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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 21 Jun 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Specifically, the JP10180637 reference appears to have a correct original copy, but the provided English translation does not appear to match the disclosure of the reference (translation describes figures 1-13 while only one figure is shown in the original). Similar inconsistencies can be found in the translations of the CN105773324, CN 100848875, CN111958057, CN 112706084, references, and no explanation of relevance or translation is provided for the KR 20170040811 reference. While an English copy is not necessary to meet the requirements for IDS submissions, provided copies should be of the correct reference and explanations of relevance should be provided when no English copy is provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the structured pattern, and small hole of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
The claims include several informalities which must be addressed:
Claim 1, line 10 of first page of claims: “a plurality of grooves are opened in outer circumferential surface”, should read “a plurality of grooves are opened in an outer circumferential surface”
Claim 1, line 14 of first page of claims: the term “umbrella top” should not have quotes around it in the claims
Claim 1, line 20 of first page of the claims “amounted” should read “mounted”
Each of claims 1-7 capitalizes the words “Block-Type” and “Cooling,” which should not be capitalized
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.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “on surface of the grinding wheel substrate” in the 12th line of the page. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the outer circumferential surface. For the purposes of this examination, “on surface” will be read as “on the outer circumferential surface”.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a width of the grinding unit is consistent with a width of the grinding wheel.” It is unclear what is meant by “consistent with.” Does this mean the widths are the same, or that they must correlate in some specific way? Furthermore, the grinding unit is a part of the grinding wheel, making it unclear how these two claimed widths could possibly be inconsistent with each other. In other words, as claimed, it appears that a width of the grinding unit is a width of the grinding wheel.
The term “small” in claim 1 at the 19th line is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How small must the hole be to be considered a “small hole”?
Claim 1 recites “a bottom of the grinding unit” in line 21, while also reciting “a lower surface of the grinding unit” in line 19. It is unclear if these elements are the same or different. While different terms are used, they are often synonymous with each other and applicant’s figures appear to show only a single bottom or lower surface of the grinding unit.
Claim 1 recites “a hinge” in line 21. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the hinge recited in line 13.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the grinding region" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what part of the grinding wheel is being referred to here.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the grinding units with different structured patterns”. There is no antecedent basis for grinding units with different structured patterns and it is unclear if a plurality of patterns must be on the same grinding wheel to meet the claim. The claim goes on to state the different structured patterns “are separately chosen according to different processing conditions and processing requirements and are flexibly arranged on the grinding wheel,” which appears to indicate that different grinding units can be swapped out by a user, rather than a plurality of different patterns being present on the same wheel. The claim subsequently states “after a grinding process ends, the grinding units are detached and are kept for reassembly into the grinding wheel for another time of use in a next grinding process.” However, as the claim is directed toward a product rather than a method of using the product, it is unclear what structural limitations are being imparted to the grinding wheel in this claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a spring” the 4th line of the page, and “a plurality of springs” in line 5 and “the springs” in line 7. It is unclear if multiple springs are necessary to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “a sprayer” in the last line of the claim. It is clear from applicant’s specification that the claimed “instantaneous Cooling mechanism” of claim 1 includes a sprayer. However, claim 4 does not link the claimed sprayer to the claimed instantaneous cooling mechanism, making it unclear if these are the same elements in the claims. The claims should be written to clarify that the sprayer is a part of the cooling mechanism.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “a quantity of springs in the push mechanism is selected according to a different material of the workpiece to be processed, to change the set threshold of tangential force; when the material of the workpiece is difficult to process, the quantity of the springs is increased; and when the material of the workpiece is easy to process, the quantity of the springs is reduced.” This appears to define multiple embodiments of the wheel, and/or a method of making and using the wheel. However, as the claim is directed toward a product rather than a method of using the product, it is unclear what structural limitations are being imparted to the grinding wheel in this claim. It is completely unclear from this claim language how many springs are being claimed.
The terms “soft”, “smooth”, and “small” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “soft”, “smooth”, and “small” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How soft, smooth, or small must the claimed elements be to achieve the claimed limitations?
As the claims use several words and phrases which render the scope of the claims unclear, examiner will interpret each of these claims as best can be understood and explanation is provided as necessary in the rejections below.
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.
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.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder (US 2767523) in view of Hollis (GB 820308) and Kim (US 2007/0056574).
Regarding claim 1, Vasbinder teaches a block-type grinding wheel, wherein the grinding wheel is formed by a grinding wheel substrate (elements 11, 12) and several grinding wheel units, each grinding wheel unit includes an execution mechanism (15), the grinding wheel is arranged to rotate clockwise (capable of rotating in either direction) to process a workpiece by using the execution mechanism (through abrasion); and an assembly hole is opened at center of the grinding wheel substrate (unlabeled hole in center as shown in fig 2); the execution mechanisms form an annular array structure on surface of the grinding wheel substrate (fig 1); each execution mechanism includes a grinding unit (16), a hinge (32), a push rod (28) and a heat sink (18, 19; as broadly claimed any material may act as a heat sink), wherein the grinding unit has an umbrella-shaped structure (with arcuate top), an umbrella top of the grinding unit is arc-shaped (as shown in fig 1), and a width of the grinding unit is consistent with a width of the grinding wheel (as best understood, the width of the grinding unit is the width of the grinding wheel); an upper surface of each grinding unit is coated with a layer of abrasive (the grinding unit, including upper surface is formed from abrasive material; col 2, lines 8-11), and the abrasive is ablated by using a laser process (note that the method of making the tool does not limit the structure of the tool itself) technique to form a structured pattern (the abrasive surface with an abrasive surface structure has an abrasive pattern as broadly claimed), a small hole (interacting with element 21) is opened in a lower surface (lower side surface as shown in fig 2) of the grinding unit, through which the grinding unit is amounted to the heat sink (with element 21); a bottom of the grinding unit is hinged to the push rod by the hinge (32; col 2, lines 36-38; fig 2), so as to drive movement when a tangential grinding force imposed on the grinding unit increases and exceeds a set threshold (as described col 2, lines 53-63, grinding force on the grinding unit causes pushing force, which moves hinged push rod and grinding unit).
Vasbinder does not teach an instantaneous cooling mechanism, push mechanism, or a plurality of grooves opened in an outer circumferential surface of the grinding wheel substrate for form the annular array structure, or being configured to press the instantaneous cooling mechanism to spray nano fluid to implement instantaneous cooling of the grinding region. Hollis teaches a block-type structured grinding wheel with an adaptive supply of instantaneous cooling, wherein the grinding wheel includes a plurality of grooves (47) opened in an outer circumferential surface thereof (at outer circumferential surface of elements 45 as shown in fig 4) and including a push mechanism (unlabeled spring shown in fig 4) an instantaneous cooling mechanism (elements 48, 49) wherein the push mechanism is driven to press the instantaneous cooling mechanism to spray fluid (note that the nano-fluid is not positively recited as a part of the claimed grinding wheel and the cooling mechanism must only be capable of providing such a fluid in order to meet the claim) to implement instantaneous cooling of a grinding region when a tangential force imposed on the grinding unit exceeds a set threshold (opens when force, which occurs at both the grinding unit and cooling mechanism, exceeds force of spring which presses cooling mechanism as described p 3, lines 69-111). 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 plurality of grooves in the outer circumferential surface of Vasbinder to accommodate an instantaneous cooling mechanism configured to be pressed by a push mechanism to spray fluid for cooling of a grinding region, as this allows the tool to automatically cool itself to prevent wear as taught by Hollis (p 1, lines 17-25).
Vasbinder is silent as to a material of the abrasive material. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Kim teaches a block type grinding wheel including a grinding unit coated with a layer of diamond abrasive (101; fig 3; [0075]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use diamond as the abrasive material in the wheel of Vasbinder, as diamond is known for the intended use of abrasive grinding, having the hardness necessary to grind hard materials as taught by Kim ([0005-0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Vasbinder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Hollis further teaches a quantity of springs (spring included as described in the rejection of claim 1) is selected according to a different material of the workpiece to be processed, to change the set threshold of tangential force; when the material of the workpiece is difficult to process, the quantity of the springs is increased; and when the material of the workpiece is easy to process, the quantity of the springs is reduced (see 112b rejection above; as best understood, the single disclosed spring in each push mechanism defines the threshold force necessary to activate the cooling and thus meets the intended use of the claims; note that the intended material of the workpiece and the reason for choosing a number of springs do not impart any particular structural characteristics to the claimed grinding wheel).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder, Hollis and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gasamo (US 2014/0187130).
Regarding claim 2, Vasbinder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Vasbinder further teaches the heat sink has a sheet structure (as shown in fig 2; elements 18 and 19 form a sheet under the grinding unit). Vasbinder is silent as to the material of the grinding unit. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Kim further teaches a block type grinding wheel including a grinding unit made of aluminum alloy (matrix 102; fig 3; [0068], [0075]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an aluminum alloy as a material of the grinding unit of Vasbinder, as aluminum alloys are known to have suitable properties of ductility for use in a grinding unit as taught by Kim ([0101-0102]). Vasbinder is silent as to a material of the heat sink. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Gasamo teaches a block-type structured grinding wheel including a heat sink (described as “backing” between grinding unit 104 and substrate 102; [0067]), wherein the heat sink is made of copper ([0068]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select coper as the material of the heat sink element of Vasbinder, as copper is known to be a suitable material for a backing interposing between a grinding unit and grinding wheel substrate, which facilitates bonding to the substrate as taught by Gasamo ([0067-0068]).
Regarding claim 3, Vasbinder as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Vasbinder further teaches the grinding units with different structured patterns are separately chosen according to different processing conditions and processing requirements and are flexibly arranged on the grinding wheel, and after a grinding process ends, the grinding units are detached and are kept for reassembly into the grinding wheel for another time of use in a next grinding process (see 112b rejection above; as best can be understood, this claim requires that the included grinding units are replaceable by a user; as the grinding units of Vasbinder are attached with a screw 20, they are therefore capable of being replaced with different grinding units by a user into any arrangement based on the intended workpiece).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder, Hollis, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 2020/0282411) and Dietrich (EP 0163843).
Regarding claim 6, Vasbinder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Vasbinder does not teach the instantaneous cooling mechanism comprising a sprayer made of silicone material, an annular fastener, a small conical hole, or containing a nano fluid therein. Li teaches an instantaneous cooling mechanism (shown in fig 2) for a grinding wheel including a sprayer (elements 42, 43, and 45) and an annular fastener (44), a small conical hole (51, 52) is opened at a top (at bottom in fig 2, but would be on top when spraying upward) of the sprayer to control amount of discharge (function achieved by conical shape of hole), and the instantaneous Cooling mechanism contains nano fluid therein (described [0065]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cooling mechanism structure of Li as the instantaneous cooling mechanism in the grinding wheel of Vasbinder (integrated into the groove as taught by Hollis as described in the rejection of claim 1 above), including a conical hole in a sprayer with an annular fastener and with a nanofluid therein, as nanofluids are known to be suitable for providing cooling and lubrication for grinding wheels, and a structure with a sprayer with a conical hole and annular fastener allows the fluid to be properly mixed and accelerated before application as taught by Li ([0006], [0063-0064]).
Vasbinder does not teach the sprayer being made of a silicone material, having a soft texture or smooth to press (see 112b rejection above; as best understood, the silicone material provides the texture and smoothness). However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Dietrich teaches a block-type grinding wheel including wherein a silicone protective layer (12) is provided around elements of the grinding wheel ([0010]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sprayer out of a silicone material (at least by providing a silicone layer thereon as taught by Dietrich), and thus providing a soft texture which is smooth to press, as the sprayer is exposed to hazards during grinding and such a silicone layer provides wear resistance as taught by Dietrich ([0018]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasbinder, Hollis, and Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suda (US 2010/0011923).
Regarding claim 7, Vasbinder, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Vasbinder does not teach the cooling mechanism containing nano fluid with molybdenum disulfide nanoparticles. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Suda teaches a cooling mechanism (13) for a grinder including nanofluid with molybdenum disulfide nanoparticles ([0145]; the particles described as a “powder” are considered to be nanoparticles as they can be measured in nanometers). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a nanofluid containing molybdenum disulfide nanoparticles, molybdenum disulfide is known to be suitable as a part of a cooling fluid for providing lubrication as taught by Suda ([0145]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest a push mechanism in a grinding wheel including an outer frame body, main shaft, spring, piston and nut in the claimed arrangement and configured to drive the main shaft to press a sprayer of an instantaneous cooling mechanism (see 112b rejection above; as best understood, the sprayer is a part of the claimed instantaneous cooling mechanism). While Vasbinder teaches a grinding wheel with the claimed grinding units, and Hollis teaches a cooling mechanism integrated in a grinding wheel and activated by a push mechanism which responds to grinding force, the prior art as a whole does not teach or suggest these elements combined with the specifically claimed push mechanism structure of claim 4. Nothing in the prior art suggest that this would be an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar grinding wheels and cooling structures are cited.
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