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 .
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of claims 2 and 20 with respect to “average aperture size” is interpreted to mean average aperture size of the plurality of openings extending through the body of the reinforcing member; this interpretation is given in light of the disclosure in the specification of the present Application under examination (specification, page 22, lines 16-19).
The recited “average aperture size” is not interpreted to mean the size of one aperture or the opening in the center of a grinding wheel.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the wheel" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
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) 1-7, 9-11, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0000205 to Yu et al. (hereinafter Yu) with evidence provided from U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0063892 to Metz et al. (hereinafter Metz) for the rejection of claim 3.
With respect to claim 1, Yu teaches an abrasive article comprising an abrasive body with an axis, a diameter and a thickness, wherein the abrasive body includes an abrasive matrix, comprising abrasive particles and an organic bond, and a reinforcement comprising reinforcement fibers (abstract, [0021]-[0024], Figures 2, 5, and 6). The reference teaches different embodiments, one of which discloses an abrasive body comprising an abrasive matrix comprising an organic bond and abrasive particles, and wherein the abrasive body further comprises a reinforcement comprising discontinuous fibers which may comprise chopped strand fibers or CSF ([0024]).
Yu teaches, at least, an embodiment at which for a 100 mm diameter wheel having 2.4 g of fiber, the burst speed exceeds 30,000 rpm (Figure 8). Thus, the reference inevitably teaches the claimed burst speed of at least 26800 rpm. Furthermore, Yu teaches a diameter of not greater than 250mm and at least about 25 mm ([0022]). The original disclosure of the present Application under examination discloses an average diameter of at least 25 mm, and not greater than 250 mm (specification, page 14, lines 7-15) as well. Additionally, the original disclosure of the present Application under examination discloses an increase in circumference of the abrasive body cause a decrease in the burst speed (specification, page 17, lines 1-12). Therefore, considering the fact that according to the present Application under examination, there is an inverse relationship between the circumference of an abrasive body and its burst speed, and based on the fact that the reference teaches some of the preferred diameters for the abrasive body as that taught by the present Application under examination and the fact that the circumference of a circle (specification, Figure 6), which is the shape of the claimed abrasive body according to the specification of the present Application under examination is calculated by 2π.r, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the reference meets the claimed “normalized average burst speed of at least 26800 RPM – 27 (RPM/mm) * C wherein C is the circumference of the wheel in mm”.
With respect to claim 2, Yu is seen to read on the claimed language due to the fact that “not greater than 15 mm2” is inclusive of zero; therefore, the fact that Yu does not disclose any average aperture size or perforation size for their reinforcement is taken to mean that there is no perforation or aperture to the reinforcement, which would read on the claim.
With respect to claim 3, Yu discloses the use of phenolic resin-coated fiber-glass chopped strand fibers ([0024]) which reads on the claimed “bulk molding compound” because “bulk molding compound” or “BMC” is a glass-fiber reinforced thermoset polyester material as that evidenced by Metz (Metz, [0019]).
It is important to repeat Yu discloses different embodiments, one of which is the presence of discontinuous fibers in the abrasive matrix (Yu, [0025]); abrasive matrix comprises organic bond and abrasive particles. Therefore, the reference teaches phenolic resin-coated fiber glass chopped strand fibers are dispersed in the abrasive matrix. In addition, Yu discloses an embodiment in which a discrete layer of chopped strand fibers may be located at least partially in the organic bond material (Yu, [0026]).
With respect to claim 4, Yu teaches the presence of fibers in the abrasive matrix (Yu, [0025]) or the presence of fibers, at least partially in the organic bond reads on the claim.
With respect to claim 5, Yu teaches fibers having a length of at least about 6 mm (about 0.236 inches) which renders the claimed “at least 0.02 inches” obvious due to overlapping ranges.
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).
With respect to claim 6, as noted above, under the rejection of claim 3, Yu teaches the material for the fibers used in the reference are phenolic resin-coated fiber-glass chopped strand fibers ([0024]).
With respect to claim 7, Yu discloses the fibers are chopped strand fibers or CSF ([0026]).
With respect to claim 9, Yu discloses the reinforcement part extends for a majority of a radius of the body as demonstrated in, at least, some of the embodiments such as Figures 5 and 6.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Yu discloses an abrasive body comprising an abrasive matrix comprising organic bond and abrasive particles dispersed in the organic bond material ([0024]). Because the reference does not disclose any uniform distribution of abrasive particles or any uniform orientation of abrasive particles within the bond, it is taken that Yu renders a random distribution and a random orientation of abrasive particles obvious.
With respect to claim 13, Yu discloses, at least, some embodiments in which the abrasive matrix, which comprises an organic bond with abrasive particles, extends throughout the entire volume of the body of the abrasive article (Figures 2, 5 and 6).
With respect to claim 14, Yu does not disclose any porosity for the abrasive article, and this is taken to read on the claim because “a porosity of not greater than 20 vol%” is inclusive of zero.
With respect to claim 15, Yu does not disclose any porosity for the abrasive article, and this is taken to read on the claimed language of “essentially no porosity”.
With respect to claim 16, Yu teaches fibers having a length of “at least” about 6 mm (about 0.236 inches) which renders the claimed “at least 0.025 inches” obvious due to overlapping ranges.
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).
With respect to claim 17, Yu discloses abrasive article comprising an abrasive body comprising at least about 1 vol% of fibers ([0036]).
With reference to claim 18, Yu teaches a diameter of not greater than 300 mm and a thickness of not greater than about 10mm wherein the thickness can be as small as at least about 0.1 mm too ([0022]-[0023]). This would result in an aspect ratio of about 3000 (i.e. 300/0.1) which would read on the claimed aspect ratio of “at least 10:1”.
With respect to claim 19, Yu does not disclose any porosity for the abrasive article, and this is taken to read on the claim because “a porosity of not greater than 10 vol%” is inclusive of zero.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0252898 to Schillo-Armstrong et al. (hereinafter Schillo-Armstrong).
With respect to claim 1, Schillo-Armstrong discloses abrasive article such as an abrasive wheel, which comprises reinforcing members, in the middle of which, there are shaped abrasive particles which are attached to the reinforcing members using a binder (abstract). Schillo-Armstrong, also, discloses other embodiments in which there are multiple filled abrasive preforms in between reinforcing members (Figure 3). The reference discloses the binder is an organic material ([0054]). The disclosed grinding wheels comprise a thickness of 0.5-100 cm (i.e. 5 mm to 1000 mm) ([0109]) which overlaps with the claimed range of “not greater than 15 mm”.
Schillo-Armstrong teaches the abrasive wheel can be driven at a speed of from about 1000 to 50,000 revolutions per minute (rpm) ([0113]) which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 26800 RPM-27 (RPM/mm) * C wherein c is the circumferences of the wheel in mm”. In addition, the original disclosure of the present Application under examination discloses an average diameter of at least 10 mm, and not greater than 250 mm (specification, page 14, lines 7-15). Schillo-Armstrong discloses a diameter of 1-100 cm (10-1000 mm). Additionally, the original disclosure of the present Application under examination discloses an increase in circumference of the abrasive body causes a decrease in the burst speed (specification, page 17, lines 1-12). Therefore, considering the fact that according to the present Application under examination, there is an inverse relationship between the circumference of an abrasive body and its burst speed, and based on the fact that the reference teaches some of the preferred diameters for the abrasive body as that taught by the present Application under examination and the fact that the circumference of a circle (specification, Figure 6), which is the shape of the claimed abrasive body according to the specification of the present Application under examination is calculated by 2π.r, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the reference meets the claimed “normalized average burst speed of at least 26800 RPM – 27 (RPM/mm) * C wherein C is the circumference of the wheel in mm”.
With respect to claim 4, Schillo-Armstrong discloses the use of fillers in their binder wherein such fillers include glass fibers ([0091]-[0092]).
With respect to claim 6, as noted above, Schillo-Armstrong discloses the use of fillers in their binder wherein such fillers include glass fibers ([0091]-[0092]).
With respect to claim 8, Schillo-Armstrong discloses the reinforcing members woven glass fabrics ([0097]).
With respect to claim 9, Schillo-Armstrong discloses the reinforcing member extends for all of the radius of the body as shown in, at least, Figure 3.
With respect to claim 13, Schillo-Armstrong discloses the bond material extends throughout the entire volume of the body as demonstrated in, at least, Figure 3.
With respect to claim 18, Schillo-Armsgrong discloses a thickness of 0.5-100 cm and a diameter of 1-100 cm for the grinding wheels ([0109]) which results in a ratio of diameter to thickness of, at least, 0.01 up to 200.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 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.
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 12. Also, the prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1, 2 and 20.
Yu does not disclose a plurality of openings for their reinforcing member wherein the abrasive body comprises a fill percentage of the openings of at least 85%. Additionally, although Schillo-Armstrong discloses the existence of porosity in the reinforcing member, the reference does not disclose an abrasive article comprising a body comprising a fill percentage of the openings of at least 85%.
Furthermore, neither of the references discloses an average aperture size “within” a range of at least 0.1 mm2 to not greater than 15 mm2.
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