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 Objections
Claim 7 and 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “the sheets’ should be “the glass sheets”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The attempt to incorporate subject matter into this application by reference to IT 102021000015614 is ineffective because the incorporation by reference was filed after the PCT date of 06/13/2022, which considered the filing date of the US application. As such, the incorporation by reference statement must be removed, as it introduces new matter by being filed after the filing date of the application.
See MPEP §608.01(p) I B: “For the incorporation by reference to be effective as a proper safeguard, the incorporation by reference statement must be filed at the time of filing of the later-filed application. An incorporation by reference statement added after an application’s filing date is not effective because no new matter can be added to an application after its filing date”;
MPEP 1893.03(b): “An international application designating the U.S. has two stages (international and national) with the filing date being the same in both stages. Often the date of entry into the national stage is confused with the filing date. It should be borne in mind that the filing date of the international stage application is also the filing date for the national stage application. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. 363 provides that An international application designating the United States shall have the effect, from its international filing date under Article 11 of the treaty, of a national application for patent regularly filed in the Patent and Trademark Office”, and
MPEP 714.01(e): “A preliminary amendment filed with a submission to enter the national stage of an international application under 35 U.S.C. 371 is not part of the original disclosure under 37 CFR 1.115(a) because it was not present on the international filing date accorded to the application under PCT Article 11.” as well as:
PCT Article 11(3) - “...an international filing date shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated State as of the international filing date, which date shall be considered to be the actual filing date in each designated State.”
The specification amendment filed 12/15/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the incorporation by reference to IT 102021000015614
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 1-18 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.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only.
Examiner notes that the 112(b) rejections and associated interpretations listed below may not be a complete and exhaustive list of issues and represent examiner best understanding of the claims and the intended requirements of the claims.
Regarding Claim 1:
the claim first recites, “a glass sheet”, it is unclear if this is meant to be a sheet that is different to the “a sheet adapted to be processed”. For the purposes of examination these will be treated as refereeing to the same object/workpiece.
The limitation “carrying out a thread shaping in the internal part of the glass sheets” is unclear, as it is unclear from the claim and the specification what is meant by the term “thread”, as this could indicate a thin incision, gap or void formed in the glass sheet, thread could also refer to threading or a threaded portion for example to receive a screw. For the purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted to require the grinding wheel being capable of forming a thing gap or void.
Then “said central tooth being adapted to keep the entire grinding wheel function over time, even after thousands of meters of shaping, guaranteeing a high-quality standard”, which is unclear and indefinite, as it is unclear what “guaranteeing a high quality standard” means in the context of the claim, or over what period of time the entire grinding wheel would need to remain functional, nor how the central tooth is adapted to achieve this intended use. Additionally, there is no structural feature of the central tooth that seems to enable or perform this function For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as an intended use limitation that a central tooth would inherently achieve.
“a plurality of holes of variable dimensions adapted to be crossed by cooling water; the size of said holes depending on the type of glass and/or plastic material to be processed” is unclear and indefinite, as it is unclear what dimensions the holes are required to be nor how said dimensions will relate to the type of glass and/or plastic material to be processed. For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as “a plurality of holes adapted to be crossed by cooling water”.
The limitation “a plurality of cuts and grooves” is unclear and indefinite. At first glance this limitation seems to be indicating that there is a plurality of cuts and a plurality of grooves, however both of these structurally would result in negative spaces formed in the grinding wheel, and it is unclear what is meant to differentiate a cut from a groove from the claim. Applicants’ disclosure does not remedy this lack of clarity, as both the cuts and grooves are referred to as element 2.4, and neither the specification nor the drawings seem to indicate a difference between either the cuts or the grooves. As such for the purposes of examination, “a plurality of cuts and grooves” will be interpreted as “a plurality of cuts or grooves”.
Additionally, “crush the plastic material, positioned above each sheet being processed and engrave it, avoiding the formation of long strips of the same”, is indefinite, as the following is unclear:
what is being referred to by “it” in the phrase “engrave it”, as this could refer both the “sheet” or the plastic material positioned above.
If “each sheet” is refereeing to the glass sheets mentioned earlier in the claim or a different kind of sheet.
what is meant by “avoiding the formation of long strips of the same” as it is unclear what is meant by “the same”, as this could mean avoiding the formation of long strips of plastic or of the sheet material, or of forming strips of the pattern of cuts and grooves in the glass sheet or plastic” additionally “long” is a subjective and relative term and it is unclear what would qualify a strip to be a “long strip”.
As such this limitation will be interpreted as “said cuts and grooves adapted to be positioned above the glass sheet being processed and engrave it, in such a way that does not result in formation of strips of the pattern of cuts and grooves in the glass sheet”
Additionally, “a clogging of the pipes of the machinery adapted to process and damage to the same” is indefinite. The claim seems intended to be an intended use limitation regarding the plurality of cuts and grooves, but seems as written seems to positively recite “a clogging” of “the pipes of the machinery”. It is unclear what in applicants’ disclosure would be identified as “a clogging” and “the pipes of the machinery” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, nor is it clear what “the machinery” is referring to. Examiners best understanding would be that this limitation intends to require that the processing of the glass sheet by the grinding wheel processes the sheet in such a way that it either:
Avoids clogging the machinery and pipes of the apparatus to which the grinding wheel is placed on to perform the grinding operation
Avoids clogging the machinery and pipes of an apparatus in which the glass sheets are further processed after being processed via the grinding wheel
Neither of which has support in the claim or in the specification.
As such this limitation will be omitted for the purposes of examination.
The limitation “a plurality of said cuts alternating with grooves on the crown, being adapted to crush said plastic residues into small pieces, facilitating maintenance of the machinery” is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear if the “grooves” are refereeing to the grooves “of the plurality of said cuts and grooves”. And as indicated above, it is unclear what differentiates said cuts from said grooves, this limitation seems to be intending to say that the cuts and grooves alternate on the wheel but it is unclear from applicants’ disclosure what defines a cut and what defines a groove
“said plastic residues” lacks antecedent basis in the claims as it is unclear if this is referring to the same “plastic material” meant to be crushed by said cuts and grooves.
“facilitating maintenance of the machinery” lacks antecedent basis and it is unclear what is being referred to by “the machinery” as noted above.
For the purposes of examination this limitation will be interpreted as “the plurality of said cuts or grooves on the crown, being adapted to crush said plastic material into small pieces;”
Regarding the limitation “said grinding wheel being adapted to improve the quality of the sheets being processed once the grinding is finished, making them polishable and free of plastic material residues, on the edges of the same”, the phrase “on the edge of the same” is unclear as it is unclear if the “same” is referring to the grinding wheel or the sheets to be processed, or, assuming it is the sheets to be process, if they are polishable, or free of plastic material on the edge or both additionally it is unclear if “the sheet” is refereeing to the glass sheets mentioned earlier in the claim or a different kind of sheet.
As such for the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as: said grinding wheel being adapted to improve the quality of the sheets being processed once the grinding is finished, making them polishable and free of plastic material residues.
Finally: the limitation “being adapted to make sheets capable of supporting greater loads in terms of weight and load bearing capacity which would be impossible with traditional machining on CNC machines” is unclear, as it is unclear how the grinding wheel is adapted to perform this intended use limitation, regarding this, applicants’ specification states:
“The aforesaid central tooth allows various types of finishing and shapes in the processing of such sheets, including polished edge, raw edge and contributes to improving the structural strength performances of the glass itself by reducing the dimensions of the microlesions present on the edges of the sheets of the glass, adjacent to the plastic. Such characteristic allows a use of glasses with smaller thickness but provided with a greater resistance to breakage and load.”
This does not define any specific structure of the grinding wheel that performs this function and seems to just be describing the general process of grinding a glass sheet. As such this limitation will be interpreted as an intended use limitation that would be accomplishable by a grinding wheel having the structural components as claimed in claim 1.
Which elaborates on the claimed functional limitation but does not provide any specific structure of the grinding wheel which allows for the grinding wheel to make said sheets capable of supporting greater loads in terms of weight and load bearing capacity which would be impossible with traditional machining on CNC machines.
For the purposes of examination: this limitation will be omitted.
For clarity of record, Claim 1 will be interpreted as:
Diamond grinding wheel, adapted to grind and abrade stratified solid materials said diamond grinding wheel comprising
at least a base flange and at least a cutting unit provided with at least a diamond crown, positioned in a central portion of said grinding wheel; said grinding wheel being characterized in that it comprises comprising:
- at least a central tooth, adapted to remove plastic material or similar materials, present on a glass sheet adapted to be processed; said central tooth being integral with said diamond crown adapted to grind; said central tooth being adapted to remove and process predetermined portions of at least said glass sheet, in a grinding step, carrying out a thread shaping in the internal part of the glass sheets; said central tooth being adapted to keep the entire grinding wheel function over time, even after thousands of meters of shaping, guaranteeing a high-quality standard”, which is unclear and indefinite, as it is unclear what “guaranteeing a high quality standard; the height of said central tooth being adjustable according to the thickness of the glass sheets and/or the plastic material to be processed;
- a plurality of holes adapted to be crossed by cooling water;
- a plurality of cuts and grooves; said cuts and said grooves being adapted to interrupt the continuity of the diamond crown and crush the plastic material, positioned above each of said glass sheet being processed and engrave it; a plurality of said cuts alternating with grooves on the crown, being adapted to crush said plastic material into small pieces,
- at least an external flange, positioned to close the entire grinding wheel;
said grinding wheel being adapted to improve the quality of the glass sheets being processed once the grinding is finished, making them polishable and free of plastic material residues, being adapted to make sheets capable of supporting greater loads in terms of weight and load bearing capacity which would be impossible with traditional machining on CNC machines the dimensions of said grinding wheel varying from a diameter and a height between 30 mm and 400 mm; said grinding wheel comprising a base flange made of iron, aluminum and/or resin adapted to guarantee a rigid structure to the entire grinding wheel.
Claims 2-18 are rejected based upon their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “wherein said central tooth is made with a specific grain and mixture adapted to vary according to the plastic material to be removed” is unclear, as it is unclear if this is requiring a specific grain and mixture, that is then adapted to the plastic to be removed, or if this is meant to disclose the intended use limitation of “wherein a grain and mixture of the central grinding tooth is adapted according to the plastic material to be removed”. The limitation will be interpreted as the latter intended use limitation for the purpose of examination as there is no disclosure in the claim regarding what a specific mixture and grain would initially comprise.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation of “based on more or less rigid nature thereof” is unclear as it is unclear if this is referring to the plastic material or the cuts and grooves. Additionally, “with cuts and/or grooves” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purposes of examination this claim will be interpreted as “wherein said central tooth is made in shapes and materials, with said plurality of cuts or grooves adapted to remove plastic material”
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, the limitation “and inserted between two diamond crowns divided into a central section” is unclear, as it is unclear what “two diamond crowns divided into a central section” requires, The specification does not mention a “central section” nor is it clear how two diamond crowns divided forms a central section”. Additionally claim 1, which this claim depends on requires that the central tooth and crown are integral, and states that the grinding wheel comprises a cutting unit provided with a diamond crown. As such it is further unclear how the central tooth can be made separately from said grinding wheel.
For the purposes of examination, this claim will be interpreted as “wherein said central tooth separable from said grinding wheel, and insertable between two diamond crowns divided to form a central section; said central tooth, to be flanged, comprises a specific internal disk adapted to be flanged, in a central portion of said base flange by means of a plurality of screws and/or any other connection means.”
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 requires “wherein said central tooth allows various types of finishing in the processing of said sheets, including a polished edge and a raw edge and a greater structural strength of the glass compared to the same processed by a traditional method”. This is unclear and indefinite.
Firstly, it is unclear what exactly is required by a “polished edge and a raw edge’ and there is no specific explanation or definition of these terms in applicants’ disclosure, as best understood by examiner, this is stating the central tooth allows for optional finishing of the edge of a glass sheet.
Secondly, it is unclear how “and a greater structural strength of the glass compared to the same processed by a traditional method” is a type of finishing, nor is it clear what would constitute a traditional method for comparison. As best understood by examiner, this is stating an intended outcome of grinding a glass sheet.
For the purposes of examination this will be interpreted as “wherein said central tooth allows for optionally finishing of the edge of a glass sheet”.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim requires “wherein said cuts are made in different configurations: inclined, straight, positioned on the entire surface of the cutting unit and said grinding wheel.” Is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear if this claim is requiring said cuts are either straight or inclined or if it requires said both straight or inclined cuts. Additionally, it is unclear what is required by “positioned on the entire surface of said cutting unit and grinding wheel”. As best understood by examiner it seems this claim is intended to be interpreted as “wherein said cuts are configured to be inclined or straight and positioned around the entire surface of said cutting unit and said grinding wheel.” And will be interpreted as such.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “as well as on specific designs at the request of each customer, as well as in the sector version” is indefinite and unclear, as it is unclear how this further defines or narrows the shape the grinding wheel further than “such as… and any other such”. Additionally, “the sector version” lacks antecedent basis in the claims. For the purpose of Examination, the claim will be interpreted as” wherein the grinding wheel is made in any geometric shape such as a peripheral trapezoid profile, groove and any other shape”.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as claim 8.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, these claims cite sensors adapted to do functions beyond sensing. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a sensor alone would not be capable of performing a function beyond sensing the parameter the sensor is designed to sense. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that additional structural elements, such as a controller, or alarm light or audio device would be required in order to accomplish the additional functions such as signaling personnel or intervening in a grinding process. Applicants’ specification does not provide support for any additionally required structure to perform these desired functions, only providing language that reiterates what is in the claims. As such Examiner will interpret these claims such that any sensor capable of sensing temperature or a saturation of fine dust in air would be capable of performing the remaining functions.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as claim 9
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as claim 10
Claim 12 cites that it is dependent on claim 12, which is unclear and indefinite. Based upon the claims that follow claim 12 and their dependence, Examiner will assume this claim was intended to be dependent on claim 11.
Claims 13-18 are rejected for their dependence on claim 12.
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) 1-8, 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novovic (EP 3685962 A1) in view of Kumamoto (JP 2005271159), Nakajima (JP 2005129741 A), and Serebrennikov (US 20150343601 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood by Examiner, Novovic discloses:
Diamond grinding wheel, adapted to grind and abrade stratified solid materials said diamond grinding wheel comprising:
at least a base flange (1009) and at least a cutting unit (1001) provided with at least a diamond crown (1003, 1004, 1005 See Para [0013] “[0013] Optionally, the abrasive segment comprises an abrasive material of: cubic boron nitride; or diamond.”), positioned in a central portion of said grinding wheel (See Fig. 10); said grinding wheel comprising:
- at least a central tooth (1004), adapted to remove plastic material or similar materials, present on a sheet adapted to be processed (central tooth is capable of removing material via grinding, see Para [0058]
“A second example of a rotary abrasive machining tool according to an aspect of the present disclosure is shown in Figure 10. In the illustrated example, the rotary abrasive machining tool is again a rotary dressing tool 1001. As discussed previously however, it will be appreciated that it could instead be configured as a grinding wheel or any other form of rotary abrasive machining tool.”
and Para [0026] “In an alternative example, in which the rotary dressing tool 101 is instead a grinding wheel, it would be mounted upon a shaft of a grinding machine to facilitate grinding of a component.”;
said central tooth being integral with said diamond crown adapted to grind (See Para [0061]
“In the present example, each set 1003, 1004, and 1005 of abrasive segments comprise a plurality of abrasive segments such as first abrasive segment 1101 and second abrasive segment 1102.”);
said central tooth being adapted to remove and process predetermined portions of at least a glass sheet, in a grinding step, carrying out a thread shaping in the internal part of the glass sheets (As cited above, grinding wheel 1001 of Novovic is capable of removing material via grinding and would be capable of carrying out a thread shaping in the internal part of the glass sheet); said central tooth being adapted to keep the entire grinding wheel functional over time, even after thousands of meters of shaping, guaranteeing a high quality standard (See above 112(b) rejection of claim 1, Novovic is capable of sustaining the grinding wheel over time and guaranteeing a high quality standard”); the height of said central tooth being adjustable according to the thickness of the glass sheets and/or the plastic material to be processed (See Para [0066]:
“To facilitate generation of this profile with the minimum different types of parts, in the present example the sets 1003, 1004, and 1005 of abrasive segments are identical. However, this is not necessarily the case. The profile of the abrasive segments, may be such that the height at one side is lower than at the other.”
and [0067]:
“It will be appreciated of course that the abrasive segments in each set may have different profiles, thus facilitating the dressing of grinding wheels with more complex geometry.”
showing The height of the teeth 1003, 1004, 1005 are may be changed or constructed differently, causing the height of the said central tooth to be adjustable during construction according to the intended work piece);
- at least an external flange (1010), positioned to close the entire grinding wheel (See Fig. 10);
And discloses in an alternative embodiment
- a plurality of holes of variable dimensions adapted to be crossed by cooling water (See Para [0107] “Additional features of the abrasive segments, such as those for locating the abrasive segments on the hub, securing the abrasive segments on the hub, or providing cooling and/or lubricating fluid are preferably also machined prior to machining the abrading edge.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the grinding wheel to include a plurality of holes of variable dimensions adapted to be crossed by cooling water as doing so would allow for coolant to easily flow through the wheel, preventing damage from overheating during a grinding process.
And suggests but does not explicitly disclose said grinding wheel being adapted to improve the quality of the sheets being processed once the grinding is finished, making them polishable and free of plastic material residues, on the edges of the same, being adapted to make said sheets capable of supporting greater loads in terms of weight and load bearing capacity which would be impossible with traditional machining on CNC machines (Grinding wheel of Novovic is capable of performing the desired function, as it is capable of grinding and performing material removal as discussed in Paras [0026] and [0058] as cited above);
But does not explicitly disclose
- a plurality of cuts and grooves, which vary according to the type and size of the glass sheets and/or the plastic material to be processed; said cuts and grooves being adapted to interrupt the continuity of the diamond crown and crush the plastic material, positioned above each sheet being processed and engrave it, avoiding the formation of long strips of the same,
the dimensions of said grinding wheel varying from a diameter and a height between 30 mm and 400 mm; said grinding wheel comprising a base flange made of iron, aluminum and/or resin adapted to guarantee a rigid structure to the entire grinding wheel.
Kumamoto discloses as a similar grinding wheel for processing glass sheets that includes
a plurality of cuts and grooves (7), positioned above each sheet being processed and engrave it, avoiding the formation of long strips of the same (See Figure 7 and Para [0016] “In FIG. 7, a grinding fluid is introduced from a grinding fluid nozzle 11 into a slit 7 formed in a chamfering wheel 10 to chamfer a glass plate 4 as a workpiece.”),
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the grinding wheel of Novovic to include a plurality of cuts or grooves which vary according to the type and size of the glass sheets and/or the plastic material to be processed; said cuts and grooves being adapted to interrupt the continuity of the crown and crush the plastic material, positioned above each sheet being processed and engrave it, avoiding the formation of long strips of the same, the plurality of said cuts alternating with grooves on the crown, being adapted to crush said plastic residues into small pieces. As Kumamoto teaches that doing so would reduce deformation and sparks produced during a grinding operation, See Para [0007] “By forming a slit from the outer peripheral surface of the convex portion of the abrasive layer toward the bottom of the groove and forming the slit at an inclination angle of 30° to 60° with respect to the tangent direction of the outer periphery of the abrasive layer, grinding fluid can be efficiently introduced into the groove during grinding, and deformation and sparks during processing can be easily prevented.”
Nakajima discloses a similar cutting tool with a base flange (10c) constructed from aluminum (See Para [0026] “FIG. 1 is a plan view showing a dicing blade according to an embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 2 is a side cross-sectional view. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the dicing blade 10 comprises a flange 10C made of aluminum (Al) and a cutting edge 10A.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the flange to be made of iron, aluminum and/or resin adapted to guarantee a rigid structure to the entire grinding wheel, as aluminum is a well-known material in the art for the construction of a base flange for a grinding disk.
Finally, Serebrennikov discloses a similar grinding wheel apparatus that is capable of shaping the edges of workpieces, wherein said workpieces can comprise glass plastic metal or ceramic (See Para [0067] “The abrasive article of the present disclosure can be designed for shaping the edges of a workpiece. The workpiece can be an inorganic or organic material, such as, for example, glass, plastic, ceramic, or metal.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would find it obvious that a grinding wheel would be capable of grinding wheel being improving the quality of the sheets being processed once the grinding is finished, making them polishable and free of plastic material residues, on the edges of the same, being adapted to make said sheets capable of supporting greater loads in terms of weight and load bearing capacity which would be impossible with traditional machining on CNC machines.
It would further be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the height and diameter of grinding wheel to vary between 30 and 400 mm. As it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Additionally, applicant has assigned no criticality to the claimed range of 30 to 400mm in the specification.
Regarding Claim 2, As best understood by Examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein said central tooth (Novovic 1004) is made with a specific grain and mixture adapted to vary according to the plastic material to be removed (See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov “The abrasive article of the present disclosure can be designed for shaping the edges of a workpiece. The workpiece can be an inorganic or organic material, such as, for example, glass, plastic, ceramic, or metal. In a particular embodiment, the workpiece can include glass, including but not limited to automotive glass, architectural glass, furniture glass, optical glass, and glass used in displays and/or to cover electronic devices (e.g., a phone).”).
Regarding Claim 3, wherein said central tooth is made in shapes and materials, with cuts and/or grooves (Kumamoto 7), adapted to remove plastic material (cuts or grooves of an abrasive grinding disc are capable of removing plastic material, See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov cited above), based on more or less rigid nature thereof.
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1, wherein said central tooth (1004) is made separately from said grinding wheel, as a foreign body, and inserted between two diamond crowns (1003 and 1005) divided into a central section (1004); said central tooth, to be flanged, comprises a specific internal disk adapted to be flanged, in a central portion of said base flange by means of a plurality of screws and/or any other connection means (See Novovic Para [0063] and [0064] “The abrasive segments are retained in the hub by rings 1103. It will be seen from Figures 11 and 12 that the abrasive segments each include a cutout on either side in which the rings 1103 are received. The outermost rings are received in similar cutouts in the inner edges of the flanges 1009 and 1010. In this way, radial movement of the abrasive segments is prevented. Axial movement is prevented by the flanges, which are held together by a plurality of bolts 1104 whose heads are retained in countersunk holes the flange 1010, and which thread into a threads 1105 in the flange 1009.”).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein said central tooth allows various types of finishing in the processing of said sheets, including polished edge and raw edge and a greater structural strength of the glass, compared to the same processed by a traditional method (See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov “The abrasive article of the present disclosure can be designed for shaping the edges of a workpiece. The workpiece can be an inorganic or organic material, such as, for example, glass, plastic, ceramic, or metal. In a particular embodiment, the workpiece can include glass, including but not limited to automotive glass, architectural glass, furniture glass, optical glass, and glass used in displays and/or to cover electronic devices (e.g., a phone).”).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein said cuts are made in different configurations: inclined, straight, positioned on the entire surface of said cutting unit and said grinding wheel (See Fig 4 and 5 of Kumamoto showing cuts 7 at an inclined angle (theta) around the grinding disc).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses further comprising at least a pair of teeth (abrasive segments 1003 1004 and 1005) for removing the plastic material in the case in which the sheets suitable for processing are composed of several layers (abrasive segments 1003, 1004 and 1005 are capable of removing plastic material from a layered glass sheet (See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov cited above)).
Regarding Claim 8, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the grinding wheel is made in any geometric shape such as peripheral trapezoid profile, groove and any other shape, as well as on specific designs at the request of each customer, as well as in the sector version (See Fig. 10 of Novovic showing a circular grinding wheel, which would be included under “any other shape”).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein said central tooth is made in shapes and materials, with cuts and/or grooves (Kumamoto 7), adapted to remove plastic material (cuts or grooves of an abrasive grinding disc are capable of removing plastic material, See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov cited above in the rejection of claim 2), based on more or less rigid nature thereof.
Regarding Claim 12, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses wherein said central tooth (1004) is made separately from said grinding wheel, as a foreign body, and inserted between two diamond crowns (1003 and 1005) divided into a central section (1004); said central tooth, to be flanged, comprises a specific internal disk adapted to be flanged, in a central portion of said base flange by means of a plurality of screws and/or any other connection means (See Novovic Para [0063] and [0064] “The abrasive segments are retained in the hub by rings 1103. It will be seen from Figures 11 and 12 that the abrasive segments each include a cutout on either side in which the rings 1103 are received. The outermost rings are received in similar cutouts in the inner edges of the flanges 1009 and 1010. In this way, radial movement of the abrasive segments is prevented. Axial movement is prevented by the flanges, which are held together by a plurality of bolts 1104 whose heads are retained in countersunk holes the flange 1010, and which thread into a threads 1105 in the flange 1009.”).
Regarding Claim 13, as best understood by examiner Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses wherein said central tooth allows various types of finishing in the processing of said sheets, including polished edge and raw edge and a greater structural strength of the glass, compared to the same processed by a traditional method (See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov “The abrasive article of the present disclosure can be designed for shaping the edges of a workpiece. The workpiece can be an inorganic or organic material, such as, for example, glass, plastic, ceramic, or metal. In a particular embodiment, the workpiece can include glass, including but not limited to automotive glass, architectural glass, furniture glass, optical glass, and glass used in displays and/or to cover electronic devices (e.g., a phone).”).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 13 and in addition discloses wherein said cuts are made in different configurations: inclined, straight, positioned on the entire surface of said cutting unit and said grinding wheel (See Fig 4 and 5 of Kumamoto showing cuts 7 at an inclined angle (theta) around the grinding disc).
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 14 and in addition discloses further comprising at least a pair of teeth (abrasive segments 1003 1004 and 1005) for removing the plastic material in the case in which the sheets suitable for processing are composed of several layers (abrasive segments 1003, 1004 and 1005 are capable of removing plastic material from a layered glass sheet (See Para [0067] of Serebrennikov cited above)).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition discloses wherein the grinding wheel is made in any geometric shape such as peripheral trapezoid profile, groove and any other shape, as well as on specific designs at the request of each customer, as well as in the sector version (See Fig. 10 of Novovic showing a circular grinding wheel, which would be included under “any other shape”).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novovic (EP 3685962 A1) in view of Kumamoto (JP 2005271159), Nakajima (JP 2005129741 A), and Serebrennikov (US 20150343601 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Telleria (US 20180283019 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising sensors for detecting fine dust present in the air and sensors suitable adapted to signal a state of saturation of the air; said sensors allowing the personnel assigned to use the entire device to move away from the intervention area until healthy conditions of the environment surrounding the processing areas are re-established.
