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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/17/2026; after entry of this amendment, claims 14-33 are currently pending in this application with claims 19-24 being withdrawn from further examination.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) 14, 17-18, 26, 29-31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over CN 102490128 to Guo, submitted in the IDS filed on
12/05/2025, in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0231707 to Pahl et al.
(hereinafter Pahl).
With respect to claim 14, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reusing them to turn the waste into treasure would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Pahl, directed to an abrasive article such as a sandpaper, discloses the
sandpaper comprises a backing having an adhesive make coat on one surface and
abrasive particles at least, partially embedded into the make coat (Pahl, abstract,
[0016]); the adhesive make coat acts as a binder to bond the grains on the backing
(Pahl, Figure and [0040]).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive as that taught by Pahl. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of the combination of Guo in view of Pahl on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Pahl does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive as required.
With respect to claim 17, Guo in view of Pahl renders the claim obvious; this is because Pahl teaches a backing that can be a cloth backing or film such as polymeric film (Pahl, [0016]).
With respect to claim 18, Guo in view of Pahl is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]).
With respect to claim 26, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reuse them to turn the waste into treasure which would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element". Also, the fragments read on "portions of used converted abrasive articles".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed
fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Pahl, directed to an abrasive article such as a sandpaper, discloses the
sandpaper comprising a backing having an adhesive make coat on one surface and
abrasive particles at least, partially embedded into the make coat (Pahl, abstract,
[0016]); the adhesive make coat acts as a binder to bond the grains on the backing
(Pahl, Figure and [0040]).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive as that taught by Pahl. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of combination of Guo in view of Pahl on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Pahl does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive as required.
With respect to claim 29, Guo in view of Pahl renders the claim obvious; this is because Pahl teaches a backing can be a cloth backing or film such as polymeric film (Pahl, [0016]).
With respect to claim 30, Guo in view of Pahl is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]).
With respect to claim 31, there is no disclose in Guo as to the presence of a
porous resilient foam in the fragments of the abrasive cloth or sandpaper; also, there is no disclosure in Pahl as to the presence of porous resilient foam in their sandpaper.
Thus, the combination of references renders the claim obvious. In fact, Pahl discloses the option of having intermediate layers between the backing and a non-slip coating layer, but Pahl specifically discloses that this intermediate layer is a dense layer, lacking porosity, and do not encompass layers such as foam layers (Pahl, [0010]). Therefore, Pahl clearly does not disclose any porous resilient foam.
With respect to claim 33, Guo in view of Pahl renders the claim obvious; this is because Pahl teaches a backing that can be a film such as polymeric film (Pahl, [0016]-[0017]).
Claim(s) 14-16, 18, 26-27, 30, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102490128 to Guo, submitted in the IDS filed on
12/05/2025, in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,038,046 to Supkis.
With respect to claim 14, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reuse them to turn the waste into treasure which would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed
fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Supkis, directed to abrasive articles in which a thin layer of abrasive grits is
adhesively bonded to the backing, and commonly referred to as sandpaper, discloses the backing, or substrate, can be any conventional fibrous woven or non-woven material such as cotton or synthetic cloth, felted, and open, lofty non-woven fibrous material (Supkis, col. 1, lines 5-16 and 48-53).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive as that taught by Supkis. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of combination of Guo in view of Supkis on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Supkis does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive as required.
With respect to claim 15, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Supkis teaches open lofty non-woven fibrous
material as one of the conventional backing known in the art (Supkis, col. 1, lines 48-
53).
With respect to claim 16, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Supkis discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as fibrous woven or nonwoven materials such as of cotton or synthetic cloth, as well as open lofty nonwoven fibrous materials (Supkis, col. 1, lines 48-53). Supkis also discloses the use of nonwoven web, in their Example 1 (Supkis, col. 1, lines 67-68). Thus, Supkis is open to the use of nonwoven web of materials disclosed as cotton or synthetic fibers.
With respect to claim 18, Guo in view of Supkis is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]) which is taken to read on the claimed randomly shaped.
With respect to claim 26, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reuse them to turn the waste into treasure which would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element". Also, the fragments read on "portions of used converted abrasive articles".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed
fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Supkis, directed to abrasive articles in which a thin layer of abrasive grits is
adhesively bonded to the backing, and commonly referred to as sandpaper, discloses the backing, or substrate, can be any conventional fibrous woven or non-woven material such as cotton or synthetic cloth, felted, and open, lofty non-woven fibrous material (Supkis, col. 1, lines 5-16 and 48-53).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive as that taught by Supkis. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of combination of Guo in view of Supkis on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Supkis does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive as required.
With respect to claim 27, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Supkis teaches open lofty non-woven fibrous
material as one of the conventional backing known in the art (Supkis, col. 1, lines 48-
53).
With respect to claim 30, Guo in view of Supkins is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]) which is taken to read on the claimed randomly shaped.
With respect to claim 31, there is no disclose in Guo as to the presence of a
porous resilient foam in the fragments of the abrasive cloth or sandpaper; also, there is no disclosure in Supkis as to the presence of porous resilient foam in their sandpaper. Thus, the combination of references renders the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 32, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Supkis teaches open lofty non-woven fibrous backing of materials such as cotton or synthetic as some of the conventional backing known in the art (Supkis, col. 1, lines 48-53). Thus, the reference renders claim 32 obvious.
Claim(s) 14, 16-18, 26, 28-30, 32 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102490128 to Guo, submitted in the IDS filed on 12/05/2025, in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0000135 to Eilers et al. (hereinafter Eilers).
With respect to claim 14, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reuse them to turn the waste into treasure which would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed
fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Eilers, directed coated abrasive articles, discloses such abrasive articles
comprise a backing onto which abrasive grains are bonded using a resin or adhesive such as a make resin (Eilers, [0007]-[0013] and Figures) wherein the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film, mesh, foam, scrims, nonwoven materials, some other options/materials, and combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eilers, [0048]).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive, as that taught by Eilers. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of combination of Guo in view of Eilers on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Eilers does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive grains as being required.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film, mesh, foam, scrims, fibers comprising polyester or nylon (i.e. synthetic), nonwoven materials, some other options/materials, combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eilers, [0048]). Thus, Eilers renders the claimed nonwoven fiber web including synthetic fibers obvious. Additionally, Eilers discloses the choice of backing material may depend on the intended application of the coated abrasive article.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film (Eilers, [0048]).
With respect to claim 18, Guo in view of Eilers is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]) which is taken to read on the claimed randomly shaped.
With respect to claim 26, Guo teaches the use of waste abrasive tools such as waste abrasive cloth, such as waste sandpaper and sanding belts, as raw materials to produce new abrasive tools; Guo teaches cutting such waste tools such as waste sandpaper and reuse them to turn the waste into treasure which would eliminate the need for waste disposal steps, and improve the performance of the newly formed abrasive tool (Guo, abstract, [0016]-[0017]). Guo teaches cutting the waste abrasive cloth or abrasive tools into small fragments of 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width, followed by baking them until the fragments turn deep yellow color, then cool them down and add a binder and stir everything evenly. This mixture is then extruded into a shape for the new abrasive tool using a hydraulic press, and baked again (Guo, [0007]-[0016]). An example of the finally formed abrasive tool is a round abrasive wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). A fragment of abrasive cloth such as sandpaper or sanding belt reads on the claimed "first abrasive element". Also, the fragments read on "portions of used converted abrasive articles".
Guo does not expressly and/or literally disclose the fact that the disclosed
fragments of an abrasive cloth or a sandpaper comprise abrasive grains bonded to a substrate using a binder.
Eilers, directed coated abrasive articles, discloses such abrasive articles
comprise a backing onto which abrasive grains are bonded using a resin or adhesive such as a make resin (Eilers, [0007]-[0013] and Figures) wherein the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film, mesh, foam, scrims, nonwoven materials, some other options/materials, and combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eilers, [0048]).
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 recognized that the fragments of an abrasive cloth such as a sandpaper, as that taught by Guo, comprise a piece of backing or substrate wherein abrasive grains are attached thereto using a binder/adhesive, as that taught by Eilers. Thus, the fragments taught by Guo not only render the claimed "portions of the first abrasive element obvious", but the binder/adhesive used in the original sandpaper which is now fragmented, reads on the claimed "second binder material".
As noted above, Guo discloses forming a round wheel, i.e. claimed "abrasive
body", having a thickness of 2-5 cm and a diameter of about 40 cm (Guo, [0027]). Guo, also, discloses the fragments are 3-5 cm in length and 0.3-0.8 cm in width (Guo, [0010]). Thus, each fragment has a maximum dimension which is less than 80% of the maximum dimension of the round wheel; therefore, Guo renders the claimed limitation of "the abrasive body has a maximum dimension, wherein each of the portions of the first abrasive element has a maximum dimension that is less than 80 percent of the maximum dimension of the abrasive body" obvious.
Also, the teachings of combination of Guo in view of Eilers on the use of
fragments, which are obtained as a result of cutting waste sandpaper, which comprise a backing or substrate, and abrasive particles attached on the backing using a binder, read on the claimed limitation of "wherein the abrasive particles, the substrate, and the second binder material are collectively recycled scrap".
In the process of using the fragments of the waste sandpaper, Guo teaches a
step in which the heated cut fragments are set to cool, then evenly mixed with phenolic resin or epoxy resin and other resin binders, and heated again to harden to form the final product (Guo, [0023]-[0027]). This phenolic or epoxy resin or other resin binders read on the claimed "first binder material" which is used to bond the fragments, or claimed portions of the first abrasive element, together.
Furthermore, there is no disclosure in Guo that the fragments of sandpaper
comprise agglomerates or that the presence of agglomerates is required. Moreover,
Eilers does not teach the presence of agglomerated abrasive grains as being required.
With respect to claim 28, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as materials made of fibers comprising cotton, polyester and nylon, as well as nonwoven materials, and combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eilers, [0048]). Based on the fact that Eilers is open to the use of a combinations of the disclosed materials, the claimed fiber web including synthetic fibers is encompassed by the teachings of Eilers because fibers made of polyester or nylon are synthetic fibers.
With respect to claim 29, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film (Eilers, [0048]).
With respect to claim 30, Guo in view of Eilers is taken to render the claim
obvious; this is because Guo, as the primary reference, teaches cutting waste abrasive tools such as waste sandpaper into irregular fragments (Guo, [0010]) which is taken to read on the claimed randomly shaped.
With respect to claim 32, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as materials made of fibers comprising polyester and nylon, as well as nonwoven materials, and combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eilers, [0048]). Based on the fact that Eilers is open to the use of a combinations of the disclosed materials, the claimed fiber web including synthetic fibers is encompassed by the teachings of Eilers because fibers made of polyester or nylon are synthetic fibers.
With respect to claim 33, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Eilers discloses the backing may be made of any number of conventionally known materials such as polymeric film (Eilers, [0048]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art do not disclose or render obvious the cumulative limitations of claims 14 and 25 with particular attention given to the claimed first abrasive element including a porous resilient foam.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted Pahl requires a non-slip coating layer on the first major surface of the backing layer, wherein this non-slip coating includes a base resin and a tackifying resin (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has asserted a person skilled in the art, knowing that the cloth in step b. in Guo has to become a brittle material that can be easily broken by hand, would not look to Pahl, which includes a rubber non-slip layer on the backing to modify the invention of Guo (Remarks, page 6).
The examiner, respectfully, submits Pahl was used to show that coated abrasive articles comprise a backing having abrasive grains bonded to the backing using a resin/adhesive/binder. Guo, although directed to sandpaper which is a coated abrasive article, does not expressly disclose that such articles comprise abrasive grains boned/attached to a backing using a binder/resin. It was to show that structure that Pahl, or other secondary references were used. It is important to note that coated abrasive articles are widely known to comprise abrasive grains attached to a substrate/backing using a binder/adhesive/resin, which includes make coat and/or size coat.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant has asserted Guo requires the presence of cotton cloth, and a person skilled in the art would not change the cotton cloth in Guo to a polymer film at least because the beneficial effects of cotton described in paragraph [0017], including the polishing effect in the final product, would be lost and the processing step b. would be different (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, then, asserted a person skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a dark yellow, brittle material as required in step b. using the polymer film presently claimed in claim 29 (Remarks, page 6). Moreover, Applicant has asserted if the cotton cloth taught by Guo were modified to include the rubber non-slip coating taught by Pahl, as suggested (as asserted by Applicant) in the Office Action, the abrasive and the method of making it described in Guo would no longer operate as intended (Remarks, page 6).
The examiner, respectfully, submits as noted above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The fact that Pahl discloses the use of a polymeric film as a backing would render it obvious that the use of such a material in a backing of a coated abrasive article has been known and recognized, and obvious to use.
Applicant has pointed out to the second set of rejection, and that this rejection is based on Guo in view of Pahl, but has relied on Guo in view of Supkis when rejecting the claims, and citing of Supkis have been used, where applicable (Remarks, page 7). The examiner acknowledges this inadvertent mistake in the heading of the second set of rejection, but confirms that the columns and lines cited in the rejection are based off of Supkis; the second rejection is over Guo in view of Supkis.
Applicant has asserted Guo requires the presence of cotton cloth for all the reasons described above (i.e. under the remarks for the rejection of Guo in view of Pahl), and that a person skilled in the art would not change the cotton cloth in Guo to a lofty open nonwoven fiber web at least because the beneficial effects of cotton described in paragraph [0017] would be lost, as asserted by Applicant (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has asserted the only materials listed in Supkins for nonwoven are nylon and polyester, and asserted a person skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a dark yellow, brittle material as required in step b. using the lofty open nonwoven fiber web described in Supkis (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has, additionally, asserted if the cotton cloth taught by Guo were modified be a lofty open nonwoven fiber web disclosed in Supkis, as suggested in the Office Action, the abrasive and the method of making it described in Guo would no longer operate as intended (Remarks, page 8).
The examiner, respectfully, submits that Guo teaches sandpaper which is a coated abrasive article; however, because Guo does not expressly disclose that a coated abrasive article comprises a backing/substrate having abrasive particles attached thereto using a binder/resin/adhesive such as make coat and/or size coat, reference was made to Supkis. It is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The fact that Supkis teaches the use of lofty open nonwoven fiber web would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the use of such a material as a backing has been taught and recognized in the art.
Applicant has asserted neither Guo no Supkis discloses a porous resilient foam as claimed in amended claim 25 (Remarks, page 7).
The examiner, respectfully, submits claim 25 has been indicated as an allowable subject matter.
Applicant has asserted a proper prima facie case of obviousness has not been made for the rejections based on Guo in view of Eilers because a person would not have had a reasonable expectation of successfully combining the cited references in the manner suggested in the Office Action to arrive at the present claims (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has asserted Guo states in paragraph [0007] “The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method for preparing an abrasive tool for metal grinding and polishing, which addressed the aforementioned deficiencies. It uses waste abrasive cloth as raw material…” (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has asserted in Guo, the abrasive cloth are baked, and baking makes them easily broken by hand (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has asserted Eilers discloses backings made from “polymeric film, mesh, foam, scrims, nonwoven materials, some other options/materials, and combinations thereof and treated versions thereof (Eiler [0048])” (Remarks, page 9). Applicant has asserted a person skilled in the art understand that the cloth in step b. of Guo has to become a brittle material that can be easily broken by hand, and asserted a person skilled in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a dark yellow, brittle material as required in step b. using the variety of materials described in Eilers et al. (Remarks, page 9).
The examiner, respectfully, submits the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
It is noted that Eilers teaches that the use of other backing materials has been known in the art of coated abrasive article, and the sandpaper of Guo is a coated abrasive article. Eilers, also, teaches the use of backing materials such as cloth, cotton fibers, and many more options; thus, polymeric film and cotton fibers have equal functioning as backing in Eilers. The fact that Eilers teaches the use of polymeric film would render it obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the use of such a material as a backing has been taught and recognized in the art.
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 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
Prosecution Insights