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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment and accompanying remarks filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered and entered. Claims 1, 2 and 5 have been amended as requested. Applicant’s amendments are found sufficient to overcome the obviousness type rejections made over the combination of Rotter, US 2014/0259960 A1 in view of McAvoy et al., EP 0287286. Specifically, the combination of cited prior art does not teach the claimed amount of fiber in combination with the claimed first and second fiber linear density. As such, these rejections are hereby withdrawn. However, upon further consideration the following new ground of rejections are set forth herein below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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:
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.
3. Claim(s) 1-10, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101584516 B1 in view of McAvoy et al., EP 0287286.
The published KR reference teach an abrasive article/compression abrasive article comprising a nonwoven web of short fibers comprising a blend of short fibers of a first fiber having a first linear density and a second fiber having a second linear density. The published KR reference teach (figure 1) a single layer (disc) (e.g., a wheel) of nonwoven web of short fibers 12,14. The staple fibers may be natural fibers or polymer fibers. Natural fibers may be selected from cotton, hemp, jute, flax, sisal, or any combination thereof. In another embodiment, the polymeric fibers may be selected from polyamides, polyimides, polyesters, polypropylenes, polyethylenes, or combinations thereof. Staple fibers also include short fiber blends. In an embodiment, the blend comprises short fibers of different origins, such as blends of natural and polymeric fibers. In another embodiment, the blend comprises a blend of different natural fibers, such as a blend of wool fibers and flax fibers. In another embodiment, the blend comprises a blend of different polymeric fibers, such as a blend of polyamide fibers and polyester fibers. In another embodiment, the blend comprises a blend of different polyamide fibers. For example, polyamide fibers can be selected from nylon fibers or aramid fibers. The nylon fiber may be nylon-6 or nylon-6,6. Blends of different polyamide fibers include blends of nylon-6 and nylon-6,6 fibers. The blend includes two or more different types of fibers. For example, the blend may comprise two or more natural fibers and one or more polymeric fibers. In another embodiment, the blend comprises three or more polymeric fibers (see description). With regard to the claimed amount of fiber, the published KR reference teach that each type of short fiber may have an arbitrary content of about 1 wt% to about 99 wt%, such as about 5 wt%, about 10 wt%, about 20 wt%, about 30 wt%, about 40 wt%, about 50 wt% , About 60 wt%, about 70 wt%, about 80 wt%, about 90 wt%, or about 95 wt%. The two types of short fiber blends may be in any ratio of about 1:99 to about 50:50, such as about 5:95, about 10:90, about 20:80, about 30:70, or about 40:60 . The ratio can be based on fiber weight or volume (see description). The Examiner is of the position that based on this disclosure the fiber amount limitations are rendered obvious. For example, the first fiber type can be present in amount of 5 wt. % and the second fiber type can be present in amount of 5 wt. % wherein the total amount of fiber is 10 wt. % and thus would fall within the claimed range amount of 5-30 wt. %. With regard to the claimed linear density, the published KR reference teach (figure 2) the short fibers 12 have a linear density different from that of the short fibers 14. In an embodiment, the linear density of fibers 12 is from about 50 denier to about 400 denier, such as from about 60 denier to about 350 denier, or from about 80 denier to about 300 denier. In another embodiment, the linear density of fibers 14 is from about 250 denier to about 1200 denier, such as from about 300 denier to about 1100 denier, or from about 320 denier to about 1000 denier (see description). Based on this disclosure, the Examiner is of the position that the claimed linear density is rendered obvious. With regard to the length of the fibers, the published KR reference teach two fibers types (populations) wherein the first type is 2.5 inches long and the second type is 2.0 inches long (see examples). Figure 2 also shows abrasive particles 16. The abrasive particles are selected from alumina, silicon carbide, boron carbide, boron nitride, diamond, agglomerated grains, and any combination thereof (see description). With regard to the claimed binder, the published KR reference teach that polymeric binder 18 binds the short fibers 12, 14 with the abrasive particles 16. The polymerizable binder 18 includes a curable polymerizable binder. The curable polymeric binder 18 may be a polymeric binder such as polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylic acid, polyacrylate, polymethacrylic acid, polymethacrylate, polystyrene, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylacetate, polyacrylamide, cellulose, an organic polymer selected from a phenol resin, a melamine resin, a polyurethane, a polyurea, a polyester, a phenoxy, a latex, a fluorinated polymer, a chlorinated polymer, a siloxane, a silyl compound, a silane, and any combination thereof. The curable polymeric binder also includes a blocked resin. The polymerizable binder 18 is a strong and flexible polymeric binder. The polymeric binder 18 imparts flexibility to the nonwoven web to match the workpiece shape during wear and yet binds them together (see description).
The published KR reference fails to teach the claimed first and second major irregular surfaces.
The published EP document issued to McAvoy et al., teach an abrasive article comprising a non-woven fabric/pad, binder and abrasive particles (title, abstract and page 5, 5-20). McAvoy et al., teach using staple length fibers having a denier ranging from 6-400 and a length ranging from 75-100mm (page 4, 5-15 and example 1). Said fibers are crimped and have a crimp index ranging from 35-70 % (page 3, 55). McAvoy et al., exemplify that the density and crimp index is different from the first population of fibers (example 1). With regard to the claimed abrasive particulate, McAvoy et al., also teach the claimed silicon carbide (page 5, 20). With specific regard to the limitation “of a first irregular major surface and an opposite second irregular major surface, wherein at least one of the first irregular major surface or second irregular major surfaces comprise a non-planar contour, wherein at least one of the first irregular major surface and the second irregular major surface are substantially free of planar agglomerations of fibers” as set forth in claim 1, the Examiner is of the position that since the prior art of McAvoy et al., teach using crimped staple fibers in the formation of the non-woven, the first and second surfaces would be “irregular” and have a “non-planar contour”. In addition, the Examiner is of the position that the first and second major surfaces would also be “substantially” free of planar fiber aggregates. Applicants have not limited the claim to define what is considered an “irregular” surface. The prior art does also not teach or suggest surfaces with planar fiber aggregates. In addition, the term substantially is considered a relative term. The term “substantially” 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. The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the abrasive article of the published KR reference with the crimped type staple fibers of McAvoy et al. McAvoy et al., teach that presence of helically crimped fibers brings about greater durability and greater capacity for absorbing debris (see description). As such, the Examiner is of the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the abrasive article of the published KR reference with helically crimped fibers as taught by McAvoy et al. Since the cited prior art references are analogous and are concerned with forming similar abrasive articles, the Examiner is of the position that the combination of cited prior art renders rejected claims obvious.
4. Claim(s) 11-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rotter, US 2014/0259960 A1 in view of McAvoy et al., EP 0287286 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Ludwig et al., 2014/0080393.
The combination of the published KR reference in view of McAvoy et al., does not teach the claimed amounts of abrasive particles or the amount of binder used.
The published patent application issued to Ludwig et al., teach forming a non-woven article comprising staple fibers, abrasive particles and binder (title and abstract). With regard to the claimed amount of binder, Ludwig et al., teach an amount of about 20 wt. % (paragraph 0039). The amount of abrasive filler particles is about 50 wt. % (paragraph 0039). With regard to the claimed abrasive particles, Ludwig et al., teach abrasive particles and filler particles such as ceramic, aluminum oxide and silcon carbide (paragraph 0026). With specific regard to claim 13, Ludwig et al., does not teach the claimed crushed abrasive. The Examiner is of the position that using a crushed abrasive particle would be within the skill of worker in the art. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 199, 125 USPQ 416, 418 (CCPA 1960). Ludwig et al., also teach forming an abrasive wheel (paragraph 0046).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the abrasive article of provided by the combination of the published KR reference in view of McAvoy et al., with types and amounts of abrasive particles and binders of Ludwig et al. The Examiner considers the cited references analogous since they each teach forming abrasive non-woven articles. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that depending on desired end use it would be obvious to vary the binder and abrasives types and amounts.
Conclusion
5. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LYNDA SALVATORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached on 571-270-7692. 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.
/LYNDA SALVATORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights