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 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoshikawa (US 2020/0324387) in view of Micheletti (US 5658194, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hoshikawa teaches a dressing member assembly to be used in a grindstone tool in which abrasive grains are fixed (note that the intended use of the tool does not limit its structure; MPEP 2115), the dressing member comprising a support member (6) and a dressing member (4) attached to said support member ([0030]), said dressing member having a width that is less than a width of said support member (as shown in fig 1A), said dressing member including a bonding material that fixes particles therein ([0030]).
Hoshikawa does not teach the dressing member including a plurality of ceramic particles having cavities therein. Micheletti teaches a dressing member including a plurality of ceramic particles having cavities therein (col 1, lines 52-58); and a bonding material that fixes the ceramic particles (col 1, lines 35-41). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the material of Micheletti in as the dressing member of Hoshikawa, as the bonded material with hollow ceramic particles of Micheletti provides the distinct advantage of allowing the dressing member to maintain grinding efficacy after being worn as taught by Micheletti (col 2, lines 1-18).
Regarding claims 2-4, Hoshikawa, as modified by Micheletti, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Micheletti further teaches (when the material of Micheletti is used in the dressing member of Hoshikawa as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) a particle diameter of the ceramic particles is 20 to 300 microns (col 1, lines 59-61; fully encompasses claimed range; “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.); wherein a wall thickness of the ceramic particles is 2 to 100 microns (col 1, lines 62-63); and wherein a width of the cavities in the ceramic particles is 10 to 290 microns (cavity width is equal to outer diameter minus twice the wall thickness; the ranges disclosed for diameter and wall thickness in col 1, lines 53-63 result in a disclosure of cavity width fully encompassing the claimed range; “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP 2144.05 I.).
Regarding claims 5-8, Hoshikawa, as modified by Micheletti, teaches all the limitations of claims 1-4 as described above. Micheletti further teaches (when the material of Micheletti is used in the dressing member of Hoshikawa as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) a material of the ceramic particles is aluminum silicate (col 1, lines 55-59).
Regarding claims 9-10, Hoshikawa, as modified by Micheletti, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Micheletti further teaches (when the material of Micheletti is used in the dressing member of Hoshikawa as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) a sum of the volume of all of said ceramic particles is 1% to 80% of a total volume of the dressing member (col 1, lines 64-67). While Micheletti does not describe this proportion of ceramic particles as a mass percentage as claimed, the proportion of ceramic particles in terms of a volume percentage is directly related to the mass proportion. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide ceramic particles in the dressing member of Hoshikawa in a mass percentage of 20%-80% or in a mass percentage of 60% with a reasonable expectation of success, as Micheletti describes the volume percentage of ceramic particles encompassing this range, and the proportion of ceramic particles would have a predictable effect on the mechanical strength of the dressing member and its ability to distribute coolant as taught by Micheletti (col 1, line 65-col 2, line 18). Note that applicant has provided no showing of criticality to this claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 Jun 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Micheletti does not teach a support member, wherein the dressing member has a width less than a width of the support member. However, the newly cited Hoshikawa reference teaches this new limitation as detailed in the rejection above. Applicant further argues that Micheletti does not teach the ceramic particles provided in a mass percentage of 20-80% or 60% as recited in new claims 9-10. However, these ranges are rendered obvious by Micheletti as detailed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar dressing member assemblies are cited.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
