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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 07/16/2026 are accepted with no objections.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5 are currently amended and Claims 2-4 and 6-15 are as previously presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/055601 A1 in view of CN 112760525 A and the document Products Finishing.
WO 2015/055601 A1 (WO ‘601) in view of CN 112760525 A (CN ‘525) and Products Finishing is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/16/2026.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 81/01976 A1.
WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing and further in view of WO 81/01976 A1 is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/16/2026.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mingot (US 2022/0410327 A1).
WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing and further in view of Mingot is applied as discussed in the office action mailed 01/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection over Brand et al in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing for Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 15, the rejection has been withdrawn due to the amendment to Claim 1.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 15 over WO ‘601 in view of CN ‘525 and Products Finishing. Applicant argues that the term “different positions” clearly does not refer to “different orientations.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “orientation” is the relative position, direction, or alignment of something (Dictionary.com). Claim 1 does not recite from what the relative position, direction, or alignment is that the part is being changed. There is no recitation in the claim that the orientation is based on changing within a two- or three-dimensional space. The “relative position” reads on changes along the horizontal axis. The office action notes that WO ‘601 does not teach producing a blank or that some or all the abrasive composition is evacuated and replaced. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant does not address the combination of WO ‘601 with the other cited prior art.
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 Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights