DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 Jun 2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first and second plurality of protrusions" in the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether or not the claim requires the structure of a plurality of protrusions. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as “a first and second plurality of protrusions” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 15-17, 23, 26-27, 33-34, 38-40, 43-45, and 58-60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jantschek (US 5618225, previously cited) in view of Unnerstall (US 2021/0008682, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Jantschek teaches an abrading system comprising: a first vibratory structure comprising a first microreplicated film having first plurality of protrusions (30; fig 4), wherein the first microreplicated film comprises a repeating pattern of the first plurality of protrusions (as shown in fig 4); a second vibratory structure (30A) comprising a second microreplicated film having a second plurality of protrusions (as shown in fig 4), wherein the second microreplicated film comprises a repeating pattern of the second plurality of protrusions (as shown on the upper surface of element 30A in fig 4); an abrasive article (including elements 26, 28, 32) contacting the first vibratory structure (as shown in fig 4); a stroke (16) plate operatively coupled to the second vibratory structure (fig 4); and wherein, when the stroke plate is activated, the first and second plurality of protrusions are configured to interlock and slip with respect to each other in a first direction (interlocking in left to right direction as shown in fig 4 and described col 5, lines 44-51; protrusions are oriented to reduce slip only in desired direction as described col 6, lines 3-7; structure shown in fig 4 permits slipping in direction into the page).
Jantschek does not teach a vibration source, operatively coupled to the stroke plate causing vibration of the first and second vibratory structures. Unnerstall an abrading system including a vibration source (described [0043]), where a stroke plate (3) is operatively coupled to the vibration source ([0043]). It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. D). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vibration source operatively coupled to the stroke plate of Jantschek to cause vibration of the first and second vibratory structures when activated (function is result of vibration), as vibration is a known alternative method for moving the abrasive relative to the workpiece, achieving the predictable result of facilitating abrasion as taught by Unnerstall ([0043]).
Regarding claims 2-5, and 15, Jantschek, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jantschek further discloses the abrasive article is a rolled sheet of abrasive (as shown in fig 2) fed through the abrading system in a feeding direction (shown in fig 2 and described col 9, lines 1-14), and wherein the feeding direction is perpendicular to the first direction (col 6, lines 3-7; protrusions may be aligned along length or width direction of the abrasive sheet, indicating the slip direction may be parallel or perpendicular to the feeding direction); the abrasive article is a coated abrasive article, a bonded abrasive article or a nonwoven abrasive article (col 1, lines 37-39); the abrasive article comprises abrasive particles (28), and wherein the abrasive particles comprise crushed, formed, or shaped abrasive particles (note that the method of forming the particles does not actively limit the claimed structure; the particles of Jantschek may be formed by crushing and are randomly shaped as shown in fig 4); the first plurality of protrusions (30) comprise a shaped protrusion repeating along a surface of the first vibratory structure (as shown in fig 4); and further comprising a compressible pad (18) between the stroke plate and the second vibratory structure (fig 4).
Regarding claim 16, Jantschek teaches a repair system comprising an abrading system comprising a first structure with a first interlocking feature (30A) coupled to a backing plate (16; fig 4), a second structure with a second interlocking feature (30) interlocked to the first interlocking feature (fig 4), wherein the first and second structures are configured to, when interlocked, slip in a first direction (interlocking as shown in fig 4 and described col 5, lines 44-51; protrusions are oriented to reduce slip only in desired direction as described col 6, lines 3-7), and wherein an abrasive article (elements 26, 28, 32) contacts the second structure on a second side (29) opposite a first side (bottom side in fig 4) that contacts the first structure (as shown in fig 4).
Jantschek does not teach a vibration source, or a robotic repair unit configured to move the abrading system over a workpiece with a mount that couples the abrading system to the robotic repair unit. Unnerstall teaches a robotic repair system including a vibration source (described [0043]), where a first structure (3) is coupled to the vibration source ([0043]), a robotic repair unit (2) configured to move the abrading system into position over a workpiece ([0041-0042]), and a mount (described [0054]; and shown in fig 8) that couples the abrading system to the robotic repair unit (as shown in fig 8, structure connecting element 3 to robotic arm 2 constitutes the claimed mount). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vibration source and a mount coupling the abrading system of Jantschek to a robotic repair unit configured to move the abrading system into position over a workpiece, as vibration is a known method for moving the abrasive relative to the workpiece to facilitate abrasion, and a connection to a robotic system allows the system to automatically identify and grind the desired area of the workpiece as taught by Unnerstall ([0043], [0015]).
Regarding claims 17, 23, and 26-27 Jantschek, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Jantschek further teaches the abrasive article is an abrasive belt (as shown in fig 2), and wherein the abrading system also comprises a belt feeder (80, 82) that feeds the belt in between the second structure and the workpiece, in a feed direction (shown in fig 2 and described col 9, lines 1-14), and wherein the feed direction is different from the first direction (col 6, lines 3-7; protrusions may be aligned along length or width direction of the abrasive sheet, indicating the slip direction may be parallel or perpendicular to the feeding direction); the abrasive article is an abrasive pad coupled to the second structure (fig 4; as broadly claimed, the article may be considered a pad, as it if flexible); the first and second interlocking features are micro-replicated features comprising a repeating pattern of first and second plurality of protrusions (as shown in fig 4); and wherein the first and second interlocking features each comprise a plurality of protrusions extending from a base surface (as shown in fig 4, protrusions extend from flat base surfaces).
Regarding claim 33, Jantschek teaches a method of abrading a surface comprising coupling an abrasive article (elements 32, 36, 28) to ab abrading system (shown in fig 4), wherein the abrading system comprises a first structure coupled to a backing plate (16), wherein the first structure comprises with a first plurality of protrusions (on element 30A) extending from a first base (as shown in fig 4, protrusions extend from flat base), a second structure comprising a plurality of second protrusions (30), extending from a second base (as shown in fig 4, protrusions extend downward from flat base), wherein the second plurality of protrusions interlock with the first plurality of protrusions (fig 4), wherein the abrasive article is coupled to the second structure (as shown in fig 4) and actuating the abrading system, actuating the abrading system (performing a “microfinishing process”; col 6, lines 7-9) causes the first and second plurality of protrusions to slip with respect to each other in a first direction (interlocking as shown in fig 4 and described col 5, lines 44-51; protrusions are oriented to reduce slip only in desired direction as described col 6, lines 3-7).
Jantschek does not teach a vibration source. Unnerstall teaches a method of abrading a surface using an abrading system including a first structure (3) coupled to a vibration source (described [0043]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a vibration source coupled to the first structure of Jantschek, as vibration is a known method for achieving the predictable result of moving the abrasive relative to the workpiece to facilitate abrasion as taught by Unnerstall ([0043]).
Regarding claims 34, 38-40, and 43-45 Jantschek, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 33 as described above. Jantschek further teaches causing the abrasive article to move with respect to the workpiece in a feed direction (shown in fig 2 and described col 9, lines 1-14); the first plurality of protrusions are micro-replicated features comprising a repeating pattern of the first plurality of protrusions; the first plurality of protrusions are machined into the first structure (note that the method of making the protrusions does not actively limit the claimed structure; as shown in fig 4, the first plurality of protrusions are integral with the first structure and thus may be formed by machining); the first plurality of protrusions are formed of the same material as the first base (as shown in fig 4, these elements are integrally formed from the same structure); the first and second plurality of protrusions interlock such that gaps are present between adjacent protrusions (as shown in fig 4; see also example of fig 7c); the first plurality of protrusions are polygonal in shape (fig 4); and wherein the polygonal shape is substantially rectangular or substantially triangular (fig 4).
