DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. Claims 7-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-6 have been canceled. New claims 13-23 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 10/15/2025. Regarding the 112(b) rejection of claim 7 for the term “basic body”, the Examiner agrees that the term is well defined in view of [0002] of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-11, 13, 15-17, and 21-23 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 7, Tselesin teaches a method for making powder preform and abrasive articles made thereform (Title).
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; method for manufacturing abrasive articles reads on the claimed method for producing a machining segment for a machining tool; abrasive articles reads on the claimed machining segment for a machining tool, as further described in col. 1, lines 43-46; abrasive particles reads on the claimed hard material particles; sintered retaining matrix reads on the claimed matrix material; systematically distributed reads on the claimed hard material particles arranged according to a defined particle pattern).
Tselesin teaches the SEDF perform (encompassing 75, 70, and 74 layers shown in Fig. 20) has abrasive particles remain in layers; and, on one side, the abrasive particles (71, Fig. 21, reads on claimed hard material particles) are at the surface of the sintered assembly, while on the opposite side the preform (72, Fig. 21, preform 72 reads on the claimed basic body of the machining tool and the claimed machining segment being connected by an underside to a basic body since the SEDF preform is connected to preform 72 as seen in Fig. 21) provides a backing without abrasive particles such that the sintered abrasive material can be used to manufacture cutting and grinding tools (col. 10, line 63 - col. 11, line 11).
Tselesin teaches the preform is prepared by mixing a binder composition with a sinterable powdered composition or matrix retaining material in the required proportions where the mixture includes a plurality of abrasive particles (col. 4, lines 45-52; preform reads on the claimed green body; binder composition with a sinterable powdered composition or matrix retaining material reads on the claimed from a powdered or granular first matrix material; plurality of abrasive particles reads on the claimed hard material particles).
Tselesin teaches the abrasive particles are included in the preform in a non-random pattern (claim 8, non-random pattern further reads on the claimed hard material particles arranged according to a defined particle pattern).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation a method for producing a machining segment for a machining tool from a powdered or granular first matrix material, first hard material particles arranged according to a defined first particle pattern, and second hard material particles arranged according to a defined second particle pattern, the machining segment being connected by an underside to a basic body of the machining tool, the method comprising the following steps: building up a green body from the first matrix material, the first hard material particles and the second hard material particles, wherein the first hard material particles are arranged in the first matrix material according to the defined first particle pattern and the second hard material particles are arranged in the first matrix material according to the defined second particle pattern of claim 7.
Tselesin teaches a generally conventional sinter fixture for sintering under pressure with a bottom punch (34, Fig. 10, reads on the claimed first press punch) and a top punch (35, Fig. 10, reads on the claimed second press punch) for an SEDF preform (38, Fig. 10, reads on the claimed green body) here shown as having abrasive particles (39, Fig. 10, reads on the claimed first hard material particles) distributed therein, and a plurality of abrasive particles (40, Fig. 10, reads on the claimed second hard material particles) on the top side of the preform (col. 7, lines 45-55; sintering under pressure reads on the claimed compacting the green body under the action of pressure between a first press punch forming a first side surface of the green body, and a second press punch forming a second side surface of the green body, to form a compact body, as further depicted in Fig. 10 and explained in col. 7, lines 55-64). Tselesin teaches that the first and second punches are opposite each other and form respective upper and under sides of the compacted segment (see Figs. 10, 10A).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation compacting the green body under the action of pressure between a first press punch forming a first side surface of the green body, and a second press punch forming a second side surface of the green body, to form a compact body of claim 7.
Since the preform of Tselesin is sintered under pressure, the sintering process involves temperature and therefore reads on the claimed further processing the compact body under the action of temperature to form the machining segment.
Tselesin further teaches hot compacting (col. 13, lines 53-54, col. 14 lines 8-9, hot compacting involves both pressure and temperature and further reads on the claimed further processing the compact body under the action of temperature to form the machining segment).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation further processing the compact body under the action of temperature to form the machining segment of claim 7.
Tselesin teaches adding a layer (16, Fig. 2, reads on the claimed film material) against the substrate (10, Fig. 2, reads on the claimed green body) comprising binder composition (11, Fig. 2, reads on the claimed first matrix material), the retaining powder (12, Fig. 2, further reads on the claimed first matrix material) and the abrasive particles (15, Fig. 2, reads on the claimed hard material particles) (col. 5, lines 49-56, layer includes a film having a low melting point and is preferably a porous material and therefore reads on the claimed film material). The Examiner notes the binder and retaining powder of Tselesin are mixed to form a preform (72 in some embodiments) whose material therefore also reads on the claimed matrix material.
Tselesin teaches compressing the preform with the porous layer on each side of the preform prior to applying heat and pressure during sintering (col. 8, lines 47-58; col. 9, lines 39-51; col. 10, lines 29-34; claims 19 and 21, porous material reads on the claimed a first film of a film material is arranged between the first press punch and the green body and a second film of the film material is arranged between the second press punch and the green body, see Fig. 11 for porous layer 45 on both sides of the preform).
Tselesin teaches a porous layer made of a material having a melting point below the sintering temperatures (col. 9, lines 45-50, porous layer reads on the claimed film).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein, when compacting the green body, a first film of a film material is arranged between the first press punch and the green body and a second film of the film material is arranged between the second press punch and the green body of claim 7.
However, Tselesin does not explicitly disclose wherein the film material has a hardness less than the hardness of the first matrix material.
Since Tselesin discloses the film material has a melting point below the sintering temperatures used for the preform, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the film material to have a lower hardness than the matrix material of the preform since a material’s melting temperature is correlated to its hardness and the matrix material withstands the sintering temperatures, which are higher than the film material’s melting temperature.
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the film material has a hardness less than the hardness of the first matrix material of claim 7.
Tselesin therefore reads on all the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches the abrasive particles may be pressed into the substrate and that the abrasive particles can be completely embedded (col. 5, lines 57-61, see Fig. 1 where abrasive particles 14 are completely embedded in the substrate 10).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the second hard material particles are completely embedded in the first matrix material on the upper side when the green body is built up of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches after sintering, mesh type materials and separators are removed from the mold (col. 12, lines 9-15; mesh type materials and separators read on the claimed first and second films).
Tselesin therefore reads on the claimed limitation wherein the first film and second film are removed from the compact body after compaction of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches after the pieces are assembled the assembly will be sintered (col. 13, lines 22-26) and further teaches sintering the compacted preform to form an abrasive article (claim 47).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the compact body with the first film and second film is further processed by sintering at a sintering temperature to form the machining segment of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
Tselesin teaches a porous layer made of a material having a melting point below the sintering temperatures (col. 9, lines 45-50, porous layer reads on the claimed film).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the melting temperature of the film material is lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches preform (72, Fig. 21) has abrasive particles on one side and provides a backing without abrasive particles on the other (col. 11, lines 6-11, 72 with abrasive particles reads on claimed machining zone and 72 without abrasive particles reads on claimed neutral zone).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the machining segment is built up from a machining zone and a neutral zone, the neutral zone being built up from a powdered or granular second matrix material of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches embodiments that do not explicitly disclose a neutral zone (see Fig. 10A).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the machining segment does not have a neutral zone of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches a variety of materials can be used as the binder composition for the preform and the sinterable retaining powder (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 49; col. 3, lines 1-19, sinterable retaining powder reads on the claimed first matrix material). Since the sinterable retaining powder reads on the claimed first matrix material, Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first matrix material consists of one material of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 7 as described above.
Tselesin teaches making a preform from a mixture of powdered sinterable matrix material and a liquid binder composition (claim 1, preform further reads on first matrix material and reads on the claimed composed of a mixture of more than one material).
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first matrix material is composed as a mixture of more than one material of claim 17.
Regarding claims 21-23, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 9 as described above.
Tselesin teaches making a cut-off disk or ring (98, Fig. 28, col. 13, lines 15-26, reads on claimed wherein basic body is a ring of claim 22 and wherein basic body is a disk of claim 23). Tselesin teaches the result of the present invention is a high quality abrasive material which can be used for numerous cutting or abrasive tools and the like (col. 3, lines 26-31) which include traditional cutting, drilling, and grinding abrasive tools and elements of abrasive tool, such as segments for saws and the like (col. 1, lines 43-46, one of ordinary skill in the art understands drilling tools use a tubular basic body). Since the invention of Tselesin applies to drilling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disk or ring shape of the basic body to a tubular basic body for drilling applications, as taught by Tselesin, as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In this case, since Tselesin teaches the methods apply to various cutting or abrasive tools, including for drilling, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably modify the disk-shaped basic body to a tube-shaped basic body for developing an abrasive tool for drilling, as taught by Tselesin.
Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the basic body is a tube of claim 21, wherein the basic body is a ring of claim 22, and wherein the basic body is a disk of claim 23.
Claim 12 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 10 above, in view of US 5203880 A of Tselesin (as cited in prior Office action, hereinafter US ‘880).
Regarding claim 12, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 10 as described above.
However, Tselesin does not explicitly disclose wherein the removal is by sintering at a sintering temperature and the film material evaporates at a temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material.
US ‘880 teaches a method and apparatus for making abrasive tools (Title), and is similarly concerned with making abrasive tools.
US ‘880 teaches placing a separator between the mold and matrix material with hard particles being compacted for forming an abrasive body (Abstract, separator reads on claimed film material), which is similar to the processing of Tselesin.
US ‘880 teaches the separator may be formed of any of regular papers which are soft enough to allow hard particles to enter the separator (col. 6, lines 35-37; separator made of paper reads on the claimed film material). US ‘880 teaches paper burns at sintering temperature, so the paper will be burnt, rendering removal quite easy (paper burns at sintering temperature reads on the claimed wherein the removal is by sintering at a sintering temperature and the film material evaporates at a temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material). US ’880 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). US ‘880 teaches when paper is used, the paper burns at sintering temperature rendering removal quite easy (col. 6, lines 35-41). US ‘880 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).
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 separator of US ‘880 using a material, such as paper, that burns or fuses at sintering temperature, to make separator removal easy, as taught by US ‘880.
Modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the removal is by sintering at a sintering temperature and the film material evaporates at a temperature lower than the sintering temperature of the first matrix material of claim 12.
Claims 14 and 18-19 are 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 13 above, in view of US 2012/0285293 A1 of Mirchandani.
Regarding claim 14, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 13 as described above.
Tselesin teaches there is a variety of materials that can be used as the binder composition for the preform and any number of sinterable matrix materials, or powdered compositions may be used, as well as a range of compositions for the binder-powder mixture, such as the binder composition is usually 3 to 20% by weight of the mixture (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 49; col. 3, lines 1-19).
However, Tselesin does not explicitly disclose wherein the second matrix material is weldable to the basic body.
Regarding the type of material used for the matrix material, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary materials used in matrix layers of abrasive tools. Mirchandani teaches a composite sintered powder metal article comprising a metal cutting tool (Abstract). Mirchandani and Tselesin are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with abrasive tools and both comprise layered structures with a matrix layer and abrasive particles.
Mirchandani teaches a third layer (403, reads on claimed neutral zone made of second matrix material) consisted of steel formed from a steel powder and that the layers showed no cracks in the vicinity of the interfaces ([0102]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the steel of Mirchandani as a second matrix material in Tselesin to form a conventional abrasive tool using known and tested materials predictably suited for abrasive tools and which form no cracks at the interfaces, as taught by Mirchandani.
Since steel is weldable, modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the second matrix material is weldable to the basic body of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 13 as described above.
Tselesin teaches a variety of materials can be used as the binder composition for the preform and the sinterable retaining powder (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 49; col. 3, lines 1-19, sinterable retaining powder reads on the claimed first matrix material). Since the sinterable retaining powder reads on the claimed first matrix material, Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first matrix material consists of one material of claim 18.
Regarding the type of material used for the matrix material, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary materials used in matrix layers of abrasive tools. Mirchandani teaches a composite sintered powder metal article comprising a metal cutting tool (Abstract). Mirchandani and Tselesin are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with abrasive tools and both comprise layered structures with a matrix layer and abrasive particles.
Mirchandani teaches a third layer (403, reads on claimed neutral zone made of second matrix material) consisted of steel formed from a steel powder and that the layers showed no cracks in the vicinity of the interfaces ([0102]) in addition to the first and second layers (read on claimed first matrix material). Mirchandani teaches the first and second layers are made of cemented carbide and nickel respectively ([0102]), which are different materials from the steel used in the third layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the steel of Mirchandani as a second matrix material in Tselesin to form a conventional abrasive tool using known and tested materials predictably suited for abrasive tools and which form no cracks at the interfaces, as taught by Mirchandani. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steel is a well-known material and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret “steel” as one material.
Modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first matrix material consists of one material, and the second matrix material consists of one different material of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 13 as described above.
Tselesin teaches making a preform from a mixture of powdered sinterable matrix material and a liquid binder composition (claim 1, preform further reads on first matrix material and reads on the claimed composed of a mixture of more than one material).
Regarding the type of material used for the matrix material, it would have been necessary and obvious to look to the prior art for exemplary materials used in matrix layers of abrasive tools. Mirchandani teaches a composite sintered powder metal article comprising a metal cutting tool (Abstract). Mirchandani and Tselesin are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with abrasive tools and both comprise layered structures with a matrix layer and abrasive particles.
Mirchandani teaches a third layer (403, reads on claimed neutral zone made of second matrix material) consisted of steel formed from a steel powder and that the layers showed no cracks in the vicinity of the interfaces ([0102]) in addition to the first and second layers (read on claimed first matrix material). Mirchandani teaches the first and second layers are made of cemented carbide and nickel respectively ([0102]), which are different materials from the steel used in the third layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the steel of Mirchandani as a second matrix material in Tselesin to form a conventional abrasive tool using known and tested materials predictably suited for abrasive tools and which form no cracks at the interfaces, as taught by Mirchandani. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, steel is an alloy and therefore may be considered a mixture of more than one material.
Modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the first matrix material is composed as a mixture of more than one material, and the second matrix material is composed as a different mixture of more than one material of claim 19.
Claim 20 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 9 above, in view of US 2001/0025457 A1 of Tselesin (hereafter US ‘457).
Regarding claim 20, Tselesin teaches the method of claim 9 as described above.
Tselesin teaches after sintering, mesh type materials and separators are removed from the mold (col. 12, lines 9-15; mesh type materials and separators read on the claimed first and second films).
However, Tselesin does not explicitly disclose wherein the film material is removed by evaporation.
US ‘457 teaches a method for making an abrasive material comprising a plurality of hard particles and is similarly concerned with making materials for abrasive tools for cutting, machining, drilling, and others. Additionally, US ‘457 explicitly references Tselesin ([0084]). US ‘457 teaches that the mesh material, after being used to position the abrasive particles, may be partially or completely removed either physically prior to sintering the matrix material, or dissolved or evaporated at the temperature used to sinter the matrix material leaving the abrasive particles uniformly distributed within matrix material ([0009], mesh material reads on claimed film material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the removal method of Tselesin to remove the film material by evaporation, as taught by US ‘457, instead of the physical removal of Tselesin, to leave abrasive particles uniformly distributed within matrix material, as taught by US ‘457.
Additionally, since Tselesin teaches physically removing film materials and US ‘457 teaches evaporation as an alternative to physical removal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tselesin and use evaporation of US ‘457 because US ‘457 teaches that a known alternative to physical removal, as taught by Tselesin, is evaporation. The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP § 2143 I. B.
Modified Tselesin therefore reads on the limitation wherein the film material is removed by evaporation of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that per claim 9 of Tselesin, it appears that particles 39 relied upon are placed randomly, as seems to be clearly shown (remarks, page 4).
In response, Tselesin teaches the abrasive particles are included in the preform in a non-random pattern (claim 8, non-random reads on the claimed defined pattern) as previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/16/2025 and in this Office action. Claim 9 of Tselesin, referenced in Applicant’s argument, teaches a portion of abrasive particles is randomly included and another portion is non-randomly placed (emphasis added).
Patents are relevant for all they contain and disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2123. In this case, the teaching of Tselesin of placing some particles randomly and others non-randomly (claim 9) does not negate the teaching of placing abrasive particles in a non-random pattern (claim 8), as relied upon in this Office action.
Furthermore, a randomly placing particles, as taught by claim 9 of Tselesin argued by Applicant, will also read on the claimed “defined particle pattern” as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand any configuration of particles will define a pattern and therefore read on the claimed “defined particle pattern”.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
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