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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14) in the reply filed 06/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-19, 22, 26-27, 31-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/11/2026. With regards to Applicant’s assertion that the express technical relationship between the claimed product and the claimed process for making the product was not adequately addressed, Examiner respectfully indicates that the identification of the special technical feature was correct as presented.
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 13 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.
Specifically, upon researching ASTM test method D418-15 "Standard Test Method for Transition Temperatures and Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry" no results were found. Examiner was able to find ASTM D3418-15 "Standard Test Method for Transition Temperatures and Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry" and for the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 13 will be interpreted to say “D3418-15” instead of “D418-15”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hood (US 20040098923) in view of Kime (US 5109638).
Regarding claim 1, Hood discloses a surface conditioning article comprising:
a fabric backing having first and second opposed major sides (fabric backing defined as reinforcing material 120 which has first and second opposing major sides 122 and 124 respectively [0025] Fig 1);
a lofty open nonwoven fiber web comprising entangled fibers disposed on and secured to the first major side of the fabric backing, wherein at least some of the entangled fibers extend through the fabric backing from the first side to the second side (fiber web 110 comprises entangled fibers 192 which are disposed on and secured to first major side 122 and at least some of the fibers 192 extend through fabric 120 from 122 to 124 as seen in Fig 1 below [0025]);
abrasive particles secured to the lofty open nonwoven fiber web disposed on the first major side, wherein the abrasive particles are secured to the lofty open nonwoven fiber web by a binder material (abrasive particles 135 are secured to the fiber web 110 on first side 122 and secured by a binder material defined as slurry coat 130 [0025] Fig 1),
wherein the entangled fibers extending through the fabric backing have an average diameter (the fibers intrinsically have a diameter and thus a web of fibers would intrinsically have an average diameter).
PNG
media_image1.png
311
439
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Hood fails to disclose at least one raised feature disposed in a regular or random pattern on a minor portion of the second major side of the fabric backing, wherein the at least one raised feature has a height of at least 8 times the average diameter, and wherein the at least one raised feature comprises an organic polymer.
Kime is also concerned with abrasive sheet material and teaches at least one raised feature disposed in a regular or random pattern on a minor portion of the second major side of the fabric backing, and wherein the at least one raised feature comprises an organic polymer (raised feature 22 which is a textured pattern of outer face 20b of backing layer 20 is disposed in a pattern as seen in Figs 1-3 below, col 4 lines 46-54; backing layer 20, which is made of the same material as the raised feature 22, can be made of a latex polymer which is an organic polymer, col 6 lines 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the raised feature of Kime to the surface conditioning article of Hood in order to provide the article with a coated abrasive that will not abrade, erode or otherwise adversely affect the operative surfaces of means used to position the material during use (Kime: col 3 lines 6-9).
PNG
media_image2.png
393
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Kime fails to disclose wherein the at least one raised feature has a height of at least 8 times the average diameter.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the raised feature having a height of at least 8 times the average diameter would result in a difference in function of the Kime device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the surface conditioning article of Kime would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed raised feature having a height of at least 8 times the average diameter. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering other acceptable heights being at least 0.3mm, at least 0.6 mm, from 0.2mm to 2.0mm, 0.25mm to 1.4mm, and 0.3mm to 0.8mm and even stating that the 8 times the average diameter of the fiber as a height is not a requirement (page 10 lines 20-24 of the spec) and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the raised feature of the Kime device to be at least 8 times the average diameter of the fiber as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the surface conditioning article of claim 1 in the form of an endless belt ([0058] explains that the article according to the invention may be processed to provide finished articles including endless belts).
Regarding claim 3, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Hood modified fails to disclose the at least one raised feature extends from 0.3 to 0.8 millimeters away from the second major side of the fabric backing.
Kime teaches the raised feature extends from 0.5mils to 4 mils (roughly 0.01 to 0.10mm) away from the second major side (col 4 lines 1-7) and that the height of the raised feature relative to the second major side may be varied depending on the application and nature of the backing layer (Col 7 lines 13-21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the height of the raised feature of Kime according to the application and nature of the backing layer.
Regarding claim 4, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the organic polymer comprises a thermoset polymer or a thermoplastic polymer (the organic polymer of Kime, as described above, is a latex polymer which is either a thermoplastic polymer or thermoset polymer depending on if the rubber is vulcanized).
Regarding claim 6, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one raised feature further comprises a low friction additive dispersed in the organic polymer (Hood discloses the use of a size coat which contacts porous reinforcing material 120 [0025], that the size coat may contain additives such as a lubricant or grinding aid [0048], and finally that a grinding aid can include materials including graphite [0051] which is known to be a low friction additive, and so because the raised features of Kime are on the second major side of the fabric of Hood, they would also include the size coat of Hood and thus include a low friction additive).
Regarding claim 7, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one raised feature comprises stripes (as seen in Fig 1 of Kime above, the raised feature 22 comprises stripes because 22 defines a relatively long, narrow band of material).
Regarding claim 8, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 7, as described above, and further discloses the stripes are linear, wavy, or parallel (the stripes of raised feature 22, as shown in Kime figure 1 above, contain geometry that is at certain sections linear, wavy and parallel).
Regarding claim 11, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one raised feature comprises an array of discrete elements (the raised feature 22 of Kime, as shown in figure 1 above, comprise an array of discrete elements defined as the individual veins which are distinguishable from one another, discrete was interpreted to mean distinguishable).
Regarding claim 12, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the at least one raised feature comprises a network of interconnected lines (the raised feature of Kime, as shown in figure 1 above, comprise a network of interconnected lines defined by the veins of raised feature 22).
Regarding claim 13, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Hood modified fails to disclose the at least one raised feature exhibits a glass transition temperature that is less than or equal to 60°C according to ASTM test method D418-15 "Standard Test Method for Transition Temperatures and Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry".
Kime teaches the at least one raised feature exhibits a glass transition temperature that is less than or equal to 60°C (col 6 lines 8-18 explain that when latex polymers are used, for the raised feature, they preferably have a glass transition temperature of between -15 to -3°C which falls within the range of the claim). However, Kime fails to teach according to ASTM test method D418-15 "Standard Test Method for Transition Temperatures and Enthalpies of Fusion and Crystallization of Polymers by Differential Scanning Calorimetry".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that although Kime does not explicitly disclose the ASTM test method, it would be expected that the Kime device would perform according to the claimed structure as the glass transition temperature falls well within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Hood, as modified above, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Hood modified fails to disclose the at least one raised feature is disposed on less than 50 percent of the second major side of the fabric backing.
Kime further teaches the at least one raised feature is disposed on less than 50 percent of the second major side of the fabric backing (the textured pattern 22 makes up approximately 10% of the total surface area of the outer face 20b, although it may be more or less depending on the application, col 7 lines 13-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the percentage of the raised feature on the second major side of the fabric backing of Hood to be l0% of the total surface area as taught by Kime so that the raised feature can function as intended as taught in Kime.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, 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.
/J.M.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights