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 election without traverse of Group I, claims 10-14 in the reply filed on 10/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 10-18 are pending. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 10-14 are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage application from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/17/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “21A” has been used to designate both a “machining segment” ([0036]) and “sawing segments” ([0036]),
reference character “76” has been used to designate both “the first matrix material” ([0054]) and an “upper matrix layer” ([0058]), and
reference character “42” has been used to designate both “basic bodies 42 in the form of links” ([0041]) and “driving links” ([0042]).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
the symbol Δ of Fig. 8B is not explained in the instant specification.
The drawings are further objected because:
Δunten of Fig. 6A and 8A should read Δlower as described in the instant specification ([0056]), and
Δoben of Fig. 6D and 8E should read Δupper as described in the instant specification ([0058]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
reference character “21A” has been used to designate both a “machining segment” ([0036]) and “sawing segments” ([0036]),
reference character “76” has been used to designate both “the first matrix material” ([0054]) and an “upper matrix layer” ([0058]),
reference character “42” has been used to designate both “basic bodies 42 in the form of links” ([0041]) and “driving links” ([0042]), and
the symbol Δ of Fig. 8B is not explained in the instant specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “for a machining segment” of claim 1 is interpreted as intended use. Statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention which do not result in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art do not limit the claim and do not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (or process). See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) and cases cited therein, as it has been held that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2111.02, §2112.02 and 2114-2115.
In this case, the claim is directed to a method for producing a green body, and the recitation of “for a machining segment” is being interpreted as intended use since the claimed steps result in a green body and do not result in a machining segment. Therefore, the limitation “the machining segment being connected by an underside to a basic body of a machining tool” is given little patentable weight since the machining segment is not claimed in instant claim 1 as currently recited.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 11 recites the limitation “first hard material particle are” which is grammatically incorrect and should read “first hard material particles are” (emphasis added), and claim 12 has an improperly placed parenthesis in the limitation “transitional region between the first region (and the second region“. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10-14 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “applying a lower layer of a powdered or granular supporting material different from the first matrix material”. The claim also recites “an upper layer of the supporting material” and “wherein the second hard material particles are completely covered by the supporting material”. These limitations render the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation of “supporting material different from the first matrix material” applies only to the claimed lower layer or to any mention of “supporting material”.
Claims 11-14 depend on claim 10, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the supporting material being applied in the second region" in lines 2-3. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether “the supporting material” is the same as the “lower layer of a powdered or granular supporting material” of claim 10, “an upper layer of the supporting material” of claim 10, or a different supporting material that has not been introduced.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation “wherein the supporting material”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether “the supporting material” is the same as the “lower layer of a powdered or granular supporting material” of claim 10, “an upper layer of the supporting material” of claim 10, or a different supporting material that has not been introduced.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5620489 A of Tselesin (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 10, Tselesin teaches a method for making powder preform and abrasive articles made thereform (Title, abrasive articles read on the claimed machining segment, as further described in col. 1, lines 43-46).
Tselesin teaches a method for manufacturing abrasive articles and wear resistant parts, such articles or parts comprising a plurality of abrasive particles also known as superabrasive particles such as diamond, cubic boron nitride or the like randomly or systematically distributed in a sintered retaining matrix (col. 2, lines 55-65; abrasive particles read on the claimed first and second hard material particles; sintered retaining matrix reads on the claimed first matrix material).
Tselesin teaches an SEDF preform (38 reads on the claimed green body and first matrix material; preform also 86, 98, 101 in other embodiments) having abrasive particles (39, 71, reads on the claimed first hard particles) distributed therein, and a plurality of abrasive particles (40, 104, reads on the claimed second hard particles) on the top side of the preform (38, reads on claimed matrix layer, preform also 46, 46’, 51, and 58 in other embodiments, col. 7, lines 45-55 ; col. 10, lines 24-28; col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 11; col. 11, lines 58-65; Figs. 10, 10A, 20, 20A, 21, and 26-27).
Tselesin teaches fixing the preform to a core (99, reads on the claimed basic body of a machining tool) (col.13, lines 15-25; Fig. 28 shows the preform 98 is connected by an underside to the core 99 to form a cut-off disk which reads on the claimed machining tool).
Tselesin teaches adding a separator (100, 109, 110 reads on the claimed lower layer of a powdered or granular supporting material different from the first matrix material) on one side of the assembly (103) (col. 11, line 58-col. 12, line 15).
Tselesin teaches making a preform with a first plurality of diamonds, cutting the preform, putting a second plurality of diamonds into opening of a mesh type material, applying the preform against the carrier including the second plurality of diamonds, hot compacting the assembly, removing, and cutting and mounting to make the final product (col. 14, lines 14-47, reads on the claimed performing a sequence of a first and a second sequential step performed N times, N≥1, wherein in the first sequential step, a matrix layer having a first region is applied, wherein the first matrix material is applied in the first region, and in the second sequential step, the first hard material particles are arranged in the matrix layer; arranging the second hard material particles in the Nth matrix layer and applying an upper layer of the supporting material, wherein the second hard material particles are completely covered by the supporting material as seen in Fig. 20A where abrasive particles 104 are completely covered by 109 above and 105 below).
Tselesin teaches the preferred embodiments of the invention here presented comprise assemblies of abrasive particles such as diamonds, cubic boron nitride or the like, distributed in an orderly fashion on a substrate, or a carrier, and a pre-made SEDF preform formed from metals, ceramics, epoxy materials with binders or other plastics (col. 16, lines 15-21, materials read on the claimed a powdered or granular supporting material different from the first matrix material; orderly fashion reads on the claimed defined second particle pattern and defined first particle pattern).
Tselesin teaches the abrasive particles are included in the preform in a non-random pattern (claim 8, further reads on the claimed the first hard material particles are arranged in the matrix layer according to a defined first particle pattern and the claimed arranging the second hard material particles in the lower layer according to a defined second particle pattern).
Tselesin teaches the abrasive particles may be pressed into the substrate or held by an adhesive (col. 5, lines 60-67) and that particles are placed at least partially into the substrate (col. 6, lines 32-36, reads on the claimed wherein the second hard material particles are partially embedded in the first matrix material and partially embedded in the supporting material). Tselesin further teaches abrasive particles may be completely, or partially, covered by a binder-powder mixture (col. 6, lines 41-59).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation a method for producing a green body for a machining segment from a powdered or granular first matrix material, first hard material particles and second hard material particles, the machining segment being connected by an underside to a basic body of a machining tool, the method comprising the following steps: applying a lower layer of a powdered or granular supporting material different from the first matrix material; arranging the second hard material particles in the lower layer according to a defined second particle pattern, the second hard material particles being partially embedded in the supporting material; performing a sequence of a first and a second sequential step performed N times, N ≥ 1 wherein in the first sequential step, a matrix layer having a first region is applied, wherein the first matrix material is applied in the first region, and in the second sequential step, the first hard material particles are arranged in the matrix layer according to a defined first particle pattern; arranging the second hard material particles in the Nth matrix layer according to the defined second particle pattern, wherein the second hard material particles are partially embedded in the first matrix material, and applying an upper layer of the supporting material, wherein the second hard material particles are completely covered by the supporting material of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Tselesin teaches assemblies of abrasive particles in an orderly fashion on a substrate, or a carrier (col. 16, lines 15-21, reads on the claimed first hard material particle are arranged in the first matrix material according to the defined first particle pattern). Tselesin further teaches the abrasive particles are included in the preform in a non-random pattern (claim 8, further reads on the claimed defined first particle pattern).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first hard material particle are arranged in the first matrix material according to the defined first particle pattern of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
As seen in Fig. 20A, Tselesin teaches an assembly with a preform (101, reads on claimed matrix layer) applied to a separator layer (100, reads on claimed supporting material), and including particles within the preform (particles reads on claimed first hard material particles). Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the matrix layer of Tselesin has a first and second region and the supporting material is applied to at least the second region and particles are arranged throughout the matrix layer, with at least one particle being present between the first and second region of the matrix layer.
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the matrix layer includes the first region and a second region, the supporting material being applied in the second region, and the first hard material particles being arranged in a transitional region between the first region and the second region of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 12 as described above.
Tselesin teaches a method wherein a separator (reads on claimed supporting material) is added before sintering, the assembly is sintered, and thereafter removing the layer of separator material from the assembly (claim 29, assembly includes the preform made of a matrix material). Since the separator of Tselesin does not melt during sintering of the assembly and can be removed after the sintering step, the separator necessarily has a melting temperature higher than the sintering temperature of the preform or matrix material. A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. See MPEP § 2164.01.
Tselsein therefore reads on the limitation wherein the supporting material applied in the second region of the matrix layer has a melting temperature higher than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material applied of claim 13.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5620489 A of Tselesin (as cited in prior Office action), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of US 5203880 A of Tselesin ‘880.
Regarding claim 14, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 12 as described above.
Tselesin does not explicitly disclose wherein the supporting material applied in the second region of the matrix layer has a melting temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material applied.
However, Tselesin explicitly discloses assemblies can include punches and/or separators disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,203,880.
Tselesin ‘880 teaches a method and apparatus for making abrasive tools (Title). Tselesin and Tselesin ‘880 are considered analogous art since they are both similarly concerned with methods of making abrasive tools and both teach assemblies made of layers comprising a preform made of a matrix material, separator, and abrasive particles.
Tselesin ‘880 teaches the separator is an electrically conductive material, which may be a graphite powder, graphite fibers, graphite paper, silicon carbide, other powders or fibers, or may be made of ceramics or minerals (col. 3, lines 19-26; col. 6, lines 5-10). Tselesin teaches the separator may be made of many different materials and that the primary feature of the separator is that it is soft enough that during compaction of the body of matrix material some of the hard particles can penetrate the separator (col. 3, lines 27-39). Tselesin teaches when paper is used, the paper burns at sintering temperature rendering removal quite easy (col. 6, lines 35-41). Tselesin further teaches metallic screens may be used as a separator (col. 6, lines 11-23) and that they may be made of a low melting metal which will fuse at sintering temperature, or of a high melting metal that will remain intact during sintering (col. 4, lines 10-28, low melting metal which will fuse at sintering temperature reads on claimed supporting material applied in the second region of the matrix layer has a melting temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material applied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the separator of Tselesin with the paper or metallic screen with low melting point of Tselesin ‘880 to select an appropriate separator material which will fuse at sintering temperature and render removal of the separator easy, as taught by Tselesin ‘880.
Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reference the work of Tselesin ‘880 as explicitly referenced by Tselesin to identify appropriate materials suitable for separator use in the assemblies of Tselesin.
Modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the supporting material applied in the second region of the matrix layer has a melting temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material applied of claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2017/011415 A1 of Cai teaches a method of making a mill cutting structure including an infiltrant, metallic starting material, and hard material bodies (Abstract). Cai is considered relevant to claims 10-14.
US 2001/0025457 A1 of Tselesin ‘457 teaches a method for making an abrasive material comprising a plurality of hard particles (Abstract). Tselsein ‘457 is considered relevant to claims 10-14.
The following copending applications share inventor(s) and/or applicant(s) with the present application, recite methods with substantially similar processes, and thus their file wrappers may contain further relevant art:
18/010,516 (US 2023/0294244 A1)
18/010,566 (US 2023/0249249 A1)
18/267,343 (US 2024/0058863 A1)
18/010,636 (US 2023/0264259 A1)
17/415,289 (US 2022/0055248 A1)
The following copending applications share inventor(s) and/or applicant(s) with the present application, claim products which are or are obvious variants of the products produced by the claimed process or as an intermediate in the claimed process, and thus their file wrappers may contain further relevant art:
17/415,291 (US 2022/0055183 A1)
The following granted patents share inventor(s) and/or applicant(s) with the present application, recite methods with substantially similar process, and thus their file wrappers may contain further relevant art:
US 12023737 B2
US 12017281 B2
US 12030123 B2
US 12017280 B2
US 12030121 B2
US 11819918 B2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733