However, Telleria discloses different methods of dealing with dust and debris produced during a sanding operation including a sensor to monitor air quality and particulate matter, that is adapted to trigger an alarm when air quality is deemed unsafe (See Para [0107] “The collected material can be recycled. A sensor can be mounted on or about the automated drywalling system 100 to monitor air quality and particulate matter. The system 100 can trigger an alarm when unsafe air quality is detected.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use an air quality sensor when utilizing a grinding disc for a processing operation as doing so would allow for the operator to remain safe and not accidently inhale dangerous/unhealthy particles from the processing operation entrained in the air.
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising sensors for detecting fine dust present in the air and sensors suitable adapted to signal a state of saturation of the air; said sensors allowing the personnel assigned to use the entire device to move away from the intervention area until healthy conditions of the environment surrounding the processing areas are re-established.
However, Telleria discloses different methods of dealing with dust and debris produced during a sanding operation including a sensor to monitor air quality and particulate matter, that is adapted to trigger an alarm when air quality is deemed unsafe (See Para [0107] “The collected material can be recycled. A sensor can be mounted on or about the automated drywalling system 100 to monitor air quality and particulate matter. The system 100 can trigger an alarm when unsafe air quality is detected.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use an air quality sensor when utilizing a grinding disc for a processing operation as doing so would allow for the operator to remain safe and not accidently inhale dangerous/unhealthy particles from the processing operation entrained in the air.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novovic (EP 3685962 A1) in view of Kumamoto (JP 2005271159), Nakajima (JP 2005129741 A), and Serebrennikov (US 20150343601 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Nelson (US 20090280731 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least a temperature detection sensor, adapted to allow a longer life of the tool, instantly verifying the temperature and intervening in case of detection of anomalous parameters that lead to premature wear
However, Nelson discloses a grinding tool with different parameter sensors such as a temperature sensor configured to control the motor of the grinding device based on the sensed parameter (See Para [0016] “The grinder may very well be equipped with one or more operation parameter sensors, for instance a temperature sensor, and the cable 16 comprises both a set of power voltage conductors 26 and a set of signal conductors 27. The power voltage conductors 26 communicate electric power to the motor, whereas the signal conductors 27 communicate electric signals from the operation parameter sensor or sensors to the drive unit 20 for controlling the power supply to the motor as is well known in this type of tools.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the grinding wheel to include a temperature sensor as doing so would allow for the control of the temperature of the grinding wheel and work piece, preventing damage to either from overheating.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novovic (EP 3685962 A1) in view of Kumamoto (JP 2005271159 A), Nakajima (JP 2005129741 A), Serebrennikov (US 20150343601 A1), and Telleria (US 20180283019 A1) as modified in claim 17 and in further view of Nelson (US 20090280731 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood by examiner, Novovic as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 17 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising at least a temperature detection sensor, adapted to allow a longer life of the tool, instantly verifying the temperature and intervening in case of detection of anomalous parameters that lead to premature wear
However, Nelson discloses a grinding tool with different parameter sensors such as a temperature sensor configured to control the motor of the grinding device based on the sensed parameter (See Para [0016] “The grinder may very well be equipped with one or more operation parameter sensors, for instance a temperature sensor, and the cable 16 comprises both a set of power voltage conductors 26 and a set of signal conductors 27. The power voltage conductors 26 communicate electric power to the motor, whereas the signal conductors 27 communicate electric signals from the operation parameter sensor or sensors to the drive unit 20 for controlling the power supply to the motor as is well known in this type of tools.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the grinding wheel to include a temperature sensor as doing so would allow for the control of the temperature of the grinding wheel and work piece, preventing damage to either from overheating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723