Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 17/756,909

COATED ABRASIVE ARTICLES AND METHODS OF MAKING COATED ABRASIVE ARTICLES

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 06, 2022
Examiner
KUVAYSKAYA, ANASTASIA ALEKSEYEVNA
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
3M Company
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
41 granted / 59 resolved
+4.5% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
115
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
55.7%
+15.7% vs TC avg
§102
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 59 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/16/2025 has been entered. Response to Amendment In response to the amendment received on 09/19/2025: claims 1, 3-6, 11-12, 17-18, 20-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 34-35 and 37 are currently pending claims 20-21, 23-25, 27, 29, 31, 34-35 and 37 are withdrawn from consideration claims 1, 3-4, 6, 17, 20, 31 and 34 are amended new prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Anuj, Meana-Esteban and Zagor are presented herein Claim Objections Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “dose” should read “does”. Appropriate correction is required. 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, 3-4, 6, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anuj et al. (US 2014/0290147 A1), hereinafter referred to as ANUJ, in view of Meana-Esteban et al. (US 2016/0001422 A1), hereinafter referred to as MEANA-ESTEBAN. Regarding claim 1, ANUJ teaches a coated abrasive article (see ANUJ at paragraph [0119]) comprising: a backing having first and second opposed major surfaces (see ANUJ at Annotated Fig 1B (A) and paragraph [0150]: major surface/upper surface 161 of the backing 101). While ANUJ discloses that the backing can comprise an organic material, inorganic material, and a combination thereof; organic materials including: polymers, and particularly, polyester, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyimides; inorganic materials can include metals, metal alloys, and particularly, foils of copper, aluminum, steel, and a combination thereof (see ANUJ at paragraph [0118]), ANUJ fails to explicitly teach a laminate directly on the first major surface of the backing. However, MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches an abrasive product comprising a backing layer and an abrasive layer (see MEANA-ESTEBAN at Abstract). MEANA-ESTABAN teaches that the resin 112, denoted as a make coat, may be a mixture, where abrasive grains 113 are mixed to the resin 112. FIG. 4a shows an example of a mixture, denoted as abrasive slurry, which may be deposited on the backing layer 101 and cured by means of heat or radiation to form an abrasive layer 111 (see MENA-ESTEBAN at Fig. 4b and paragraph [0061]). MEANA-ESTEBAN also teaches that a backing layer 101 may be manufactured to provide functionality and comprise one or more functional layers 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 having a first side and a second side; the functional layers 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 may be adjoined for example by lamination or co-extrusion (see MEANA-ESTEBAN at Fig. 3 (M) and paragraph [0039]). Additionally, MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches that the functional layers 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 may comprise layers with different functions, for example embossing layers, anti-static layers, such as ultraviolet light or radical (UV/EB) blocking layers, adhesion promoting layers, anti-slip layers, reinforcement layers or filler layers (see MEANA-ESTEBAN at paragraph [0039]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of laminating functional layers on the surface of a backing in the coated abrasive articles of ANUJ based on the teachings of ANUJ describing that the backing can comprise an organic material, inorganic material, and a combination thereof (see ANUJ at paragraph [0118]). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a laminate on the surface of the backing as disclosed by MEANA-ESTEBAN since MEANA-ESTEBAN explicitly teaches that the laminate may comprise layers with different functions, for example embossing layers, anti-static layers, such as ultraviolet light or radical (UV/EB) blocking layers, adhesion promoting layers, anti-slip layers, reinforcement layers or filler layers (see MEANA-ESTEBAN at paragraph [0039]). 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 modified the coated abrasive article of ANUJ by adding laminated functional layers to the backing as disclosed by MEANA-ESTEBAN in order to provide functionality, e.g., by laminating layers such as ultraviolet light or radical (UV/EB) blocking layers, adhesion promoting layers, anti-slip layers, reinforcement layers or filler layers. For the purpose of the claim interpretation, the examiner treats individual layer of the backing disclosed by MEANA-ESTEBAN as reading on limitation “backing having first and second opposed surfaces” based on MEANA-ESTEBAN’s disclosure that backing layer 101 comprises one or more functional layers (see MEANA-ESTEBAN at paragraph [0039]). Thus, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches a laminate directly on the first major surface of the backing (see Annotated Fig. 3 (M) of MEANA-ESTEBAN), a make layer bonded to the laminate (see ANUJ at Figs 31, 32 and paragraph [0255]: adhesive layer can be a polymeric binder composition (i.e., polymeric resin) corresponding to a make layer 3202 (i.e., make resin), disposed over a major surface 3204 of a backing 3206); backing as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN, wherein the make layer comprises an even coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0335]: a backing substrate having a continuous make coat); abrasive particles directly bonded to the make layer, wherein the abrasive particles are at least partially embedded in the make layer (see ANUJ at Annotated Fig 1B (A) and paragraph [0147]: either of the adhesive layers 151 and 152 can be applied to the surface of the backing 101 in a single process, or alternatively, the shaped abrasive particles 102 and 104 can be combined with a material of one of the adhesive layers 151 or 152 and applied as a mixture to the surface of the backing 101), and wherein the abrasive particles are not applied in a pattern (see ANUJ at paragraph [0132]: a microunit may be defined as a smallest arrangement of shaped abrasive particles relative to each other; a macrounit can include a plurality of microunits; the macrounits may be arranged in a non-uniform distribution, which may include a random distribution, having no predictable long range or short range order); a size layer directly bonded to the make layer, and abrasive particles (see AHUJ at Annotated Fig 1B (A) and paragraph [0148]: the adhesive layer 152 can be a size coat formed to overlie and bond the shaped abrasive particles 102 and 104 in place relative to the backing 101); and wherein the size layer or a supersize layer comprise a patterned coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0193]: orientation regions that facilitate placement of shaped abrasive particles in the predetermined orientations; the orientation regions can be part of an adhesive layer, including a make coat or a size coat; and paragraph [0199]: the alignment structure can be used to facilitate placement of the shaped abrasive particles in desired orientation on the backing and relative to each other; the alignment structure can be integral part of one or more adhesive layers overlaying the backing), and wherein the patterned coating comprises a repeating unit (see ANUJ at paragraph [0125]: a predetermined distribution can comprise a pattern, design, sequence, array, or arrangement; predetermined positions can define an array, such as a two-dimensional array, or a multidimensional array; an array can also be a pattern, having long range order including regular and repetitive units linked together) PNG media_image1.png 515 956 media_image1.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1B (A) PNG media_image2.png 523 793 media_image2.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 3(M) Regarding claim 3, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein coated abrasive article does not comprise the supersize layer (see ANUJ at paragraph [0146]: a variety of the adhesive layers 151 or 152 of the abrasive article, which can include but not limited to, a frontfill, a pre-size coat, a make coat, a size coat, and/or a supersize coat), and wherein the size layer comprises the patterned coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0193]: orientation regions that facilitate placement of shaped abrasive particles in the predetermined orientations; the orientation regions can be part of an adhesive layer, including a make coat or a size coat; and paragraph [0199]: the alignment structure can be used to facilitate placement of the shaped abrasive particles in desired orientation on the backing and relative to each other; the alignment structure can be integral part of one or more adhesive layers overlaying the backing). Regarding claim 4, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, further comprising the supersize layer, wherein both the supersize layer and the size layer comprise the patterned coating (see ANUJ at [0146]: a variety of the adhesive layers 151 or 152 of the abrasive article, which can include but not limited to, a frontfill, a pre-size coat, a make coat, a size coat, and/or a supersize coat; and paragraph [0199]: the alignment structure can be used to facilitate placement of the shaped abrasive particles in desired orientation on the backing and relative to each other; the alignment structure can be integral part of one or more adhesive layers overlaying the backing). Regarding claim 6, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, further comprising the supersize layer (see ANUJ at paragraph [0146]: adhesive layers include a supersize coat), wherein the supersize layer comprises the patterned coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0030]: patterned alignment structures; and paragraph [0199]: the alignment structure can be used to facilitate placement of the shaped abrasive particles in desired orientation on the backing and relative to each other; the alignment structure can be integral part of one or more adhesive layers overlaying the backing). Regarding claim 11, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the backing comprises a polymeric film, a metal foil, a woven fabric, a knitted fabric, paper, vulcanized fiber, a nonwoven, a foam, a screen, a mesh, or a combination thereof (see ANUJ at paragraph [0118]: the backing can comprise an organic material, inorganic material, and a combination thereof; organic materials including: polymers, and particularly, polyester, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyimides; inorganic materials can include metals, metal alloys, and particularly, foils of copper, aluminum, steel, and a combination thereof). Regarding claim 12, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the backing is pretreated with a backsize, a presize, or a saturant (see ANUJ at Annotated Fig. 1B (A) and paragraph [0145]: adhesive layer 151 overlaying the backing; and paragraph [0146]: a polymer formulation may be used to form any of a variety of the adhesive layers 151 or 152 of the abrasive article, which can include but not limited to, a frontfill, a pre-size coat). Regarding claim 17, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the size layer comprises the patented coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0193]: orientation regions that facilitate placement of shaped abrasive particles in the predetermined orientations; the orientation regions can be part of an adhesive layer, including a make coat or a size coat). Regarding claim 18, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the patterned coating (see ANUJ at paragraph [0247]: patterned make coat) extends from a center of the abrasive particle to an edge of the abrasive particle (see ANUJ at Fig. 37 and paragraph [0126]: the predetermined distribution can overlie the entire abrasive article, can cover substantially the entire abrasive article). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANUJ in view of MEANA-ESTEBAN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zagor et al. (EP 0400658 A2), hereinafter referred to as ZAGOR. Regarding claim 5, ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN teaches the coated abrasive article of claim 1, wherein the size layer comprises the patterned coating, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the coated abrasive article comprises a first color and a second color, wherein the first color is a size layer color. However, ZAGOR teaches a coated abrasive material such as fining pad having on a base (12), radiation cured maker (14) and size coats (18) of different hardnesses, holding the abrasive grits (16) (see Annotated Fig. 1 (Z) and Abstract). PNG media_image3.png 486 862 media_image3.png Greyscale Annotated Fig. 1 (Z) ZAGOR also teaches the components included in the maker and size coat compositions, e.g., colorants to give a particular color to the abrasive products (see ZAGOR at lines 37-39, p. 5). For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the previously recited limitation as referring to first and second color (colorants included in the maker and size coat compositions), wherein one of the colors is a size coat color. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of including colorants disclosed by ZAGOR in the maker and size coat compositions of ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN, since ZAGOR explicitly teaches that colorants give a particular color to the abrasive products (see ZAGOR at lines 37-39, p. 5). 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 modified the coated abrasive article of ANUJ as modified by MEANA-ESTEBAN by including colorants in the maker and size coat compositions as disclosed by ZAGOR in order to give a particular color to the abrasive products. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the finality of the rejection mailed on 07/16/2025 should be withdrawn because the grounds of rejection were not necessitated by Applicant’s amendment. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. In response to the amendment to claim 1 received on 06/19/2025, the statutory basis of the rejection was changed from 35 U.S.C. 102 to U.S.C. 103 (see Office Action mailed on 07/16/2025), thus, the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendment (see Remarks received on 09/16/2025 spanning paragraphs on pages 6-7). See MPEP §1207.03(a): “If the examiner’s answer changes the statutory basis of the rejection from 35 U.S.C. 102 to 35 U.S.C. 103, then the rejection should be designated as a new ground of rejection”. In response to Applicant’s arguments that ANUJ in view of MEANA-ESTEBAN does not disclose an abrasive article in which the make layer comprises an even coating and the abrasive particles are not applied in a pattern (see Remarks received on 09/16/2025 spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8), it is noted that ANUJ explicitly teaches a backing substrate having a continuous make coat (see ANUJ at paragraph [0335]), as was discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Furthermore, ANUJ discloses that the portion of the backing covered by make coat material can range from 0.01 to 1.0 of the total backing surface (see ANUJ at paragraph [0249]), thus, ANUJ teaches a make coat covering the entire backing surface: 1.0 portion of the total backing surface. ANUJ also discloses a microunit defined as a smallest arrangement of shaped abrasive particles relative to each other; a macrounit including a plurality of microunits, and that the macrounits may be arranged in a non-uniform distribution, which may include a random distribution, having no predictable long range or short-range order (see ANUJ at paragraph [0132]), thus, ANUJ teaches applying abrasive particles not in a pattern, as set forth in claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claims as being unpatentable over ANUJ in view of MEANA-ESTEBAN is maintained. Conclusion 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 7:30am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jun 19, 2025
Response Filed
Jul 14, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 16, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 16, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Oct 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 24, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590030
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SUBGRADE UTILITY VAULTS, LIDS AND TRENCHES USING RECYCLED POLYSTYRENE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577161
DRY MORTAR, IN PARTICULAR CEMENTITIOUS TILE ADHESIVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570884
BONDED ABRASIVE AND METHODS OF FORMING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570575
BENEFICIATION OF METAL SLAGS FOR USE AS CEMENT MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565449
ULTRA-HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETES WITH HIGH EARLY STRENGTH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+39.1%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 59 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month