Regarding claim 58, Jantscheck, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Jantscheck further teaches the first and second plurality of protrusions interlock such that gaps are present between adjacent protrusions (as can be seen from fig 4, the gaps provide interlocking of the protrusions in a left to right direction), and wherein the gaps provide a slippage between the plurality of first and second protrusions with respect to each other in the first direction transverse to a direction of the interlock (as shown in fig 4, the gaps allow slipping in a direction into the page, there being no interference between the first and second protrusions in this direction).
Regarding claim 59, Jantscheck, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as described above. Jantscheck further teaches the first and second plurality of protrusions interlock such that gaps are present between adjacent protrusions (as can be seen from fig 4, the gaps provide interlocking of the protrusions in a left to right direction), and wherein the gaps provide a slippage between the plurality of first and second protrusions with respect to each other in the first direction transverse to a direction of the interlock (as shown in fig 4, the gaps allow slipping in a direction into the page, there being no interference between the first and second protrusions in this direction).
Regarding claim 60, Jantscheck, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 43 as described above. Jantscheck further teaches the gaps provide a slippage between the plurality of first and second protrusions with respect to each other in the first direction transverse to a direction of the interlock (as shown in fig 4, the gaps allow slipping in a direction into the page, there being no interference between the first and second protrusions in this direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 16, 33, and their dependents, applicant argues that the abrasive article as claimed is not attached to the vibrator structure, and therefore has a different structure than the adhered article of Jantscheck. However, there is no recitation in the claims which excludes an adhesive connection between the abrasive article and vibratory structure. In fact, adhesive connection appears to fall under applicant’s disclosed structure as discussed on page 22, lines 11-15 of the original specification.
Applicant argues that Jantschek does not teach a vibratory source. However, as detailed in the rejection above, Unnerstall is cited to teach this limitation.
Applicant argus that the protrusions of Jantschek are designed to prevent slipping rather than slip in a first direction. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The protrusions of Jantschek are designed to interlock in one direction only, as indicated by the description at col 6, lines 3-7, which indicates a directionality to the interlocking protrusions. This is also evident from figures 4 and 6 of Jantschek which show the protrusions in rows, which would only be capable of interlocking in a single direction. This satisfies the exact claimed function of “the first and second plurality of protrusions are configured to interlock and slip with respect to each other in a first direction,” contrary to applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues that Jantschek is silent as to slippage in a first direction. However, it is clear that the structure of the protrusions of Jantschek is designed to achieve this function. As noted in applicant’s specification, the structure of protrusions with gaps between them is what provides this function (applicant’s spec page 5, line 31- page 6, line 2). This is the exact structure disclosed by Jantschek. Therefore, Jantschek need not explicitly state the function of slipping in the first direction. As indicated by col 6, lines 3-7, Jantschek does explicitly describe a directionality to the interlocking protrusions. This is made further clear by figures 4 and 6 of Jantschek, which disclose the exact same protrusion structure disclosed and claimed by applicant.
Applicant further argues that the indexing described by Jantschek occurs before or after abrading and thus would not work if the rotating tape of Unnerstall is applied. However, the rotating of Unnerstall would serve to provide the indexing discussed in Jantschek, and allowing the indexing to occur during machining allows shortened treatment times as taught by Unnerstall ([0021]). Therefore, contrary to applicant’s arguments, this is not different from the basic operation of Jantschek.
Applicant argues that the use of vibration with the protrusion structure of Jantschek would result in breaking the protrusions, rendering them inoperable. However, applicant has provided no evidence to support this assertion. Furthermore, as the protrusions in the claimed invention are vibrated, if this were true, it would seem that applicant’s invention would similarly by inoperable.
Regarding claims 58-60, applicant argues that the claimed gaps allow slipping in the first direction, contrary to Jantschek. However, Jantschek clearly discloses these same gaps in fig 4. For the same reasons as discussed above, this allows the claimed function of slipping in a first direction.
Regarding the previous 112b rejections, applicant’s amendments and arguments have clarified that the microreplicated film is defined by a repeating pattern of a plurality of protrusions. Therefore, the previous 112b rejection has been withdrawn. However, the amendment raises new issues of clarity with respect to claim 26 as detailed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights