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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 09/22/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement for restriction is hereby made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites, in part, “wherein the asymmetric energy input is effected at at least one outlet opening of at least one nozzle body of an extrusion device and/or on at least one belt guiding device and/or in at least one device for asymmetric energy input”; however, the claim continues to recite “preferably comprising at least one drum and/or roller”. Thus, it is not clear as whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Claim 3 is rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites, in part, “wherein the asymmetric energy input is effected by contact with at least one heating device”, but then it recites “preferably wherein at least one heating device is formed plate-shaped at least in regions”. Thus, it is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Additionally, the claim recites, in part, “is effected by introduction of an electric current into the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles, wherein at least a part of an energy of the electric current is converted into heat by an electrical resistance of the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles”. It is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Furthermore, the claim recites, in part, “is effected by convection”, but then it continues to recite “preferably by means of a fan heater device”. It is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Moreover, the claim recites, in part, “is effected by action of an electromagnetic radiation”, but then it continues to recite “preferably wherein the electromagnetic radiation has at least a wavelength of between 780 nm and 1 mm or 380 nm and 100 nm, and/or is emitted by at least one laser or a radiant heater”. It is unclear as to whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Additionally, with respect to claim 4, it is noted a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a wavelength of between 780 nm and 1 mm”, and the claim also recites “380 nm and 100 nm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites, in part, “wherein in the course of the extrusion the starting mixture is pressed through at least one nozzle body with at least one nozzle channel”, but the claim continues to recite “preferably a plurality of nozzle channels running substantially parallel”, and even recites “preferably wherein the at least one nozzle body was produced using an additive manufacturing method”. It is unclear as to whether what follows after the terms “preferably” are required or optional.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites wherein the at least one nozzle channel of the at least one nozzle body has a “preferably” circular or elliptical, inlet opening, through which the starting mixture enters the at least one nozzle channel, and an outlet opening that is “preferably” rectangular, square, triangular, drop-shaped or star-shaped and/or has at least one convex side or at least one concave side, via which the extrudate exists from the at least one nozzle channel. However, it is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” in both occurrences, are optional or required.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites wherein the extrudate is separated into intermediate particles by a separator, preferably, by a rotating or oscillating blade, and/or by means of at least one laser and/or at least one water jet cutter and/or at least one plasma cutter, preferably wherein the extrudate to be separated by means of the separator is deposited on a conveyor before the separation. However, it is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” in both occurrences, are optional or required.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims recites steps of calcination and sintering, but recites the temperature for both processes after the term “preferably”; thus, it is not clear as to whether the temperature ranges claimed for calcination and sintering are required or optional.
Additionally, with respect to claim 10, it is noted a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “are calcined preferably at a temperature of between 400˚C and 1200˚C”, and the claim also recites “particularly preferably at a temperature of between 800˚C and 1000˚C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Moreover, with respect to claim 10, it is noted a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “are sintered preferably at a temperature of between 1200˚C and 1800˚C”, and the claim also recites “particularly preferably at a temperature of between 1200˚C and 1500˚C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites wherein in the course of the heat treatment the intermediate particles generated by the separation are pre-dried before the calcination and/or sintering “preferably” at a temperature of between 50˚C and 350˚C particularly “preferably” at a temperature of between 80˚C and 100˚C. It is unclear as to whether the temperature ranges, whether the broad one or the narrow one, claimed for the calcination and/or sintering, are required or optional.
Additionally, with respect to claim 11, it is noted a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a temperature of between 50˚C and 350˚C”, and the claim also recites “particularly preferably at a temperature of between 80˚C and 100˚C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim recites, in part, “wherein during the provision of the starting mixture and/or during the extrusion of the starting mixture water, a peptizer preferably nitric acid”. It is not clear as to whether what follows after “preferably” is required or optional.
Additionally, regarding claim 13, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 12 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claim 1; the prior art do not disclose or suggest a method for producing abrasive particles, having the following method steps:
providing a starting mixture, containing at least aluminum hydroxide, which can be converted at least into aluminum oxide by heat treatment,
extruding/g/g the starting mixture to form an extrudate,
separating the extrudate into intermediate particles, and
heat-treating the intermediate particles,
wherein the intermediate particles are converted into abrasive particles which contain aluminum oxide,
wherein the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles is or are subjected to an energy input that is asymmetric with respect to the geometry of the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles.
WO 2013/106597 to Yener et al. (hereinafter Yener), submitted in the IDS filed on 0909/2022, disclose abrasive particles having complex shapes and methods of forming same. The reference discloses abrasive grains having asymmetric geometry (page 2, lines 16-20). Yener teaches the abrasive grains may include an oxide such as aluminum oxide having an average grain size of not greater than about 250 microns (page 10, lines 12-21; page 29, lines 27-28). Furthermore, Yener teaches the use of boehmite as the precursor for alumina abrasive particles (page 30, lines 1-2). The reference discloses that the starting material or the precursor is extruded through a die opening having a particular shape (page 31, line 27 to page 32, line 10). The reference, additionally, discloses applying drying, heating, curing, doping and more to the precursor shaped abrasive particles produced as a result of extrusion (page 35, lines 22-35). Once the particles are formed, they are removed and collected, and go through sintering (page 36, lines 1-15; Example 1). However, there is nothing in the reference to teach or render obvious the energy input is asymmetrical with respect to the geometry of the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles.
EP 3 342 839 to Hirschmann et al. (hereinafter Hirschmann), submitted in the IDS filed on 09/09/2025, disclose a method for producing abrasive particles and to the abrasive particles produced by the method ([0001]). The reference discloses providing a starting mixture comprising at least aluminum hydroxide, water and additives such as nitric acid or a nitrate solution, which can be converted into at least aluminum oxide by heat treatment, then extruding this mixture in the form of a strand with a substantially circular cross-section or a ribbon with a substantially rectangular cross-section, then chipping the extrudate with geometrically defined cutting edges to form intermediate particles, followed by drying the intermediate particles, and further followed by calcining and/or sintering to form final shaped abrasive particles ([0007]-[0011], [0020]-[0022], [0025]-[0027], [0044]-[0051], [0058]). The calcining and sintering take place at calcining furnace and sintering furnace ([0032]-[0033]). However, there is nothing in the reference to suggest or teach that the energy is input is asymmetrical with respect to the geometry of the extrudate and/or the intermediate particles. There is nothing in the reference to suggest such a feature in either the calcining furnace or the sintering furnace.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGAH PARVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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.
/PEGAH PARVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731