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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 9 contains the phrase “a rigid platform with a grooves” which is grammatically incorrect. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goers (US 6123612).
1. Goers teaches a dressing device (2, see Goers fig. 1 and 4:50-64), comprising:
a metallic porous structural body (matrix 8, see Goers figs. 1-2; matrix 8 may be made from a metallic powder such as stainless steel and includes interstices, see Goers 6:58-7:13);
a plurality of abrasive particles dispersed and embedded onto the metallic porous structural body (abrasive particles 6 are embedded in 8, see Goers figs. 1-2 and Goers 6:58-7:13), wherein each of the abrasive particles is partially exposed on the metallic porous structural body (abrasive particles are exposed, see Goers figs. 1-2 and 6:19-25); and
a brazing filler metal that fills and penetrates into the metallic porous structural body and that bonds with the metallic porous structural body and the plurality of abrasive particles (matrix material includes brazing alloy, see Goers 6:58-7:13);
wherein materials that constitute the metallic porous structural body and the brazing filler metal have at least one common constituent element (brazing alloy includes chromium, which is also present in stainless steel, which is used as the metal powder forming the non-braze part of the body, see Goers 6:58-7:13).
2. Goers teaches the dressing device according to claim 1, wherein intermetallic compounds are formed between the brazing filler metal and the metallic porous structural body (Goers 4:65-5:22), and between the brazing filler metal and the plurality of abrasive particles (because the intermetallic compounds are formed at the interfaces between the stainless steel powder and the brazing alloy, at least some would be formed in a spatial location between at least some of the brazing metal and at least some abrasive particles, see Goers 6:58-7:13).
3. Goers teaches the dressing device according to claim 1, wherein the materials that constitute the metallic porous structural body include nickel, iron, copper, nickel alloy, iron alloy, copper alloy, titanium alloy, foamed nickel, foamed titanium, or foamed stainless steel (steel includes iron, see Goers 6:58-7:13; note that Goers also discloses the use of nickel, nickel alloys, and titanium alloys).
7. Goers teaches a conditioning assembly (Goers fig. 3), comprising:
a base body (14); and
the dressing device (combination of 6, 8, and 12, see Goers fig. 3) according to claim 1, wherein the dressing device is disposed on the base body (6, 8, and 12, are disposed on 14, see Goers fig. 3).
8. Goers teaches the conditioning assembly according to claim 7, wherein materials that constitute the base body include stainless steel, metal alloy, ceramic material, or engineering plastic (14 is made of stainless steel, Goers 5:48-61).
9. Goers teaches the conditioning assembly according to claim 7, further comprising an adhesive disposed between the base body and the dressing device, wherein the adhesive is used to bond the base body and the dressing device (12 is attached to 14 with an adhesive such as epoxy, Goers 5:48-61).
10. Goers teaches the conditioning assembly according to claim 9, wherein the adhesive is another brazing filler metal or polymer adhesive (AF-163-2K aerospace epoxy, which is a polymer adhesive, see Goers 5:48-61).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goers as evidenced by Rifaut et al. (US PGPub 2019/0375072, "Rifaut").
5. Goers teaches the dressing device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that a melting point of the metallic porous structural body is at least 100°C higher than a melting point of the brazing filler metal.
However, Goers does teach that the sintered corrosion resistant powder should not melt at the temperatures in which the brazing alloy melts (Goers 6:19-55), that brazing alloys should be expected to melt in the temperature range of 500ºC to 1200ºC (Goers 4:1-11), and that the corrosion resistant powder may be a stainless steel powder (Goers 6:58-7:13), having a melting point in the range of about 1360-1450° C (Rifaut [0099]), which is more than 100ºC higher than the maximum temperature used for brazing, which involves melting the brazing filler metal. Goers consequently teaches the use of a metallic porous structural body with a melting point at least 100°C higher than the melting point of the brazing filler metal.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 10730164, "Xiao").
4. Goers teaches the dressing device according to claim 1, wherein the metallic porous structural body is a compressed structure (structure is pressurized, Goers 6:19-55), but does not teach that it has a porosity of less than 50%.
However, Xiao teaches a method of forming an abrasive article including steps of forming a porous (Xiao 5:57-6:7), precursor body via pressing (Xiao 4:41-65) from metal and abrasive articles (Xiao 5:38-45), before infiltrating it with a material such as a brazing alloy (Xiao 6:8-37), wherein the body has a porosity of less than 50% (Xiao 5:57-6:7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Goers according to the teachings of Xiao regarding a suitable range of porosity for a compressed metallic porous structural body such that it had a porosity of less than 50%, as doing so represents the use of a known technique (controlling the precursor body porosity within a defined range) to improve similar devices in the same way, with the results of such an improvement being predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (US 8721395, "Wu").
6. Goers teaches the dressing device according to claim 1, but does not teach that the flatness of the metallic porous structural body is less than 50 μm.
However, Wu teaches that it is desirable for a conditioner surface to be as flat as possible (Wu 1:50-62).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ensured that a flatness of the metallic porous structural body was less than 50 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05(II) The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flatness which achieves the recognized result of improved consistency of conditioning (Wu 1:50-62), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Further, the disclosure provides no evidence indicating the claimed range is critical.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica 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.
/JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights