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 .
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “axis of the bottom plate” and “common axis” of claim 1 and 8 of any Figure must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
2. Claims 1-10 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. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected bas claim.
3. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of bosses (6) are evenly spaced around the axis of the bottom plate (1)”. It is unclear to the examiner as to where exactly is the “axis of the bottom plate”. An axis could be taken at any point in any direction in a 3-dimensional object. Therefore, claim is rendered indefinite. As best understood from the specification and Figures 3-6 the axis will be placed at the center of screw hole, in the vertical direction from the nut to the bolt and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
4. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the axis of the bottom plate” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Therefore, “the axis of the bottom plate” has not been established prior by the applicant, which renders the claim indefinite.
5. Claim 8 recites the limitation “their common axis” of the bottom plate and cover plate in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Therefore, “their common axis” has not been established prior by the applicant, which renders the claim indefinite.
6. Claim 8 recites the limitation “common axis” of the bottom and cover plate. It is unclear to the examiner as to where exactly is the “common axis”. An axis could be taken at any point in any direction in a 3-dimensional object. Therefore, claim is rendered indefinite. As best understood from the specification and Figures 3-6 the axis will be placed at the center of screw hole, in the vertical direction from the nut to the bolt, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 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)(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.
8. Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Foreign Reference (JP 3811463 B2). Foreign Reference will be referred to as “FR” for examination purposes.
9. Regarding claim 1, FR discloses a lightweight combined type grinding wheel comprising:
a bottom plate (cutting blade plate 2, Figure 6), a cover plate (elastic body 4, Figure 6) and an adapter (spindle 13a and male screw 13b, Figure 6);
wherein, the bottom plate (cutting blade plate 2, Figure 2) and the cover plate (elastic body 4, Figure 6) are coaxially fitted and detachably connected via the adapter (see Figure 6, wherein cutting blade plate 2 and elastic body 4 are connected coaxially via the spindle 13a and male screw 13b through intermediary means).
a plurality of bosses (cutting blade 3, Figure 2) are formed on a surface of the bottom plate (“the polishing tool 10 is rotated by a cutting blade plate 2 on a disc having a cutting blade 3 for polishing a surface”, paragraph [0020] Figure 2) facing away from the cover plate (cutting blades 3 protrude away from elastic body 4. Figure 6);
the plurality of bosses (cutting blade 3, Figure 2) are evenly spaced around the axis of the bottom plate (see bottom view of polishing tool 10 in Figure 2, wherein cutting blades are evenly spaced apart around cutting edge portion 2a);
abrasive grains are laid on the top surface of each of the bosses (wherein “a hard abrasive grain 3a made of diamond particles”, paragraph [0033], Figure 2);
the bosses (cutting blade 3, Figure 2) are spaced from each other, and a chip groove is formed between two adjacent bosses (see Figure 2, wherein there is a space between two adjacent cutting blades 3, which forms a chip groove);
the chip groove (space between two adjacent cutting blades 3, Figure 2) is used to discharge grinding chips generated by grinding (it is understood that spaces between cutting blades 3 can also allow for grinding chips to be dispersed away from workpiece).
PNG
media_image1.png
589
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 (Foreign Reference FR)
PNG
media_image2.png
575
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 (Foreign Reference FR)
10. Regarding claim 2, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, and further discloses:
a plurality of weight-reducing holes (plurality of holes 5, wherein it is “effective for weight reduction”, paragraph [0026], Figure 2) are provided on both of the bottom plate and the cover plate (see Figure 4a where a similar embodiment shows hole 5 passing through both cutting blade part and elastic body, also shown but not annotated in Figure 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
541
827
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4a (Foreign Reference FR)
11. Regarding claim 3, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1 and further
the abrasive grains (abrasive grain 3a, Figure 2) are diamond abrasive grains (wherein “a hard abrasive grain 3a made of diamond particles”, paragraph [0033], Figure 2);
However, FR does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the diamond abrasive grains are fixed to the top surface of the bosses (6) by brazing.
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. the grinding wheel, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the placement of abrasive grains through brazing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966
12. Regarding claim 8, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the centers of the bottom plate (cutting blade plate 2, Figure 6) and the cover plate (elastic body 4, Figure 6) are both concaved along their common axis in a direction opposite to a protruding direction of the bosses (cutting blade 6, Figure 6) so as to form a mounting portion (see Figure 6, wherein both cutting blade plate 2 and elastic and elastic body concave upwards towards the spindle 13a, which is opposite to the direction of protruding cutting blades 3);
and the adapter (spindle 13a and male screw 13b, Figure 6) comprises a bolt (spindle 13a, Figure 6) and a nut (nut 15), which are fitted so as to lock (through intermediary means) the bottom plate (cutting blade plate 2, Figure 6) and the cover plate (elastic body 4, Figure 6);
the bolt (male screw 13b) is used to connect the lightweight combined type grinding wheel to other devices (see Figure 6, wherein polishing tool comprising cutting blade 2 and elastic body 4 is connected to electric tool 13 via spindle 13a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
13. 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.
14. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 3811463 B2) in view of Chen (CN 112548883 A). Foreign Reference will be referred to as “FR” for simplicity purposes.
15. Regarding claim 4, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the top surface of the bosses is elliptical.
Chen is also concerned with a grinding too wherein it has protruding bosses at the bottom plate with abrasive. Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein the top surface of the bosses (polishing layer 022) is elliptical (wherein” the pattern of the grinding layer 022 can also be other block shapes”, paragraph [0040]). Additionally, Figure 4, provided below demonstrates that the shape of polishing layer is elliptical.
FR discloses a bottom plate with a plurality rectangular-shaped cutting blades with diamond grains for grinding/polishing. Chen teaches a bottom surface with plurality of elliptical shaped polishing layers in a similar function to polish a workpiece. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to have substituted the elliptical shaped polishing layer/bosses for the rectangular shaped cutting blades as a simple substitution of a known element to produce the predictable result of effective grinding/polishing via abrasive grains disposed on bosses of a grinding/polishing tool.
PNG
media_image4.png
546
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Chen)
16. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 3811463 B2) in view of Qiu (CN 113714943 A).
17. Regarding claim 5, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, however, it does not disclose wherein:
that the top surface of the bosses is arrow-shaped.
Qiu is also concerned with a grinding wheel with a plurality of bosses at a bottom surface used for grinding. Furthermore, Qiu discloses wherein that the top surface of the bosses (diamond cutter head 5) is arrow-shaped (“the diamond cutter head is an arrow-shaped structure”, paragraph [0024], Figure 1).
FR discloses a bottom plate with a plurality rectangular-shaped cutting blades with diamond grains for grinding/polishing. Qiu teaches a bottom surface with plurality of arrow shaped cutting heads in a similar function to grind/polish a workpiece. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to have substituted the arrow shaped cutting head/bosses for the rectangular shaped cutting blades as a simple substitution of a known element to produce the predictable result of effective grinding/polishing via abrasive grains disposed on bosses of a grinding/polishing tool.
PNG
media_image5.png
669
737
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 (Qiu)
18. Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 3811463 B2) in view of Qiu (CH 660147 A5).
19. Regarding claim 6, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, however, it does not disclose wherein:
that the top surface of the bosses is trapezoidal.
Brandt is also concerned with a grinding tool with bosses disposed at a bottom surface with abrasive elements. Furthermore, Brandt discloses wherein the top surface of the bosses is trapezoidal (see Figure 3c, wherein grinding element 45 is trapezoidal).
FR discloses a bottom plate with a plurality rectangular-shaped cutting blades with diamond grains for grinding/polishing. Brandt teaches a bottom surface with plurality of trapezoidal shaped grinding elements in a similar function to grind/polish a workpiece. It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to have substituted the trapezoidal shaped grinding lining elements/bosses for the rectangular shaped cutting blades as a simple substitution of a known element to produce the predictable result of effective grinding/polishing via abrasive grains disposed on bosses of a grinding/polishing tool.
PNG
media_image6.png
305
345
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 3c (Brandt)
20. Regarding claim 7, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 6, however, it does not disclose wherein:
the number of the bosses is six or eight.
Brandt further teaches wherein the number of bosses (grinding lining elements 45) is six or eight (see Figure 3c, wherein the amount of trapezoidal grinding lining elements is 8).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to have further configure FR in view of Brandt to have 6 or 8 bosses. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply the appropriate number of bosses required for effective grinding.
21. Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foreign Reference (JP 3811463 B2) in view of Kobayashi (WO 2023008386 A1).
22. Regarding claim 9, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, however it does not disclose wherein:
the thickness of the cover plate (2) is between 3 mm and 6 mm.
Kobayashi discloses a rotary tool to be spun on a shaft wherein comprises a plurality of grindstone at a bottom surface for grinding. Furthermore, Kobayashi discloses wherein the thickness of the cover plate (wherein “thickness of the resin substrate 11 is t1… the thickness t1 is 1.4”, paragraph [0023], Figure 5).
However, Kobayashi does not explicitly disclose that the thickness of cover plate is between 3 mm and 6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the cover plate of the grinding/polishing tool of FR to be 1.4 mm as taught by Kobayashi, and further have the thickness of the cover plate be between 3 mm and 6 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the thickness of the cover plate to be structurally and functionally secure.
PNG
media_image7.png
347
593
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 (Kobayashi)
23. Regarding claim 10, FR discloses the lightweight combined type grinding wheel of claim 1, however it does not disclose wherein:
the thickness of the bottom plate is between 0.8 mm and 1.5 mm.
Kobayashi discloses a rotary tool to be spun on a shaft wherein comprises a plurality of grindstone at a bottom surface for grinding. Furthermore, Kobayashi discloses wherein the thickness of the bottom plate (wherein “the thickness of the holding plate 21 is t2… thickness t2 is 1 mm”, paragraph [0023], Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to configure the bottom plate of the grinding/polishing tool of FR to be 1 mm as taught by Kobayashi, and further have the thickness of the cover plate be between 3 mm and 6 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on claimed range, and since it has been held that "in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)", MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would be able to adjust the thickness of the cover plate to be structurally and functionally secure.
Conclusion
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kimoto (US 20130331015) discloses a grinding wheel rotated on a shaft wherein comprises a plurality of bosses at a bottom surface of grinding tool.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEGO J NG whose telephone number is (571)270-0802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Fri 7:30am - 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.
/D.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights