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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on October 30, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 30, 2025.
Therefore, after the election, claim 10 is withdrawn, and claims 1-9 are pending for examination as filed October 30, 2025.
Specification
The use of the term KH560, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application (note 0018, and further throughout the specification). The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1, lines 3-7, this section has “modifying a surface of diamond micropowder to polarize an electric filed of the diamond micropowder” followed by a listing of steps S1-S3. As worded, this is unclear and indefinite as to whether (1) steps S1-S3 provide the “modifying a surface of diamond micropowder to polarize an electric filed of the diamond micropowder” or are (2) in addition to “modifying a surface of diamond micropowder to polarize an electric filed of the diamond micropowder”, so that the ”modifying a surface . . .” is an additional step. For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, line 3, “micropowder” is unclear and indefinite as to what size particles are referred to. Are they (1) simply relatively small?, (2) have a specific size range, such as 1-1000 microns or 1-100 microns, etc.? and if (2) what size range? For the purpose of examination, any size range as discussed above is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, line 5, “aluminum sol” is confusing as to whether a sol of metal aluminum only is intended, or whether a sol with “alumina” is included. Note Aoude et al (US 5283104) describing an aluminum sol material as having Al2O3 (alumina) (note column 7, lines 30-35), thus noting the conventional use of aluminum sol as including one with alumina. For the purpose of examination, either option is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, line 7, as to “modifying the surface of the diamond micropowder” in step S3, it unclear and indefinite if the diamond micropowder before step S1 or after step S2, for example, is intended. For the purpose of examination, treatment of the diamond micropowder at any point in the process is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, line 7, “surface modifier” is unclear and indefinite as to what is covered by surface modifier other than materials described in the disclosure. For the purpose of examination, material as described in the disclosure as surface modifier is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, lines 8-9, “poor” polarization effect is unclear and indefinite as to what would be considered “poor” as opposed to good or average. For the purpose of examination, any polarization that is not desired is considered to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, lines 8-13, this section has “screening the diamond micropowder to remove the diamond micropowder with a poor polarization effect” followed by a listing of step S4 (and further steps). As worded, this is unclear and indefinite as to whether (1) step S4 provides the “screening the diamond micropowder to remove the diamond micropowder with a poor polarization effect” or are (2) in addition to “screening the diamond micropowder to remove the diamond micropowder with a poor polarization effect”, so that the ”screening the diamond micropowder . . .” is an additional step, or (3) whether S5+ are also parts of the “screening the diamond micropowder to remove the diamond micropowder with a poor polarization effect” process. For the purpose of examination, either (1) or (2) is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, lines 8-13, as to “screening the diamond micropowder to remove the diamond micropowder with a poor polarization effect” and step S4, it unclear and indefinite if the diamond micropowder before step S1 or after step S3, for example, is intended. For the purpose of examination, treatment of the diamond micropowder at any point in the process is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step S4, it is unclear and indefinite as to how the described S4, is “gradually decreasing the strength of the electric field”, and also how slow something must be to be “gradually”. For the purpose of examination, following the described action in S4 of “by placing . . .effect from the diamond micropowder” is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step S5, as to “the diamond miropowder” in step S5, it unclear and indefinite if the diamond micropowder before step S1 or after step S3 or after step S4, for example, is intended. For the purpose of examination, treatment of the diamond micropowder at any point in the process is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step S6, as to “continuing to coat . . . with the base glue”, it is confusing and indefinite as to what is meant, since it was not previously required to coat with the base glue. For the purpose of examination, providing coating over the primer with the base glue is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step S7, as to “the substrate in S6” it is confusing and indefinite as to whether this means while coating with the base glue or after base glue is coated. For the purpose of examination, either of these is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 1, step S8, “continuing to coat . . . with a compound glue”, it is confusing and indefinite as to what is meant, since it was not previously required to coat with the compound glue. For the purpose of examination, providing coating over the layers after sand planting is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, lines 3-4, “sol with a mass concentration of 10%” is unclear and indefinite as to what the mass concentration refers to, is it (1) the amount of diamond micropowder in the sol, (2) the amount of aluminum or alumina in the sol, (3) total of (1) and (2) in the sol, (4) something else? For the purpose of examination, any of the listed is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, line 4, “a mass ratio is between 1:1 and 2:1” is unclear and indefinite as to what is the materials making up the mass ratio. Is diamond micropowder:alumina or aluminum sol, aluminum or alumina sol:diamond micropowder, the ratio of alumina/alumium:sol material total, etc. For the purpose of examination, any of the listed is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, line 4, “slow” is unclear and indefinite as to how quickly/slowly something has to be added to give a slow addition. For the purpose of examination, any addition speed is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, line 5, “slowly” is unclear and indefinite as to how quickly/slowly something has to be added to give a slowly stirring. For the purpose of examination, any stirring speed is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, line 8, “KH560 surface treatment agent” is unclear and indefinite as to what is intended. The claim contains the trademark/trade name KH560. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is apparently used to identify/describe a silane coupling agent of 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, agent with 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, line 8, “surface modifier in S2” is confusing and indefinite as worded, because the surface moodier is used in step “S3” not “S2”. For the purpose of examination, “used in S3” is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 2, lines 8-9, “mass concentration of the used KH560 surface modifier is 5%” is unclear and indefinite as to what is meant by this mass concentration. Is it the amount of KH560 used in the overall “surface modifier” material, is it the amount applied to the diamond micropowder, is it something else? For the purpose of examination, any of these is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 3, “comprises KH560” is unclear and indefinite as to what is intended. The claim contains the trademark/trade name KH560. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is apparently used to identify/describe a silane coupling agent of 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, agent with 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 3, “a mass fraction of 2% - 8%” is unclear and indefinite as to what is intended. Is the (1) the solids amount in simply KH560 or (2) the amount ofKH560 in the primer material, (3) something else? For the purpose of examination, options (1) or (2) is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, lines 3-4, “a remaining part of polyurethane” is unclear and indefinite as to what is intended. Can the primer have (1) KH560, other material, and the remaining part of the composition after those materials is polyurethane, or (2) the primer can only have KH560 and polyurethane? For the purpose of examination, options (1) or (2) is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 6, “micro-concave coating” is unclear and indefinite as to what coating process is used. For the purpose of examination, any coating process that can be considered as having any “micro-concave” features is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, lines 6-7, “a rotation speed” is unclear and indefinite as it is not clarified what would be rotated, such as a coating device, or what is performing the “rolling’ for use. For the purpose of examination, anything that can be rotated in the coating process is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 7, is unclear and indefinite if the drying is performed as part of step S5 or the drying of S9 is referred to. For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 3, line 8, “rolling is performed for use” is unclear and indefinite as to what process is performed for the “rolling” and as to “for use” is this supposed to be for use after step S5 or after step S9 or something else. For the purpose of examination, any of these is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 4, line 6, “1-15 parts of KH560” is unclear and indefinite as to what is intended. The claim contains the trademark/trade name KH560. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is apparently used to identify/describe a silane coupling agent of 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, agent with 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 6, line 3 refers to “a curing method of the base glue comprises the following steps”. This is unclear and indefinite as worded because (1) it is not described that this “curing method” is actually used, where it could just be a possible curing method. (2) Furthermore, if the curing method is to be performed, it is unclear if this is a step that is supposed to occur at the end of step S6, end of step S7, it if actually included as part of step S9. For the purpose of examination, actually performing curing and that the step can occur at any of the options in (2) above, is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 7, the claim does not have antecedent basis for the referred to “the curing time” and “the drying temperature” and reference to steps 1-4 in lines 3-6, and therefore it is confusing and indefinite as to what is intended. For the purpose of examination, that the claim depends from claim 6, which provides such antecedent basis, is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 8, line 3 refers to “a curing method of the compound glue comprises the following steps”. This is unclear and indefinite as worded because it is not described that this “curing method” is actually used, where it could just be a possible curing method For the purpose of examination, actually performing curing is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 8, line 11 refers to “a finished product is converted”. This is unclear and indefinite as worded because it is not clear how “converted” is provided. Does applicant mean an addition step is provided, or that the steps 1-6 provide the converting? For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Claim 9, line last line refers to “the finished product is converted”. This is unclear and indefinite as worded because it is not clear how “converted” is provided. Does applicant mean an addition step is provided, or that the steps 1-6 provide the converting For the purpose of examination, either is understood to meet the requirements of the claim, but applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
The dependent claims do not cure all the defects of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also rejected for that reason.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 us objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 8, line 12, “UV” should be spelled out for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113927494 (hereinafter ‘494) in view of CN 116120895 (hereinafter ‘895), WO 2019/230969 (hereinafter ‘969) and Shkolnikov et al (US 11325125), and as evidenced by Japan 2012-018856 (hereinafter ‘856), EITHER alone OR further in view of CN 109866115 (hereinafter ‘115).
Claim 1: ‘494 teaches forming a grinding belt with abrasive/grinding material/particles, where the process of forming the grinding belt includes an electrostatic sand plating process (note figure 1, abstract, page 5, translation). The process includes a step S5 of coating a surface of a substrate with a primer (precoating in ‘494) to increase binding force with a base glue (primer in ‘494) and abrasive (note figure 1, pages 2, translation, page 6, Example 1, translation). Then coating continues with a step S6 to coat the primer coated substrate with base glue (primer in ‘494) (note figure 1, page 4, translation, page 6, Example 1, translation). Then a step S7 is provided of sand plating the abrasive into the substrate with the primer (note figure 1, page 5, translation, page 6, Example 1, translation). Then coating continues with a step S8 of coating the sand planted surface with a compound glue/adhesive (note figure 1, page 5, translation, page 6, Example 1, translation). Then, there is a step of S9 of drying and curing one surface of the substrate coated with the compound glue (note page 5, translation, page 6, Example 1, translation).
(A) As to using diamond micropowder treated with aluminum sol as the abrasive material, ‘494 teaches generally using abrasive material that is sharp, hard and grinds softer material surface, and where the abrasive can include alumina (note page 5, translation).
‘895 teaches particles that can be used as abrasives for grinding are composite alumina-diamond microsphere powder (micropowder)(note the abstract), where the material would be sharp (from protrusions) and hard (from diamond, alumina) and have a desirable self sharpening ability (note page 2, translation), where the process of forming the powder includes providing diamond in a solution with stirring, adding what is described as aluminum sol and aging in the sol (so soaking), washing, filtering and drying the treated material (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘494 to use aluminum sol treated diamond micropowders as the abrasive material as suggested by ‘895 with an expectation of providing a desirable abrasive material for use, since ‘494 wants a hard, sharp material that can include alumina as the abrasive, and ‘895 teaches that a desirable abrasive powder for grinding can include aluminum sol treated diamond micropowder, which has desirable self sharpening property. As to providing steps S1 and S2 of forming the diamond micropowder for use, ‘895 indicates that diamond micropowder would be provided, soaked in an aluminum sol, and after soaking, removed and dried. As to the soaking under stirring, ‘895 describes forming an initial mixed solution with aluminum material and the diamond micropowder with stirring to obtain a mixed solution (note page 2, translation), and with adding the aluminum sol also wants to obtain a mixed sol (note page 2, translation), so it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘494 in view of ‘895 to mix when adding/soaking the aluminum sol to the diamond micropowder containing solution to help obtain a mixed solution as described for initially forming a mixed solution, as stirring is shown as a method for obtaining a mixed solution of materials. This gives the features required for steps S1 and S2.
(B) Furthermore, as to further modifying the aluminum sol treated micropowder with a surface modifier of a silane coupling agent, ‘494 describes the layers that the abrasive powder is placed in a precoating layer, primer layer and compound glue/adhesive layer as discussed above (and note figure 1), where the layers are made with polymers (note page 2, translation with polyurethane, etc. for the precoating layer, page 4, with polyurethane or epoxy resin for the base glue, and page 6, translation with epoxy and phenolic, etc. for the compound layer).
‘969 further describes how diamond particles are desirably treated with silane compounds, which allows them to be easily adapted for a polymer matrix and dispersed uniformly in the polymer matrix (note page 6, translation), where it is further indicated that it is desirable for the particle to have surface hydroxyl groups present for easy bonding of the surface treatment agent (note page 6, translation). The silane agent can be an alkoxysilane such as 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane (note page 6, translation, understood as KH560, note the 35 USC 112 rejection above).
‘856 evidences that aluminum oxide particles from a sol conventionally have a large number of hydroxyl groups on the surface (note page 7, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘494 in view of ‘895 to further treat aluminum sol treated diamond micropowder with a silane agent surface modifier such as 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane as suggested by ‘969 and evidenced by ‘856 to help adapt the powder to the polymer matrix they are in and also improve dispersibility of the powder, since ‘494 is putting the abrasive (here alumina treated diamond powder) in a polymer coating layer system/matrix and ‘969 indicates modifying the surface of diamond powder with a surface modifier such as 3-glycidoxypropyltrimethoxysilane to help adapt the powder to the polymer matrix they are in and also improve dispersibility of the powder, where ‘856 evidences that the alumina particles that would be provided with the diamond powder of ‘494 as suggested by ‘895 (note ‘895 abstract) would be expected to have surface hydroxyl groups that would help bond the surface modifier to the powder. Since the diamond micropowder would be modified with the steps claimed for S1-S3 as discussed here and in section (A) above, it would also be understood that this would also polarize an electric field of the diamond micropowder as claimed, because the steps required for such an effect would be performed.
(C) As to also screening the diamond micropowder to remove that with a poor polarization effect as in step S4 before going on to steps S5, etc., ‘494 would indicate that there is a relative desirable size of the abrasive (note figure 1, to give protrusion from the adhesive layers, for the grinding desired). ‘895 also indicates a size range for the grinding powders used, where the initial diamond powder size is less than 20 microns (note page 2, translation), and where the sol treated micropowder can have a size range such as 88-92 microns or 84-95 microns (note page 3, translation).
Shkolnikov indicates how an electric field system can be used to separate particles into desired sizes, where particles can be separated based on size and electric polarizability of the particles, where the field frequency can be easily modifed and applicable to a range of particles and applications (note column 1, line 65 to column 2, line 5). Particles pass through an electric field forces from the field can direct the particles into first or second separation passages (note column 2, lines 40-60), where the direction occurs due to the different responses based on size or electric polarizability (note column 4, lines 5-25). After the first separation, there can be further electric field treatment under further conditions to create a further split based on size and electric polarity (note column 5, line 50 to column 6, line 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 modify ‘494 in view of ‘895 and ‘969 and further as evidenced by ‘856 to further screen the formed surface modifier treated particles using an electric field system as suggested by Shkolnikov in order to provide a desirable set of diamond micropowder treated particles for use, since ‘494 and ‘895 would indicate that there would be desirable particle sizes for use in the polymer layer system and one would optimize based on the specific article produced, and Shkolnikov indicates a known way to screen particles into desired size/polarity, where the particles pass through and are sorted by effect in an electric field, where the electric field can change as the particles continue in different passages (since a first splitting under one field, and then a further splitting, it would be understood that the field needs to change for the second split, since a different effect is had on the particles at the second split, where it would be understood that the field can predictably and acceptably decrease based on the further split needed, and since the splitting can occur based on polarization, it can be understood that the undesired particles have poor polarization and are to be separated away, and can shed under gravity with flow movements that occur as desired, and giving the gradually decreasing strength of the electric field to the extent claimed).
Optionally, further using ‘115, as to specifically desiring to separate the powder based on polarization, ‘115 further teaches that when using diamond powder and electrostatic sand planting, there are problems with using diamond powder due to difficulty to polaraize as opposed to aluminum oxide, etc. (note page 2, translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘494 in view of ‘895 and ‘969 and further as evidenced by ‘856 to further screen the formed surface modifier treated particles using an electric field system and sort based on polarization as suggested by Shkolnikov and ‘115, since the combination of references suggests using diamond particles with alumina, etc. treatment, and where Shkolnikov indicates how it is known to sort based on size, polarization of particles and note the discussion and suggestion to use Shkolnikov as discussed above, and ‘115 indicates that when using diamond powder, it can be difficult to polarize the particles, as opposed to aluminum oxide, so by sorting the combined particles of diamond with aluminum oxide suggested by the references, by checking for low polarity particles without enough aluminum oxide can be removed, for example.
Note Jing et al (US 2013/0225760) noting KH560 as a tradename for 3-(glycidoxypropyl)-trimethoxysilane (note 0056).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 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 prior art of record, as discussed for claim 1 above, does not suggest (1) the detailed treatment conditions for claims 2, 3, (2) to use a base glue or compound glue in the specific process as claimed for claims 4, 5, (3) and the specific curing steps of claims 6-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718