DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: According to claim 19, the bond material in the second portion is present in an amount of at least 29 wt% and “at most 53 wt%”; however, there is no support for the upper limit of “at most 53 wt%” in the original specification. According to the original disclosure of the specification of the present Application under examination, the upper limit of the content of the bond material in the second portion, in weight percentage, can be “at most 52 wt%” (see specification, paragraph [0130], page 40).
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 3 contain the recitation of “D50F”; however, the language of the claim is indefinite because no reference to any particle size as DF50 prior to its appearance in line 9 of claim 1, line 1 of claim 2, and line 2 of claim 3.
For the purpose of examination, it is assumed this was a typographical error, and this was meant to be “D50AP2”.
Claims 4-20 are rejected because of depending from a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 depends from claim 10 which in turn depends from claim 1; according to claim 1, the second portion comprises a second bond material and second abrasive particles. Thus, claim 14 is not seen to further limit claim 1 by claiming “wherein the second portion of the circumferential surface comprises the second bond material, the second abrasive particles, or a combination thereof”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph as applicable to claim 14, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the recitation of claim 1; the prior art do not disclose or suggest an abrasive article comprising:
a body including:
a first portion comprising first abrasive particles contained within a first bond material including an inorganic material, wherein the first abrasive particles comprise an average particle size D50AP1;
a second portion comprising second abrasive particles contained within a second bond material comprising an organic material, wherein the second abrasive particles are at least 25 wl% and at most 75 wt% for a total weight of the second portion and comprise an average particle size D50AP2, wherein D50AP1 is greater than D50AP2; and
a central opening extending in an axial direction of the body through the first portion and through the second portion,
wherein:
the central opening comprises a circumferential surface defining an inner diameter of the body,
wherein the circumferential surface is defined by at least a portion of the first portion and at least
a portion of the second portion; and the second portion is coupled to the first portion in a radial plane.
EP 0 344 610 to Henmi et al. (hereinafter Henmi) cited in the IDS filed on 05/22/2024 discloses a grinding wheel comprising a central opening and an annular first abrasive member, as well as one or two annular second abrasive member (abstract, Figures). Henmi discloses that the bonding agent in the first abrasive member is different than that of the second abrasive member (abstract and page 2, lines 52-55). The reference teaches the first abrasive member is a vitrified-bond wheel wherein the bond material is an inorganic bonding agent (page 3, lines 24-27). Moreover, Henmi teaches the presence/use of abrasive grains of Al2O3, SiC, CBN and diamond in the first and second abrasive members (page 3, lines 24-34). The reference, additionally, discloses the second abrasive member may contain evenly distributed short fibers of materials such as Al2O3 fibers having a diameter of about 1-15 microns and a length of about 1-10mm (page 3, lines 45-47; page 6, lines 49-55). As shown and demonstrated by the figures, such as Figure 10, both first and second abrasive members have interface with each other, and they are placed in such a way that the inner surface, i.e. claimed circumferential surface, of the opening is defined by at least a portion of the first abrasive member and at least a portion of the second abrasive member.
However, Henmi does not disclose the use of an organic bond material in the second abrasive member; also, the reference does not disclose the average particle size of the abrasive grains in either of the abrasive members. As such, the reference does not disclose whether the average particle size of the grains in the first abrasive member are larger than those in the second abrasive members. Moreover, the reference does not disclose the concentration of the abrasive grains in the second abrasive member.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2019/0375073 to Martin et al. (hereinafter Martin) discloses an abrasive article having a central opening or hole, such as a wheel (abstract, Figure 1, [0043]) which may comprise a first and a second abrasive portion (Figures 4A and 5); each portion comprises abrasive grains, a bond material and filler. The reference, additionally, discloses an interior portion, and it is the interior portion which defines the central hole or opening (Figure 3). Thus, the inner surface of the central opening is not defined by two different abrasive portions.
CN 109 129 218 to Gao discloses different embodiments of a cutting wheel, wherein in the embodiment of Figure 4, the grinding wheel contains a mounting hole, i.e. claimed central opening, and a first polishing part shown by reference no. 402 and a second grinding portion shown by reference no. 404, as well a reinforcing member shown by reference no. 406 (page 9, description for Fig. 4). The reference discloses that there is also an adhesive and filler present in each portion, and that the content of each component may be the same or different in the two portions (page 9, description for Fig. 4).
Although there is disclosure on the use of a first type abrasive particles and second type abrasive particles or a mixture thereof, there is no disclosure as to whether the particle size of the grains in one portion is larger than the other. Also, the reference does not disclose or suggest the material of the adhesive, and whether the bonding material/adhesive in one portion is inorganic and whether the other portion comprises an organic bond material.
CN 113 165 145 to Givot et al. (hereinafter Givot) discloses a grinding wheel containing a central opening or hole, wherein there is a primary abrasive portion comprising precisely shaped fine-grained abrasive particles held in a first binder (claim 1). Givot discloses an auxiliary abrasive portion including a second abrasive particle in a bond wherein the primary abrasive portion and the secondary abrasive portion form a rail grinding abrasive wheel. The reference discloses the use of adhesives in each portion, and discloses that the adhesive may be different from each other, such as the adhesive in the first portion may be organic ([0018]).
However, the reference does not disclose that the other portion comprises an inorganic adhesive (i.e. inorganic bond). The reference, also, does not disclose the inner surface of the opening or hole to be defined by at least a portion of both primary abrasive portion and auxiliary abrasive portion. Additionally, although the reference discloses the materials for the shaped abrasive particles or crushed abrasive particles, which may be used ([0026]), it does not disclose whether abrasive grains in one portion is greater than the other.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights