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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, line 8 through page 7, line 7, filed April 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, neither Osamu nor Tani teaches the abrasive grains of the dressing member have a hardness less than the hardness of the binder of the grinding stones. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6,849,542 to Katagiri and WO 2020/012977 to Ito. Katagiri teaches silica has a hardness of 7 on the Moh’s scale. Ito teaches a binder having a hardness of 7.5 on the Moh’s scale.
The applicant’s arguments regarding the drawing objection, see page 5, lines 10-15, have been considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
The correction to paragraph 28 of the specification is noted with appreciation. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
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, 2, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-142906 to Osamu (a machine translation will be referred to herein) in view of JP 2004-31772 to Tani (a machine translation will be referred to herein), and in further view of WO 2020/012977 to Ito (a machine translation will be referred to herein) with additional evidence by US 6,849,542 to Katagiri.
In Reference to Claim 1
Osamu teaches:
A dressing member (dresser board 50) for use in dressing grinding stones (21), comprising:
abrasive grits (not shown, abrasive grains, see paragraph 20, line 1); and
a binder (not shown, bonding agent, paragraph 20, line 2) fixing the abrasive grits (see paragraphs 18-20 and Figure 2).
Osamu fails to teach:
The abrasive grits are spherical, and wherein the spherical abrasive grains have a hardness lower than a hardness of a binder included in the grinding stones.
Tani teaches:
A grinding apparatus (polishing pad 10) comprising abrasive grits (abrasive particles 13, silica), wherein the abrasive grits are spherical (see paragraph 20, lines 5-11 and Figure 1).
Ito teaches:
A grinding wheel comprising a binder, wherein a hardness of the binder is 7.5 on the Moh’s scale (see paragraph 17).
Katagiri teaches:
A grinding stone (10) comprises abrasive grains (23) made of silica, and silica has a hardness of 7 on the Moh’s scale (column 8, lines 5-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dressing member of Osamu by forming the abrasive grits as spheres as taught by Tani which is a simple substitution of one known element for another which yields predictable results. In this case, the predictable result is an abrasive particle which is spherical and contained within the binder. The spherical abrasive particle is made of silica and can be used for grinding.
As evidenced by Katagiri, the silica abrasive grains have a hardness of 7 on the Moh’s scale.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dressing member of Osamu by forming the binder of the grinding stone with a hardness of 7.5 on the Moh’s scale as taught by Ito for the purpose of reducing scratches on the binder (paragraph 17, lines 5-6 of Ito).
When the binder of the grinding stone has a hardness of 7.5, and the silica abrasive grit of the dressing member has a hardness of 7, the spherical abrasive grits have a hardness lower than a hardness of a binder included in the grinding stones.
In Reference to Claim 2#
Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito, and evidence from Katagiri teaches:
The dressing member according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive grits are silica grits (paragraph 20 of Tani), and
the abrasive grits have a ratio of minor axis to major axis of 0.7 or greater. The grits are spherical and thus have a ratio of 1.0.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito, and evidence from Katagiri teaches:
The dressing member according to claim 1, comprising the abrasive grits.
Tani further teaches the abrasive grits have an average grit size of 0.1 µm or greater but 3.5 µm or smaller (range is from 0.01 µm to 10 µm, paragraph 20, lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dressing member of Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito by sizing the average grit size to be between 0.1 µm and 3.5 µm as taught by Tani for the purpose of allowing the desired number of abrasive grit to be present in the binder and allowing the dressing member to have the desired abrasive ability.
In Reference to Claim 5#
Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito, and evidence from Katagiri teaches:
The dressing member according to claim 1, wherein the binder of the dressing member is a vitrified bond or a resin bond (paragraph 22 of Osamu).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009-142906 to Osamu as modified by JP 2004-31772 to Tani and WO 2020/012977 to Ito and evidence of US 6,849,542 to Katagiri as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 0214018 to Amano.
In Reference to Claim 3
Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito, and evidence from Katagiri teaches:
The dressing member according to claim 1, comprising the abrasive grits.
Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito, and evidence from Katagiri to teach:
The abrasive grits are contained at a content of 20% wt or higher but 80% wt or lower.
Amano teaches:
A grinding device (abrasive article 10) comprising abrasive grits (abrasive grains), wherein the content of abrasive grit are contained at a content of 20% wt or higher but 80% wt or lower. Amano teaches the abrasive grain concentration is between 10%to 90%, and more preferably between 60% to 75% (see page 12, lines 8-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dressing member of Osamu as modified by Tani and Ito by forming the dressing member with the content of abrasive grits between 20% and 80% as taught by Amano for the purpose of tailoring the dressing member to grind the desirable amount using the desired number of abrasive grits.
Conclusion
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 JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights