by Onyemezu, to help allow for better efficiency of polishing the workpiece ([0007]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen (2020/0172780).
Regarding Claim 25, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, further teaches a hydrophobic and lipophobic atmosphere ([0045] describes a fluorine coating that is hydrophobic and lipophobic). Woo fails to explicitly teach wherein the coating comprises a plasma treatment. Chen teaches an abrasive article with different coatings and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen further teaches wherein the coating comprises a plasma treatment ([0039] describes a plasma treatment to apply a hydrophobic coating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen, to prevent any abrasive particles from sticking to the surface it contacts and allowing the particles to be washed away easily ([0003]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Chen (CN1990899A, Chen’).
Regarding Claim 25, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches a hydrophobic and lipophobic atmosphere ([0045] describes a fluorine coating that is hydrophobic and lipophobic). Woo as modified fails to explicitly teach wherein the coating comprises a plasma treatment. Chen’ teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Chen’ further teaches wherein the coating comprises a plasma treatment ([0036] describes a plasma treatment to apply a hydrophobic coating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen’, to achieve the predictable results of having a self-cleaning coating layer that repels water and to increase hardness and wear resistance of underlying structures ([0024]).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Chen (2020/0172780)
Regarding Claim 31, Woo teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further teaches wherein the adhesive layer (440&434) is bonded to the plurality of strands on an adhesive side of the fabric substrate (Fig. 4 top surface), and wherein, on an attachment side (416, Fig. 4), opposite the adhesive side (Fig. 4 bottom surface) and wherein abrasive particles flow through the abrasive article ([0056-0057]). Woo fails to explicitly teach the fabric substrate is coated with a hydrophobic coating. Chen teaches an abrasive article with different coatings and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Chen further teaches adding a hydrophobic layer with abrasive articles for polishing systems ([Abstract]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating, as taught by Woo, to be a hydrophobic layer, as taught by Chen, to prevent any abrasive particles from sticking to the surface it contacts and allowing the particles to be washed away easily ([0003]).
Regarding Claim 32, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 31, as described above, and given the teachings of the hydrophobic coating, Chen further teaches wherein the hydrophobic coating comprises a plasma treatment [0039] describes a plasma treatment to apply a hydrophobic coating).
Regarding Claim 33, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 31, as described above, and given the teachings of the hydrophobic coating, Chen further teaches wherein the hydrophobic coating comprises fluorinated compound ([0041] describes the hydrophobic layer including fluorine).
Claims 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 100494472 C, Chen’).
Regarding Claim 31, Woo teaches the limitations of claim 28, as described above, and further teaches wherein the adhesive layer is bonded to the plurality of strands (Fig. 3) on an adhesive side of the fabric substrate (Fig. 3 shows the adhesive layer, and wherein, on an attachment side (Fig. 3 bottom of the surface not shown), opposite the adhesive side. Woo fails to explicitly teach the fabric substrate is coated with a hydrophobic coating. Chen’ teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Chen’ further teaches adding a hydrophobic layer (Ref. 13, Fig. 1, [0036] ) with a rough surface (Ref. 111, Fig. 1) onto a substrate ([Abstract]) using a plasma treatment ([0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating, as taught by Woo, to be a hydrophobic layer, as taught by Chen’, to increase hardness and wear resistance of underlying structures ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 32, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 31, as described above, and given the teachings of the hydrophobic coating, Chen’ further teaches wherein the hydrophobic coating comprises a plasma treatment ([0037] describes a plasma treatment to apply a hydrophobic coating). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen’, to achieve the predictable results of having a self-cleaning coating layer that repels water and to increase hardness and wear resistance of underlying structures ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 33, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 31, as described above, and given the teachings of the hydrophobic coating, Chen’ further teaches wherein the hydrophobic coating comprises fluorinated compound ([0019] describes the hydrophobic layer including fluorine). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a coating that comprises fluorinated compound, as taught by Chen’, to achieve the predictable results of having a self-cleaning coating layer that repels water and to provide cleaning and activation effects to the substrate surface ([0019]).
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo as modified applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Han (2015/0055030) and Zhu (NPL).
Regarding Claim 41, Woo as modified teaches the limitations of claim 31, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the hydrophobic coating comprises a silane or silicone. Woo further teaches wherein the chemical is a fluorinated compound, a silane or a silicone ([0045, Han] describes a fluorinated compound). Han teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Han teaches the concept of a fluorinated coating that reduces the surface energy and lipophobic properties ([0045] describes a fluorine coating to lower surface energy and is lipophobic) and a silane or a silicone ([0045, Han] describes a fluorinated compound). Further it is old and well known in the art that fluorinated coatings are hydrophobic ([Abstract], Zhu, NPL). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating on the fabric substrate, as taught by Woo, to be a fluorinated coating comprising a silane or silicone that reduces the surface energy and features both hydrophobic and lipophobic properties, as taught by Han and Zhu, to reduce the coefficient of friction and allow for easier gliding the abrasive elements when in use ([0045]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 January, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 28 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Woo. Examiner has reinterpreted Woo to teach an adhesive layer with a heat activated adhesive.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 January, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 13 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Onyemezu. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating, as taught by Woo as modified, to have nanoparticles, as taught by Onyemezu, to help allow for better efficiency of polishing the workpiece ([0007]).
Applicant's arguments filed 15 January, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1 and 18, applicant’s arguments that Woo fails to teach wherein the attachment side of the fabric substrate is substantially free of make layer has been fully considered and not persuasive. Examiner has applied Woo to the 35 USC 102 rejection above. Examiner notes, the make layer joined to the fabric substrate on the abrasive side (Fig. 4, top surface) while the wherein the attachment side of the fabric substrate (Fig. 4 bottom surface where the bottom layer is 416) is substantially free of make layer (Fig. 4). Further Woo teaches the open mesh backing of Fig. 3 as an view to show the components of the abrasive layer ([0015]) and the view of figure 4 as the abrasive article including the open mesh backing ([0016&0036-0037]). Examiner notes the fabric substrate is made up of the all the layers shown in figure 4. If applicant intended for the fabric substrate to only include the strands such a limitation is not required.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han teaches a coating of a substrate and can be considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor to coat a surface layer. Further Woo teaches the abrasive article is made to allow for a flow of particles through the porous surface ([Abstract]). Examiner is merely modifying the fluorinated coating to be a hydrophobic coating material, as taught by Han and Zhu, to provide the benefit of reducing the coefficient of friction ([0045]) to allow any particles to flow through the abrasive article easier.
Regarding claim 25, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han teaches the coating to provide a hydrophobic and lipophobic layer on the attachment side and the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]). Therefore, applying the hydrophobic the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen, to prevent any abrasive particles from sticking to the surface it contacts and allowing the particles to be washed away easily ([0003]) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the flow of particles through the abrasive article, including the attachment side, of Woo, is maintained without clogs.
Regarding claim 25, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han teaches the coating to provide a hydrophobic and lipophobic layer on the attachment side and the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]). Therefore, applying the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen’, to achieve the predictable results of having a self-cleaning coating layer that repels water and to increase hardness and wear resistance of underlying structures ([0024]) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the flow of particles through the abrasive article, including the attachment side, of Woo, is maintained while reducing wear.
Regarding claim 31-33, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han teaches the coating to provide a hydrophobic and lipophobic layer on the attachment side and the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]). Therefore, applying the coating, as taught by Woo, to be a hydrophobic layer, as taught by Chen, to prevent any abrasive particles from sticking to the surface it contacts and allowing the particles to be washed away easily ([0003]) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the flow of particles through the abrasive article, including the attachment side, of Woo, is maintained without clogs.
Regarding claim 31-33, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Han teaches the coating to provide a hydrophobic and lipophobic layer on the attachment side and the abrasive article of Woo is porous to allow a flow of particles through the abrasive article ([Abstract]). Therefore, applying the hydrophobic coating, as taught by Woo, with a plasma treatment, as taught by Chen’, to achieve the predictable results of having a self-cleaning coating layer that repels water and to increase hardness and wear resistance of underlying structures ([0024]) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that the flow of particles through the abrasive article, including the attachment side, of Woo, is maintained while reducing wear.
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
Prosecution Insights