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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s traversal is directed to an assertion that an undue burden does not exist between Group I and II. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since as mentioned in the prior action, that the Groups have a different field of search including different search queries being required for the different structural configurations of the abrasive assembly in each of the Groups, and the prior art applicable to one group would not likely be applicable to the other e.g. a prior art applicable to the specific configuration of the edge in Group I not likely being applicable to the Group II which does not recite such an edge configuration.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and now made FINAL with Claims 18-20 now withdrawn from further examination.
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.
Claim 7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, the recitation of, “the protrusion” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “the
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valentini (US2021/0308824A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Valentini discloses an abrasive assembly (figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above), comprising:
a first abrasive body (top 48, figure 6) having a first diameter (see figure 6);
a second abrasive body (bottom 48, figure 6); and
a support (52, figure 6) having an edge (see annotated figure 6), wherein the support is between the first abrasive body and the second abrasive body (see figure 6), and wherein the edge extends at least 80% and at most 100% the first diameter of the first abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 2, Valentini discloses that the first abrasive body comprises a first grinding surface (see abrasive particles 50 forming a first grinding surface, figure 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Valentini discloses that the second abrasive body comprises a second grinding surface (see abrasive particles 50 forming a second grinding surface, figure 6), and wherein the first grinding surface is opposite the second grinding surface (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Valentini discloses that the support is between the first grinding surface and the second grinding surface (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Valentini discloses that the second abrasive body has a second diameter (see figure 6), and wherein the edge of the support extends at least 80% and at most 100% of the second diameter of the second abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 11, Valentini discloses that the first diameter of the first abrasive body is substantially the same as the second diameter of the second abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 12, Valentini discloses that the first diameter of the first abrasive body is between 80% and 100% of the second diameter of the second abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Valentini discloses that a first backing plate (28, figure 6) coupled to the first abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 14, Valentini discloses that a second backing plate (28, figure 6) coupled to the second abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 15, Valentini discloses that the edge of the support is substantially flush with an edge of the first abrasive body (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 16, Valentini discloses that the support comprises a body (see annotated figure 6) and the edge (see annotated figure 6), and wherein the edge is raised away from the body (see edge raised away from body in the radial direction, figure 6).
Regarding Claim 17, Valentini discloses that the support is removably coupled to either of the first abrasive body and the second abrasive body (see figure 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 9-10 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
Claim 7 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.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9914199 B2 discloses an abrasive assembly (see figure 1A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:30 am-6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights