DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 54-68, in the reply filed on 06/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “grinding means” in claim 54, “by means of microwave radiation” in claim 61, “by means of an electric induction field” in claim 62, and “aligning the abrasive grains happens by means of one or more of the following aligning methods” in claim 63.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 60, 65, 67 and 68 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.
Regarding claim 60, the phrase "in particular" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is noted, that for the purpose of claim interpretation, the examiner will treat the limitation before the phrase “in particular” as not limiting claim 60.
Claim 65 recites the limitation "the curing temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 67 recites the limitation "the amount of energy" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "the measured surface temperature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 54-60, 64 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaeta et al. (US 7591865 B2), hereinafter referred to as GAETA, in view of Polus et al. (US 20140299268 A1), hereinafter referred to as POLUS, and Smith et al. (US 5833795 A), hereinafter referred to as SMITH.
Regarding claim 54, GAETA teaches a method for producing a grinding means, wherein at least one binder layer and abrasive grains are applied onto a carrier (see GAETA at Fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 61-64: the structured abrasive includes a backing 102 and a layer 104 including abrasive grains; and Col. 4, lines 3-4: layer 104 generally includes abrasive grains and a binder), and a binder of the binder layer is cured, wherein nanoparticles are held in the binder (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 15-22: the binder may include filler, such as nano-sized filler; the formulation that is cured to form the binder is a colloidal suspension including particulate filler). While GAETA fails to explicitly teach wherein upon curing of the binder and/or after the curing of the binder, the nanoparticles are excited and/or alternatingly polarized thereby heating up, whereby the binder, by virtue of the heating of the nanoparticles, is cured, at least in part, and/or is post-cured after curing, GAETA teaches that the binder formulation may include one or more reaction constituents or polymer constituents, the polymer constituents may include polymerized epoxy (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 32-44); and that the particulate filler may be formed of a metal complex such as, for example, a metal oxide, e.g., Fe2O3 (see GAETA at Col. 15, lines 8-16). GAETA also teaches that the precursor polymer constituents are typically curable organic material (i.e., a polymer monomer or material capable of polymerizing or crosslinking upon exposure to heat or other sources of energy, such as electron beam, ultraviolet light, visible light, etc., or with time upon the addition of a chemical catalyst, moisture, or other agent which cause the polymer to cure or polymerize) (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 49-56).
Furthermore, the role of magnetic filler nanoparticles such as iron oxide in the curing process of a binder is known in the art and is evidenced from the disclosures of POLUS and SMITH. POLUS discloses an adhesive resin film including a dispersion of ferromagnetic nano-particles which, when excited by the electromagnetic magnetic field, heat the surrounding resin to cure temperature (see POLUS at paragraph [0008]). POLUS teaches that the resin forming the raw resin layers may comprise an activatable thermoset resin, such as, without limitation, epoxy resin (see POLUS at paragraph [0041]). POLUS also teaches that the disclosed method comprises thermally curing the adhesive resin by exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles; exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles may be performed by electromagnetic induction; the electromagnetic induction may be carried out using an alternating current driven induction coil to generate an electromagnetic field, and coupling the electromagnetic field with the nano-particles (see POLUS at paragraph [0011]). Additionally, SMITH discloses composite material product with an adhesive or epoxy resin that includes magnetic particles; the adhesive or epoxy resin can be cured by electromagnetically exciting the magnetic particles, such as by microwave heating; the electromagnetically excited magnetic particles internally heat the adhesive or epoxy resin to the predetermined Curie Point temperature of the magnetic particles such that the adhesive or epoxy resin cures in a uniform fashion (see SMITH at Abstract). SMITH also teaches that when the magnetic particles are mixed relatively evenly throughout the magnetic particle integrated adhesive, the electromagnetic excitement of the magnetic particles provides for even heating such that the magnetic particle integrated adhesive cures consistently and uniformly regardless of the structural heat sink configuration (see SMITH at Col. 4, lines 1-6). Additionally, SMITH teaches that the curing process can be further controlled by monitoring the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated adhesive and controlling the electromagnetic excitement of the magnetic particles based upon the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated adhesive (see SMITH at Col. 3, lines 34-38).
GAETA’s, POLUS’s and SMITH’s disclosures describe curing epoxy binder comprising magnetic nanoparticles. Thus, based on the POLUS’s description of the method comprising exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles, which, when excited by the electromagnetic magnetic field, heat the surrounding resin to cure temperature (see POLUS at paragraph [0008]), one would have anticipated that upon curing of the binder layer of GAETA filler nanoparticles may get excited by the electromagnetic magnetic field, thus, heating the surrounding resin to cure temperature, as disclosed by POLUS. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize binder including magnetic nanoparticles when forming a binder layer of GAETA based on the disclosure of SMITH describing that the electromagnetic excitement of the magnetic particles provides for even heating such that the magnetic particle integrated composition cures consistently and uniformly, and that the curing process can be further controlled by monitoring the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated composition and controlling the electromagnetic excitement of the magnetic particles based upon the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated composition (see SMITH at Col. 4, lines 1-6, and Col. 3, lines 34-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have anticipated that upon curing of the binder layer of GAETA magnetic nanoparticles would get excited by the electromagnetic magnetic field, thus, heating the surrounding resin to cure temperature, as disclosed by POLUS and SMITH.
Regarding claim 55, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, comprising at least the following steps:
providing the carrier, the abrasive grains, the binder, the nanoparticles,
applying the abrasive grains and the binder onto the carrier (see GAETA at Col. 2, lines 44-50: a method of forming an abrasive article, such as a structured abrasive article, includes coating a backing with a binder formulation, partially curing the binder formulation, the binder formulation may be incorporated in abrasive slurry that includes the binder formulation and abrasive grains; and Col. 4, lines 15-22: the binder may include filler, such as nano-sized filler; the formulation that is cured to form the binder is a colloidal suspension including particulate filler),
curing and/or post-curing of the binder, at least in part, by activating and/or exciting the nanoparticles thereby producing heat,
wherein the binder, at least in part, is cured by the heat produced by the nanoparticles and/or is post-cured (see rejection of claim 54 above and POLUS at paragraph [0008]: exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles, which, when excited by the electromagnetic magnetic field, heat the surrounding resin to cure temperature).
Regarding claim 56, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 55, wherein at first the binder including the nanoparticles is applied onto the carrier and subsequently the abrasive grains are introduced into the binder by scattering (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 6-8: the abrasive grains are applied over the binder formulation after the binder formulation is coated on backing; and Col. 19, lines 62-64: the abrasive grains may, for example, be applied by a technique, such as electrostatic coating, drop coating or mechanical projection).
Regarding claim 57, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 55, wherein the binder is applied with abrasive grains contained therein (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 4-5: the abrasive grains are blended with the binder formulation).
Regarding claim 58, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, wherein the nanoparticles are introduced into the binder in advance (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 15-22: the binder may include filler, such as nano-sized filler; the formulation that is cured to form the binder is a colloidal suspension including particulate filler).
Regarding claim 59, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, wherein the binder is applied as a binder layer for holding abrasive grains, and/or as a top layer and/or a second layer (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 4-5: the abrasive grains are blended with the binder formulation; and Col. 4, lines 12-13: the binder of the make coat or the size coat).
Regarding claim 60, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, wherein the binder is cured and/or post-cured, at least in part, by means of an alternating magnetic field, for activating the nanoparticles (see rejection of claim 54 above and POLUS at paragraph [0011]: the electromagnetic induction may be carried out using an alternating current driven induction coil to generate an electromagnetic field, and coupling the electromagnetic field with the nano-particles).
Regarding claim 64, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, wherein upon curing of the binder, additionally or exclusively, thermal energy is fed into the binder (see GAETA at Col. 4, lines 49-56: the precursor polymer constituents are typically curable organic material (i.e., a polymer monomer or material capable of polymerizing or crosslinking upon exposure to heat or other sources of energy, such as electron beam, ultraviolet light, visible light, etc.).
Regarding claim 67, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, wherein for curing the binder the amount of energy is regulated, where the regulated amount of energy at least covers the energy fed into the binder by the excitation of the nanoparticles (see rejection of claim 54 above and SMITH at Col. 3, lines 34-38: the curing process can be further controlled by monitoring the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated composition and controlling the electromagnetic excitement of the magnetic particles based upon the temperature of the magnetic particle integrated composition).
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GAETA in view of POLUS and SMITH as applied to claim 54 above, and further in view of Eugster et al. (US 20160144480 A1), hereinafter referred to as EUGSTER.
Regarding claim 63, GAETA as modified by POLUS and SMITH teaches the method of claim 54, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the steps of aligning the abrasive grains happens by means of one or more of the following aligning methods: electrostatic alignment in an applied constant electrostatic field (E) and/or alternating field, gravitatively by scattering.
However, EUGSTER teaches an abrasive means understood to mean in particular a unit having at least one abrasive means backing and abrasive particles applied and fastened thereto (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0004]). Similarly to GAETA describing that the abrasive grains may be selected from a group consisting of silica, alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, silicon nitride (see GAETA at Col. 18, lines 66-67), EUGSTER teaches that abrasive particle may be produced for example partially or wholly from aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon nitride, silicon carbide or another ceramic material. (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0017]). Additionally, EUGSTER teaches that the abrasive particles to be oriented at least partially in a predefined scattering orientation by the at least one orientation aid prior to a scattering step; in a scattering step, in which the abrasive particles are moved along a free path partially against the active direction of the force of gravity; the abrasive particles are preferably moved by means of the electric field against the active direction of the force of gravity, wherein such a scattering step is referred to as “electrostatic scattering”; a “predefined scattering orientation” is to be understood to mean in particular an orientation of the abrasive particles with which, once the scattering step has been performed, the abrasive particles rest on the abrasive means backing in an orientation in which they provide a maximum abrasive capacity (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0039]).
Both GAETA’s and EUGSTER’s disclosures are from the same field of endeavor and drawn to the method of forming abrasive article. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of modifying the method of GAETA by aligning the abrasive grains by means of the electric field against the active direction of the force of gravity, wherein such a scattering step is referred to as “electrostatic scattering” as disclosed by EUGSTER since EUGSTER explicitly teaches that once the scattering step has been performed, the abrasive particles rest on the abrasive means backing in an orientation in which they provide a maximum abrasive capacity (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0039]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of GAETA by aligning the abrasive grains by means of electrostatic scattering as disclosed by EUGSTER in order for orient the abrasive particles on the abrasive means so that they provide a maximum abrasive capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 61-62, 65-66 and 68 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.
While POLUS discloses the method comprising thermally curing the adhesive resin by exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles; exciting the ferromagnetic nano-particles may be performed by electromagnetic induction; the electromagnetic induction may be carried out using an alternating current driven induction coil to generate an electromagnetic field, and coupling the electromagnetic field with the nano-particles (see POLUS at paragraph [0011]), and SMITH discloses that the adhesive or epoxy resin can be cured by electromagnetically exciting the magnetic particles, such as by microwave heating (see SMITH at Abstract), POLUS and SMITH do not teach or suggest the ranges of microwave radiation or an electric induction field.
SMITH teaches that the magnetic particles should have a predetermined Curie Point temperature within the predetermined range of cure temperatures (see SMITH at Abstract); SMITH also teaches that the magnetic particles preferably have a predetermined Curie Point temperature which is within the predetermined range of cure temperatures for the magnetic particle integrated adhesive (see SMITH at Col. 5, lines 54-58), while, as set forth, claim 65 recites “the Curie temperature above the curing temperature of the binder”. Furthermore, GAETA, POLUS and SMITH do not teach or suggest a method wherein for regulating the amount of energy a surface temperature is measured, and the amount of energy introduced is deduced from a process time and the measured surface temperature, as set forth in claim 68.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights