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 11/12/2025:
claims 1-14 and 16-21 are currently pending; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are maintained for at least the reasons as set forth herein.
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 1-10, 12-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesena et al. (US 2002/0068518 A1) (“Cesena” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Cesena teaches a fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at [0002] teaching the present disclosure relates to a rotatable grinding wheel having an abrasive or superabrasive surface). The grinding wheel is taken to meet the claimed fixed abrasive article based on specification at [0058] disclosing the fixed abrasive articles of the embodiments herein can include bonded abrasive articles, and more particularly, thin wheels, cut-off wheels, chop saws, roll mill grinding wheels, centerless grinding wheels, and the like; comprising:
a body comprising an upper surface, a bottom surface and a side surface extending between the upper surface and the bottom surface (see Cesena at [0042] teaching Fig. 1, shown below, is a perspective view of cutting or grinding wheel 10 having an abrasive perimeter surface... wheel 10 is substantially cylindrical in shape and includes an abrasive region 12 preferably sandwiched between a first support plate 14 and a second support plate 16… an outer abrasive surface 18 of abrasive region 12 is a substantially cylindrical band which extends about a portion of the circumferential surface 24 of wheel 10). The grinding wheel is taken to meet the claimed “body”, first support plate 14 is taken to meet the claimed “upper surface”, second support plate 16 is taken to meet the claimed “bottom surface”, and abrasive region 12 is taken to meet the claimed “a side surface extending between the upper surface and the bottom surface”,
PNG
media_image1.png
287
422
media_image1.png
Greyscale
including shaped abrasive particles contained within a bond material (see Cesena at [0046] teaching abrasive region 12 contains particles of abrasive… suspended in a… bond material, see Cesena at [0019] teaching Fig. 5a, shown below, is a partial front view of a sheet of abrasive material which can be used to fabricate the grinding wheel shown in Fig. 1 showing abrasive particles and abrasive particle layers). The abrasive particles is taken to meet the claimed shaped abrasive particles because the abrasive particles are shown in uniform shape and size,
PNG
media_image2.png
236
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein at least a portion of the shaped abrasive particles are coupled to an orientation structure integrated within the fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at [0058] teaching forming an abrasive wheel… includes forming an abrasive region from sheet 51 in which the layers of abrasive particles are at an angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, with substantially parallel top and bottom surfaces of the abrasive region, see Cesena at [0063] teaching for purposes of illustration in the embodiment of FIG. 8, shown below, sheet 51 is made up of only three thickness layers 40, 42, and 44… each thickness layer 40, 42, and 44 includes a bond material layer 50, 52, and 54, respectively; a porous material layer 60, 62, and 64, respectively; and an abrasive particle layer 70, 72, and 74, respectively, comprising abrasive particles 90… each thickness layer 40, 42, and 44 may also include adhesive layers 80, 82, and 84, respectively, placed on one face of the porous material layers 60, 62, and 64, respectively, and each having at least one face which includes a pressure sensitive adhesive… the adhesive face of the adhesive layers 80, 82, and 84 are positioned against the porous layers 60, 62, and 64, respectively… in this way, when abrasive particles 90 of abrasive particle layers 70, 72, and 74 are placed in the openings of the porous layers 60, 62, and 64, respectively, the abrasive particles 90 adhere to the adhesive layers 80, 82, and 84 such that the abrasive particles 90 are retained in the openings of the porous layers 60, 62, and 64). The porous material layers are taken to meet the claimed orientation structure,
PNG
media_image3.png
270
396
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the portion of the shaped abrasive particles have a predetermined placement angle wherein tips of the shaped abrasive particles are oriented relative to the side surface of the fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at [0010] teaching the present disclosure includes a generally cylindrical abrasive grinding wheel which is rotatable about an axis of rotation… a substantially cylindrical region of abrasive material having an abrasive surface on an outer peripheral surface thereof is formed from a plurality of layers of abrasive particles… each layer of abrasive particles extends in at least a circumferential direction and a radial direction of the cylindrical region of abrasive material, see Cesena at [0058] teaching forming an abrasive wheel… includes forming an abrasive region from sheet 51 in which the layers of abrasive particles are at an angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, with substantially parallel top and bottom surfaces of the abrasive region). Since sheet 51 comprising abrasive particles is situated in the abrasive region 12 (or side surface), then the abrasive particles as taught by Cesena meets the claimed limitations, and
wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the bond material (Cesena teaches this limitation as outlined below).
Cesena teaches porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous (about 30% to 99.5% porosity) and preferably comprises a plurality of non-randomly spaced openings… suitable materials are organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials (see Cesena at [0067]). Cesena further teaches in carrying out the above fabrication process, the bond material making up bond material layers 50, 52 and 54 can be any material sinterable with the abrasive particle layers 70, 72, and 74… it should also be noted that not every bond layer forming sheet 36 need be of the same composition; it is contemplated that one or more bond material layers could have different compositions (see Cesena at [0066]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07), and “optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation… the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation… it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions" (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any porous organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials are suitable porous materials and any sinterable material with the abrasive particle are suitable bond materials; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material), wherein the sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material) is harder than the porous material. There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the porous material/sinterable material will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform an optimization or perform routine experimentation to find a suitable material combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material) that would have resulted in the claimed “wherein the porous material (or orientation structure) comprises a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the bond material (or sinterable material)” because it is normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. Additionally, there is a reasonable expectation of success that combination will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet because the materials outlined above are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein each of the shaped abrasive particles comprise a body defined by a length, width, and thickness, and wherein each body comprises a two-dimensional shape as defined by a plane of the length and width, the two-dimensional shape selected from the group consisting of… polygons (see Cesena at Fig. 5A illustrating the abrasive particles as diamond), which is taken to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure includes a material comprising a… metal (see Cesena at [0067] teaching porous material… suitable materials are… metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials, such as… copper).
Regarding claim 4, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure comprises a different composition from the bond material (Cesena teaches this limitation as outlined below).
Cesena teaches the porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous (about 30% to 99.5% porosity) and preferably comprises a plurality of non-randomly spaced openings… suitable materials are organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials, such as copper, bronze, zinc, steel, or nickel wire mesh, or fiber meshes (e.g. carbon or graphite) (see Cesena at [0067]). Cesena further teaches the bond material making up bond material layers 50, 52 and 54 can be any material sinterable with the abrasive particle layers 70, 72, and 74 and is preferably soft, easily deformable flexible material (SEDF) the fabrication of which is known in the art and is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,620,489, which has been incorporated by reference in its entirety… such SEDF can be formed by forming a paste or slurry of bond material or powder such as tungsten carbide particles or cobalt particles, and a binder composition including a cement such as rubber cement and a thinner such as rubber cement thinner… abrasive particles can also be included in the paste or slurry but need not be… a substrate is formed from the paste or slurry and is solidified and cured at room temperature or with heat to evaporate volatile components of the binder phase (see Cesena at [0066]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07), and “optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation… the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation… it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions" (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any porous organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials are suitable porous materials and any sinterable material with the abrasive particle are suitable bond materials; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material), wherein the sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material) is a different composition compared to the porous material. There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the porous material/sinterable material will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform an optimization or perform routine experimentation to find a suitable material combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and sinterable material with abrasive particle (or bond material) that would have resulted in the claimed “wherein the porous material (or orientation structure) comprises a different composition from the bond material (or sinterable material)” because it is normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. Additionally, there is a reasonable expectation of success that combination will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet because the materials outlined above are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 5, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure extends throughout at least a portion of the body of the fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at Fig. 1 illustrating comprising abrasive surface 18 (comprising sheet 51 containing porous material) extends throughout at least a portion of the body of the grinding wheel).
Regarding claim 6, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure is formed by 3-D printing (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitation, because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art of Cesena. MPEP states that "[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself…. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (see MPEP § 2113.I)).
Regarding claim 7, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the fixed abrasive article comprises… a bonded abrasive article (see Cesena at [0002] teaching the present disclosure relates to a rotatable grinding wheel having an abrasive or superabrasive surface). The grinding wheel is taken to meet the claimed bonded abrasive article based on specification at [0058] disclosing the fixed abrasive articles of the embodiments herein can include bonded abrasive articles, and more particularly, thin wheels, cut-off wheels, chop saws, roll mill grinding wheels, centerless grinding wheels, and the like.
Regarding claims 8-9, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure is configured to control at least one… of a predetermined position… within the body of the fixed abrasive article (claim 8), and wherein the orientation structure is configured to control a predetermined position and a predetermined rotational orientation of the shaped abrasive particles within the body of the fixed abrasive particle (claim 9) (see Cesena at [0012] teaching another aspect of the disclosure can be characterized by the layers of abrasive particles being tilted with respect to the axis of rotation of the grinding wheel to form an angle of between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, therewith, see Cesena at [0058] teaching forming an abrasive wheel… includes forming an abrasive region from sheet 51 in which the layers of abrasive particles are at an angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, with substantially parallel top and bottom surfaces of the abrasive region). The tilt angle for the abrasive particles is taken to meet the claimed predetermined position and a predetermined rotational orientation of the shaped abrasive particles within the body of the fixed abrasive particle.
Regarding claim 10, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the portion of shaped abrasive articles are coupled to the orientation structure and coupled to each other via the orientation structure (see Cesena at Fig. 8 illustrating the claimed limitations), and
wherein the portion of shaped abrasive particles intersect an upper surface of the body and are partially protruding from the volume of the body of the fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at [0012] teaching another aspect of the disclosure can be characterized by the layers of abrasive particles being tilted with respect to the axis of rotation of the grinding wheel to form an angle of between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, therewith… in this way, as the grinding wheel is rotated through a 360 degree rotation, an exposed edge of a single abrasive particle layer will sweep over an axial distance wider than the width of the exposed edge of the abrasive particle layer). The exposed edge of the abrasive particle layer is taken to meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 12-14, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure is configured to control the three-axis position of the portion of shaped abrasive particles attached to the orientation structure (claim 12), wherein the orientation structure is configured to control a predetermined tilt angle of the shaped abrasive particles relative to an upper surface of the fixed abrasive article (claim 13), and wherein the orientation structure is configured to control a predetermined position of the shaped abrasive particles within the volume of the body including a radial position, an axial position, and an angular position of the abrasive particles in the body (claim 14) (see Cesena at [0012] teaching another aspect of the disclosure can be characterized by the layers of abrasive particles being tilted with respect to the axis of rotation of the grinding wheel to form an angle of between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, therewith, see Cesena at [0058] teaching forming an abrasive wheel… includes forming an abrasive region from sheet 51 in which the layers of abrasive particles are at an angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, with substantially parallel top and bottom surfaces of the abrasive region). The tilt angle for the abrasive particles is taken to meet the claimed limitations because Cesena teaches that the position and angle of the abrasive particles can be controlled.
Regarding claim 16, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is less than the hardness of the portion of shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure (Cesena teaches this limitation as outlined below).
Cesena teaches the porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous (about 30% to 99.5% porosity) and preferably comprises a plurality of non-randomly spaced openings… suitable materials are organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials, such as copper, bronze, zinc, steel, or nickel wire mesh, or fiber meshes (e.g. carbon or graphite) (see Cesena at [0067]). Cesena further teaches the abrasive particles 90 can be formed from any relatively hard substance including superabrasive particles such as diamond, cubic boron nitride, boron suboxide, boron carbide, silicon carbide and/or mixtures thereof (see Cesena at [0069]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07), and “optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation… the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation… it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions" (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any porous organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials are suitable porous materials and the abrasive particles can be formed from any relatively hard substance including superabrasive particles; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and abrasive particles, wherein the hardness of the porous material is less hard than the abrasive particles. There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the porous material/abrasive particle will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform an optimization or perform routine experimentation to find a suitable material combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and abrasive particles that would have resulted in the claimed “wherein the orientation structure (or porous material) comprises a hardness that is less than the hardness of the portion of shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure” because it is normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. Additionally, there is a reasonable expectation of success that combination will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet because the materials outlined above are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 17, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is substantially the same as the hardness of the portion of shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure (Cesena teaches this limitation as outlined below).
Cesena teaches the porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous (about 30% to 99.5% porosity) and preferably comprises a plurality of non-randomly spaced openings… suitable materials are organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials, such as copper, bronze, zinc, steel, or nickel wire mesh, or fiber meshes (e.g. carbon or graphite) (see Cesena at [0067]). Cesena further teaches the abrasive particles 90 can be formed from any relatively hard substance including superabrasive particles such as diamond, cubic boron nitride, boron suboxide, boron carbide, silicon carbide and/or mixtures thereof (see Cesena at [0069]).
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07), and “optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation… the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation… it is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions" (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A). In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that any porous organic or metallic non-woven, or woven mesh materials are suitable porous materials and the abrasive particles can be formed from any relatively hard substance including superabrasive particles; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and abrasive particles, wherein the hardness of the porous material is substantially the same as the abrasive particles. There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the porous material/abrasive particle will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform an optimization or perform routine experimentation to find a suitable material combination of porous material (or orientation structure) and abrasive particles that would have resulted in the claimed “wherein the orientation structure (or porous material) comprises a hardness that is substantially the same as the hardness of the portion of shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure” because it is normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. Additionally, there is a reasonable expectation of success that combination will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the sheet because the materials outlined above are suitable for its intended use.
Regarding claim 18, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure is constructed having regions sized and shaped to contain one or more shaped abrasive particles (see Cesena at [0069] teaching the abrasive particles 90 can be formed from any relatively hard substance including superabrasive particles such as diamond, cubic boron nitride, boron suboxide, boron carbide, silicon carbide and/or mixtures thereof… preferably diamonds of a diameter and shape such that they fit into the holes of the porous material are used as abrasive particles 90… it is also contemplated to use abrasive particles that are slightly larger than the holes of the porous material and/or particles that are small enough such that a plurality of particles will fit into the holes of the porous material), and
wherein the orientation structure is from a preform (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitation, because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art of Cesena. MPEP states that "[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself…. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." (see MPEP § 2113.I)).
Regarding claim 19, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the orientation structure is a first orientation structure and the portion of shaped abrasive particles is a first group of abrasive particles, and wherein the fixed abrasive article comprises a second orientation structure different than the first orientation structure and including a second group of abrasive particles coupled to the second orientation structure (see Cesena at [0080] teaching for ease of illustration, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 17, shown below with Examiner annotation, segments 113a, 113b and 113c each include only two abrasive particle layers 126a, 126b, and 126c, respectively… however, it is within the ambit of the present disclosure to include more than two abrasive particle layers per segment… further, the thickness of each abrasive particle layer and/or and diameter of abrasive particles used can vary between segments and within segments, see Cesena at [0081] teaching by staggering abrasive particle layers 126a, 126b and 126c as shown in FIG. 17, any path 132 defined by the intersection of a plane perpendicular to axis of rotation 123 and a full circumference of abrasive region 118 will intersect an abrasive particle layer 126 of at least one abrasive segment 113). The staggered abrasive particle layers are taken to meet the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image4.png
232
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein a majority of the shaped abrasive particles are coupled to the orientation structure (see Cesena at Figs 9-10, shown below, and Fig. 17 illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image5.png
272
417
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the predetermined placement angel is relative to an intended grinding direction of the fixed abrasive article (see Cesena at [0012] teaching another aspect of the disclosure can be characterized by the layers of abrasive particles being tilted with respect to the axis of rotation of the grinding wheel to form an angle of between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, therewith… in this way, as the grinding wheel is rotated through a 360 degree rotation, an exposed edge of a single abrasive particle layer will sweep over an axial distance wider than the width of the exposed edge of the abrasive particle layer).
Regarding claim 22, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Cesena further teaches wherein the portion of the shaped abrasive particles includes a first portion of abrasive particles having substantially the same predetermined three-axis orientation relative to the side surface of the body and a second portion of abrasive particles having substantially the same predetermined three-axis orientation relative to the side surface of the body different from the first portion (see Cesena at [0080] teaching for ease of illustration, in the embodiment shown in FIG. 17, shown below with Examiner annotation, segments 113a, 113b and 113c each include only two abrasive particle layers 126a, 126b, and 126c, respectively… however, it is within the ambit of the present disclosure to include more than two abrasive particle layers per segment… further, the thickness of each abrasive particle layer and/or and diameter of abrasive particles used can vary between segments and within segments, see Cesena at [0081] teaching by staggering abrasive particle layers 126a, 126b and 126c as shown in FIG. 17, any path 132 defined by the intersection of a plane perpendicular to axis of rotation 123 and a full circumference of abrasive region 118 will intersect an abrasive particle layer 126 of at least one abrasive segment 113). The staggered abrasive particle layers are taken to meet the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image6.png
575
1250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cesena as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 201516579 U, with reference to the machine translation) (“Chen” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Cesena teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and as mentioned, Cesena teaches the porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous (about 30% to 99.5% porosity)) (see Cesena at [0067]).
Cesena does not explicitly teach wherein the orientation structure (or porous material) comprises a ceramic.
Like Cesena, Chen teaches using a mesh to place abrasive particles in an abrasive tool (see Chen at [0007] teaching another conventional grinding tool is to place a fixed mesh with mesh on a substrate, and position diamond particles on the substrate according to the arrangement rules of the mesh, and then fix the diamond particles on the substrate by sintering process of alloy powder).
Chen also teaches substrate 10… grinding particles 20… a first fixed base 30 (see Chen at [0034]). Chen further teaches diamond abrasive particles 20 are fixed on the surface of the substrate 10… the surface of the substrate 10 can be formed into a plurality of regularly arranged accommodation portions… so as to place the abrasive particles 20 in the above-mentioned accommodation portions, thereby achieving a regular arrangement of the abrasive particles 20… the receiving portions can be formed on the surface of the substrate 10 to be regularly arranged, freely adjustable in shape, or with small spacing (see Chen at [0036])… a first fixing base 30 is formed on the receiving portions to fix the abrasive particles 20 on the surface of the substrate 10 (see Chen at [0038]). The receiving portions and first fixing base 30 is similar to the porous material (or orientation structure) as taught by Cesena because Cesena teaches the porous material can be virtually any material so long as the material is substantially porous.
Chen further teaches according to various practical applications, these first bases 30 (or orientation structure) can be made of… ceramics (see Chen at [0038]), which is taken to meet the claimed wherein the orientation structure (or porous material) comprises a ceramic.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that porous ceramic material is suitable to fix the abrasive particles in the grinding wheel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use ceramic as taught by Chen as a porous material in the grinding wheel as taught by Cesena because it is suitable of its intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses that Cesena fails to disclose shaped abrasive particle because the term is understood by those of skill in the art to represent abrasive particle made through one or more processes using a sol-gel… to create a batch of shaped abrasive particles having similar shapes (e.g., two-dimensional shapes and/or three-dimensional shapes)… as objective evidence… Applicant respectfully points the Office to US 5201916, US 5366523, US 5984988, US 5496386, filed before Cesena that use the term “shaped abrasive particle”… the superabrasive diamond particles of Cesena do not constitute shaped abrasive particles as defined in the art (see Applicants arguments at pages 5-6, bridging paragraph).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that Cesena teaches abrasive region 12 contains particles of abrasive or hard material including, but not limited to, superabrasives such as… diamond (see Cesena at [0046]). MPEP states that “disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments” (see MPEP § 2123.II). In this instance, the “superabrasive diamond particles” teaching is a preferred embodiment. Furthermore, Cesena teaches a non-preferred embodiment of “particles of abrasive”, and in Fig 1 illustrates that the abrasive particles are uniform in shape and size, which is taken to meet the claimed “shaped abrasive particles”. This is consistent with Applicant’s argument above discussing that “shaped abrasive particles” is a batch of shaped abrasive particles having similar shapes (e.g., two-dimensional shapes and/or three-dimensional shapes). Applicant’s argument that shaped abrasive particles are “abrasive particles made through one or more processes using a sol-gel” is a product by process argument, and is not given weight because the examined claims belong to the statutory class of product.
As such, Cesena has reasonably met the claimed shaped abrasive particle and the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that Cesena does not teach the claimed “orienting their abrasive particles such that a portion of the abrasive particles have a predetermined placement angle wherein the tips of the abrasive particles are oriented relative to the side surface of the fixed abrasive article” because Cesena accomplishes having an ordered concentration of abrasive particles by using a porous material with non-randomly spaced openings and placing abrasive particles into the openings… this method results in the particles having a particular arrangement relative to each other, including particular spacing and density of the particles… nowhere in Cesena is a predetermined placement angle taught or placement wherein the tips of the abrasive particles are oriented relative to a side surface of the fixed abrasive article (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraph 1).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that as outlined in the previous office action and above, Cesena teaches forming an abrasive wheel… includes forming an abrasive region from sheet 51 in which the layers of abrasive particles are at an angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees, exclusive, with substantially parallel top and bottom surfaces of the abrasive region (see Cesena at [0058]). The angle between 0 degrees and 180 degrees is taken to meet the claimed limitation.
As such, Cesena has reasonably met the claimed shaped abrasive particle and the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant discusses that claims 2-10, 1-14 and 16-21 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and are likewise not obvious over Cesena at least for the reasons as discussed with respect to claim 1 (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraph 2).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained, as outlined above. As such, the rejections to the dependent claims are also maintained.
Applicant discusses that claim 11 rejected based on Cesena in view of Chen depends on claim 1… Cesena is deficient with respect to all the features of claim 1… Chen fails to cure the deficiencies of Cesena… for at least this reason, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 11 is not anticipated by or obvious over Cesena in view of Chen (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraph 3).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained, as outlined above. As such, the rejection to dependent claim 11 is also maintained.
Applicant discusses that claim 22 is new, dependent to claim 1 is patentable over the cited reference for at least the reasons discussed above (see Applicant’s arguments at page 6, paragraph 4).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the rejection to independent claim 1 is maintained, as outlined above. A rejection to claim 22 based on Cesena is outlined above.
Conclusion
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 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