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.
Invitation for an Examiner Interview
If Applicant believes anything contained herein is unclear or incorrect the Examiner encourages Applicant to schedule a telephonic interview.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Yener (US20150218430A1 – previously of record), Chatterjee (US20120190597A1 – previously of record), and Martin (US4334447A – previously of record) fails to teach the disclosed invention because Chatterjee teaches away from using the cutting techniques as claimed and specifically teaches against cutting extrudate at all, citing paragraph 0115 of Chatterjee (pg 4 last paragraph continuing on page 5). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111. As applied to the instant application, claim 1 requires “cutting the extrudate from the extruder into green particles as it passes through one or more rotating cutters before it contacts any conveyor” and “wherein the one or more rotating cutters are placed below the extruder and comprise a first rotating cutter comprising a cylindrical body and a plurality of cutting blades spaced around an outer periphery of the cylindrical body” (see claim 1 of the instant application). The term “cutter” must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation. While the current specification appears to disclose elongate cutting blades extending radially from the cylinder body (see Fig. 1 of the current application), no corresponding limitation is present in the claims. Chatterjee explicitly teaches “wherein said separating is performed at least partially by a blade or edge brought into contact with the flow or movement of extrudate” (claim 27 of Chatterjee, emphasis added), that the dividing of material can include “separately or in any combination 1) A blade, edge, or other mechanical device brought into contact with the flow or movement of material” (para 0095-0096, emphasis added), and “[t]he mechanism of the present invention for dividing the extrudates to pre-determined lengths occurs not by shear, but, for instance, by localized compression of the extrudate between profiles blades” (para 0016, emphasis added). As such, the disclosure of Chatterjee teaches the rotating cutter within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Additionally, Chatterjee indicates the prior cutting mechanisms are inferior for the purpose of the invention rather than teaching away from the prior cutting operations but that “a crimping operation would be needed when making a proppant that comprises a core and layer or a proppant with multi-layers” (Chatterjee para 0015, See MPEP §2131.05 and §2145.X.D).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
All rejections have been maintained from the Office Action dated 10/01/2025.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-11, 13-18, 20, 23, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yener (US20150218430A1 – previously of record) in view of Chatterjee (US20120190597A1 – previously of record) and Martin (US4334447A – previously of record).
In reference to claims 1 and 24:
Yener discloses a method for forming shaped abrasive particles (abstract) comprising:
forming a mixture comprising a precursor ceramic material (para 0043);
extruding the mixture through a shaped opening to form an extrusion having a cross-sectional shape corresponding to the shaped opening (paras 0044-0046);
cutting the extrusion into green particles (para 0057); and
drying the green particles to form shaped abrasive particles (para 0074).
Yener discloses that the in one embodiment the cutting can include “one or a plurality of blades” (para 0057).
Yener does not disclose wherein the cutting of the extrudate is performed as it passes through one or more rotating cutters before it contacts any conveyor (Yener does not appear to disclose any specific operation of the “plurality of blades”) or wherein the one or more rotating cutters are placed below the extruder and comprise a first rotating cutter comprising a cylindrical body and a plurality of cutting blades spaced around an outer periphery of the cylinder body (claim 1), wherein the one or more rotating cutters comprises a second rotating cutter comprising a cylindrical body and a plurality of cutting blades spaced around an outer periphery of the cylindrical body (claim 24), or wherein the extruder is spaced apart from the one or more rotating cutters (claim 25). However, this would have been obvious in view of Chatterjee. Chatterjee teaches an extrusion method for producing shaped ceramics (abstract) which is particularly useful for achieving a uniform or substantially uniform outer surface (para 0116). Chatterjee further teaches cutting the extrudate using first and second rotating cutters before it contacts any conveyor and wherein the one or more rotating cutters are placed below the extruder and comprise a first rotating cutter comprising a cylindrical body and a plurality of cutting blades spaced around an outer periphery of the cylinder body, the extruder being spaced apart from the rotating cutters (para 0116 discussing the use of blades for dividing the extrudate, Fig. 7 upper diagram showing a vertical assembly with the rotating cutters placed below the extruder. As the extrudate is shown without inclusion of the extruder, it is the Examiner’s position a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the extruder is “spaced apart” from the cutting blades). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rotating blades taught by Chatterjee for the “plurality of blades” taught by Yener in order to obtain a method which is particularly useful for achieving a uniform or substantially uniform outer surface.
Modified Yener does not teach wherein the one or more rotating cutters have a release agent applied to the cutting blades. However, this would have been obvious in view of Martin. Martin teaches a method of cutting extruded materials into smaller segments (col 2 ln 40-61). Martin further teaches coating the cutting blades with a suitable release agent in order to prevent the extruded material from sticking to the cutting blades (col 4 ln 61-col 5 ln 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of modified Yener with the release agent of Marin in order to obtain a method which prevents sticking of the extruded material during cutting.
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the method further includes collecting the shaped abrasive particles in a collection receptacle (para 0077, bin 127).
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles are translated to a post- forming process including sintering (para 0078), doping (para 0082), or drying (para 0082).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles are translated through an application zone wherein a dopant material is applied (para 0082).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the method further includes sintering the shaped abrasive particles (para 0078).
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles have substantially the same arrangement of surfaces and edges relative to each other (para 0109, “the features, such as the protrusions 721 and grooves 722 can have a generally similar size and shape”).
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles have a two- dimensional shape, as viewed in a plane defined by the length and width of the body, including a polygonal shape, ellipsoidal shape, a numeral, a Greek alphabet character, a Latin alphabet character, a Russian alphabet character, a complex shape utilizing a combination of polygonal shapes and a combination thereof (para 0154).
In reference to claim 11:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the precursor ceramic material comprises an oxide, a nitride, a carbide, a boride, an oxycarbide, an oxynitride, and a combination thereof (para 0038).
In reference to claim 13:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the viscosity is not greater than 1x10^7 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture has a viscosity of at least about 2×10^3 Pa s. However, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. As applied to the instant application, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art.
In reference to claim 14:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein drying is conducted at a drying temperature of not greater than about 300° C (para 0074).
In reference to claim 15:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles comprises at least about 80 wt % alpha alumina (para 0078).
In reference to claim 16:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles consist essentially of alpha alumina (para 0078).
In reference to claim 17:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles are essentially free of a binder material (“consist essentially of alpha alumina” indicates the particles are “essentially free” of other materials, including a binder material).
In reference to claim 18:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles are incorporated into a fixed abrasive article (paragraphs 0138, 0228).
In reference to claim 20:
In addition to the discussion of claim 10, above, Yener further discloses wherein the shaped abrasive particles are triangular (paras 0080, 0084).
In reference to claim 23:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Yener does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of cutting blades are equally spaced around an outer periphery of the cylindrical body. However, Chatterjee generally discloses the cutting blades are spaced apart from one another (Fig. 7, para 0116). It is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to equally space the cutting blades around the outer periphery of the cylindrical body in order to obtain a method which produces equal sized sections.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yener, Chatterjee, and Martin as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Clark (US6311411 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Yener fails to disclose wherein drying comprises dropping the green particles through a vertical air dryer to form precursor shaped abrasive particles. However, this is taught by Clark. Clark teaches a vertical air dryer for drying particulate material (abstract) which utilizes an updraft fan (col 2 ln 23-29; Fig. 3 numeral 120). Clark further teaches the use of a vertical air dryer allows for cost and operational advantages including removal of fines (col 2 ln 5-22, col 6 ln 34-41). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the vertical air dryer of Clark into the method of Yener in order to obtain a method which removes fines from the particulate stream.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yener, Chatterjee, and Martin as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Welygan (US20060156634 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, modified Yener does not explicitly teach a drive mechanism for the rotating cutters and therefor does not teach wherein the cylindrical body is mounted on an axle and wherein the cylindrical body rotates around the axle during operation. However, the use of an axle for driving a cylindrical member is well known in the art. For example, Welygan teaches a method and apparatus for making an abrasive product (abstract). Welygan further teaches utilizing a drive shaft for rotating a cylindrical member (para 0201). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an axle to turn the rotating cutters based on the suitability for the intended use (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nefedov (US3860378A)
Rieck (US20060016307A1)
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights