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 .
Examiner’s Comment
New claim 27 is missing a status identifier, which should have been “(New)”.
There are two new claims numbered as “25”; the first one would be treated as new claim 25, and the second one would be treated as new claim 26.
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on 02/23/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, 15-16, 19, and 23-45 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, the porosity is amended to “36 3%”; a period is missing to properly show the lower end of the porosity at 36.3%. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 25 are objected to because of the following informalities: There are two new claims numbered as “25”; the first one is treated as new claim 25 and the second one is treated as new claim 26.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specimen 304-310, shown in Table 1, appear to be the samples made based off of a braze alloy of a mixture of nickel/chromium/phosphorous and copper/tin/titanium. Although no specific alloy containing copper/tin/titanium has been listed in Table 1, said samples show the use of titanium hydride as well as bronze 82/18 (which contains copper and tin), in addition to Ni-Cr-P. However, the grit size for the abrasive particles is disclosed to be 70/80, in mesh, which corresponds to, approximately, 210/177 microns. However, the claimed abrasive grit size is “not greater than 2500 µm” which includes any and all values below 2500 µm, which means size much larger than 210 microns are included in the recitation of claim 6. This is a much broader size range than the support provided in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination for the specifically claimed braze alloy material, porosity and VAG/VBM.
First Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specimen 312-318, shown in Table 1, are the samples made based off of a braze alloy of a mixture of nickel/chromium/phosphorous and tungsten or molybdenum, but the grit size for the abrasive particles is 70/80 which corresponds to, approximately, 210/177 microns. However, the claimed abrasive grit size is “not greater than 2500 µm” which includes any and all values below 2500 µm, which is much broader than the support provided in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination for the specifically claimed braze alloy material, porosity and VAG/VBM.
Claims 30-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination for amended independent claim 30. The cumulative recitation of the ratio of VAG/VBM of “0.11 and 1.27” for a braze alloy of a “mixture of copper/tin/titanium and 316L stainless steel” having a porosity of “40.0% to 48.0%” is not supported by the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. Based on Table 1, as presented in the specification of the present Application under examination, pages 31-34, for a bronze alloy comprising a mixture of copper/tin/titanium and 316L stainless steel, having a VAG/VBM of 0.11 and 1.27, the porosity can be between 43.3 to 48.0% (see specification, pages 33-34, specimen 320-326).
Claims 31-37 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 33 is, additionally, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specimen 320-326, which show a ratio of 0.11-1.27, for a porosity of 43.3%-48%, are based on abrasive size of 70/80, in mesh, which corresponds to, approximately, 210µm/177µm. However, the claimed particle size is “not greater than 2500 µm” which is much broader than what said specimen provide support for the cumulative limitation of the specifically claimed braze alloy, porosity and VAG/VBM.
Claims 38-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no support for the new claim 38 in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination. The only specimen, as presented in Table 1, which contains iron and copper/tin/titanium, are specimen 319-326; this is because any stainless steel contains iron. However, the porosity as shown for these specimen in Table 1, fluctuate between 43.3% to 48.0% for a VAG/VBM ratio of 0.11-1.27. Specimen 305 and 313 in Table 1, as asserted by Applicant in the Remarks filed on 02/23/2026, do not contain any iron in their bond material. Specimen 406 in Table 2 contains iron in its bond material, but the VAG/VBM ratio fluctuates between only 0.16-0.8.
Claims 39-45 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 41 is, additionally, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specimen 404-406, which show a ratio of 0.16-0.80, for porosity values of 43.1%, 39.6%, and 54.7% are based on abrasive size, in mesh, 80/100. However, the claimed particle size is “not greater than 2500 µm” which is much broader than the disclosed abrasive size in Table 2.
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 45 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 45 recites the limitation "the coating" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
It is noted claim 45 is claimed to depend from claim 38, but the limitation directed to a “coating” for the abrasive grains is in claim 44.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 already recites that a portion of the active bond composition is at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Claim 3 does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 depends from claim 19, and claim 19 already recites that a portion of the active bond composition is at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Claim 23 does not further limit claim 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 31 depends from claim 30, and claim 30 already recites that a portion of the active bond composition is at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Claim 31 does not further limit claim 30. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 39 depends from claim 38, and claim 38 already recites that a portion of the active bond composition is at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Claim 39 does not further limit claim 38. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 10, 15, 19, 23-25, 27-28, 38-41, and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0159806 to Wu et al. (hereinafter Wu) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0055098 to Ramanath et al. (hereinafter Ramanath).
With respect to claim 1, Wu teaches abrasive tool including bonded abrasive article such as grinding wheel comprising a bond material, abrasive grains within the bond, wherein the bonded abrasive article comprises a porosity (Wu, abstract, [0010], and [0038]).
Wu teaches abrasive grains in a concentration of not greater than 30 vol% (Wu, [0027]) and bond material in a concentration of not greater than 95 vol% (Wu, [0022]). These concentrations result in a ratio of VAG/VBM of, for example, 0.10 to 1, and even values outside of this calculated range; thus, the reference would render an overlapping range of the ratio, as compared to the claimed one, obvious. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Wu, additionally, teaches a porosity of not less than 5 vol%, or even not less than 30 vol% of porosity (Wu, [0038]); a porosity of “not less” than 30 vol% includes values above 30 vol% which would render the claimed range of 32.8%-40.5% obvious.
Moreover, Wu teaches the use of additives, which assist in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]). Titanium hydride is taken to read on active bond composition as evidenced by Ramanath (Ramanath, [0041]). Thus, Wu renders the presence/use of an active bond composition obvious. Additionally, considering the fact that Wu recognizes titanium hydride forms a chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Although Wu may not literally disclose a concentration for titanium hydride, the fact that the Wu teaches the use of titanium hydride as an additive, is an evidence of the fact that the concentration of it is expected to be small. However, assuming this is not found persuasive, Ramanath, also directed to bonded abrasive articles comprising metallic bond, abrasive grains, and porosity, discloses the use of active bond composition such as titanium hydride in a minor amount such as not greater than 40 wt%, and even not greater than about 10 wt% (Ramanath, [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wu in order to utilize titanium hydride in a concentration of not greater than 40 wt% as that taught by Ramanath motivated by the fact that Wu recognizes the use of titanium hydride as an additive, which clearly implies the use of a small/minor concentration of it, and both Ramanath and Wu are directed to bonded abrasive articles based on metallic bonding materials containing porosities, ratios of amount of abrasive grains over bond material, in overlapping ranges.
Wu teaches a bond material comprising metals or metal alloys, of materials such as copper, tin, iron, molybdenum, titanium, chromium, tungsten, nickel, a few more options and combinations or alloys thereof (Wu, [0020]). Additionally, Wu teaches the presence/use of a small concentration of other materials such as phosphorous to facilitate processing temperatures for formation of the metal bonded article (Wu, [0020]). Therefore, Wu teaches a bond material having all the claimed components as claimed in claim 1. It is noted that the reference needs not to specifically disclose a mixture of nickel/chromium/phosphorous as an alloy and copper/tin/titanium as an alloy because the claims under examination are product claims, not process claims; thus, the starting components/ingredients used in formation of the final bond material is not required for rejection of claim 1, as long as the reference teaches all the components in the bond material.
With respect to claim 3, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference discloses titanium hydride assists in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]); thus, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material.
With respect to claim 4, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is because Wu, as the primary reference, teaches alumina, silicon carbide, diamond or cubic boron nitride as materials for their abrasive grains (Wu, [0025]).
With respect to claim 6, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches an average particle size of not greater than about 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range of “not greater than 2500 microns”.
With respect to claim 10, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu discloses a bond material comprising of metal and metal alloys. The reference, also, discloses that the bond can be a metal alloy of copper and tin in certain contents, such as the content of the copper can be not greater than about 70% copper, and in fact, can be within a range of about 40% to
about 65% ([0036]). The alloy can contain a minimum amount of tin such as at least about 30% of tin, and in particular, within a range of about 35% and 65% ([0037]).
Considering the fact that the reference teaches specific ranges of concentration of specific metals fora metal alloy as a bond, it is taken that the reference renders an inter-metallic bond system obvious.
With respect to claim 15, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches a coating for their abrasive grains ([0040]).
With respect to claim 19, Wu teaches abrasive tool including bonded abrasive article such as grinding wheel comprising a bond material, abrasive grains within the bond, wherein the bonded abrasive article comprises a porosity (Wu, abstract, [0010], and [0038]).
Wu teaches abrasive grains in a concentration of not greater than 30 vol% (Wu, [0027]) and bond material in a concentration of not greater than 95 vol% (Wu, [0022]). These concentrations result in a ratio of VAG/VBM of, for example, 0.10 to 1, and even values outside of this calculated range; thus, the reference would render an overlapping range of the ratio, as compared to the claimed one, obvious. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Wu, additionally, teaches a porosity of not less than 5 vol%, or even not less than 30 vol% of porosity (Wu, [0038]); a range of “not less than” 30 vol% includes any and all values above it including the claimed porosity of 36.3% to 44.4%.
Moreover, Wu teaches the use of additives, which assist in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]). Titanium hydride is taken to read on active bond composition as evidenced by Ramanath (Ramanath, [0041]). Thus, Wu renders the presence/use of an active bond composition obvious. Additionally, considering the fact that Wu recognizes titanium hydride forms a chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Although Wu may not literally disclose a concentration for titanium hydride, the fact that the Wu teaches the use of titanium hydride as an additive, is an evidence of the fact that the concentration of it is expected to be small. However, assuming this is not found persuasive, Ramanath, also directed to bonded abrasive articles comprising metallic bond, abrasive grains, and porosity, discloses the use of active bond composition such as titanium hydride in a minor amount such as not greater than 40 wt%, and even not greater than about 10 wt% (Ramanath, [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wu in order to utilize titanium hydride in a concentration of not greater than 40 wt% as that taught by Ramanath motivated by the fact that Wu recognizes the use of titanium hydride as an additive, which clearly implies the use of a small/minor concentration of it, and both Ramanath and Wu are directed to bonded abrasive articles based on metallic bonding materials containing porosities, ratios of amount of abrasive grains over bond material, in overlapping ranges.
Wu teaches a bond material comprising metals or metal alloys, of materials such as chromium, tungsten, nickel, molybdenum, a few more metals and combinations or alloys thereof (Wu, [0020]). Additionally, Wu teaches the presence/use of a small concentration of other materials such as phosphorous to facilitate processing temperatures for formation of the metal bonded article (Wu, [0020]). Therefore, Wu teaches a bond material having all the claimed components as claimed in claim 19. It is noted that the reference needs not to specifically disclose a mixture of nickel/chromium/phosphorous as an alloy and copper/tin/titanium as an alloy because the claims under examination are product claims, not process claims; thus, the starting components/ingredients used in formation of the final bond material is not required for rejection of claim 19, as long as the reference teaches all the components in the bond material.
With respect to claim 23, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference discloses titanium hydride assists in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]); thus, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material.
With respect to claim 24, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is because Wu, as the primary reference, teaches alumina, silicon carbide, diamond or cubic boron nitride as materials for their abrasive grains (Wu, [0025]).
With respect to claim 25, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches an average particle size of not greater than about 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range of “not greater than 2500 microns”.
With respect to claim 27, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu discloses a bond material comprising of metal and metal alloys. The reference, also, discloses that the bond can be a metal alloy of copper and tin in certain contents, such as the content of the copper can be not greater than about 70% copper, and in fact, can be within a range of about 40% to
about 65% ([0036]). The alloy can contain a minimum amount of tin such as at least about 30% of tin, and in particular, within a range of about 35% and 65% ([0037]).
Considering the fact that the reference teaches specific ranges of concentration of specific metals fora metal alloy as a bond, it is taken that the reference renders an inter-metallic bond system obvious.
With respect to claim 28, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches a coating for their abrasive grains ([0040]).
With respect to claim 38, Wu teaches abrasive tool including bonded abrasive article such as grinding wheel comprising a bond material, abrasive grains within the bond, wherein the bonded abrasive article comprises a porosity (Wu, abstract, [0010], and [0038]).
Wu teaches abrasive grains in a concentration of not greater than 30 vol% (Wu, [0027]) and bond material in a concentration of not greater than 95 vol% (Wu, [0022]). These concentrations result in a ratio of VAG/VBM of, for example, 0.10 to 1, and even values outside of this calculated range; thus, the reference would render an overlapping range of the ratio, as compared to the claimed one, obvious. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Wu, additionally, teaches a porosity of not less than 5 vol%, or even not less than 30 vol% of porosity (Wu, [0038]); a range of “not less than” 30 vol% includes any and all values above it including the claimed porosity of 43.1% to 54.7%.
Moreover, Wu teaches the use of additives, which assist in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]). Titanium hydride is taken to read on active bond composition as evidenced by Ramanath (Ramanath, [0041]). Thus, Wu renders the presence/use of an active bond composition obvious. Additionally, considering the fact that Wu recognizes titanium hydride forms a chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material. Although Wu may not literally disclose a concentration for titanium hydride, the fact that the Wu teaches the use of titanium hydride as an additive, is an evidence of the fact that the concentration of it is expected to be small. However, assuming this is not found persuasive, Ramanath, also directed to bonded abrasive articles comprising metallic bond, abrasive grains, and porosity, discloses the use of active bond composition such as titanium hydride in a minor amount such as not greater than 40 wt%, and even not greater than about 10 wt% (Ramanath, [0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wu in order to utilize titanium hydride in a concentration of not greater than 40 wt% as that taught by Ramanath motivated by the fact that Wu recognizes the use of titanium hydride as an additive, which clearly implies the use of a small/minor concentration of it, and both Ramanath and Wu are directed to bonded abrasive articles based on metallic bonding materials containing porosities, ratios of amount of abrasive grains over bond material, in overlapping ranges.
Wu teaches a bond material comprising metals or metal alloys, of materials such as copper, tin, titanium, iron, a few more metals and combinations or alloys thereof (Wu, [0020]). Therefore, Wu teaches a bond material having all the claimed components as claimed in claim 38. It is noted that the reference needs not to specifically disclose a mixture of nickel/chromium/phosphorous as an alloy and copper/tin/titanium as an alloy because the claims under examination are product claims, not process claims; thus, the starting components/ingredients used in formation of the final bond material is not required for rejection of claim 38, as long as the reference teaches all the components in the bond material.
With respect to claim 39, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference discloses titanium hydride assists in formation of chemical linkage between the abrasive grains and the bond material, such as titanium hydride (Wu, [0030]); thus, it would inevitably be at the interface of the abrasive grains and the bond material.
With respect to claim 40, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is because Wu, as the primary reference, teaches alumina, silicon carbide, diamond or cubic boron nitride as materials for their abrasive grains (Wu, [0025]).
With respect to claim 41, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches an average particle size of not greater than about 100 microns which overlaps with the claimed range of “not greater than 2500 microns”.
With respect to claim 43, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu discloses a bond material comprising of metal and metal alloys. The reference, also, discloses that the bond can be a metal alloy of copper and tin in certain contents, such as the content of the copper can be not greater than about 70% copper, and in fact, can be within a range of about 40% to
about 65% ([0036]). The alloy can contain a minimum amount of tin such as at least about 30% of tin, and in particular, within a range of about 35% and 65% ([0037]).
Considering the fact that the reference teaches specific ranges of concentration of specific metals fora metal alloy as a bond, it is taken that the reference renders an inter-metallic bond system obvious.
With respect to claim 44, Wu in view of Ramanath renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wu as the primary reference teaches a coating for their abrasive grains ([0040]).
Claim(s) 38-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0055098 to Ramanath et al. (hereinafter Ramanath).
With respect to claim 38, Ramanath discloses an abrasive article comprising a body having abrasive grains contained within a bond material wherein the bond material comprises metal or metal alloy (abstract, [0035]). Ramanath teaches a concentration of at least 30 vol% for the abrasive grains and a concentration of not greater than 45 vol% for the bond material ([0061]-[0062]). Thus, even though Ramanath may disclose VAG/VBM of at least about 1.3, based on the disclosed volume percent concentrations, the ratio of VAG/VBM (i.e. the ratio of the abrasive grains to the bond material), can be 0.666 or higher which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.16 and 1.27” as recited in amended claim 38. This is only one example of a value within the claimed range; however, because Ramanath discloses a concentration of “at least about 30vol%” for the abrasive grains and a concentration of “not greater than about 45vol%” for the bond material ([0061]-[0062], the reference, in fact, encompasses, for example, an embodiment which results in a ratio of 1.27 as well. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, Ramanath discloses a porosity of at least 35 vol%, and not greater than about 50vol% ([0063]). Thus, Ramanath discloses porosity concentrations which would fall within the claimed range.
Furthermore, Ramanath discloses the use of at least 1 vol% of active bond
composition, which would include a precipitated phase and an interfacial phase,
wherein the interfacial phase is disposed at the interface between the particulate
material and the bond material ([0067]-[0068] and [0078]). MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ramanath discloses the bond material can be a composite material including a bond phase and a precipitated phase, wherein the precipitated phase can be a metal or metal alloy compound or complex, comprising metals such as titanium, vanadium, chromium, zirconium, hafnium, tungsten, and a combination thereof, and the bond phase comprises a transition metal element and particularly a metal element included in the original bond material used to form the mixture ([0069]-[0070]). Ramanath teaches that the bond phase metal is selected from the group consisting of copper, tin, silver, molybdenum, zinc, tungsten, iron, nickel, antimony, and a combination thereof ([0070]).
Thus, the reference is open to a bond material composition comprising copper, tin, titanium, and iron, or to a bond material composition having any other combination of the disclosed components; therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to recognize the reference renders the cumulative limitations of claim 38 obvious. It is important to note that the claims under examination are product claim directed to an abrasive article; the claims are not directed to a method of manufacturing said abrasive article. Thus, it is the final product which is under examination, not the starting materials such as the starting component for the final bond material. As such, because Ramanath discloses that the metal bond may include a mixture of different metals or any combination of metals which include copper, tin, titanium and a ferromagnetic such as iron, the reference is seen to render the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 39, Ramanath discloses that the interfacial phase of the
active bond composition is disposed at the interface between the particular material and extends around a majority of the particulate material, wherein the particulate material includes abrasive grains and/or filler ([0068]).
With respect to claim 40, Ramanath discloses that the abrasive grains comprise an inorganic material such as carbides, oxides, nitrides, and a combination thereof ([0028]).
With respect to claim 41, Ramanath discloses abrasive grains have an average grit size of not greater than 1000 microns, which has overlapping with any of the claimed ranges ([0029]).
With respect to claim 42, Ramanath discloses an aspect ratio of not greater than about 3:1, wherein the aspect ratio is defined as the dimension of the length to the width ([0030]).
With respect to claim 43, Ramanath discloses a bond material comprising of
metal and metal alloys. The reference, also, discloses that the bond can be a metal
alloy of copper and tin in certain contents, such as the content of the copper can be not greater than about 70% copper, and in fact, can be within a range of about 40% to about 65% ([0036]). The alloy can contain a minimum amount of tin such as at least about 30% of tin, and in particular, within a range of about 35% and 65% ([0037]).
With respect to claims 44 and 45, Ramanath discloses abrasive grains have a coating comprising metal or metal alloy ([0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see claim amendments and remarks, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 15-16, 19, 23-25 (second claim 25), and 27-29 have been fully considered and in view of the amendments made to independent claims 1 and 19 are persuasive. The rejection of said claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but, in view of the language of new claim 38, they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of Ramanath describe some compositions which have an abrasive/bond ratio (by volume %) of less than 1.3, but none of them, as asserted by Applicant, exhibited a porosity greater than 30% (Remarks, page 9).
The Examiner disagrees, and respectfully, submits the reference specifically discloses a porosity of at least about 5 vol%, at least about 10 vol%, at least about 12 vol%, at least about 18 vol%, at least about 20 vol%, at least about 25 vol%, at least about 30 vol%, and even at least about 35 vol% ([0063]), which along with the disclosure of a concentration of at least about 30 vol% for the abrasive grains and not greater than about 45 vol% for the bond material would render the claims obvious as detailed out above. It appears that although not asserted directly, Applicant’s argument is directed to Ramanath not disclosing one embodiment anticipating the claimed limitation; it is noted that Ramanath is not used in a 102 anticipatory rejection, but that it is used in a 103 obviousness rejection.
Applicant has asserted their Figure 2 which shows the graphed test results of Ramanath’s bonded abrasive bodies comprised of simply Cu-Sn-Ti or Ni-Cr-P (the lower two test lines on the graph), demonstrating that below a 1.3 VAG/VBM, the Ramanath articles experience a sever decline in porosity percentage (Remarks, page 9).
The Examiner, respectfully, submit it is merely Applicant’s argument that the graphs of Cu-Sn-Ti or Ni-Cr-P represents the teachings of Ramanath; Ramanath contradicts Applicant’s assertion that their teaching is not capable of demonstrating a ratio below 1.3 by specifically teaches the concentration of abrasive grains being at least 30 vol% and the concentration of the bond material being not greater than 45 vol% ([0061]-[0062]) which would result in a ratio, not only lower than 1.3, but as low as 0.66. The reference is not used in a 102 anticipatory rejection.
Applicant has, additionally, asserted Ramanath does not at all describe “braze alloys” which are combined with the other options (Remarks, page 9).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that Ramanath needs not to disclose a braze alloy or a combination of an alloy of copper/tin/titanium with iron because the claims under examination are product claims, not process claims, and Ramanath discloses copper, tin, titanium and iron in the bond material. Had the claims been drawn to a process of manufacturing the claimed abrasive article, the reference was required to teach the use of every starting component/element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 16, 26, and 29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 7, the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 15 and 16, the cumulative limitations of claims 19 and 26 (the second appearance of new claim 25), the cumulative limitations of claims 19 and 27.
Claims 30-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 42 and 45 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, AMBER ORLANDO can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731