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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 claims the “grinding ratio is represented by the claimed language; however, this is not supported by the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. Although the claimed conditions have been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination, there is no support that this is the condition under which “grinding ratio” has been measured/evaluated. Grinding ratio is a ratio of the material removal rate over wheel wear rate; at best, the machining condition disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination is to measure amount of wear of the grinding stone of samples 9, 11, 3, and 12. While this presents results for, only a few samples, it is for only the “wear”, and results for material removal rate is missing. Thus, there is no support that the exactly claimed condition has been used to measure the claimed grinding ratio.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Although claim 5 claims a range for “specific gravity”, no unit has been recited for said range.
Applicant is advised that any potential amendment to the claim reciting a unit for the specific gravity needs to have support in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2020/0001430 to Rapaka et al. (hereinafter Rapaka) in view of U.S. Patent No.
4,992,220 to Neri et al. (hereinafter Neri) further in view of U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2006/0137256 to Yui et al. (hereinafter Yui), with evidence provided from U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0194954 to Bonner et al.
With respect to claim 1, Rapaka teaches a bonded abrasive article comprising a
high degree of porosity such as a porosity of at least 55 vol% to not greater than 90
vol% wherein "at least" 10% of the porosity is open porosity, i.e. claimed “pores
communicating with each other” (Rapaka, abstract, [0044], [0058], claim 4). Rapaka
teaches that their bonded abrasive article is used is various grinding operations
(Rapaka, [0013]). Rapaka teaches an inorganic bond material such as vitreous one
(Rapaka, [0019], [0053], [0106], [0167]).
Rapaka teaches a process of manufacturing the bonded abrasive article which
comprises forming a mixture comprising a number of components including water as a
carrier, a bond precursor material, which can be a precursor of a vitreous bond material,
a gelling agent such as a gum such as agar or carrageen gum (i.e. claimed “gellable
water-soluble polymer”), and abrasive particles (Rapaka, [0015], [0019], [0021]-[0022],
[0025], [0038]). The disclosed mixture is seen to read on the claimed “raw material
Slurry”. Rapaka teaches mixing the components homogeneously (Rapaka, [0015]). The
reference discloses that the components may be added together or added in a
particular order, then the mixture is formed into a gel, followed by forming a green body
from the gel using at least one process from the group of pressing, molding, freezing,
drying, cooling or any combination thereof (Rapaka, [0037]-[0041]) wherein the green
body is formed into the final-formed bonded abrasive body using drying, sintering,
cooling, pressing, vitrifying, or any combination thereof (Rpaka, [0042]). Rapaka
teaches that in one particular embodiment, the process can include casting, cooling,
drying and firing, and for vitrified bond material, the firing can be suitable for forming the vitreous bond material (Rapaka, [0042]). Thus, the reference recognizes utilizing
process steps such as pressing, molding, freezing, drying, and firing, wherein
molding/pressing takes place after gelling, and wherein firing, especially in the vitrified
bonded material, is the last step of the process of forming with drying taking place prior
to firing but after molding.
Although Rapaka recognizes the mixing, molding, drying and firing, as some of
the process steps in the formation of their bonded abrasive article, Rapaka does not
expressly and/or literally disclose a freeze “vacuum” drying to generate the plurality of
“frozen particles” inside the molded body, then placing the molded body under a
vacuum so as to “sublimate” the frozen particles generated inside the molded body to
dry the body.
Neri directed to a method for producing packaging material, discloses mixing
boiling water and a gelling agent such as polysaccharide agar to form a solution mixture and pouring the mixture into a mold; after the solution is cooled and gelled in the mold and reached the desired shape, the gelled mixture is removed and frozen, followed by placing it in a freeze drier in a vacuum chamber where it is completely sublimated to remove therefrom all moisture, wherein the resultant freeze dried material is extremely light in weight (Neri, abstract; col. 2, lines 5-45). The fact that the final formed product is light in weight reveals the fact that the finally formed product contains high level of porosity especially because Neri discloses that the product consistency is like a foam (Neri, col. 2, lines 29-31). The pores are where there used to be frozen water gels, which are taken to render the claimed "frozen particles" obvious. Therefore, the disclosure of Neri renders the fact obvious that the freeze vacuum drying process for solutions containing water and a gelling agent soluble in water, has been known in the field of science despite the fact that the product aimed for by Neri is not a grinding tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rapaka with the teachings of Neri to freeze the gelled molded green body of Rapaka and freeze dry the frozen molded article in order to sublimate the moisture/water used in the starting slurry, motivated by the fact that Rapaka also utilizes a gelling agent, of the same type of compounds as that taught by Neri, mixed with water among their components to form their gelled mold. Rapaka, additionally, discloses the steps of molding/pressing, freezing, and drying for their process which are evidence of the fact that even though Rapaka may not specifically and/or literally disclose the use of a “vacuum” chamber, or the “sublimation” of the moisture of the frozen particles, such process steps cannot be completely unknown to Rapaka either. Thus, the use of known steps in the field of science such as those taught by Neri, which are also generally known by Rapaka would have been well within the scope of a skilled artisan. This is considering the fact that both references are directed to producing articles/products having porosity using gelling agents in the starting raw materials.
Rapaka discloses the use of their bonded abrasive article in various grinding
operations (Rapaka, [0013]), and vitrified grinding stones are recognized as bonded
abrasive article; in fact, vitrified grinding stones comprising abrasive grains and a
vitrified binder, have long been known, in the art of abrasive articles, as being used in
grinding operations as that shown and evidenced by Yui (Yui, abstract and throughout
the reference). Yui discloses a vitrified grinding stone including abrasive grains and
vitrified binder having a porosity falling within a range of 30 to 70 vol.% (Yui, abstract,
[0034]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have obtained a grinding ratio, i.e. G-ratio, of 11-750 for the grinding stone of the combination of references motivated by the fact that the combination of references renders the claimed process steps of manufacturing the claimed high-porosity vitrified grinding stone obvious, and therefore, the claimed G-ratio is naturally expected to follow from the final product of the combination of references, further motivated by the fact that G-ratios within the ranges of 34.5 to 56.6, which would fall within the claimed range has been known for abrasive grinding wheels of 54 vol% porosity and abrasive grains such as fused alumina as that taught and evidenced by Bonner (Bonner, abstract, [0039], [0054], [0096, Table 1-3). The process steps of manufacturing the abrasive grinding wheel of Bonner involves mixing, molding, curing or sintering (Bonner, [0047]) which include most of the claimed process steps. Thus, it would be well within the scope of a skilled artisan that obtaining a wide range of G-ratio of 11 to 750 for abrasive grinding wheels of high porosity has been known in the art.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because the gelling which takes place in Rapaka, due to the use of a gelling agent in the presence of water, in the mold, once frozen, would inevitably result in frozen gels, i.e. claimed frozen particles, which when sublimated in a vacuum chamber, would result in the drying of the moisture, as that taught by Neri, and leave behind the product/article without moisture. Where the moisture/water used to be, would then be empty spaces.
MPEP 2144 states "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not
have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly
contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent
established by prior case law. 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); see also In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is because Rapaka teaches mixing, at least, water, gelling agent, a
vitreous bond precursor, and abrasive grains homogeneously, and recognizes the
formation of a gelled mixture which is then molded; additionally, Rapaka teaches not
only mixing, gelling and molding, but also freezing, drying and firing. Thus, it is
reasonable to expect that after the gelled mixture is formed into a mold followed by
freezing and freeze drying in a vacuum chamber, as that rendered obvious by Neri,
upon sublimation of the moisture, the remaining materials/components are precursor
bond material and abrasive grains, in short, anything but water. Thus, because upon
sublimating the moisture in the gelled molded body of Rapaka, there forms pores where water/moisture used to be present, the interface between where there used to be frozen gelled particles has been occupied by the precursor vitrified bond material as well as abrasive grains.
MPEP 2144 states "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not
have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly
contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent
established by prior case law. 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); see also In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Rapaka teaches a high porosity abrasive article comprising a porosity of at least 55 vol% to not greater than 90 vol% (Rapaka, abstract, [0058]).
With respect to claim 5, considering the fact that the combination of references
renders the claimed processing steps, the critical claimed components such as the
abrasive grains and a water-soluble polymer gelling agent obvious, the combination of
references is seen to render the claimed high-porosity vitrified grinding stone having a
specific gravity of 0.34-1.48 or one having overlapping with this claimed range obvious.
This is, also, considering the fact that the references utilize one of the preferred gelling
agent, namely agar and carrageen, and resulting in a high porosity article having
substantial overlapping with the claimed porosity. Rapaka even teaches an average
particle size of at least 0.5, or even at least 5 microns for the abrasive particles
(Rapaka, [0050]); the original specification of the present Application under examination discloses a particle size of 0.2-10 microns for their samples, with a particle size of 6 microns for the samples producing the highest grinding ratio (specification, Figure 8). Therefore, it is expected of the grindstone of the combination of references to result in a specific gravity such as 0.31 to 1.48 or a specific gravity having overlapping with this claimed range.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references is seen to render the
claimed feature of “the abrasive grains” having a “median grain diameter that is smaller
than a thickness of the bond bridges constituting the shells of the pores” obvious; this is because the combination of references not only render the process steps, the level of porosity, the type of bonding material, and the average size of the abrasive grains
obvious compared to what has been claimed in the claims and disclosed in the original
specification of the present Application under examination, but also because the
concentration of abrasive grains, as taught by Rapaka, is not greater than 40 vol%
(Rapaka, [0052]) while the concentration of the bond material is not greater than 65
vol% (Rapaka, [0055]). This would result in a ratio of the volume concentration of the
abrasive particles to the volume concentration of the bond material which would
substantially overlap what has been disclosed in the present Application under
examination (see specification of the present Application under examination, Figure 8, samples 1 to 10). Other components, such as gelling agent, additive and more are also present, but clearly the majority portion of the bonded article of Rapaka is the bond material, and while a ratio of the abrasive grains to the bond would cover the most of the disclosed ratio as shown in Figure 8 of the specification of the present Application under examination, and because the size of the abrasive grains as disclosed by Rapaka (Rapaka, [0050]), also substantially overlap with what is disclosed in the specification of the present Application under examination (specification, Figure 8, samples 1 to 10), it is reasonable to expect that the finally formed bonded body to have thicker bond bridges compared to the median size of the abrasive grains absence evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 7, it is noted that irrespective of the specific grinding condition, the claimed grinding ratio has been rendered obvious by the combination of references. Therefore, it is expected that the machining conditions of the combination of references, in particular that of Rapaka, would not be different from those claimed in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claim to include a grinding ratio of 11-750, and asserted that this grinding ratio is because of the fact that that the presently claimed grinding stone does not utilize any pore-forming agent, as well as the process of forming the claimed grinding stone utilizes a step of freeze vacuum. Thus, Application concluded that this grinding ratio is an unexpected results (Remarks, page 4).
The examiner, respectfully, submits that Bonner is an evidence of the fact that grinding ratios falling within the claimed grinding ratio not only has been known in the art, but also they are unexpected results of the use obtained as a result of a freeze vacuum drying step, as Applicant has asserted in both the Declaration and the Remarks. This is because Bonner does not disclose any freeze vacuum drying step, said reference has achieved G-ratios such as 34.5, 63.3, 71.4, 62.7, and 56.6 as shown in Table 1-3.
It is emphasized that the component of the raw material, i.e. fluid of abrasive grains, a vitrified bond, water and a gellable water-soluble polymer, all have been taught by Rapaka, and even though some of the preferred components have been listed in the rejection, the claim is silent to any specific component.
Applicant has asserted Rapaka, i.e. primary reference, teaches foaming agent which form pores; therefore, Applicant concluded Rapaka is primarily directed toward using pore formers and fails to consider an advantage of not using a pore former (Remarks, page 5).
The examiner, respectfully, submits the claims do not contain a close transitional phrase “consisting of”; thus, the use of foaming agent by Rapaka is not seen to teach away from the claimed method.
Applicant has asserted that samples 11 and 12 not only did not include a pore former, but were not subject to freeze vacuum drying; Applicant concluded that this resulted in having a low grinding ratio compared to samples 1-0 which has higher grinding ratios. Application concluded the higher grinding ratio of the grinding wheels of the present Application under examination is because of the freeze vacuum drying step of the present Application under examination as well as the lack of a pore former (Remarks, page 6).
The examiner, respectfully, submits that the claimed language utilizes open phrase “comprising”; thus, any other steps or components, such as pore formers, may be added to claimed steps without deviating from the claimed language. Additionally, what has been presented as unexpected result in the form of a declaration does not appear to be an unexpected result having achieved because of a lack of a pore former and the use of a freeze vacuum drying; this is because Bonner teaches a G-ratio within the claimed range without using freeze vacuum drying in their process.
Finally, it is noted that grinding ratio naturally depends on factors such as the surface roughness of the grinding stone, the material of the workpiece, and the specific material of the grinding stone such as the specific abrasive grain, its size and concentration, concentrations of porosity, abrasive grains and the bond material. Thus, it is hard to believe that the claimed G-ratio is achieved only as a result of not using pore-former, and specifically because of utilizing freeze vacuum drying.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731