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 of Invention I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence recites “The present disclosure provides…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, ll. 6, consider amending to, --matrix, and [[the ]]another end is of hydrophilic structure; and two adjacent abrasive grains are--
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 2-6 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 2, the phrase "honeycomb-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). As best understood and for examination purposes, the abrasive grain clusters are arranged in honeycomb hexagon.
Claim 2, ll. 3, --arranged in array, and the abrasive grain clusters are arranged in a honeycomb
Claim 3 is rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since it is dependent on claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "two abrasive grains of the abrasive grain clusters" in ll. 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. From claim 1, which claim 4 depends from, “two adjacent abrasive grains are arranged at intervals to form a hexagonal-prism-shaped abrasive grain cluster.” As best understood from instant disclosure, a middle flow channel formed between two abrasive grains of the abrasive grain cluster are the same two adjacent abrasive grains that form a hexagonal prism shaped from claim 1. Therefore, for examination purposes, two abrasive grains in claim 4 are the same abrasive grains from claim 1.
Claim 4, ll. 2-3, --wherein a middle flow channel is formed between the two abrasive grains of the abrasive grain cluster, and the middle flow channel is located between side surfaces of the abrasive grain—
Claims 5-6 are rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since they are dependent on claim 4.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axinte (US 2016/0271752) in view of Moon (KR 20210012281), as provided by the Examiner, and as evidenced by Yang (CN 110549270), also provided by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Axinte (US 2016/0271752) discloses a bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel (item 11; fig. 2), comprising:
a matrix (item 5; pp. [0043]; figs. 2 and 8), having an outer peripheral surface (matrix 5 defined on outer peripheral surface of discs 3 defining wheel; figs. 2-4 and 8); and
abrasive grains (items 19; figs. 2, 8, and 11) which are prismatic (figs. 8 and 11) with a bottom surface (defined as surface directly in contact with matrix 5), wherein an axis of the abrasive grain (defined as axis defined along height of abrasive grain) is distributed in a radial direction of the matrix (height of abrasive grain extends outwardly from matrix 5 in radial direction relative to wheel) 11; figs 2 and 11), one end of the abrasive grain in an axial direction is connected to the outer peripheral surface of the matrix (bottom, i.e. lower, end of abrasive grain is mounted directly on outer peripheral surface of matrix 5; fig. 8); and
two adjacent abrasive grains are arranged at intervals to form an abrasive grain cluster (fig. 8; two adjacent abrasive grains define a grain cluster), and gaps are reserved between adjacent abrasive grain clusters (pp. [0066]; defined as space, i.e. gaps, between each cluster along horizontal direction, i.e. row direction in annotated fig. 8 below), such that a surrounding flow channel is formed in a circumferential direction (defined as direction extending left-right in view of fig. 8) of each abrasive grain cluster (pp. [0066]; flow channel is formed between abrasive grains 19 to allow a suitable flow of machined material and/or the passage of coolant).
Axinte does not explicitly disclose the abrasive grains having an isosceles trapezoidal bottom surface, and wherein the two adjacent abrasive grains are arranged at intervals to form a hexagonal-prism shaped abrasive grain cluster, such that a hexagonal surrounding flow channel is formed.
However, Axinte does disclose a wide range of abrasive unit geometries are possible. The geometries can be uniform or non-uniform and symmetrical or asymmetrical in order to optimize the abrasion action according to the abrasive grain arrangement and geometry (pp. [0057]; fig. 11).
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 the prismatic abrasive grains to be prismatic with an isosceles trapezoidal bottom surface (fig. 11 below), as taught in Axinte, in order to optimize the abrasion action of the grinding wheel (pp. [0057] in Axinte) and improve the efficiency and wear rates of the grinding wheel (pp. [0021] in Axinte).
PNG
media_image1.png
209
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 11.
Further, though Axinte discloses the abrasive grains are uniform shape and size aligned in rows equally spaced (fig. 8), the pattern arrangements of the abrasive grains can be designed to suit the specific wheel application, thereby providing a wide range of patterns or combinations of patterns, such as ordered, staggered, wave (pp. [0068]).
Therefore, it has been held that it is obvious for a person of ordinary skill to choose from a finite number of predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (refer to MPEP 2143.I.E).
Regarding the row arrangement (designated in annotated fig. 8 below), in the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: the abrasive grains are uniform and symmetrical arranged along a row, the abrasive grains are uniform and asymmetrical arranged along a row, the abrasive grains are non-uniform and symmetrical arranged along a row, and the abrasive grains are non-uniform and asymmetrical arranged along a row. Thus, there are only four configurations to choose from to arrange the abrasive grains along the row and a person of ordinary skill could have pursued any of these potential solutions with reasonable expectations of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to arrange the trapezoidal abrasive grains (as modified above) uniformly and asymmetrical along the row, such that each trapezoidal abrasive grain adjacent to one another are mirrored and flipped upside-down, achieving the predictable result of truing and dressing a grinding machine tool (pp. [0001-0002] in Axinte).
Regarding the column arrangement (designated in annotated fig. 8 below), in the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions are: the abrasive grains are uniform and symmetrical arranged along a column, the abrasive grains are uniform and asymmetrical arranged along a column, the abrasive grains are non-uniform and symmetrical arranged along a column, and the abrasive grains are non-uniform and asymmetrical arranged along a column. Thus, there are only four configurations to choose from to arrange the abrasive grains along the column and a person of ordinary skill could have pursued any of these potential solutions with reasonable expectations of success. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to arrange the trapezoidal abrasive grains (as modified above) uniformly and symmetrically along the column, achieving the predictable result of truing and dressing a grinding machine tool (pp. [0001-0002] in Axinte).
The modified arrangement of abrasive grains results in two adjacent abrasive grains (defined as abrasive grains adjacent each other in column direction; fig. 8) forming a hexagonal-prism shaped abrasive cluster, such that a hexagonal surrounding flow channel is formed (pp. [0014] and [0066]; as modified above, a hexagonal gap, i.e. flow channel, is formed around each abrasive cluster to allow a suitable flow of machined material and/or passage of a coolant between grains).
PNG
media_image2.png
593
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 8.
Lastly, though Axinte discloses the outer peripheral surface of the wheel may comprises a non-abrasive material and the abrasive material (i.e. grains) may comprise one or more super-abrasive materials (pp. [0007]), Axinte does not explicitly disclose the type of materials, such as wherein the matrix has a superhydrophobic layer arranged on the outer peripheral surface and an (outer) end of the abrasive grain is of hydrophilic structure.
However, Moon (KR 20210012281), as provided by the Examiner, teaches an abrasive product (pp. [0001] in NPL) comprising a surface with three-dimensional abrasive patterns on their surface (pp. [0023-0024]), analogous to the matrix outer peripheral surface and prismatic abrasive grains in Axinte, used in wet grinding (pp. [0025]), wherein the outer peripheral surface has a hydrophobic surface (pp. [0008]) and the abrasive grains have a hydrophilic material (pp. [0008] and [0025]) that contacts the grinding surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer peripheral surface and an (outer) end of the prismatic abrasive grains, as disclosed in Axinte, to be composed of a hydrophobic layer and a hydrophilic layer, as taught in Moon, in order to appropriately control the speed at which water and/or coolant are discharged to improve lifespan and performance of the grinding wheel (pp. [0025] in Moon).
Moon does not explicitly disclose wherein this hydrophobic portion of the surface is superhydrophobic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hydrophobic layer as superhydropohic, since it has bene held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability of the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (please refer to MPEP 2144.07). As an example, Yang (CN 110549270) teaches a device with a superhydrophobic layer in order to prevent water, i.e. coolant, droplets from adhering to or spreading on its surface, thereby ensuring the cleanliness and improving the lifespan of the device (pp. [0022-0024] in Yang). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Moon and Yang, there are reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 1, wherein the outer peripheral surface of the matrix is covered with the abrasive grain clusters arranged in array (as modified above, defined as structure of trapezoidal prismatic grains in asymmetrical pattern along the row and symmetrical pattern along the column direction), and the abrasive grain clusters are arranged in a honeycomb hexagon (abrasive grain clusters, defined as abrasive grains adjacent to one another in column direction, form a honeycomb hexagon due to the symmetrical trapezoidal grains; as modified above).
Regarding claim 3, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 2, wherein along a circular direction of the outer peripheral surface of the matrix (circular direction defined as width direction of wheel, i.e. along the column direction in annotated fig. 8 above; similar to applicant’s disclosure, pp. [0042] and fig. 6 in instant disclosure), the abrasive grain clusters are arranged at intervals into a plurality of columns (plurality of columns are defined along the column direction in annotated fig. 8 above), and adjacent columns of the abrasive grain clusters are staggered (as modified above, due to the asymmetrical distribution of trapezoidal grains along the row direction, each respective grain cluster, which is defined as the cluster of two adjacent symmetrical grains along the column direction, are offset from one another, i.e. staggered).
Regarding claim 4, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 1, wherein a middle flow channel is formed between two abrasive grains of the abrasive grain cluster (defined as horizontally-extending flow channel between two symmetrical trapezoidal abrasive grains, i.e. trapezoidal abrasive grains adjacent to one another along the column direction as modified above in claim 1), and the middle flow channel is located between side surfaces of corresponding isosceles trapezoid bottom edges of the two abrasive grains (as modified above, middle flow channel is defined along bottom edge of each respective trapezoidal grain within the abrasive cluster).
Regarding claim 5, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 4, wherein the middle flow channel is tangentially distributed along a position of the outer peripheral surface of the matrix (middle flow channel extends horizontally, annotated fig. 8 above, which is tangential to circular wheel), and communicates with the surrounding flow channel (middle flow channel communicates, i.e. connects to, surrounding flow channels for debris and/or coolant to pass through).
Regarding claim 6, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 5, wherein both the middle flow channel and the surrounding flow channel are semi-open capillary channels to exert capillary action (middle flow channels between the adjacent grains of a cluster communicate with, i.e. connected to, surrounding hexagonal flow channels, thereby forming capillary action, i.e. all connecting together) with a tendency toward a hydrophilic structure to water inside the middle flow channel and the surrounding flow channel (as modified above in Moon; water and/or coolant flow is appropriately controlled from hydrophilic abrasive grains to hydrophobic outer peripheral surface).
Regarding claim 7, Axinte as modified discloses the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the abrasive grains are chamfered corresponding to side ridges of prisms.
However, Axinte does disclose a wide range of abrasive unit geometries are possible. The rake and clearance angles (fig. 12) of a given unit geometry can be varied for specific abrasive arrangement, allowing for the control of the grinding action in terms of applied pressure between abrasive grains and the grinding surface (pp. 0057-0059]).
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 the prismatic trapezoidal abrasive grains, as modified in claim 1 above, to include chamfered corresponding side ridges, as taught in Axinte, in order to optimize the abrasion action of the grinding wheel (pp. [0057] in Axinte) by improving the contact pressure between each abrasive grain and the grinding surface (pp. [0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 8, Axinte as modified discloses a grinding device (pp. [0001] in Axinte) comprising the bionic Australian thorny devil grinding wheel as claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raffaelli (US 2005/0064799) discloses a grinding wheel comprising a matrix and abrasive grains which are prismatic with trapezoidal bottom surface, wherein grooves between the abrasive grains may be crisscross or x-shaped patterns.
Okajima (US Patent No. 5,020,282) discloses a grinding tool comprising a matric and abrasive grains that disclose a variety of shapes; however, other shapes of patches such as triangle, diamond and polygon ca be used and various arrays of these patches can be made.
Fromholt (FR 1104941), as provided by Examiner, discloses a grinding wheel comprising a matrix and abrasive grains that are prismatic with a variety of different shapes and configurations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights