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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Drawings
Although the drawings are sufficiently clear for examination purposes, they are compromised in terms of clarity. That is, due to the submitted format of the drawings, Figs. 1-13 are dithered and in grayscale/halftones, where lines and text intended to be solid, clean, and black appear jagged and grayed. This loss of quality can be seen by comparing the drawings in the file wrapper (IFW) dated 02/16/2024 with the drawings of the submitted Italian priority document. It is Examiner’s understanding that should this application issue as a patent, the drawings published on the issued patent will look exactly like those in the U.S. Patent Application Publication (US 20250128381 A1), unless Applicant resubmits the drawings in a different format.
The drawings are not objected to at this time for clarity. Nevertheless, Examiner suggests submitting clearer drawings for the purpose of proper notice to the general public. Applicant should note the following drawing standards:
Black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1);
Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l);
The clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Finishing tool” (claim 1, line 1) should be changed to --A finishing tool--;
“Finishing tool as in” (claims 2-14, line 1) should be changed to --The finishing tool of--;
“of the mechanical type” (claim 4, lines 2-3) should be changed to --of a mechanical type--;
“of the chemical type” (claim 9, lines 2-3) should be changed to --of a chemical type--;
“said projecting gripping elements” (claim 6, lines 1-2) should be changed to --said plurality of projecting gripping elements--;
“an elastic member mechanical gripping substrate (42)” (claim 8, lines 5-6) should be changed to --a support mechanical gripping substrate (42)--;
“the support member attachment counter means (30)” (claim 8, line 6) should be changed to --the elastic member attachment counter means (30)--;
“a support mechanical gripping substrate (44)” (claim 8, lines 6-7) should be changed to --an elastic member mechanical gripping substrate (44)--;
“the softening temperature of said support” (claim 10, lines 2-3) should be changed to --a softening temperature of said support--;
“said layer” (claim 10, line 1) should be changed to --said adhesive layer--;
“said layer” (claim 11, line 2) should be changed to --said adhesive layer--;
“said additional layer” (claim 12, line 3) should be changed to --said additional adhesive layer--;
“said additional layer” (claim 13, lines 1-2) should be changed to --said additional adhesive layer--;
“said layer” (claim 14, line 2) should be changed to --said adhesive layer--;
“said additional layer” (claim 14, line 2) should be changed to --said additional adhesive layer--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The claims include recitation of reference numbers corresponding to elements shown in the drawings. While this practice is not improper, the presence of such reference numbers generally do not affect the scope of a claim, but may affect the clarity of the claim. MPEP § 608.01(m). Examiner suggests removal of all reference numbers from the claims.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“releasable attachment means” (claim 1, line 7);
“base attachment means” (claim 3, line 2);
“component attachment counter-means” (claim 3, line 3);
“attachment means of the mechanical type” (claim 4, lines 2-3);
“additional releasable attachment means” (claim 7, line 2);
“support attachment means” (claim 8, line 3);
“elastic member attachment counter-means (claim 8, lines 3-4);
“attachment means of the chemical type” (claim 9, lines 2-3).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-14 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “which is effective both in a direction (T) essentially orthogonal to a main interface plane” (lines 3-4). This limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what “essentially” means. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The definition of “essentially” includes the meaning of “basically”, “usually”, and “fundamentally”, which make the claim indefinite. Further, the specification does not state the metes and bounds of “essentially orthogonal”, including what the difference would be between “essentially orthogonal” and “orthogonal”. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “essentially the same as each other” (lines 11-12). This limitation is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because it fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what “essentially” means. See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The definition of “essentially” includes the meaning of “basically”, “usually”, and “fundamentally”, which make the claim indefinite. Further, the specification does not state the metes and bounds of “essentially the same as each other”, including what the difference would be between “essentially the same as each other” and “the same as each other”. Further, it is unclear if this phrase refers to the “plurality of gripping elements” being the same as each other, or if it refers to the “base mechanical gripping substrate” and the “component mechanical gripping substrate” being the same as each other (see Spec. p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 4). For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as best understood. Claims 6-14 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said [plurality of] projecting gripping elements (26) of the base mechanical gripping substrate (22) and of the component mechanical gripping substrate (24) are configured to determine a reciprocal male-male coupling or a reciprocal male-female coupling.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “a reciprocal male-female coupling” means in this context because this limitation appears to conflict with claim 5, which recites “said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate each comprise a base layer with a planar conformation and a plurality of projecting gripping elements, essentially the same as each other” (emphasis added). In other words, it is unclear how the two substrates and/or their projecting gripping elements could be the same as each other but yet provide for “a reciprocal male-female coupling” which signifies they are not the same as each other. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “can comprise” (line 5). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the term “can” indicates an example or a preference that makes the scope of the limitation uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, is the feature following the phrase “can comprise” required or optional? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “and each comprises” (line 9). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, does “each” refer to the two preceding substrates, or to the support and elastic member, or to something else? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “said releasable attachment means (16) comprise attachment means of the chemical type and comprise at least one adhesive layer.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, this limitation requires the “said releasable attachment means” to be of the chemical type and to have at least one adhesive layer. This appears to conflict with claim 5 (from which claim 9 depends), which requires the “said releasable attachment means” (see claim 3) to include mechanical features, including a “plurality of projecting gripping elements”. Examiner notes that the specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment where the “said releasable attachment means” includes both mechanical and chemical type features, and the use of an “adhesive layer” is not discussed in connection with the mechanical type embodiments of Figs. 1-9; this claim may be subject to a § 112(a) rejection if that is the intended interpretation. For examination purposes, this limitation will be interpreted as best understood. Claims 10-14 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “possibly with the addition of particles of electrically conductive materials” (line 4). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the phrase “possibly with” indicates an example or a preference that makes the scope of the limitation uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, is this limitation required or optional? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 14 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “in particular on a face of...” (line 3). A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. MPEP § 2173.05(c)(I). Here, the claim recites the broad recitation “being applied to said base” but also recites the limitation above, which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or is a required feature of the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons (“in particular on a face of...” (line 4)). Claim 13 is rejected on the basis it incorporates this limitation of claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “possibly with the addition of particles of electrically conductive materials” (line 4). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the phrase “possibly with” indicates an example or a preference that makes the scope of the limitation uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, is this limitation required or optional? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said layer (50) and/or said additional layer (50’) are configured to be subjected to heating methods in order to heat them up to said respective softening temperatures, for example equal to about 70°C, through emission of electromagnetic radiation, in order to determine the thermal degradation of the glue, so that the latter loses its adhesive properties.” To the extent this limitation is not an intended use limitation, this claim is indefinite because it is a single claim that claims both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“it is unclear whether infringement...occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information...or...when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information”); MPEP § 2173.05(p). This limitation includes is a method step of using and/or modifying the finishing tool of claim 10 (e.g., by heating it as recited), from which claim 14 depends.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “for example equal to about 70°C” (lines 3-4). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, the phrase “for example” indicates an example or a preference that makes the scope of the limitation uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In other words, is this limitation required or optional? For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood.
Claims 1-14 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood.
“the machining machine” (claim 1, lines 4-5) (claims 2-14 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 1);
“said main interface plane” (claim 5, line 15) (claims 6-14 are rejected on the basis they incorporate this limitation of claim 5);
“said additional layer” (claim 14, line 2).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Fioratti
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20180071880 A1 (“Fioratti”).
Regarding claim 1, Fioratti discloses a finishing tool for surface machining slab-like elements (Figs. 1-5 (the embodiment that includes Velcro strips V1 and V2; ¶¶ 0015-0016); ¶ 0001, finishing tool U is capable of being used as recited; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
characterized in that said tool comprises a reusable base and an abrasive component releasably connected to said base in order to be selectively replaced (Figs. 1-5, base 2 is reusable with different abrasive components 1 (e.g., for replacement) via Velcro type attachments V1 and V2),
wherein said base comprises
a support configured to be temporarily and firmly attached to the machining machine to which said finishing tool is able to be connected (Figs. 1-5, base includes support 2 (including the trapezoidal structure of Fig. 2) that is capable of being temporarily and firmly attached to a machine as recited; Examiner notes that the “machining machine” is not positively claimed; Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
and an elastic member configured to allow at least one degree of freedom of movement to said abrasive component with respect to said base (Figs. 1-5, base includes elastic member 3 made of rubber is capable of the recited function; ¶ 0013; Spec. ¶ 0037, “The base 12...include a support 32...and an elastic member 34”),
wherein said tool comprises releasable attachment means configured to attach the abrasive component to the base in a releasable manner (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, releasable Velcro strips V1 attach abrasive component 1 to the base via the elastic member 3 (part of the base), and the elastic member 3 is releasably attached to the base support 2 by Velcro strips V2; this limitation is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes adhesive, glue, mechanical hooks and loops (e.g., Velcro brand fasteners), and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-11; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28; p. 11, lines 15-17)).
Regarding claim 2, Fioratti discloses the finishing tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses said releasable attachment means are configured to determine a releasable reciprocal coupling between the abrasive component and the base, which is effective both in a direction essentially orthogonal to a main interface plane between the abrasive component and the base, and also in a direction tangential to said main interface plane (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, the releasable Velcro strips V1 attach abrasive component 1 to the base via the elastic member 3 (part of the base), and the elastic member 3 is releasably attached to the base support 2 by Velcro strips V2, where the Velcro strips are capable of providing a releasable reciprocal coupling in the two directions as recited, where the main interface plane is a plane between the two mating portions of Velcro strips V1 or V2; “to determine” as used in this context includes the meaning of “to provide for”).
Regarding claim 3, Fioratti discloses the finishing tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses said releasable attachment means comprise base attachment means present on, or associated with, the base and component attachment counter-means present on, or associated with, the abrasive component (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, releasable Velcro strips V1 present on abrasive component 1 attaches it to the base via matching Velcro strips V1 on the elastic member 3 (part of the base), and the elastic member 3 has Velcro strips V2 that are releasably attached to matching Velcro strips V2 attached to the base support 2; the terms “base attachment means” and “component attachment counter-means” are interpreted under § 112(f), which includes adhesive, glue, mechanical hooks and loops (e.g., Velcro brand fasteners), and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-11; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28; p. 11, lines 15-17)).
Regarding claim 4, Fioratti discloses the finishing tool of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses said releasable attachment means comprise attachment means of the mechanical type (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, releasable Velcro strips V1 and V2; the term “attachment means of the mechanical type” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes mechanical hooks and loops (e.g., Velcro brand fasteners), and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-9; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28)).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Fioratti in view of Kobe
Claims 5-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180071880 A1 (“Fioratti”) in view of US 5691021 A (“Kobe”).
Fioratti pertains to an abrading tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6) and is in the same field of endeavor. Kobe pertains to a releasable fastener (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it discloses different types of releasable fasteners that could be used to attach an abrasive body to a base or holder (see Fioratti ¶¶ 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 5, Fioratti discloses the finishing tool of claim 1 as applied above.
Fioratti does not explicitly disclose:
the base attachment means comprise a base mechanical gripping substrate and the component attachment counter-means comprise a component mechanical gripping substrate, said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate being configured to determine a coordinated and reciprocal attachment for the purpose of the releasable coupling between the base and the abrasive component,
said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate being firmly and stably glued to the base and to the abrasive component, respectively,
and in that said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate each comprise a base layer with a planar conformation and a plurality of projecting gripping elements, essentially the same as each other, which between them define a regular alternation of solids and voids for the coupling of similar gripping elements, so that when said base mechanical gripping substrate and said component mechanical gripping substrate are reciprocally joined they lie on said main interface plane.
However, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious this claim.
Kobe discloses:
the base attachment means comprise a base mechanical gripping substrate and the component attachment counter-means comprise a component mechanical gripping substrate, said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate being configured to determine a coordinated and reciprocal attachment for the purpose of the releasable coupling between the base and the abrasive component (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 (“base attachment means”) including substrate 32 (“base mechanical gripping substrate”) and fastener 12 (“component attachment counter-means”) including substrate 32 (“component mechanical gripping substrate”), which are capable of the recited function; “to determine” as used in this context includes the meaning of “to provide for”),
said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate being firmly and stably glued to the base and to the abrasive component, respectively (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 is glued as recited to element 18 via adhesive 20, fastener 12 is glued to element 16 via adhesive 20; see discussion below re “base” and “abrasive component”),
and in that said base mechanical gripping substrate and component mechanical gripping substrate each comprise a base layer with a planar conformation and a plurality of projecting gripping elements, essentially the same as each other, which between them define a regular alternation of solids and voids for the coupling of similar gripping elements, so that when said base mechanical gripping substrate and said component mechanical gripping substrate are reciprocally joined they lie on said main interface plane (Figs. 1-2, both fasteners 14 and 16 are the same as each other and each have a base layer 22 in a planar configuration and a plurality of projecting gripping elements 21 that have the recited “regular alternation of solids and voids” and are capable of the recited functions when joined together, where the main interface plane is a plane between the two substrates 32 of fasteners 12 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kobe with Fioratti by modifying Fioratti to use the releasable fasteners of Kobe instead of the disclosed Velcro strips V1. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a case of simple substitution, where the choice of the specific type of releasable fastener used would depend on cost and availability and fastening strength, and where the releasable fastener of Kobe would predictably operate in the same manner as the disclosed Velcro strips of Fioratti (see US 20090170412 A1 (“Huser”) Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0001-0010, disclosing a projection-type of releasable fastener for use with a detachable abrasive body and comparing the design with that of Velcro).
Regarding claim 6, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 5 as applied above. Kobe further discloses said [plurality of] projecting gripping elements of the base mechanical gripping substrate and of the component mechanical gripping substrate are configured to determine a reciprocal male-male coupling or a reciprocal male-female coupling (Figs. 1-2, both fasteners 14 and 16 are the same as each other and each have a plurality of projecting gripping elements 21 (male projections) that are capable of the recited “male-male coupling” when joined together; “to determine” as used in this context includes the meaning of “to provide for”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 6 is the same as for claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 5 as applied above. Fioratti further discloses additional releasable attachment means configured to releasably attach the support to the elastic member (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, elastic member 3 is releasably attached to the base support 2 by Velcro strips V2; this limitation is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes adhesive, glue, mechanical hooks and loops (e.g., Velcro brand fasteners), and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-11; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28; p. 11, lines 15-17)).
Regarding claim 8, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 7 as applied above.
Fioratti further discloses:
said additional releasable attachment means comprise support attachment means present on, or associated with, said support and elastic member attachment counter-means present on, or associated with, said elastic member (Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016, releasable Velcro strips V2 present on the base support 2 attaches it to the elastic member 3 via matching Velcro strips V2 on the elastic member 3; the terms “support attachment means” and “elastic member attachment counter-means” are interpreted under § 112(f), which includes adhesive, glue, mechanical hooks and loops (e.g., Velcro brand fasteners), and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-11; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28; p. 11, lines 15-17)).
Kobe further discloses:
and in that said support attachment means can comprise [a support] mechanical gripping substrate and the [elastic] member attachment counter-means comprise [an elastic member] mechanical gripping substrate (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 (“support attachment means”) including substrate 32 (“support mechanical gripping substrate”) and fastener 12 (“elastic member attachment counter-means”) including substrate 32 (“elastic member mechanical gripping substrate”)),
wherein said support mechanical gripping substrate and said elastic member mechanical gripping substrate are firmly and stably glued to said support and to said elastic member, respectively (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 is glued as recited to element 18 via adhesive 20, fastener 12 is glued to element 16 via adhesive 20),
and each comprises a plurality of gripping elements and a base layer with a planar conformation, so that when they are reciprocally joined they lie on a secondary interface plane, parallel to said main interface plane (Figs. 1-2, both fasteners 14 and 16 are the same as each other and each have a base layer 22 in a planar configuration and a plurality of projecting gripping elements 21 that are capable of the recited function when joined together, where the secondary interface plane is a plane between the two substrates 32 of fasteners 12 and 14; the term “said main interface plane” is interpreted to refer back to the same term in claim 5 (despite the antecedent issue in claim 5)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Fioratti/Kobe combination with the teachings of Kobe by modifying Fioratti to use the releasable fasteners of Kobe instead of the disclosed Velcro strips V2. Fioratti discloses the use of two sets of Velcro strips V1 and V2 (as discussed above and in claims 1, 3, 5, 7), where the second interface plane of Velcro strips V2 is parallel to the main interface plane of Velcro strips V1 (Fioratti Figs. 1-5; ¶¶ 0015-0016)). The obviousness rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 5.
Regarding claim 9, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 7 as applied above. Kobe further discloses said releasable attachment means comprise attachment means of the chemical type and comprise at least one adhesive layer (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 is glued as recited to element 18 via adhesive layer 20, fastener 12 is glued to element 16 via adhesive layer 20; the term “attachment means of the chemical type” is interpreted under § 112(f), which includes adhesive and glue, and equivalents thereof (Spec. Figs. 1-11; p. 7, line 21–p. 8, line 28; p. 11, lines 15-17)).
Regarding claim 11, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 9 as applied above. As modified in the Fioratti/Kobe combination, the limitation “said [adhesive] layer is interposed between said base and said abrasive component, being applied to said base, in particular on a face of said elastic member facing, during use, toward said abrasive component” is satisfied (Kobe Figs. 1-2, as used in the Fioratti/Kobe combination, fastener 14 is glued to the elastic member 3 (part of the base) via adhesive 20, and fastener 12 is glued to the abrasive component 1 via adhesive 20).
Regarding claim 12, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 9 as applied above. Kobe further discloses said releasable attachment means comprise at least one additional adhesive layer interposed between said support and said elastic member, wherein said additional [adhesive] layer is applied on said support, in particular on a face thereof that faces, during use, toward said elastic member (Figs. 1-2, fastener 14 is glued to element 18 via adhesive 20, fastener 12 is glued to element 16 via adhesive 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Fioratti/Kobe combination with the teachings of Kobe by modifying Fioratti to use the releasable fasteners of Kobe instead of the disclosed Velcro strips V2. Fioratti discloses the use of two sets of Velcro strips V1 and V2 (as discussed above and in claims 1, 3, 5, 7). The obviousness rationale for claim 12 is the same as for claim 5.
Fioratti in view of Kobe and Gamba
Claims 10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180071880 A1 (“Fioratti”) in view of US 5691021 A (“Kobe”) and US 20110287700 A1 (“Gamba”).
Fioratti pertains to an abrading tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6). Gamba pertains to an abrading tool (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). These references are in the same field of endeavor. Kobe pertains to a releasable fastener (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2) and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor because it discloses different types of releasable fasteners that could be used to attach an abrasive body to a base or holder (see Fioratti ¶¶ 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 10, the Fioratti/Kobe combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 9 as applied above. Fioratti and Kobe do not explicitly disclose said [adhesive] layer is made with a material that has a softening temperature lower than [a] softening temperature of said support and of said elastic member, and in that said material is cyanoacrylate glue, possibly with the addition of particles of electrically conductive materials. However, the Fioratti/Kobe/Gamba combination makes obvious this claim.
Gamba discloses said [adhesive] layer is made with a material that has a softening temperature lower than [a] softening temperature of said support and of said elastic member, and in that said material is cyanoacrylate glue, possibly with the addition of particles of electrically conductive materials (Figs. 1-7; ¶ 0006-0007, “Normally, the elastic layer is glued, on a first face, to the supporting layer and, on a second face, to the abrasive layer to form a sandwich structure. The adhesive used is normally cyanoacrylate.”; ¶¶ 0028, 0053, the base support 1 is made of plastic and the elastic member 6 is made of rubber; the limitation “possibly with...” is interpreted as optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Gamba with the Fioratti/Kobe combination by using cyanoacrylate glue for the adhesive layers 20 (which Applicant admits has a softening (e.g., melting) temperature of 70°C (Spec. p. 12, lines 10-13)), and to choose plastic and rubber materials for the base support 2 and elastic member 3, respectively, that have a higher softening temperature than the cyanoacrylate glue. Gamba discloses that the base support 1 is made of plastic and the elastic member 6 is made of rubber (Gamba ¶¶ 0028, 0053). Fioratti also discloses that the elastic member 3 is made of rubber (Fioratti ¶ 0012). Although the exact type of rubber and plastic is not disclosed in Gamba and Fioratti, the softening (e.g., melting) temperature of at least some types of rubber (US 4332932 A (“Harada”) 1:27-36, “vulcanized rubber is thermally decomposed at 300°-700° C.”) and plastic (Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, Avallone, Eugene A. et al. (eds.), Tenth Ed., 1996 (“Marks”) pp. 6-185–6-202, e.g., melting temperature for polycarbonate is 150°C) exceed 70°C. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a design choice that takes into consideration the cost and availability of the materials for the base support, elastic member, and the adhesive layers. Applicant has not disclosed that any particular type of plastic or rubber for the base support and elastic member, respectively, provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with various types. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the type of plastic or rubber used, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to this particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as claim 10, except as depending from claim 12 and pertaining to the “additional [adhesive] layer” instead of the “adhesive layer”.
Regarding claim 14, the Fioratti/Kobe/Gamba combination makes obvious the finishing tool of claim 10 as applied above. As modified in the Fioratti/Kobe/Gamba combination, the adhesive layer and the additional adhesive layer (see claim 12-13; see § 112(b) rejection) are capable of the recited function, e.g., being heated by electromagnetic radiation (e.g., thermal radiation or infrared waves) to degrade the adhesiveness of the adhesive layer, thereby meeting the limitation “said [adhesive] layer and/or said additional [adhesive] layer are configured to be subjected to heating methods in order to heat them up to said respective softening temperatures, for example equal to about 70°C, through emission of electromagnetic radiation, in order to determine the thermal degradation of the glue, so that the latter loses its adhesive properties.” (“to determine” as used in this context includes the meaning of “to provide for”). Examiner notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1-14 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to abrasive blocks and releasable fasteners having similar features as the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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 S 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: July 25, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights