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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 Aug 2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, and 21-22 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 1, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation that a portion of the pores “comprise one or more of the shaped abrasive particles”, and the claim also recites “each pore comprises not more than one shaped abrasive particle”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as requiring that at least a portion of the pores have at least one shaped abrasive particle, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-14, and 21-22 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
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) 1-3, 5-6, 8-15 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyras (US 2012/0231691, previously cited) in view of Kaur (US 2016/0008957, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Peyras teaches a nonwoven abrasive article comprising a nonwoven web (100) comprising first fibers having a first diameter and second fibers having a second diameter ([0027]; fibers 110 having “larger diameter” and “smaller diameter”), abrasive particles (130) distributed throughout at least a portion of the nonwoven web (fig 1), wherein the first fibers have a denier of at least about 1 and no greater than about 10 ([0027]; “between one and five”), the second fibers have a denier of at least about 10 ([0027]; “between ten and twenty”), wherein at least a portion of the pores between the fibers independently comprising one or more of the shaped abrasive particles (as shown in fig 2; described in either layer 100 or 300 in [0036]; see 112b rejection above for explanation of interpretation).
Peyras does not teach the abrasive particles comprising shaped abrasive particles. Kaur teaches a nonwoven abrasive article comprising a nonwoven web ([0016]) with shaped abrasive particles ([0013]; “formed” abrasive particles) distributed throughout (fig 1A-1C). 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 shaped abrasive particles in the abrasive article of Peyras, as shaped abrasives are known to exhibit improved material removal rate as compared to standard crushed abrasives as taught by Kaur ([0003-0004]).
Peyras does not teach the first fibers are between ten and 48 weight percent and second fibers between 52 and 90 weight percent of the fibers in the nonwoven web (Peyras teaches a 50/50 ratio; [0068]). However, Peyras teaches the properties of the fibers which can have different diameters ([0027]) can be chosen based on the desired characteristics of the nonwoven web ([0033]). Additionally, Kaur further teaches nonwoven abrasive webs can have fiber dimensions selected based on desired flexibility, durability, abrasiveness, or finishing properties of the abrasive ([0018]) and explicitly recites using abrasive webs having fibers of different diameters (indicating first and second fibers) wherein a first fiber can be used in an amount of 0% to 30%, (and thus second fiber between 70 and 100%) overlapping the claimed range ([0024]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to blend the first and second fibers of Peyras to have first fibers between 10 and 48 weight percent and second fibers between 52 and 90 weight percent, as the prior art of Peyras and Kaur teach combining multiple fiber diameters and selecting the diameters based on the desired abrasive and wear properties of the article, with Kaur explicitly reciting the fiber diameters and mixtures thereof being results effective variables which have a direct effect on the strength, wear, and abrasive characteristics of the article ([0018], [0024]).
Peyras does not teach the first fibers having a homogenous material composition (Peyras uses fibers with a “bicomponent fiber” having a sheath-core configuration [0029]). However, Kaur further teaches nonwoven abrasive articles may use homogenous fibers, and explicitly describes homogenous fibers as a known alternative for bicomponent fibers ([0018]). As homogenous fibers are a known alternative to bicomponent fibers in nonwoven abrasive articles, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the homogenous fibers described by Kaur in place of the bicomponent fibers of Peyras, achieving the predictable result of providing a nonwoven fibrous web suitable for adhering abrasive particles thereto as taught by Kaur ([0018]).
While not explicitly teaching the one or more abrasive particles in each pore independently having a volume of about 50% to 100% of the volume of the pore, Peyras does teach each of the pores is less than 1mm ([0022]) and each of the abrasive particles are less than 1mm ([0036]), indicating that the size of the abrasive particles may approach the size of the pores. Furthermore, “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” (MPEP 2144.05). Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select suitable pore and abrasive particle sizes such that the abrasive particles have a volume that is from 50% to about 100% of the volume of the pore, as pore size and particle size have a direct effect on porosity, density, and abrasive strength of the article.
Regarding claim 2, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kaur further teaches at least a portion of the abrasive particles (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprise one or more substantially flat faces (fig 1C, each shaped abrasive particle has flat sides and edges).
Regarding claim 3, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Kaur further teaches at least a portion of the abrasive particles comprise a substantially flat face (fig 1C, each shaped abrasive particle has flat sides and edges) in contact with one or more of the fibers of the nonwoven web that are substantially parallel to the flat face (as shown in figs 1A-1C; the abrasive particles lay flat on the fibers, with contact between a face and a fiber substantially parallel to the face).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Peyras further teaches the abrasive particles have a particle size of at least 50 microns and less than 1mm ([0036]), overlapping the claimed ranges. “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). Additionally, Kaur further teaches several usable abrasive particle sizes within the claimed ranges ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an abrasive particle size within the claimed ranges, as abrasive particles within these ranges are known to be suitable for use in nonwoven abrasive articles based on the teachings of Peyras and Kaur, and can be selected based on the desired abrasive strength of the article as taught by Peyras ([0038]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above. Kaur further teaches the shaped abrasive particle comprises a perimeter that is polygonal and triangular ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Peyras further teaches a binder (melted portion 112) adhering the abrasive particles (130) to the fibers of the nonwoven web (fig 2; [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Peyras further teaches the article comprising one or more compressed bonded layers of the nonwoven web ([0061] describes compression of layer 230 to form web 100).
Regarding claim 12, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Peyras does not teach the nonwoven abrasive article is a unitized abrasive wheel. Kaur teaches a nonwoven abrasive article in the form of a unitized abrasive wheel ([0014]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven abrasive article of Peyras into a unitized abrasive wheel, as unitized abrasive wheels are known forms of nonwoven abrasive articles exhibiting a higher density as taught by Kaur ([0014]), which can be desirable for some abrasive applications.
Regarding claims 13-14, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Peyras does not teach the abrasive article being in the form of a 6.0 inch diameter 0.5 inch width test wheel. Kaur further teaches the nonwoven abrasive article may take any conventional form, including a wheel having a range of diameters and widths, which can be easily selected as is well known in the art ([0037]). Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the desired size or form of the abrasive article. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven abrasive web into a wheel having the claimed diameter and width, as abrasive wheels can be formed having any desired diameter and width based on the desired application and can be easily selected and varied by a person having ordinary skill in the art as taught by Kaur ([0037]). Regarding the claimed abrading test results indicating a desired wear rate of the abrasive article and cut rate of a carbon steel workpiece, this intended use of the article does not limit the structure of the claimed article. Note that a manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114 II.) Applicant’s specification indicates that the abrasive article having the claimed form is capable of these desired results (applicant’s specification [0104], [0106]). Therefore, as an abrasive article having the claimed form is rendered obvious by Peyras and Kaur as described above, and such an abrasive article is capable of the claimed intended use and test results, these claim elements are rendered obvious as well.
Regarding claim 15, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. While Peyras does not teach a particular volume density in g/in3, Peyras does teach that any suitable thickness and area density of the article can be selected ([0034]; note that the described thickness and area density are factors that define the claimed volume density). “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” (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven abrasive article of Peyras within the claimed density range, as the density of the article has an effect on the flexibility and porosity of the article as taught by Peyras ([0033-0034]).
Regarding claims 21-22, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as described above. While not explicitly teaching the first fibers between 10 and 40 weight percent and the second fibers being between 60 and 90 weight percent, Peyras further teaches the properties of the fibers which can have different diameters ([0027]) can be chosen based on the desired characteristics of the nonwoven web, having a direct effect on how open or compact the article is ([0033]). Additionally, Kaur further teaches nonwoven abrasive webs can have fiber dimensions selected based on desired flexibility, durability, abrasiveness, or finishing properties of the abrasive ([0018]) and explicitly recites using abrasive webs having fibers of different diameters (indicating first and second fibers) wherein a first fiber can be used in an amount of 0% to 30%, (and thus second fiber between 70 and 100%) overlapping the claimed range ([0024]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to blend the first and second fibers of Peyras to have first fibers between 10 and 40 weight percent and second fibers between 60 and 90 weight percent, as the prior art of Peyras and Kaur teach combining multiple fiber diameters and selecting the diameters based on the desired abrasive and wear properties of the article, Kaur explicitly reciting the fiber diameters and mixtures thereof being results effective variables which have a direct effect on the strength, wear, and abrasive characteristics of the article ([0018], [0024]).
Regarding claim 23, Peyras teaches a nonwoven abrasive article comprising two or more compressed bonded layers ([0064] article contains multiple layers; ([0061] describes compression of layer 230 to form web), each comprising: a nonwoven web (500) comprising fibers (110) and pores (“voids”) between the fibers ([0022] explicitly describes pores in layer 300, and layer 100 is described as porous in [0013]), and abrasive particles (130), at least a portion of the pores between the fibers independently comprising one or more of the shaped abrasive particles (as shown in fig 2; described in either layer 100 or 300 in [0036]), the shaped particles have a particle size of at least 50 microns and less than 1mm ([0036], 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). Additionally, Kaur teaches a nonwoven abrasive article including any of several usable abrasive particle sizes within the claimed ranges ([0029]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an abrasive particle size within the claimed ranges, as abrasive particles within these ranges are known to be suitable for use in nonwoven abrasive articles based on the teachings of Peyras and Kaur, and can be selected based on the desired abrasive strength of the article as taught by Peyras ([0038]).
While Peyras does not teach a particular volume density in g/in3, Peyras does teach that any suitable thickness and area density of the article can be selected ([0034]; note that the described thickness and area density are factors that define the claimed volume density). “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” (MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven abrasive article of Peyras within the claimed density range, as the density of the article has an effect on the flexibility and porosity of the article as taught by Peyras ([0033-0034]).
Peyras does not teach the abrasive particles comprising shaped abrasive particles. Kaur teaches a nonwoven abrasive article comprising a nonwoven web ([0016]) with shaped abrasive particles ([0013]; “formed” abrasive particles) distributed throughout (fig 1A-1C). 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 shaped abrasive particles in the abrasive article of Peyras, as shaped abrasives are known to exhibit improved material removal rate as compared to standard crushed abrasives as taught by Kaur ([0003-0004]).
While not explicitly teaching the one or more abrasive particles in each pore independently having a volume of about 50% to 100% of the volume of the pore, Peyras does teach each of the pores is less than 1mm ([0022]) and each of the abrasive particles are less than 1mm ([0036]), indicating that the size of the abrasive particles may approach the size of the pores. Furthermore, “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” (MPEP 2144.05). Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select suitable pore and abrasive particle sizes such that the abrasive particles have a volume that is from 50% to about 100% of the volume of the pore, as pore size and particle size have a direct effect on porosity, density, and abrasive strength of the article.
Peyras does not teach the nonwoven abrasive article is a unitized abrasive wheel. Kaur teaches a nonwoven abrasive article in the form of a unitized abrasive wheel comprising two or more compressed bonded layers ([0014]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the nonwoven abrasive article of Peyras into a unitized abrasive wheel, as unitized abrasive wheels are known forms of nonwoven abrasive articles exhibiting a higher density as taught by Kaur ([0014]), which can be desirable for some abrasive applications.
Regarding claim 24, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as described above. Claim 24 further limits the claimed range of pore and particle sizes, which is discussed in the rejection of claim 23 above and is obvious for substantially the same reasons as described in the rejection of claim 23 above.
Regarding claim 25, Peyras, as modified by Kaur, teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as described above. Kaur further teaches at least a portion of the abrasive particles (included as described in the rejection of claim 1 above) comprise one or more substantially flat faces (fig 1C, each shaped abrasive particle has flat sides and edges).
Regarding claim 26, Peyras, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 23 as described above. Peyras further teaches the fibers comprise bicomponent fibers ([0025]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 Aug 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 23, applicant argues that the prior art does not render obvious the claimed relative volumes of the particles and pores, stating that Peyras and Kaur do not contain “any teaching regarding pore occupancy, pore filling, pore conformity, pore-volume measurement, or selection of particle dimensions relative to pre dimensions so as to achieve the claimed volumetric relationship.” However, the claimed relationship between the particle size and pore size merely requires each particle to independently have a volume that is about 50% to 100% the volume of the pore. As described in Peyras, each of the pores is less than 1mm ([0022]) and each of the abrasive particles are less than 1mm ([0036]), which is a clear indication that the pore size and particle size may approach each other. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill would understand that the pore size would have a direct effect on the overall porosity and density of the article, and the particle size would have a direct effect on the abrasive strength and surface finish of the article. These are the variables which contribute to the claimed volume percentage range. As these variables are easily optimizable, the claimed range would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill. Applicant states that the present specification identifies the particle-to-pore relationship as a structure feature of the claimed abrasive article. However, a general relationship between particle volume and pore volume is inherent to any abrasive article which includes particles and pores. Particles within pores are explicitly shown in fig 2 of Peyras.
Applicant has provided no showing of criticality to the claimed range and provides no disclosure as to how the claimed range provides any unexpected effect over the prior art. In fact, applicant’s specification in paragraph [0043] states “The one or more abrasive particles in each pore can independently have a volume that is about 50% to about 100% of the volume of the pore, or about 90% to about 100% of the volume of the pore, or about 50% or less, or less than, equal to, or greater than about 55%, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 99.9, 99.99, or about 99.999% or more of the volume of the pore.” No importance is placed on any of these disclosed range endpoints, no effect of this range is disclosed, and the disclosed range allows essentially any volume percentage to be used (“less, or less than, equal to, or greater than about 55%...”). Thus, based on applicant’s disclosure, there is no evidence that the apparently arbitrarily claimed range has any particularly notable or unexpected effect compared to the prior art, indicating that the claimed range would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in light of the disclosure of Peyras.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Peyras does not teach the newly claimed limitations regarding the particles in the voids between the fibers. Regarding the relative volumes, these arguments have been addressed above. Applicant additionally argues that Peyras and Kaur do not teach or suggest “each pore comprises not more than one shaped abrasive particle.” However, this directly contradicts the claim limitation requiring “a portion of the pores between the fibers independently comprise one or more of the shaped abrasive particles,” which is also recited in claim 1. These claim limitations are contradictory and raise confusion as to the scope of the claim as detailed in the 112b rejection above. As it is unclear if the claim encompasses an article having no more than one particle in each pore, or having one or more particles in at least a portion of the pores, the claim has been interpreted as encompassing an article wherein at least a portion of the pores have at least one shaped abrasive particle, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5049165 is cited to show an example of an abrasive article having a single particle in each pore.
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
