DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 02/23/2026:
claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-23 are currently pending
claims 14-23 are withdrawn from consideration
claim 1 is amended
prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Arcona and Nelson are presented 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 text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arcona et al. (US 2015/0291866 A1), hereinafter referred to as ARCONA in view of Nelson et al. (WO 2018/080703 A1), hereinafter referred to as NELSON.
Regarding claim 1, ARCONA teaches a shaped abrasive particle (see ARCONA at Abstract) comprising:
a first and second surface (see Annotated Figure 12A and ARCONA at paragraph [0109]: an upper major surface 1203 and a bottom major surface 1204), wherein the first and second surfaces are substantially parallel to each other and separated by a thickness (see Annotated Figure 12A and ARCONA at paragraph [0109]: bottom major surface 1204 opposite the upper major surface 1203), wherein each of the first and second surfaces have a surface profile, the surface profile comprising a plurality of corners and edges connecting the plurality of corners (see Annotated Figure 12A: circled corners connected by edges (e.g., 1208, 1242, 1243) and ARCONA at paragraphs [0111]- [0112]);
a recess included wholly within one of the plurality of edges, wherein the recess comprises a concave void extending into the surface profile (see Annotated Figure 12A and ARCONA at paragraph [0118]: the body of abrasive particle 1201 can have a first portion 1206 of the side surface 1205 with a partially-concave shape);
wherein the surface profile comprises a cutting portion (see Annotated Figure 9 and ARCONA at paragraph [0232]: major surface 963 is configured to make initial contact with a workpiece) and a base portion (see Annotated Figure 9) and wherein the cutting portion has an aspect ratio between 2 and 10 (see Annotated Figure 9 and ARCONA at paragraph [[0116]: body 1201 comprises a secondary aspect ratio, which can be defined as a ratio of length: height, wherein the height may be an interior median height measured at midpoint 1281; aspect ratio can be at least about 4:1 = 4) and the base portion has an aspect ratio between 1.5 and 10 (see Annotated Figure 9 and ARCONA at paragraph [[0117]: the body 1201 comprises the tertiary aspect ratio , defined by the ratio width: height; aspect ratio can be at least about 2:1 = 2), wherein the aspect ratio of the cutting portion is defined as a height of the cutting portion divided by a thickness of the cutting portion and the aspect ratio of the base portion is defined by a thickness of the cutting portion and the aspect ratio of the base portion is defined as a base edge length of the base portion divided by an average base width of the base portion (see ARCONA at paragraph [0232]: the predetermined orientation characteristics of the shaped abrasive particle 902 can position the particle 902 such that the major surface 963 is configured to make initial contact with a workpiece before the other surfaces of the shaped abrasive particle 902 during a material removal operation. Such an orientation may be considered a major surface orientation relative to the grinding direction 985; it will be appreciated that, just as any range of predetermined rotational orientations relative to the backing are contemplated for a shaped abrasive particle, any range of orientations of the shaped abrasive particles relative to the grinding direction 985 are contemplated and can be utilized). The examiner interprets the disclosure of ARCONA regarding any range of orientations of the shaped abrasive particles relative to the grinding directions as indicating that any side of the abrasive article can be utilized as a cutting portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
626
1091
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12A.
PNG
media_image2.png
427
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9.
For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will treat particles in Figures 12A, 9 and 16 as equivalent examples based on teachings of ARCONA disclosing that the shaped abrasive particle in Figure 9 is done merely for illustration, and any of shaped abrasive particles can be substituted for the shaped abrasive particle illustrated in Fig. 9 (see ARCONA at paragraph [0232]).
While ARCONA teaches that body of abrasive particles may be formed to include certain additives (see ARCONA at paragraph [0194]), ARCONA fails to explicitly teach a magnetically responsive coating, wherein the magnetically responsive coating causes the shaped abrasive particle to be responsive to a magnetic field. While ARCONA teaches that the shaped abrasive particles can be oriented in a predetermined orientation relative to each other and substrate (see ARCONA at paragraph [0210]), wherein each of the first and second surfaces are substantially perpendicular to a backing (see ARCONA at Figure 6 and paragraph [0211]: the bottom surface can form an obtuse angle/>90° relative to the surface of the substrate, the upper surface is angled relative to the surface of the substrate, which may define an acute angle/<90°), ARCONA fails to explicitly teach the shaped abrasive particle, when exposed to the magnetic field, experiencing a net torque that causes the shaped abrasive particle to orient with respect to the magnetic field. For the purpose of claim interpretation, the Examiner will interpret limitation “substantially perpendicular” according to Specification, thus, deviating from 90° angle by up to 50% and including obtuse and acute angles.
However, NELSON teaches a magnetizable abrasive particle comprising ceramic body having an outer surface and magnetizable layer (see NELSON at Abstract). NELSON also teaches a magnetizable abrasive particle comprising a ceramic body having an outer surface, and a magnetizable layer disposed on a portion of the outer surface (see NELSON at lines 1-3, p. 2). Additionally, NELSON teaches magnetic field having a field strength in the region of the magnetizable abrasive particles being oriented of preferably 100 gauss and more preferably at least about 1000 gauss (see NELSON at lines 2-5, p. 3). Finally, NELSON teaches that magnetic field can be used to urge the magnetizable abrasive particles onto the make layer precursor of a coated abrasive article while maintaining a vertical or inclined orientation relative to a horizontal backing (see NELSON at lines 3-5, p. 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of applying the magnetically responsive coating to the abrasive particle of ARCONA and utilize magnetic field to orient abrasive particles based on the teachings of ARCONA describing that the shaped abrasive particles can be oriented in a predetermined orientation relative to each other and substrate (see ARCONA at paragraph [0210]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply magnetic field of 100 gauss or least about 1000 gauss (see NELSON at lines 2-5, p. 3) to the magnetically responsive particle since NELSON explicitly teaches that magnetic field can be used to urge the magnetizable abrasive particles onto the make layer precursor of a coated abrasive article while maintaining a vertical or inclined orientation relative to a horizontal backing (see NELSON at lines 3-5, p. 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the magnetically responsive coating of NELSON to the abrasive particles disclosed by ARCONA in order to use magnetic field to urge the magnetizable abrasive particles onto the make layer precursor of a coated abrasive article while maintaining a vertical or inclined orientation relative to a horizontal backing.
It is noted that ARCONA discloses that the predetermined orientation characteristics of the shaped abrasive particle 902 can position the particle 902 such that the major surface 963 is configured to make initial contact with a workpiece before the other surfaces of the shaped abrasive particle 902 during a material removal operation. Such an orientation may be considered a major surface orientation relative to the grinding direction 985; it will be appreciated that, just as any range of predetermined rotational orientations relative to the backing are contemplated for a shaped abrasive particle, any range of orientations of the shaped abrasive particles relative to the grinding direction 985 are contemplated and can be utilized (see ARCONA at Fig. 9, and paragraph [0232]). Thus, ARCONA explicitly teaches that depending on the placement and orientation of the abrasive particle relative to the abrasive article, any surface of the abrasive particle can be utilized as a cutting portion. Therefore, the examiner asserts that the recess 1242 (see Annotated Fig. 12A) can be included in the portion making initial contact with a workpiece and not in the base portion.
Regarding claim 2, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1, wherein the cutting portion comprises (see ARCONA at paragraph [0232]: the major surface 963 is configured to make initial contact with a workpiece before the other surfaces during material removal operation) an edge is substantially perpendicular to the backing (see ARCONA at Figure 6 and paragraph [0211]: the bottom surface can form an obtuse angle/>90° relative to the surface of the substrate, the upper surface is angled relative to the surface of the substrate, which may define an acute angle/<90°) and a cutting face of the shaped abrasive particle (see Annotated Figure 9 and ARCONA at paragraph [0232]: major surface 963 is configured to make initial contact with a workpiece), and wherein the cutting face has a first edge configured to couple to the backing (see Annotated Figure 9.1) and a second edge opposite the first edge (see Annotated Figure 9.1), and wherein the second edge is a cutting edge, and wherein the second edge is a cutting edge configured to engage a workpiece (see ARCONA at paragraph [0232]: make initial contact with a workpiece).
PNG
media_image3.png
430
786
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 9.1.
Regarding claim 3, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1. While ARCONA as modified by NELSON fails to explicitly teach wherein a first derivative of a normalized cross-sectional area with respect to a normalized height has at least one value which is greater than -0.5 or smaller than -1.5, and wherein an approximate second derivative of the normalized cross section with respect to the normalized height has at least one value greater than 0 and at least one value less than 0, this property inherently flows from teachings of ARCONA as modified by NELSON describing the abrasive particle, which reads on the limitations of claim 1 as set forth. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2112.01(I).
Regarding claim 4, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1, wherein the surface profile has exactly 5 outside corners (see Annotated Figure 12A and ARCONA at paragraph [0114]: the shaped abrasive particle 1200 can have a hybrid polygonal two-dimensional shape having 5 external points or external corners).
Regarding claim 6, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 2, wherein a cross-sectional area of the particle increases non-linearly along a height of the particle (see Annotated Figure 16: along the height is interpreted as top to bottom), wherein the height comprises a distance from the first edge (see Annotated Figure 16: top 1611) to the second edge (see Annotated Figure 16: edge of an arrow along the height of the particle). Annotated Figure 16 illustrates the non-linear (see Annotated Figure 16: cross-sectional area along dotted line B is smaller than cross sectional area along dotted line A, while cross-sectional area along dotted line C is larger than cross sectional area along dotted line B) increase of cross-sectional area along the height of the particle going from top edge/first edge to the bottom edge coupled to the backing/second edge. 2nd cross-sectional area (cross-section along the dotted line C) is larger than 1st cross-sectional area (cross-section along the dotted line B).
Please note, that ARCONA discloses that Figure 16 includes the top view of illustration of a shaped abrasive particle including upper major surface 1603 and a bottom major surface (not shown) opposite the upper major surface 1603, the upper major surface and the bottom major surface can be separated from each other by at least one side surface 1605 (see ARCONA at paragraph [0148]).
PNG
media_image4.png
632
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 16.
Regarding claim 7, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1, wherein, for at least a first portion of the height of the particle, the cross-sectional area decreases (see Annotated Figure 16: cross-sectional area along dotted line B is smaller than cross sectional area along dotted line A), and wherein, for at least a second portion of the height of the particle, the cross-sectional area increases (see Annotated Figure 16: cross-sectional area along dotted line C is larger than cross sectional area along dotted line B) along the height from the first edge (see Annotated Figure 16: top 1611) to the second edge (see Annotated Figure 16: edge of an arrow along the height of the particle).
Regarding claims 11-12, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1, wherein the magnetic field is at least 100 gauss (claim 11) and at least 1000 gauss (claim 12) (see rejection of claim 1 spanning paragraphs on pages 5-8, and NELSON at lines 2-5, p. 3).
Regarding claim 13, ARCONA as modified by NELSON teaches the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1, wherein the recess is greater than 10% of the area of the first surface. For the purpose of the examination, the Examiner used the formulas for determining the area of a triangle and a circle in order to approximate the percentage of the recess of the area of the first surface.
Area of a triangle: At = (L·W)/2, where L is height and W is width (or base) of a triangle.
Area of a circle: Ac = π·r2, where r is a radius.
ARCONA teaches that the first curved section can have a radius of curvature (Rc1) that is at least half the width (see Annotated Figure 12B and ARCONA at paragraph [0134]), thus W=2r. ARCONA also teaches that the ratio of width to height, W: L, is 1:1 (see ARCONA at paragraph [0117]), thus L=W. Considering the dimensional relationship taught by ARCONA the formulas to calculate areas At and Ac cab be rewritten as:
At = (2r·2r)/2 = 2r2 Ac = π·r2
Ac/At = (π·r2)/(2r2) = 1.57
ARCONA also teaches that the first interior angle 1247 can have a value of about 92 degrees (see Annotated Figure 12B and ARCONA at paragraph [0131]). If an angle 1247 is 92 degrees, the diameter of a curvature in Annotated Figure 12B would approximately lie on the width of the triangle. The recess area extending into the area of the first surface would approximately be half of the approximated circle area: 1.57/2 = 0.78.
Therefore, the recess disclosed by ARCONA is approximately 78% of the area of the first surface. ARCONA teaches about 78%, which is within the claimed range of greater than 10%.
PNG
media_image5.png
669
755
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed aspect ratio of the cutting portion defined as the height of the cutting portion divided by the thickness of the cutting portion is incomparable to the secondary aspect ratio of ARCONA defined as a length-to-height ratio (L:H) (see Remarks received on 02/23/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 7).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, ARCONA discloses a body 1201 comprising a secondary aspect ratio, which can be defined as a ratio of length: height, wherein the height may be an interior median height measured at midpoint 1281 (see ARCONA at paragraph [[0116]). ARCONA also discloses that the length may be measured as the longest dimension extending from an external corner to a midpoint at the opposite side surface; and the height of the body may be generally the distance between the upper major surface 1203 and the bottom major surface 1204 (see Annotated Fig. 12A and ARCONA at paragraph [0113]). Based on the aforementioned disclosure of ARCONA, the examiner interprets “the length” of ARCONA as reading on the limitation “the height” as set forth in claim 1, and “the height” of ARCONA as reading on limitation “the thickness” as set forth in claim 1.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that the aspect ratio of the cutting potion and the aspect ratio of the base portion contribute to the orientation of the shaped abrasive particle in the magnetic field such that the recess is not included in the base portion, and that ARCONA is completely silent about such orientation of the shaped abrasive particle on the backing due to the specific aspect ratios of the shaped abrasive particle, it is noted that ARCONA discloses aspect ratios which are within the claimed ranges: secondary aspect ratio of 4 and tertiary aspect ratio of 2 (see ARCONA at paragraphs [0116-117]), as was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, the argument regarding orientation of the shaped abrasive particle on the backing due to the specific aspect ratios of the shaped abrasive particle is not commensurate in scope with amended claim 1.
Applicant argues that NELSON fails to disclose any structural requirement of the aspect ratio of the cutting portion or the aspect ratio of the base portion of the shaped abrasive particle, and that there is no teaching/suggestion in ARCONA regarding influence of the magnetic field on the shaped abrasive particle of ARCONA or in NELSON regarding influence of the magnetic field on the shaped abrasive particle having the aspect ratios of the cutting portion and the base portion (see Remarks received on 02/23/2026 spanning paragraphs on page 8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. NELSON discloses the ceramic bodies/particles are precisely-shaped (i.e., the ceramic bodies have shapes that are at least partially determined by the shapes of cavities in a production tool used to make them) (see NELSON at lines 6-8, p. 10), and that exemplary shapes include pyramids, cones, truncated cones, rods, prisms (see NELSON at lines 9-11, p. 10). NELSON also discloses that details concerning such shaped ceramic bodies can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 8142891 (Culler et al.) (see NELSON at lines 12-13). Furthermore, Culler et al. (US 8142891) discloses that by controlling the shape of the abrasive particles it is possible to control the resulting performance of the abrasive article, and that by making the abrasive particles with either a recessed or concave surface unexpected grinding benefit occur (see Culler at Col. 1, lines 24-30). Therefore, NELSON teaches that magnetic field can be used to urge the magnetizable abrasive particles onto the make layer precursor of a coated abrasive article while maintaining a vertical or inclined orientation relative to a horizontal backing (see NELSON at lines 3-5, p. 12), and that the shaped abrasive particles can have either a recessed or concave surface, based on disclosure of Culler referenced by NELSON (see NELSON at lines 12-13 and Culler et al. (US 8142891) at Col. 1, lines 24-30). Since NELSON teaches the benefit of applying magnetic field such as particle orientation (see NELSON at lines 3-5, p. 12), and discloses that particles can have recessed or concave surface by referencing Culler (see NELSON at lines 12-13), and ARCONA discloses the benefits of including the concave void within the surface of abrasive particle such as to facilitate improved performance (see ARCONA at paragraphs [0133-134]), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify ARCONA with NELSON in order to facilitate improved performance. Furthermore, ARCONA discloses abrasive particles comprising structural elements as claimed in the present invention including a concave void and aspect ratios which are within the claimed ranges (see ARCONA at paragraphs [0116-118]). Thus, shaped abrasive particles of ARCONA as modified by NELSON read on all limitations of claim 1 as set forth.
Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over ARCONA in view of NELSON is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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 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.
/A.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights