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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 have been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. Claim 13 has been withdrawn due to a restriction requirement. Claims 1-7 and 9-12 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the amendments to
the claim objection of specifically claim 3 is persuasive. The claim objection of specifically claim 3 have been withdrawn. Claim 7 remains objected.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to previous drawing objections are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the claims have been amended and the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the central grinding region extending over at least 60 percent of the axial extent”, and should be “the central grinding region extending over at least 60 percent of an axial extent”, since it has not been introduced and to avoid an antecedent error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REED (US 1933685 A) and ALBERT (US 2622377 A).
Referring to claim 1: REED teaches a grinding tool (shown in Fig. 1) drivable in rotation about an axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1), comprising:
an abrasive band (34 Fig. 1) which is with a plurality of superimposed layers about the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1) and has a grinding layer (external layer of 34 Fig. 1) on a band side facing away from the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1), wherein the wound-up abrasive band (34 Fig. 1) is, viewed in a longitudinal section along the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1), convexly curved (convexly curve shown in Fig. 3) with respect to the axis of rotation, and
wherein the grinding tool is a grinding disk (shown in Fig. 1) and comprises a central supporting body (central supporting body 10 Fig. 1), the abrasive band (34 Fig. 1) being arranged around the supporting body (central supporting body 10 Fig. 1).
But is silent on the abrasive band being specifically wound spirally and the layers of the abrasive band reach radially into one another.
ALBERT teaches a grinding tool (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) wherein the similar configuration abrasive band (16 comprising layers 5, 6, and 15 Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8) being specifically wound spirally (shown in Figs. 4 and 5) and the layers (6 Fig. 4) of the abrasive band reach radially into one another (shown in Fig. 4).
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 grinding tool of REED with the additional grinding layers of ALBERT for the purpose of facilitating the removal of the used grinding layer.
Referring to claim 2: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein, with respect to the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1 of REED), radially inner layer (layers shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) is axially covered partially (see winded, partially, axially covered band 16 shown in Figs. 4 and 7 of ALBERT) an adjacent radially outer layer (layers shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) of the abrasive band.
Referring to claim 3: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the profile geometry of the wound-up abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) has a U-shape and/or a V-shape (shown in Fig. 3 of REED) at least partially along a band length (band length shown in Fig. 3 of REED) of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT).
Referring to claim 4: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the grinding tool has a first main tool side (face side shown in Fig. 1) and a second main tool side (opposite face side not shown) facing away from the first main tool side, the abrasive band (34 Fig. 1 of REED/16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) being arranged axially (shown in Fig. 3 of REED) between the first main tool side and the second main tool side with respect to the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1 of REED).
Referring to claim 5: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 4, wherein the grinding tool is covered on its first main tool side (end of 20 shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of ALBERT) and/or the second main tool side at least partially by a respective stabilizing layer (stabilizing layer 15 between 5 and 6, shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT), the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) being fastened to the at least one stabilizing layer (layer 15 shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT).
Referring to claim 6: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 5, wherein the at least one stabilizing layer (layer 15 shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT) comprises a binder (“adhesive” Col. 3, lines 65-70; “adhesively secured” Col. 5, line 20 of ALBERT), wherein in an edge region (5 Fig. 8 of ALBERT) of the abrasive band facing the respective stabilizing layer (layer 15 shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT) the binder (“adhesive” Col. 3, lines 65-70; “adhesively secured” Col. 5, line 20 of ALBERT) extends into intermediate spaces (intermediate space between 5 and 6 shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT) formed between the layers of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT).
Referring to claim 7: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the layers (layers shown in Figs. 7 and 8 of ALBERT) of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) lie one above the other in an unconnected manner (outermost later is outwardly unconnected) at least in a central grinding region (CGR Fig. 1-A inserted below), the central grinding region extending over the axial extent (AE Fig. 1-A inserted below) of the abrasive band with respect to the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1 of REED).
But is silent on the central grinding region specifically extending over at least 60 percent of the axial extent of the abrasive band with respect to the axis of rotation.
Per MPEP 2143-E, choosing from a finite number of identified predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the finite number of identified predictable solutions that the central grinding region extending over at least 60 percent the axial extent or less than 60%; further, the prior art teaches the central grinding region extending over the axial extent.
Therefore, modifying the grinding tool of REED as modified with the central grinding region extending over at least 60 percent the axial extent, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the grinding tool of REED as modified with reasonable expectations of success.
Since the application’s disclosure has not proven criticality to the range, and specifically why the operation would’ve failed otherwise, it would have been obvious to have modified the grinding tool of REED as modified by extending the central grinding region to over at least 60 percent the axial extent for the purpose of having sufficiently large surface areas for reaching both large and smaller areas of a specific application to increase the efficiency of the tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
580
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 9: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the abrasive band (16 comprising layers 5, 6, and 15 Figs. 4, 5, 7, and 8 of ALBERT) is fixed to the supporting body (central supporting body 10 Fig. 1 of REED) by means of the at least one stabilizing layer (layer 15 shown in Fig. 8 of ALBERT).
Referring to claim 10: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the supporting body (central supporting body 10 Fig. 1 of REED) is plate-shaped (shown in Fig. 1 of REED) and has a first main body side (face side shown in Fig. 1) and a second main body side (opposite face side not shown) facing away from the first main body side, as well as an outer circumferential edge (30 Fig. 1 of REED), the abrasive band (34 Fig. 1 of REED/16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) being arranged around the outer circumferential edge (30 Fig. 1 of REED).
Referring to claim 11: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 10, wherein a first end (first end shown in Fig. 2 of ALBERT; first end of 34 clamped with 40 Fig, 2 of REED) of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) terminates at the outer periphery of the grinding tool and a second end (second end shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) of the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) terminates at the outer circumferential edge (30 Fig. 1 of REED) of the supporting body (central supporting body 10 Fig. 1 of REED).
Referring to claim 12: REED as modified teaches the grinding tool according to claim 1, wherein the grinding tool has a multilayer winding (shown in Fig. 5 of ALBERT) with the abrasive band (16 Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) and at least one further abrasive band (16 comprises a plurality of abrasive bands sectioned via increments of 13 shown in Figs. 4 and 7 of ALBERT), the abrasive band and the at least one further abrasive band being wound, at least partially, in multiple layers one on top of the other and spirally (shown in Figs. 4 and 5 of ALBERT) with multiple layers one on top of the other about the axis of rotation (rotation axis of 10 shown in Fig. 1 of REED).
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 CHRISTOPHER SOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-8172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
CHRISTOPHER SOTO
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/CHRISTOPHER SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights