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 .
Drawings
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 abrasive particles having a shape comprising a central region and a plurality of arms extending from the central region (claims 3-4) 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 Objections
Claims 22-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: The first line of each of these claims should start with the phrase “The coated abrasive article of…” for consistency with the rest of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 22-23 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.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “a theoretical density of at least 95%.” It is unclear what the claimed “theoretical density” is and how it is calculated. How is a theoretical density calculated, and what is it compared to in order to determine a percentage? Applicant’s specification describes a density of the abrasive particles being compared to a theoretical density (original spec [00119]), but does not describe what the “theoretical density” actually is. This makes the scope of the claim unclear.
Further regarding claim 22, the claim recites “a P1/P3 value of at least 4 and not greater than 10.” It is unclear what a “P1/P3 value” is. There is no antecedent basis for P1 or P3 and it is unclear what these values are intended to represent. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 23 is rejected as indefinite due to its dependency upon rejected claim 22.
Further regarding claim 23, the claim recites “a tertiary orientation value (P1/P3) of at least 5.0 and not greater than 11.” It is unclear if the newly introduced “tertiary orientation value (P1/P3)” in claim 23 is the same as the “P1/P3 value” of claim 22. It is unclear what “a tertiary orientation value” is, and similarly as described in the rejection of claim 21 above, it is unclear what P1/P3 is. What metric is being defined here? If the claimed abrasive article has a “tertiary” orientation value, is a secondary orientation value also necessary to meet the claim? Furthermore, claim 23 recites a range of “at least 5.0 and not greater than 11,” while claim 22 defines a range of “at least 4 and not greater than 10.” If the “P1/P3 value” of claim 22 is the same as the “tertiary orientation value” of claim 23, the range recited in claim 23 expands the upper limit of the range recited in claim 22 rather than further narrowing the range, which renders the desired scope of the claim unclear. For the purposes of this examination, these limitations will be interpreted as best can be understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10-13, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adefris (US 2010/0151196, previously cited) in view of Bauer (US 2016/0362589, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Adefris teaches a coated abrasive article comprising: a backing (42); and abrasive particles (20) overlying the backing (as shown in figs 1C and 4C), wherein the abrasive particles have a random rotational orientation ([0039]; “randomly distributed and rotated”) and the abrasive particles are oriented at a tilt angle of greater than 44 degrees and not greater than 90 degrees ([0043] the tilt angles are equal to 180 minus the described “draft angles” shown in fig 4C; since the draft angles of the particles are 120, 110, and 100 degrees, the tilt angles are 60, 70, and 80 degrees, which are all greater than 44 degrees as claimed).
While Adefris does not explicitly teach at least 1% and not greater than 13% of the abrasive particles are oriented at a tilt angle within a range of 0 to 44 degrees (and thus 87-99% of the abrasive particles having the tilt angle of greater than 44 degrees), Adefris does describe that the invention can be practiced with a portion of the particles not having the sloped sidewalls which are responsible for the upright tilt angle ([0065]), and recognizes that the tilt angle of the abrasives has a direct effect on the cutting performance of the abrasive article ([0050-0051]). Bauer further teaches a coated abrasive article including abrasive particles (505) oriented at a tilt angle (fig 6), wherein at least 82% of the abrasive particles are formed with an upright tilt angle ([0310]), and between 1% and 18% of the abrasive particles are not oriented at the tilt angle ([0309-0310]; “at least 82%” and “not greater than about 99%” of abrasive particles oriented with the desired upright tilt angle, indicating between 1% and 18% of the particles are not upright, overlapping the claimed range). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that at least 87% of the abrasive particles of Adefris are oriented with the tilt angle of between 44 and 90 degrees, at least 1% and not greater than 13% of the abrasive particles of Adefris may be tilted at an angle not greater than 44 degrees, as both Adefris ([0065]) and Bauer ([0309-0310]) teach that the increased cutting performance achieved by higher tilt angles can be achieved with less than 100% of the particles being tilted. Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 2-4, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Adefris further teaches the abrasive particles include a first type of abrasive particle comprising shaped abrasive particles ([0055]); wherein the shaped abrasive particles have a shape comprising a central region and a plurality of arms including at least three arms extending from the central region ([0055]; described as “star-shaped” particles).
Regarding claim 5, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Adefris further teaches each of the shaped abrasive particles have a body (shown in figs 4A, 4B), wherein each body comprises a length (length of bottom side in fig 4A), a width (total vertical width in fig 4A), and a height (total vertical height as viewed in fig 4B), wherein l ≥ w ≥ h (as shown in figs 4A, 4B; and described [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Adefris further teaches at least 1% of the abrasive particles are oriented at a tilt angle within a range of greater than 44 degrees to 71 degrees ([0040]; majority of particles are tilted “approximately 60 degrees”).
Regarding claim 10-13, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Adefris further teaches the abrasive particles include primary particles comprising shaped abrasive particles (fig 4C; all particles are shaped abrasive particles) and secondary particles distinct from the primary particles (fig 4C, aligned on distinct draft angles as described [0042]) having an aspect ratio of at least 1.1:1 ([0057] length A and width 0.25A results in aspect ratio of 4:1) and wherein at least a portion of the secondary particles have an upright orientation (upright as shown in fig 4C); at least 5% (as shown in fig 4C, all of the particles, including secondary particles have the claimed tilt angle) of the secondary particles are oriented at a tilt angle within a range of 44 to 90 degrees ([0043]; secondary particles with draft angle 60 equal to 100 degrees have a tilt angle of 180-100 = 80 degrees); wherein at least 5% of the secondary particles are oriented at a tilt angle of 71 to 90 degrees ([0043]; secondary particles with draft angle 60 equal to 100 degrees have a tilt angle of 180-100 = 80 degrees); and wherein not greater than 50% of the secondary particles are oriented at a tilt angle of not greater than 44 degrees ([0043] considering the upright particles with the draft angle of 100 degrees are the secondary particles, all of these particles have a tilt angle over 44 degrees, as the tilt angle is 180-100 = 80 degrees).
Regarding claim 21, Adefris, as modified by Bauer, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 21 narrows the range which is rendered obvious by the combination of Adefris and Bauer as detailed above, and is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described above.
Regarding claim 22, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Adefris further teaches the abrasive particles comprise shaped abrasive particles comprising a polygonal shape with a central region and a plurality of arms extending from the central region ([0055]; described as “star-shaped” particles), and wherein the shaped abrasive particles comprise alumina ([0041]), and a P1/P3 value of 1.15 to about 10.0 (see 112b rejection above; as there is no definition of P1 or P3 or indication of what the claimed value is, it appears the aspect ratio described by Adefris satisfies the claimed range), overlapping the claimed range (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”; MPEP 2144.05 I.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed P1/P3 value in the abrasive article of Adefris, as Adefris teaches an overlapping range, and that it is known that the aspect ratio has a direct result on the cutting performance of the article ([0057]).
While Adefris does not explicitly teach at least 1% and not greater than 10% of the abrasive particles are oriented at a tilt angle within a range of 0 degrees to 44 degrees, and wherein at least 89% and not greater than 98% of the abrasive particles are oriented at a tilt angle within a range of greater than 44 degrees to 90 degrees, these limitations are narrowing of the ranges discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, and are obvious for similar reasons as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1. Specifically, Adefris does describe that the invention can be practiced with a portion of the particles not having the sloped sidewalls which are responsible for the upright tilt angle ([0065]), and recognizes that the tilt angle of the abrasives has a direct effect on the cutting performance of the abrasive article ([0050-0051]). Bauer further teaches a coated abrasive article including abrasive particles (505) oriented at a tilt angle (fig 6), wherein at least 82% of the abrasive particles are formed with an upright tilt angle ([0310]), and between 1% and 18% of the abrasive particles are not oriented at the tilt angle ([0309-0310]; “at least 82%” and “not greater than about 99%” of abrasive particles oriented with the desired upright tilt angle, indicating between 1% and 18% of the particles are not upright, overlapping the claimed range). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that 89-98% of the abrasive particles of Adefris are oriented with the tilt angle of between 44 and 90 degrees, and 1-10% of the abrasive particles of Adefris may be tilted at an angle not greater than 44 degrees, as both Adefris ([0065]) and Bauer ([0309-0310]) teach that the increased cutting performance achieved by higher tilt angles can be achieved with less than 100% of the particles being tilted. Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed ranges.
While Adefris describes the abrasive particles comprise alumina ([0041]), Adefris is silent as to a wt%, theoretical density, and crystallite size of the abrasive. However, it is obvious to select “a known material based on its suitability for its intended use” (MPEP 2144.07). Bauer teaches a coated abrasive article including shaped abrasive particles comprising at least 90 wt% alumina ([0151]), and further comprising a theoretical density of at least 95% (see 112b rejection above; as best understood, the wt% of at least 95% disclosed by Bauer in [0151] would result in the density of the particle being at least 95% a theoretical density) and an average crystallite size within a range of at least 0.01 microns and not greater than 2 microns (range anticipated as described [0118]). As Adefris desires a shaped abrasive particle comprising alumina, and Bauer teaches a shaped alumina particle with the claimed wt% of at least 90, theoretical density of at least 95%, and crystallite size between 0.01 and 2 microns being suitable for the intended purpose of providing abrasion in a coated abrasive article, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an abrasive particle with the claimed properties to achieve the predictable result of providing a suitable abrasive to the coated abrasive article.
Regarding claim 23, Adefris, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 22 as described above. The tertiary orientation value of claim 23 appears to be a further limitation of the P1/P3 value recited in claim 22 (see 112b rejection above), and is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 22 above. Specifically, Adefris teaches a P1/P3 value of 1.15 to about 10.0 (see 112b rejection above; as there is no definition of P1 or P3 or indication of what the claimed tertiary orientation value is, it appears the aspect ratio described by Adefris satisfies the claimed range), overlapping the claimed range (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”; MPEP 2144.05 I.). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed P1/P3 value in the abrasive article of Adefris, as Adefris teaches an overlapping range, and that it is known that the aspect ratio has a direct result on the cutting performance of the article ([0057]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adefris and Bauer as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Keipert (US 2012/0231711, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Adefris teaches all the elements of claim 2 as described above. Adefris further teaches the shaped abrasive particles (20) can be mixed with a second type of known abrasive particles ([0065]), but does not explicitly teach the second type of abrasive particle comprising randomly shaped abrasive particles. Keipert teaches a coated abrasive articles including a second type of abrasive particle (48) comprising randomly shaped particles (fig 1D). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional randomly shaped abrasive particles to the coated abrasive article of Adefris, as using a mixture of abrasives including randomly shaped particles can increase performance cost ratio and control abrasive breakdown rates as taught by Keipert ([0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Jul 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that Adefris does not anticipate the claimed ranges of at least 87% of the abrasive particles having a high tilt angle of between 44 and 90 degrees and 1-13% of the abrasive particles having a low tilt angle below 44 degrees. However, as detailed in the rejection above, the combined teachings of Adefris and Bauer render these ranges obvious. In particular, Adefris implies that the coated abrasive article can achieve improved cutting performance even if not all of the particles have the high tilt angle shown in fig 4, and Bauer explicitly describes a range of 82-99% of the particles having an upright orientation, which overlaps the claimed ranges. Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed ranges. Applicant further argues that the draft angle of Adefris does not determine the tilt angle, arguing that the figures of Adefris show idealized versions of the coated abrasive article. However, Adefris explicitly describes the draft angle dictating the tilt angle (“orientation angle”) due to the fact that the particles rest on the sidewall which forms the draft angle ([0004-0005], [0043]). Furthermore, the teachings of Bauer explicitly disclose a range which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Therefore, the prior art as a whole renders the claimed ranges obvious for a person of ordinary skill.
Applicant provides several arguments as to the method of forming the abrasive article and the disclosure of Adefris. However, the claimed invention is directed towards the coated abrasive article rather than to the method of making it. Additionally, as the current rejection is based on a combination of references, the arguments against Adefris alone are not sufficient to overcome the rejection which is based on the combined teachings of Adefris and Bauer.
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 MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723