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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in reply to the amendment filed on 09/17/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1, 5-12, new claims 15-23 are currently pending in this application. New claims 17-23 are method claims, drawn to a method of manufacturing a metal-bonded grinding stone. No prior art was found to teach the common technical feature between the currently amended claim 1 and new claim 17; thus, even though method claims were not part of the original claims, no Election/Restriction is presented.
However, new claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
New claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The original disclosure of the present Application under examination does not provide any support for any method or process of manufacturing a metal-bonded grinding stone. New claims 17-23 are new matter.
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 6-8 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 6 recites, in part, “a plurality of pores are dispersed in a metal bonding material, the plurality of pore including an interconnected pore formed by two or more of the pores communicating with each other”; however, at the same time, the claim recites, in part, “a reinforcing portion provided in the interconnecting pore”. When the pores contain any material, such as the claimed “reinforcing portion”, they are no longer considered “pores”. For this reason, claim 6 is found indefinite because it is not clear as to whether there is any porosity present in the claimed metal bonded grinding stone or not.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim 7 is 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 7 claims, in part, “wherein the reinforcing portion fills at least a part of the interconnected pore so as to be connected to at least a part of the inner surface of the abrasive grains layer forming the interconnecting pore”. Claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 6 recites, in part, “a reinforcing portion provided in the interconnecting pore”. Thus, claim 6 is drawn to all interconnected pores containing a reinforcing portion, but claim 7 claims “at least a part” of the interconnected pores. For these reason, claim 7 is found indefinite
Moreover, claim 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 6 recites, in part, “a plurality of pores are dispersed in a metal bonding material, the plurality of pore including an interconnected pore formed by two or more of the pores communicating with each other”. However, according to claim 7, “at least a part of the interconnecting pore” is filled with reinforcing material. Therefore, how could a grinding stone be considered porous when they are filled with a reinforcing material. For this reason, claim 7 is found indefinite. It is noted that “at least” clearly include all parts of the interconnected pores.
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 7 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 7 depends from claim 6, and claim 6 recites, in part, “a reinforcing portion provided in the interconnecting pore”. Thus, claim 6 is drawn to all interconnected pores containing a reinforcing portion, but claim 7 claims “at least a part” of the interconnected pores. Therefore, claim 7 does not further limit claim 6. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-9, filed 09/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, and 4-5 under 103 obviousness over Ramanath (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0087900) and claims 1, 9, and 10 under 103 obviousness over Furuno have been fully considered, and in view of the amendments, are found persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, due to the amendment made to independent claim 6, claim 6 and its depending claims, i.e. claims 7 and 8, are rejected over multiple 112 rejections as presented above.
Furthermore, new claims 17-23 do not have support in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1, 5, 9-12, and 15-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: A metal-bonded grinding stone comprising an abrasive grain layer in which a plurality of abrasive grains and a plurality of pores are dispersed in a metal bonding material, wherein a porosity of the plurality of pores in the abrasive grain layer is 40% or more and 99% or less,
wherein an average of sphericity of the plurality of pores is 0.5 or more, and
wherein the plurality of pores include an interconnecting pore formed by two or more of the pores communicating with each other.
Claims 6-8 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, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Further search did not result in any new references anticipating or rendering claim 1 obvious. It is important to note that new claim 17 and its dependent claims do not have support in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2003/0194954 to Bonner et al. (hereinafter Bonner) discloses a grinding of mill rolls using abrasive grinding wheels comprising abrasive grains, and pore inducing media such as hollow glass “spheres”, hollow “spheres”, and more which would result in the formation of “at least” 3o% by volume of interconnected porosity (abstract, [0038], [0045]). However, Bonner discloses the use of organic bond, not a metallic bond ([0024], [0039]-[0040]).
NZ 532338 to Ramanath et al. (hereinafter Ramanath) discloses an abrasive segment for a segmented grinding wheel including superabrasive grains and a metal bond matrix wherein the sintered composite comprises 50-80 vol% of interconnected porosity (abstract). However, the reference is silent as to an average sphericity of the pores to be 0.5 or more.
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.”
Conclusion
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 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
