FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant did not overcome the rejection under 112 (b) of claim 7 with the addition of “the at least partly plastic material” because both the supporting surface of claim 1 and the abrasive tool in claim 6 use the same limitation of at least partly [formed] plastic material.
Applicant argues that the angled wings of Fidanzi are integrally formed with a cage part and therefore not extending out from the attachment plate. This argument is not persuasive. First, the argument is irrelevant to claims 1 and 20 since the cage part was not introduced until claim 11. Therefore, the cage part of Fidanzi in the rejection of claims 1 and 20 could be construed as the attachment part. Second, even if the cage part was part of the independent claims, it doesn’t seem unobvious to modify the claimed wings of Fidanzi to be part of the attachment part of Bin, since the attachment plate/cage part of the instant application is welded together, intended to be used as one integral part, and both the wings of the instant application and the wings of Fidanzi resolve the same problem of attaching the tool to the tool holder.
For the reasons above the claims have been rejected with the same prior art as the previous Office action.
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 7 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 7 recites “wherein the at least partly plastic material”. This limitation is unclear as if it refers to the at least partly formed plastic material of the supporting surface in claim 1 or the at least partly plastic material of the abrasive tool section in claim 6. The Examiner will interpret the limitation as the latter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin US 2013/0090047 A1 in view of Vankouwenberg US 2013/0225051 A1 and in further view of Fidanzi ES 2297785 T3.
Re claims 1 and 20, Bin discloses an abrasive tool [figs. 3-4] for a floor grinder 1 [fig. 5],
the abrasive tool comprising an attachment plate 30 arranged to releasably attach to a tool holder 3 [fig. 5] of the floor grinder 1,
the abrasive tool also comprising an abrasive tool section [10a, 11, 20] at least partly formed in an abrasive material 20,
wherein the attachment plate 30 comprises a supporting surface [implied by the name “holder socket” and the surface where an adhesive 31 is applied to] at least partly formed in a plastic material [¶24, “holder socket 30 may be injection molded with a plastic material”],
wherein the supporting surface is configured to align with a corresponding surface on the abrasive tool section [fig. 4].
Bin teaches the attachment plate 30 is secure to the abrasive tool by adhesive 31 but does not teach wherein the attachment plate 30 and the abrasive tool section are held together by one or more welds; the abrasive tool is releasably attach to the tool holder by opposing and angled wings; and wherein the opposing and angled wings extend out from a surface of the attachment plate opposite to the supporting surface.
Vankouwenberg teaches a concrete floor grinder wherein an attachment plate 348 and an abrasive tool section 332 are held together by one of various bonding operations including adhesive and welds [¶36, “stack pad 350 is securely fixed through various bonding operations including adhesives, heat welding, and ultrasonic welding”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the welding taught by Vankouwenberg with the bonded attachment plate/abrasive tool section of Bin in order to yield the predictable result of reinforcing the bonding between the two components.
Fidanzi teaches wherein the attachment plate comprises two opposing and angled wings [18, 19] for releasably mounting the attachment plate to a tool holder of the floor grinder [“the side walls 18, 19 have been designed for coupling with their respective seats anchor, not shown, on the mobile member of the apparatus, being reinforced by support points 20”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the wings of Fidanzi with the abrasive tool of Bin, in order to yield the predictable result of releasably attaching the abrasive tool to the tool holder.
Re claim 2, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Vankouwenberger further teaches wherein the one or more welds comprises any of an ultrasonic weld, a laser weld, a vibration weld, or a melted plastic material weld [¶36].
Re claim 4, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches a rim portion [rim of socket 30] extending along a perimeter of the supporting surface, wherein the rim portion is arranged to hold the abrasive tool section laterally with respect to the normal vector (N) of the supporting surface [fig. 4].
Re claim 5, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches wherein the abrasive tool section comprises a planar support element 10a and a plurality of abrasive elements [11, 20] arranged protruding from the planar support element 10a in a direction (D) normal to the supporting surface.
Re claim 6, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches wherein the abrasive tool section comprises an abrasive material 20 embedded in an at least partly plastic material 11 [fig. 4].
Re claim 8, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches wherein the abrasive tool section comprises any of: talc, rubber, silicon carbide, green chromium oxide and diamond granules ¶26.
Re claim 3, 21, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above but fail to teach a plurality of protrusions extends from the supporting surface of the attachment plate along a normal vector (N) of the supporting surface; a cage part, wherein the cage part comprises apertures arranged to receive abrasive elements extending from a planar support element of the abrasive tool section,
Fidanzi further teaches an abrasive tool for marble, stone, or the like comprising two half shells construed as an attachment plate 11’ and a cage part 11’’ [fig. 4]. Fidanzi further teaches a plurality of protrusions 21 extending from the supporting surface of the attachment plate along a normal vector (N) of the supporting surface to couple the half shells [“first and second half of the half shell 11 ', 11' 'are coupled to each other by means of suitable anchors, for example by coupling the tooth 21 peripherally placed in the second half of shell 11 '', intended to activate the opening 22 in the first half of shell 11'“]. Fidanzi also teaches wherein the cage part comprises apertures 16 arranged to receive abrasive elements 13 extending from a planar support element 12’ of the abrasive tool section 12, wherein the cage part 11’’ is at least partly formed in a plastic material [“the support member 11 consists of a first and second means shell 11 ', 11' 'of plastic material”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of a half shell support of Fidanzi with the abrasive tool of Bin, in order to yield the predictable result of supporting the multiple abrasive elements.
Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi do not teach where the cage part is welded to the attachment plate and/or to the abrasive tool section, thereby holding the attachment plate and the abrasive tool section together by the one or more welds. Vankouwenberg teaches attaching a plate with an abrasive tool section by welding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Vankouwenberg to the combination in order to yield the predictable result of reinforcing the bonding between the two components, in this case, the cage and the attachment plate.
Re claims 12, 14-15, 17, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Fidanzi further teaches wherein the cage part 11’’ comprises at least two apertures 16, wherein each aperture of the at least two apertures is configured to receive one abrasive element 13 arranged protruding from a planar support element 12’ on the abrasive tool section 12; wherein the apertures constitute at least half of a total surface area of the cage part [fig. 5]; wherein the cage part comprises a centrally positioned solid portion [portions between opening 16].
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin US 2013/0090047 A1 in view of Vankouwenberg US 2013/0225051 A1 and in further view of Sinram CN 1993207 B.
Re claim 7, Bin and Vankouwenberg teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches using a phenolic resin ¶10. The combination fails to teach wherein the plastic material is specifically phenolic novolac.
Sinram teaches it was known to use phenolic novolak as a substrate for grinding tools [“novolac phenolic resin) as bonding agent”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the phenolic novolak of Sinram as the bonding agent for the plastic material in Bin, in order to yield the predictable result of using a resin that is heat resistant.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bin US 2013/0090047 A1 in view of Vankouwenberg US 2013/0225051 A1 and Fidanzi ES 2297785 T3 and in further view of Palushaj US 2008/0176494 A1.
Re claims 9-10, Bin, Vankouwenberg, and Fidanzi teach the invention as discussed above. Bin further teaches a relative volume percentage of talc between 5-15% ¶11. The combination fails to teach wherein the abrasive tool section is associated with a grit between 30-200 and wherein the abrasive tool section comprises a relative volume percentage of silicon carbide between 10-20%.
However, Bin further teaches a silicon carbide percentage of 22% and Palushaj teaches a concrete grinding device having an abrasive with a grit between 5-500 ¶30.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific grit sizes and percentages above since it has been held that In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists and [s]imilarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP 2144.05 I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not show or fairly render obvious the combination set forth in the claims. In particular, the prior art does not show wherein the cage part comprises one or more ridges arranged facing in a direction of the attachment plate, wherein the ridges are configured to facilitate ultrasonic welding of the cage part to the attachment plate and/or to the abrasive tool section.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights