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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed May 12, 2026 have been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 28-31, and 39-40 are currently pending. Claims 4, 6-7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19-27, and 32-38 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-9, 28-31, and 39-40 are withdrawn. The examiner acknowledges the amendments of claim 10. The previous 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn due to applicant amendments. However, a new grounds of rejection has been made due to applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10, 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burge (US Pub. No. 2012/0040590).
Regarding claim 10, Burge discloses: a backup pad (Figures 1-3 and see also paragraph 0026) for an abrasive system (Figure 3), the backup pad comprising:
a tool engaging feature (element 14);
an abrasive article engaging feature (see paragraph 0030); and
a compressible pressure-tuning feature (elements 20/30) attached to the abrasive article engaging feature (see paragraph 0030), the compressible securing feature comprising a conical shape cavity (element 35 and see also paragraph 0027 where the prior art discloses that element 30 (portion of the compressible pressure-tuning feature) is in a shape of “a truncated cone” which forms the cavity (element 35)) on a first side (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) that is coupled to a conical surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) of the backup pad (see figure 1 annotated below showing the conical shape cavity (element 35) of the compressible pressure-tuning feature (elements 20/30) operable coupled to the conical surface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B) of a portion (element 35) of the backup pad), wherein the compressible securing feature has a nonuniform thickness that substantially equalizes a depth (see figure 1 annotated below Detail C) of the backup pad along a width (see figure 1 annotated below Detail D) of the backup pad (see figure 1 annotated below showing portions (left and right portions) of the compressible pressure-tuning feature (elements 20/30) having a nonuniform thickness that substantially equalizes the depth (Detail C) of the backup pad along a width (Detail D) of the backup pad), wherein the compressible securing feature comprises an abrasive-receiving side (see figure 1 annotated below Detail E) that is substantially flat on an opposite side (see figure 1 annotated below Detail showing the abrasive-receiving side (Detail E) being substantially flat on an opposite side (Detail F)), and configured to redistribute contact pressure across a radius of an abrasive article attached to the abrasive article engaging feature (See figure 1 showing a portion of the compressible pressure-tuning feature (elements 20/30) operably attached to an abrasive article (element 31 and see also paragraph 0029) which is attached to the abrasive article engaging feature (see paragraph 0030). Therefore, giving that the prior art discloses the structure of the claimed compressible pressure-tuning feature in structural relationship with the abrasive article which is attached to the abrasive article engaging feature and there is no structural difference or any additional structure provided, the prior art would be capable of having the compressible pressure-tunning feature contact pressure across a radius of an abrasive article attached to the abrasive article engaging feature, as recited.).
PNG
media_image1.png
683
1264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Burge discloses: the backup pad of claim 10, wherein the compressible feature is elastically deformable (see paragraph 0027 where the prior art names element 30 (portion of the compressible feature (elements 20/30)) as a “diaphragm” and see also paragraph 0015 where the prior art discloses that the diaphragm is manufactured from a material including “elastomers”, thus being elastically deformable).
Regarding claim 14, Burge discloses: the backup pad of claim 10, wherein the compressible feature comprises a material (see paragraphs 0027) which has been patterned, 3D printed, embossed, or engraved (The applicant is claiming a product-by-process limitation (which has been patterned, 3D printed, embossed, or engraved), MPEP 2113 clearly states "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different processes." In this instance, the product taught by Burge is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious, meeting the limitation of the claim) to provide deformability (see paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 16, Burge discloses: the backup pad of claim 10, wherein the compressible feature is made of multiple layers and / or multiple materials in a layered (see figure 1 showing the compressible feature is made of multiple layers (elements 20/30) in a layered construction) or agglomerate construction.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burge (US Pub. No. 2012/0040590) in view of Sventek (WO 2019229610).
Regarding claim 18, Burge discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claim 10, but appears to be silent wherein the compressible feature includes a material having an elastic modulus of less than about 650 psi.
Sventek is also concern in providing a tool (Figure 1A-1B element 18 and see also paragraph 0035) comprising a pad (element 38) having a compressible feature (see paragraph 0051 where the prior art discloses element 38 as “an elastic layer” that is configured to “deform”, which is well known in the art to be compressible, thus having a compressible feature) and wherein the compressible feature includes a material (see paragraph 0059) having an elastic modulus of less than about 650 psi (see paragraph 0059 where the prior art discloses the elastic layer (element 38) having “a Young’s Modulus of less than about 1.5 MPa (220 psi), less than about 1.1 MPa (160 psi), less than about 0.31 MPa (45 psi)”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Burge to incorporate the teachings of Sventek to provide wherein the compressible feature includes a material having an elastic modulus of less than about 650 psi. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a desired material with a desired elastic modulus including the claimed the elastic modulus of less than about 650 psi would necessarily provide the predictable result of having sufficiently high elasticity, such that the elastic layer compresses against the substrate under normal operating conditions as disclosed by Sventek (see paragraph 0059).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST.
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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights