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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/22/2026:
claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are currently pending;
the objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the same;
the 112(a) rejection to claims 1, 4-6, 10-16 and 19-20 is withdrawn in light of the amendment “three external corner angle values” in independent claim 1, and Applicant’s persuasive argument that external and internal corner angles are used throughout the specification to define certain angles that are at exterior points of the body versus angles which are internal and away from exterior points of the body (see Applicant’s arguments at page 4, paragraph 2);
the 112(a) rejections to claims 11-13 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims;
the 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 4-6, 10-16 and 19-20 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment together with the previous limitations “wherein the at least one partial cut extending from the side surface into the interior of the body, wherein the at least one partial cut includes a midpoint of the body, and wherein the at least one partial cut extends through the entire height of the body and extends only for a fraction of the entire length of the body, wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a rectangular two-dimensional shape as viewed from the top-down and is defined by a first side surface, a second side surface and a third side surface” in independent claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection are presented 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10-12, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welygan et al. (US 2013/0212952 A1) (“Welygan” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Welygan teaches a shaped abrasive particle (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F shows a substantially planar shaped ceramic abrasive particle 600F), comprising
a body (see Welygan at [0129] teaching 600F comprising a body member 670F), comprising
a length defined by a longitudinal axis, a width defined by a lateral axis, a height defined by a vertical axis (see Welygan at [0146] teaching the shaped ceramic abrasive particles… may be selected to have a length… and/or have a width… and/or have a thickness… as used herein, length is the longest particle dimension, width is the maximum particle dimension perpendicular to the length, and thickness is perpendicular to length and width). Thickness is taken to meet the claimed height,
a first major surface, a second major surface, and a side surface joined to the first major surface and the second major surface (see Welygan at [0039] teaching shaped ceramic precursor particles, wherein each of the shaped ceramic precursor particles has first and second opposed nonadjacent major surfaces, a peripheral surface extending between the first and second major surfaces). Peripheral surface is taken to meet the claimed side surface,
wherein the body has a tertiary aspect ratio of width : height of at least 2:1 (see Welygan at [0146] teaching the shaped ceramic abrasive particles and/or shaped ceramic precursor particles may be selected to have a length (i.e., maximum dimension) in a range of… from 0.001 micrometer to 26 micrometers… and/or have a width in a range of… from 0.001 micrometer to 26 micrometers, see Welygan at [0080] teaching while the above-identified drawing figures set forth several embodiments of the present disclosure, other embodiments are also contemplated, as noted in the discussion… in all cases, this disclosure presents the disclosure by way of representation and not limitation… it should be understood that numerous other modifications and embodiments can be devised by those skilled in the art, which fall within the scope and spirit of the principles of the disclosure, see Welygan at [0129] teaching likewise, Fig. 6G, shown below, shows a substantially planar shaped ceramic abrasive particle 600G comprising a body member 670G). Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here 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", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the length and width dimensions as taught by Welygan and arrive at the claimed “wherein the body has a tertiary aspect ratio of width : height of at least 2:1” because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed dimensions would be suitable;
PNG
media_image1.png
234
375
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the body comprises at least one partial cut extending from the side surface into the interior of the body, wherein the at least one partial cut includes a midpoint of the body, and wherein the at least one partial cut extends through the entire height of the body and extends only for a fraction of the entire length of the body, wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a rectangular two-dimensional shape as viewed from the top-down and is defined by a first side surface, a second side surface and a third side surface (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations),
PNG
media_image2.png
319
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the body is essentially free of a binder, wherein the shaped abrasive particle comprises at least 90 wt% alpha alumina for a total weight of the particle (see Welygan at [0167] teaching wherein the shaped ceramic abrasive particles comprise alpha-alumina-based shaped ceramic abrasive particles), which is taken to mean 100 wt% alpha alumina which meets the claimed limitations (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and
wherein the body defines a polygonal shape wherein a sum of three external corners of the polygonal shape defining three external corner angle values is substantially 180 degrees (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the body of the shaped abrasive particle as shown in Fig. 6F defines a polygonal shape, and wherein a sum of three external corners of the polygonal shape defining three external corner angle values is substantially 180 degrees, thus meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 4, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein… the at least one partial cut having a length (Lpc) and width (Wpc) and wherein the length of the partial cut (Lpc) is different than the width of the partial cut (Wpc)… (see Welygan at [0129] teaching likewise, Fig. 6G, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
376
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-6, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein the at least one partial cut extends through only a fraction of an entire width of the body (see claim 5), and wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a length (Lpc) defining a longitudinal axis extending substantially perpendicular to the side surface (claim 6) (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image4.png
326
379
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a length (Lpc) and width (Wpc) and wherein the body comprises a strength, and wherein a combination of the length of the partial cut (Lpc), width of the partial cut (Wpc) and strength of the body have a relationship configured to control the friability of the body (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F shows a substantially planar shaped ceramic abrasive particle… comprising a body member). The body of the shaped ceramic abrasive particle as taught by Welygan is expected to be capable of comprising strength, and the strength of the body having a relationship configured to control the friability of the body.
Regarding claims 11-12, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein the body comprises a plurality of partial cuts (claim 11), and wherein at least two partial cuts of the plurality of partial cuts are different from each other in… contour (claim 12) (see Welygan at [0080] teaching while the above-identified drawing figures set forth several embodiments of the present disclosure, other embodiments are also contemplated, as noted in the discussion… in all cases, this disclosure presents the disclosure by way of representation and not limitation… it should be understood that numerous other modifications and embodiments can be devised by those skilled in the art, which fall within the scope and spirit of the principles of the disclosure, see Welygan at [0130] teaching shaped ceramic abrasive particles wherein rod-shaped members extend from a body member and curl away from the carrier substrate… such curling/bending of the rod-shaped members may result from differential shrinkage and/or decomposition of the carrier substrate… an exemplary such shaped ceramic abrasive particle… is shown in Figs… 7A, shown below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image5.png
323
380
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 14-16, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein the at least one partial cut is located at a midpoint of the side surface of the body (claim 14), wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a corner with an interior angle of less than 180 degrees (claim 15), and wherein the at least one partial cut comprises a corner with an interior angle of less than 100 degrees (claim 16) (see Welygan at [0128] teaching Fig. 6F shows a substantially planar shaped ceramic abrasive particle… comprising a body member, shown above). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shaped ceramic abrasive particle as taught by Welygan meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 19-20, Welygan teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Welygan further teaches wherein the shaped abrasive particle consists essentially of alpha alumina (claim 19), and wherein the shaped abrasive particle comprises a material selected from the group consisting of… oxide (claim 20) (see Welygan at [0167] teaching wherein the shaped ceramic abrasive particles comprise alpha-alumina-based shaped ceramic abrasive particles). Alumina (or aluminum oxide) is taken to meet the claimed oxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731