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
Amendments to the claims, filed on 12/4/25, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Any rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 14-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over deKok et al (US 4,925,457 A) in view of Stubbs (US 6,277,160 B1) and Hall et al (US 2006/0010780 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 5, 8, 14, and 22, deKok teaches abrasive articles comprising an alignment structure (18 and 20), wherein the alignment structure comprises openings arranged in a predetermined distribution relative to each other and a first plurality of abrasive particles (19) contained within a first set of openings, each of the plurality of abrasive particles having a predetermined position and predetermined orientation; wherein the openings are openings that included a sintered material (i.e., the sintered material (20) or adhesive has an opening that contains the particle) (col 2, line 58 - col 3, line 11; fig 3). DeKok further teaches the abrasive particles are held in place by metal powder or the like (col 2, lines 58-29); and the abrasive article should be flexible (col 2, line 52 – col 3, line 11).
DeKok fails to suggest the particles are shaped abrasive particles; wherein the organic adhesive layer overlies a backing comprising an organic material; wherein the alignment structure is underlying or contained within an organic adhesive layer; wherein the organic adhesive layer comprises a polymeric material, polyesters, epoxy resins, polyurethanes, polyamides, polyacrylates, polymethacrylates, poly vinyl chlorides, polyethylene, polysiloxane, silicones, cellulose acetates, nitrocellulose, natural rubber, starch, shellac, or a combination thereof.
Stubbs teaches shaped abrasive particles are bound by an epoxy resin binder to a flexible backing (e.g., polymeric film so an organic material); in a non-random oriented fashion (col 5, lines 47 - col 6, line 36; col 7, lines 33-54; col 4, lines 28-34; figs 1-3).
Hall teaches in abrasive tools that polymeric materials and resin materials (i.e., adhesives or binders) are technical equivalents to brazing materials (i.e., metal powders) as it relates to holding abrasive grains (i.e., particles) on flexible backings (e.g., combinations of films and screens or perforated sheets) (para 58-59); wherein suitable adhesives for this purpose include, e.g., epoxy, polyurethane, polyimide, and acrylate compositions and modifications and combinations thereof (col 10, lines 53-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the shaped abrasive particles of Stubbs for the abrasive particles of deKok, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the binders or adhesives of Stubbs and Halls for metal powders of deKok, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found it obvious to attach the screen or mesh of deKok to a flexible film or organic backing as matter of design choice as suggest by Hall.
Furthermore, deKok as modified by Stubbs and Hall would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention ; wherein the two dimensional shape of the openings corresponds to a cross-sectional shape of the first plurality of shaped abrasive particles; wherein the first set of openings comprise a first two-dimensional shape configured to control the predetermined rotational orientation of the first plurality of shaped abrasive particles; and wherein the first set of openings have a particular two-dimensional shape as viewed top down and defined by the width of the opening and the length of the opening; since the opening in the sintered material or glue of deKok (figs 3-4, 6-7, and 9) would take the shape of the shaped abrasive particle of Stubbs that it contains and therein control its predetermined rotational orientation.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, deKok teaches the alignment structure comprises a web, a fibrous material, a mesh; wherein the alignment structure comprises a web or a mesh comprising overlapping fibers (col 2, line 58 - col 3, line 11; fig 3).
Regarding claims 10 and 15-19, deKok fails to suggest the limitations of the instant claims. However, DeKok teaches the use of multiple alignment structures in the abrasive article; and that the alignment structure determines the pattern of the abrasive particles and therein the openings (figs 3-4, 6-7, and 9).
Stubbs teaches article comprising a backing having at least two coatings bonded thereon, wherein the abrasive nature of the coatings differs; wherein the abrasive nature can be based on the lack of abrasive particles (abstract). Stubbs further suggests:
The abrasive nature of the coating can be altered by using different size abrasive particles, different types of abrasive particles, lack of abrasive particles, addition of fillers or additives to affect erodability, different binders, different coating patterns, different size or shape of abrasive composites, or a different density of abrasive composites. The abrasive nature can also be altered by changing the ratio of materials in the abrasive coating, or by the processing conditions, e.g., different coating methods, or different degree of cure. It is also possible in certain applications to create an abrasive coating having no abrasive particles or grit therein, that when fully cured, nonetheless functions as a polishing article depending on the hardness of the workpiece and the abrasiveness of the cured binder relative thereto (col 3, lines 32-46).
In addition, Stubbs teaches “[i]t is also possible to have more than two, such as three or four or even more, different abrasive particle size distributions, and thus this many abrasive coatings, side by side. It is not necessary that for three or more different distributions, the arrangement of the abrasive coating is in any particular order (i.e., increasing or decreasing in size across the width of the article)” (col 10, lines 59-65).
Hence, Stubbs would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention an abrasive article wherein the alignment structure further comprises a second set of openings, and a second plurality of shaped abrasive particles contained within the second set of openings, and wherein the second set of openings comprise a second two-dimensional shape configured to control a predetermined rotational orientation of the second plurality of shaped abrasive particles; wherein each shaped abrasive particle of the first plurality of shaped abrasive particles comprises at least one feature different from a feature of at least one shaped abrasive particle of the second plurality of shaped abrasive particles, wherein the feature is selected from the group of features consisting of average particle size, two-dimensional particle shape, orientation relative to a grinding direction (i.e., pattern), average lateral space (i.e., pattern), average longitudinal space (i.e., pattern), composition, and predetermined distribution (i.e., pattern).
Hall teaches in its design for abrasive tools individual abrasive grains are placed in a controlled, random spatial array such that the individual grains are non-contiguous; and having a random, but controlled, array of abrasive grains on an abrasive tool's abrading surface can yield optimum abrasive action, thereby improving efficiency and consistently generating planar workpiece surfaces.
Therefore, per the abrasive articles of Stubbs and Hall, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use multiple alignment structures (i.e. first, second, third, and fourth), size or shapes of particles (i.e., first, second, and third particles and therein first, second, and third openings that contain the first, second, and third particles), and adjust the placement, patterns, and or arrangements of the multiple alignment structures, openings, and shaped abrasive particles on the abrasive articles of deKok, to optimize the abrasive properties of the abrasive article.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, deKok would have suggested or otherwise rendered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention wherein the first set of openings extend partially through the alignment structure; and wherein the first set of openings extend entirely through the thickness of the alignment structure (col 2, line 58 - col 3, line 11; figs 3-4, 6-7, and 9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Both Claims 12 and 13 further limit the first set of openings or alignment structure of the abrasive article of instant claim 11 in a manner not suggested be the closest prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant contends that Applicants are claiming an abrasive article having an alignment structure with openings that correspond to the plurality of shaped abrasive
particles contained within this alignment structure and contained within or underlying an organic adhesive layer. Applicant is not claiming an adhesive material that corresponds to the shape of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles.
This is not persuasive since claim 4 states the “wherein the alignment structure comprises a web, a fibrous material, a mesh… a patterned adhesive material… combination thereof” which would have suggested to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that of a combination of the mesh and adhesive material of deKok as modified by Stubbs and Hall. Furthermore, nothing in the claim construction of instant claim 1 would prohibit a combination of the mesh and sintered material (or glue) from being the alignment structure, i.e., the alignment structure and its openings are contained in the glue.
Applicants contend that the substitution of the organic adhesives and binders discussed in Hall with the metal powders of deKok as suggested by the Office is improper; and such a combination would result in a situation where the organic adhesives or binders holding the diamond or other hard substances would burn out during sintering or brazing of the abrasive article to secure the diamonds to the flexible substrate material as taught by deKok; so substitution thereof would destroy the intended function of the abrasive article of deKok.
This is not persuasive since deKok specifically teaches other species of its embodiments (e.g., those skilled in the art will understand that the particles can be fixed to the mesh be electroplating, gluing, or by other means if desired) (col 3, lines 2-4); and also recognizes resin as a technical equivalent to metal powder (e.g., cutting tools are commonly made by placing diamond chips in a matrix material such as a metal powder or resin) (col 1, lines 7-9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to substitute the binders or adhesives of Stubbs and Hall for metal powders of deKok, since substituting known equivalents for the same purpose as recognized in prior art is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2144.06 II); and, since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (MPEP § 2144.07).
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 NATHAN L VAN SELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5152. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur, Generally 7am-6pm.
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, M. Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
NATHAN VAN SELL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/NATHAN L VAN SELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783