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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 37, 38, and 40 bare rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breder et al. (US 2015/0000210 A1) in view of Gaeta et al. (US 2014/0106126 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Breder teaches an abrasive article (Abstract) comprising a substrate (Paragraph 109), shaped particle disposed on the substrate, where the shaped particles are abrasive particles having a predetermined or non-random shape (Paragraph 0043-0055) include a first shaped abrasive particles and second shaped particles, wherein a characteristic of the first shaped particles is different from a corresponding characteristic of the second shaped particles. (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0128-0132) Breder teaches the second shaped particles can have only one difference from the first shaped particles (Paragraph 0128); therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second shaped abrasive particles include the same shape, but differ in another characteristic. (Paragraph 0128). Breder teaches an adhesive layer binding agent secures the shaped particles to the substrate. (Paragraph 0109). Breder teaches the particles can be applied in a particle spacing and orientation; therefore, the majority of the first and second shaped particles situated in a specific pattern on the substrate. (Paragraph 0116-0117, 0047).
Breder does not specifically teach the abrasive article further comprises pods, wherein each pod comprises the first abrasive particles and the second abrasive particles, the pod configured form a macro pattern such that the first and second abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of other pods.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles, where two different particles (first shaped particles and second shaped particles, are group together, thereby forming a pod and dispersed over the substrate to form a macro pattern such that first and second shaped abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of the other pods. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016, 0122-0123, 0176, 0234-0235). Gaeta teaches this pod and macro pattern arrangement improves grinding performance. (Paragraph 0153, 0178, 0179, 0235) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Breder with the claimed pod and macro pattern for better grinding performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Breder teaches shaped particles disposed on the substrate surface further include a third shaped particles that can operate as a grinding aid (Paragraph 0131).
Regarding Claim 4 and 10, Breder teaches the characteristic difference can be height, two-dimensional shape, average particle size, particle color, hardness, friability, toughness, density, specific surface area, and aspect ratio. (Paragraph 0128; Fig. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 7, Breder teaches the first shaped particle includes a trapezoid. (Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 12, Breer teaches the characteristic is height and the first and second shaped abrasive particles are situated in non-random sequence on the substrate. (Paragraph 0128, 0047).
Regarding Claim 37, Breder teaches an abrasive article (Abstract) comprising a substrate (Paragraph 109), shaped particle disposed on the substrate, where the shaped particles are abrasive particles having a predetermined or non-random shape (Paragraph 0043-0055) and include a first shaped abrasive particles and second shaped particles, wherein a characteristic of the first shaped particles is different from a corresponding characteristic of the second shaped particles. (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0128-0132) Breder teaches the second shaped particles can have only one difference from the first shaped particles (Paragraph 0128); therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second shaped abrasive particles include the same shape, but differ in another characteristic such as height. (Paragraph 0128). Breder teaches an adhesive layer binding agent secures the shaped particles to the substrate. (Paragraph 0109). Breder teaches the particles can be applied in a particle spacing and orientation; therefore, the majority of the first and second shaped particles situated in a specific pattern on the substrate. (Paragraph 0116-0117, 0047).
Breder does not specifically teach the abrasive article further comprises pods, wherein each pod comprises the first abrasive particles and the second abrasive particles, the pod configured form a macro pattern such that the first and second abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of other pods.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles, where two different particles (first shaped particles and second shaped particles, are group together, thereby forming a pod and dispersed over the substrate to form a macro pattern such that first and second shaped abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of the other pods. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016, 0122-0123, 0176, 0234-0235). Gaeta teaches this pod and macro pattern arrangement improves grinding performance. (Paragraph 0153, 0178, 0179, 0235) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Breder with the claimed pod and macro pattern for better grinding performance.
Regarding Claim 38, Breder teaches all the particles are oriented in a predetermined orientation to each other. (Paragraph 0116). Therefore, the first and second shaped particles are situated relative to each other in a non-random sequence on the substrate and a specified pattern on the substrate.
Regarding Claim 40, Breder teaches the first shaped particle includes a trapezoid. (Paragraph 0074).
Claim 6 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breder and Gaeta in view of Adefris (US 2012/0227333 A1) and Berg et al. (US 5,984,988 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Breder teaches the first abrasive particles can be triangular (Paragraph 0074), but does not specifically teach the particles include two triangular major faces connected to each other and separated by three sidewalls.
Adefris teaches abrasive particles and incorporates by reference Berg. (Paragraph 0002). Berg teaches abrasive particles that includes two triangular majors faces connected to each other and separated by three sidewalls, where an entire sidewall of the first shaped abrasive particle is disposed facing, proximate, and secured to the substrate by at least one binding agent. (Abstract; Fig 1-3). Adefris teaches these types of triangular abrasive particles are used in abrasive articles to enhance the cut rate. (Paragraph 0002) and Berg teaches this shape means the abrasive particles can sharpen themselves (Column 3, Lines 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed particle shape and particle arrangement for the first abrasive particle in Breder as taught by Adefris and Berg to enhance cutting of the resulting abrasive article.
Claim 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 10, 12-15, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyengar (US 2015/0183089 A1) in view of Breder and Gaeta.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, and 10, Iyengar teaches an abrasive article (Abstract) comprising a substrate (Paragraph 0109) and shaped particles which are abrasive particles with non-random or determined shape (Paragraph 0061-0073) disposed on the substrate. Iyengar teaches first and second abrasive particles, where the first and second shaped abrasive articles differ in height (Abstract; Paragraph 0126). Iyengar teaches an adhesive layer, binding agent, that secures the shaped particles to the substrate. (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0109). Iyengar teaches all the shaped particles can be situated in a predetermined pattern on the substrate. (Paragraph 0144, 0151, Claim 11 of Iyengar).
Iyengar does not specifically teach the first and second shaped particles include the same shape. Iyengar notes the second and first abrasive articles can have almost all the abrasive characteristic as the same and adjusting characteristic between the can be done to improve abrasion performance. (Paragraph 0126, 0220).
Breder teaches an abrasive article, as discussed above, and the second shaped particles can have only one characteristic difference, such as height, from the first shaped particles in order to improve performance (Paragraph 0126-0128). Therefore, as Breder teaches it is sufficient to only change only the height between the particle, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to maintain the other characteristics, including shape, while only changing the height recited in Iyengar to have a first and second shape particles having the same shape but different heights.
Iyengar does not specifically teach the abrasive article further comprises pods, wherein each pod comprises the first abrasive particles and the second abrasive particles, the pod configured form a macro pattern such that the first and second abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of other pods.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles, where two different particles (first shaped particles and second shaped particles, are group together, thereby forming a pod and dispersed over the substrate to form a macro pattern such that first and second shaped abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of the other pods. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016, 0122-0123, 0176, 0234-0235). Gaeta teaches this pod and macro pattern arrangement improves grinding performance. (Paragraph 0153, 0178, 0179, 0235) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Iyengar with the claimed pod and macro pattern for better grinding performance.
Regarding Claim 2, Iyengar teaches third shaped particles that operate as grinding aids. (Paragraph 0140).
Regarding Claim 6, Iyengar teaches the first shaped abrasive particle includes at least two triangular major faces connected to each other and separated three side walls, where an entire sidewall of the first shaped abrasive particle is disposed facing, proximate, and secured to the substrate by at least one binding agent. (Fig. 8B, 9; Paragraph 0085, 0108, 0206-0207).
Regarding Claim 7, Iyengar teaches the first shaped abrasive can have a trapezoid shape. (Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 12, Iyengar teaches characteristic is height and the first and second shaped abrasive particles are situated in non-random sequence on the substrate. (Abstract; Paragraph 0151-0152).
Regarding Claim 13, Iyengar does not teach the claimed particle arrangement.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016). Gaeta teaches one second shaped particle can be situated between two nearest first shaped abrasive particles with the respective major surfaces parallel to each other, where the particles can be in a repeated array (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0123, 0124, 0125, 0143-0144). Gaeta teaches this arrangement of the direction and orientation of the major surfaces of the particles within pods can help with grinding performance. (Paragraph 0153, 0178, 0179,) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Iyengar within the claimed arrangement for improved grinding performance as taught by Gaeta.
Regarding Claim 14, Iyengar does not teach the claimed particle arrangement.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016). Gaeta teaches groups of pods of shaped particle, where each pod can comprise one second shaped particle situated between two nearest first shaped abrasive particles with the respective major surfaces parallel to each other, arranged in a repeated array. (Fig. 1A; Paragraph 0123, 0124, 0125). Gaeta teaches each of the pods of particles can be arranged so the major surfaces of the particles of a pod will be perpendicular to the major surfaces of the particles of the nearest pod. (Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0143-0144, 0191-0192). Gaeta teaches this arrangement of the direction and orientation of the major surfaces of the particles within pods can help with grinding performance. (Paragraph 0128, 0153, 0178, 0179) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Iyengar within the claimed arrangement for improved grinding performance as taught by Gaeta.
Regarding Claim 15, Iyengar does not teach the claimed particle arrangement.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles. (Abstract).
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016). Gaeta teaches the abrasive material can include pods of shaped particles situated with major surfaces perpendicular to the nearest pod, each pod comprising a second shaped abrasive particle or a first shaped abrasive particle, wherein the respective major surfaces of the shaped particles of the pod are parallel to each other. (Fig. 7A; Paragraph 0123-0125, 0148, 0191-0192). Gaeta teaches this arrangement of the direction and orientation of the major surfaces of the particles within pods can help with grinding performance. (Paragraph 0128, 0153, 0178, 0179). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Iyengar within the claimed arrangement for improved grinding performance as taught by Gaeta.
Regarding Claim 37, Iyengar teaches an abrasive article (Abstract) comprising a substrate (Paragraph 0109) and shaped particles, which are abrasive particles with non-random or determined shape (Paragraph 0061-0073), disposed on the substrate. Iyengar teaches first and second abrasive particles, where the first and second shaped abrasive articles differ in height (Abstract; Paragraph 0126). Iyengar teaches an adhesive layer, binding agent, that secures the shaped particles to the substrate. (Fig. 5-6; Paragraph 0109). Iyengar teaches all the shaped particles can be situated in a predetermined pattern on the substrate. (Paragraph 0144, 0151, Claim 11 of Iyengar).
Iyengar does not specifically teach the first and second shaped particles include the same shape. Iyengar notes the second and first abrasive articles can have almost all the abrasive characteristic as the same and adjusting characteristic between the can be done to improve abrasion performance. (Paragraph 0126, 0220).
Breder teaches an abrasive article, as discussed above, and the second shaped particles can have only one characteristic difference, such as height, from the first shaped particles in order to improve performance (Paragraph 0126-0128). Therefore, as Breder teaches it is sufficient to only change only the height between the particle, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to maintain the other characteristics, including shape, while only changing the height recited in Iyengar.
Iyengar does not specifically teach the abrasive article further comprises pods, wherein each pod comprises the first abrasive particles and the second abrasive particles, the pod configured form a macro pattern such that the first and second abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of other pods.
Gaeta teaches an abrasive object with two different particles, where two different particles (first shaped particles and second shaped particles, are group together, thereby forming a pod and dispersed over the substrate to form a macro pattern such that first and second shaped abrasive particles of one pod being situated relative to the first and second shaped abrasive particles of the other pods. (Abstract; Paragraph 0016, 0122-0123, 0176, 0234-0235). Gaeta teaches this pod and macro pattern arrangement improves grinding performance. (Paragraph 0153, 0178, 0179, 0235) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to arrange particles of Iyengar with the claimed pod and macro pattern for better grinding performance.
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 37 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 38, Iyengar teaches the first and second shaped particles are situated relative to each other in a non-random sequence on the substrate. (Paragraph 0144, 0151; Claim 11 of Iyengar).
Regarding Claim 39, Iyengar teaches the first shaped abrasive particle includes at least two triangular major faces connected to each other and separated three side walls, where an entire sidewall of the first shaped abrasive particle is disposed facing, proximate, and secured to the substrate by at least one binding agent. (Fig. 8B, 9; Paragraph 0085, 0108, 0206-0207).
Regarding Claim 40, Iyengar teaches the first shaped abrasive can have a trapezoid shape. (Paragraph 0074).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Gaeta does not teach the claimed pod and macro pattern structure. This argument is found unpersuasive. Gaeta teaches arrangement of first and second shaped particles, which would form a pod, and teaches multiple pods together, thus having a macro pattern of pods of the first and second abrasive particles being arranged relative to each other. (Paragraph 0176, 0234-0235)
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights