DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 06/01/2026:
claims 1-14 and 16-23 are currently pending; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment “wherein each of the shaped abrasive particles comprise a body including at least 95% alumina for a total weight of the body” in independent claim 1; however, new grounds of rejection are presented based 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 1-10, 12-14 and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth et al. (US 2014/0290147 A1) (“Seth” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Seth teaches a fixed abrasive article (see Seth at [0057] teaching the shaped abrasive particles may be used in various abrasive articles, including for example… bonded abrasive articles). Bonded abrasive articles is taken to meet the claimed “fixed abrasive article” based on specification at [0058] disclosing the fixed abrasive articles… include… bonded abrasive articles, comprising:
a body comprising an upper surface, a bottom surface and a side surface extending between the upper surface and the bottom surface including shaped abrasive particles contained within a bond material (see Seth at [0144] teaching FIG. 1B includes a side view illustration of a portion of an abrasive article in accordance with an embodiment… the abrasive article 100 can include a shaped abrasive particle 102 overlying the backing 101 and a shaped abrasive particle 104 spaced apart from the shaped abrasive particle 102 overlying the backing 101… the shaped abrasive particle 102 can be coupled to the backing 101 via the adhesive layer 151… the shaped abrasive particle 102 can be coupled to the backing 101 via the adhesive layer 152). Fig. 1, shown with Examiner’s annotation below, illustrates the claimed “body comprising an upper surface, a bottom surface and a side surface extending between the upper surface and the bottom surface”. Adhesive layers are taken to meet the claimed “bond material”,
PNG
media_image1.png
248
570
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein at least a portion of the shaped abrasive particles are coupled to an orientation structure integrated within the fixed abrasive article, 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 Seth at [0193] teaching FIG. 7A includes a top down view of a portion of an abrasive article… the abrasive articles herein may further include orientation regions that facilitate placement of shaped abrasive particles in the predetermined orientations… the orientation regions can be coupled to the backing 101 of the abrasive article… alternatively, the orientation regions can be part of an adhesive layer, including for example a make coat or a size coat… the orientation regions can be overlying the backing 101 or even more particularly integrated with the backing 101, see Seth at [0150] teaching as further illustrated, the shaped abrasive particle… can be oriented in a side orientation relative to the backing… wherein a side surface… of the shaped abrasive particle… can be in direct contact with the backing… or at least a surface of the shaped abrasive particle… closest to the upper surface of the backing… the shaped abrasive particle… can have a vertical orientation defined by a tilt angle… between a major surface… of the shaped abrasive particle… and a major surface 161 of the backing 101… the tilt angle… can be defined as the smallest angle or acute angle between the surface… of the shaped abrasive particle… and the upper surface… of the backing 101… the shaped abrasive particle… can be placed in a position having a predetermined vertical orientation). Orientation region or alignment structure is taken to meet the claimed “orientation structure integrated within the fixed abrasive article”. As shown in Fig. 1B, illustrates the claimed “predetermined placement angle wherein tips of the shaped abrasive particles are oriented relative to the side surface of the fixed abrasive article”, and
wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the bond material (see Seth at [0145]-[0146] teaching the abrasive article… can include an adhesive layer… overlying the backing… the adhesive layer… may be a size coat in particular instances… a polymer formulation may be used to form any of a variety of the adhesive layers… which can include but not limited to, a frontfill, a pre-size coat, a make coat, a size coat, and/or a supersize coat… when used to form the frontfill, the polymer formulation generally includes a polymer resin, fibrillated fibers (preferably in the form of pulp), filler material, and other optional additives… other suitable polymeric resin materials may also include radiation curable resins, such as those resins curable using electron beam, UV radiation, or visible light, such as epoxy resins, acrylated oligomers of acrylated epoxy resins, polyester resins, acrylated urethanes and polyester acrylates and acrylated monomers including monoacrylated, multiacrylated monomers… the formulation can also comprise a nonreactive thermoplastic resin binder which can enhance the self-sharpening characteristics of the deposited abrasive composites by enhancing the erodibility… use of a frontfill on the backing can improve the uniformity of the surface, for suitable application of the make coat and improved application and orientation of shaped abrasive particles in a predetermined orientation, see Seth at [0202] teaching the alignment structure can include a plurality of discrete contact regions… wherein each of the contact regions… can be configured to deliver, and temporarily or permanently hold, one or more shaped abrasive particles… the alignment structure can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof). 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 adhesive layer (or bond material) can include a polymer formulation, and alignment structure (or orientation structure) can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of adhesive layer (or bond material) and alignment structure (or orientation structure), wherein the alignment structure (or orientation structure) is harder than adhesive layer (or bond material). There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the both the adhesive layer (or bond material) and alignment structure (or orientation structure) will firmly attach the abrasive particles to the backing.
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 adhesive layer (or bond material) and alignment structure (or orientation structure) that would have resulted in the claimed “wherein the alignment structure (or orientation structure) comprises a hardness that is greater than a hardness of the adhesive layer (or bond 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 backing,
wherein each of the shaped abrasive particles comprise a body including at least 95% alumina for a total weight of the body (see Seth at [0080] teaching a shaped abrasive particle can comprise at least about 90 wt% alpha alumina for the total weight of the particle) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 2, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth 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 Seth at [0082] teaching the shaped abrasive particle… in a dimension defined by the length and width of the particle… some exemplary two-dimensional shapes can include… a polygon, see Seth at [0083] teaching the shaped abrasive particles may be formed to have a shape, see Seth at [0084] teaching the body… can further include a width… the shaped abrasive particle can further include a height). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shape abrasive particle has a thickness (see Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 3, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure includes a material comprising… a polymer (see Seth at [0202] teaching the alignment structure can include… a patterned adhesive material, see Seth at [0146] teaching a polymer formulation may be used to form any of a variety of the adhesive layers).
Regarding claim 4, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure comprises a different composition from the bond material (see Seth at [0146] teaching a polymer formulation may be used to form any of a variety of the adhesive layers, see Seth at [0202] teaching the alignment structure can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof).
Regarding claim 5, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure extends throughout at least a portion of the body of the fixed abrasive article (see Seth at [0193] teaching Fig. 7A includes a top view of a portion of an abrasive article… the abrasive article… include orientation regions that facilitate placement of shaped abrasive particles in the predetermined orientations). As illustrated in Fig. 7A below, the orientation structure extends throughout at least a portion of the body of the fixed abrasive article.
PNG
media_image2.png
278
246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure is formed by 3-D printing (this recitation is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Seth (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is “orientation structure”, see claim 1 rejection based on Seth).
Regarding claim 7, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the fixed article comprises… a bonded abrasive article (see Seth at [0057] teaching the shaped abrasive particles may be used in various abrasive articles, including for example… bonded abrasive articles).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 12-14, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure is configured to control at least one of a predetermined position and a predetermined rotational orientation of the shaped abrasive particles within the body of the fixed abrasive article (claim 8), 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 article (claim 9), wherein the portion of shaped abrasive articles are coupled to the orientation structure and coupled to each other via the orientation structure, 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 (claim 10), 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 Seth at [0194] teaching as illustrated in Fig. 7A… each if the shaped abrasive particles… can be coupled with a respective orientation region… the orientation region… can be configured to define at least one (or a combination of) predetermined orientation characteristics of the shaped abrasive particle… the orientation region… can be configured to define a predetermined rotational orientation, a predetermined lateral orientation, a predetermined longitudinal orientation, a predetermined vertical orientation, a predetermined tip height, and a combination thereof with respect to the shaped abrasive particle).
Regarding claims 16-17, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth 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 (claim 16), and wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is substantially the same as the hardness of the shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure (claim 17) (see Seth at [0080] teaching a shaped abrasive particle can comprise at least about 90 wt% alpha alumina for the total weight of the particle, see Seth at [0202] teaching the alignment structure can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof).
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 shaped abrasive particle comprise alumina, and alignment structure (or orientation structure) can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof; and can perform an optimization or routine experimentation using a combination of shaped abrasive particles and alignment structure (or orientation structure), wherein the alignment structure (or orientation structure) comprises a hardness that is less than the hardness the shaped abrasive particles (claim 16) or wherein the alignment structure (or orientation structure) comprises a hardness that is substantially the same as the hardness of the shaped abrasive particles (claim 17). There is a reasonable expectation of success by a person having ordinary skill in the art that the combination will form a bonded abrasive article.
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 combination of shaped abrasive particles and alignment structure (or orientation structure) that would have resulted in the claimed “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” (claim 16), and “wherein the orientation structure comprises a hardness that is substantially the same as the hardness of the shaped abrasive particles coupled to the orientation structure” (claim 17) 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 form a bonded abrasive article.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the orientation structure is constructed from a preform having regions sized and shaped to contain… one… shaped abrasive particles (claim 18), and wherein a majority of the shaped abrasive particles are coupled to the orientation structure (claim 20) (see Seth at [0194] teaching as illustrated in Fig. 7A… each if the shaped abrasive particles… can be coupled with a respective orientation region… the orientation region… can be configured to define at least one (or a combination of) predetermined orientation characteristics of the shaped abrasive particle… the orientation region… can be configured to define a predetermined rotational orientation, a predetermined lateral orientation, a predetermined longitudinal orientation, a predetermined vertical orientation, a predetermined tip height, and a combination thereof with respect to the shaped abrasive particle). The claimed “is constructed from a preform” is being treated as product-by-process limitations because it is not seen to differ structurally from the applied prior art Seth (see MPEP 2113.I). In this instance, the structure imparted by the recitations is orientation structure, see claim 1 rejection based on Seth).
Regarding claims 19 and 22, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth 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 (claim 19), and 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 (claim 22) (see Seth at [0194] teaching as illustrated in Fig. 7A… each if the shaped abrasive particles… can be coupled with a respective orientation region… the orientation region… can be configured to define at least one (or a combination of) predetermined orientation characteristics of the shaped abrasive particle… the orientation region… can be configured to define a predetermined rotational orientation, a predetermined lateral orientation, a predetermined longitudinal orientation, a predetermined vertical orientation, a predetermined tip height, and a combination thereof with respect to the shaped abrasive particle).
PNG
media_image3.png
278
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the predetermined placement angle is relative to an intended grinding direction of the fixed abrasive article (see Seth at [0171] teaching the shaped abrasive particles of a group can have a predetermined orientation characteristic that define a pattern of the group, which may further define one or more vectors of the pattern… the vectors… of the pattern… can be controlled to form a predetermined angle relative to the grinding direction… the vectors… may have various orientations including for example, a parallel orientation, perpendicular orientation, or even a non-orthogonal or non-parallel orientation (i.e., angled to define an acute angle or obtuse angle) relative to the grinding direction).
Regarding claim 23, Seth teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Seth further teaches wherein the shaped abrasive particles comprise alpha alumina-based materials (see Seth at [0080] teaching the content of alpha alumina may be greater, such that the shaped abrasive particle may consist essentially of alpha alumina).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seth 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, Seth teaches the alignment structure can include a web, a fibrous material, a mesh, a solid structure having openings, a belt, a roller, a patterned material, a discontinuous layer of material, a patterned adhesive material, and a combination thereof (see Seth at [0202]).
Seth does not explicitly teach wherein the orientation structure (or porous material) comprises a ceramic.
Like Seth, 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 in the alignment structure as taught by Seth because it is suitable of its intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment “wherein each of the shaped abrasive particles comprise a body including at least 95% alumina for a total weight of the body” has obviated the rejection based on the teachings of Cesena. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is set forth for the amended claim 1, as outlined above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights