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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/26/2026:
claims 36-42, 44-46 and 74-82 are currently pending
claims 46 and 74-82 are withdrawn from consideration
claim 36 is amended
new prior art grounds of rejection reapplying Misak, Louapre and Eugster are presented herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 36 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Misak et al. (DE 102017210799 A1) with reference to US 20200181469 for citation, hereinafter referred to as MISAK.
Regarding claim 36, MISAK teaches a method of making an abrasive article (Abstract: abrasive article including the abrasive particles, and method for producing the abrasive particles), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of shaped abrasive particles (claim 14: abrasive article comprising the plurality of abrasive particles, wherein the plurality of shaped abrasive particles), the plurality of abrasive particles formed by:
filling a plurality of mold cavities with an abrasive particle precursor mixture (paragraph [0058]: introduction of a slip into depressions of a casting mold), wherein each of the plurality of mold cavities include a particle portion and a fracture portion (paragraph [0054]: the casting mold for producing shaped ceramic abrasive particles, in particular shaped ceramic abrasive particles having at least one structure-weakening element/fracture portion configured as open recess in the material and/or for producing ceramic abrasive particles having at least one structure-weakening element configured as material projection and/or material overhang has at least one mold cavity, preferably a plurality of mold cavities);
drying the abrasive particle precursor mixture to form a plurality of abrasive particle precursors (paragraph [0059]: drying the slip in the depression to give abrasive particles precursor), the particle portion comprising a non-sacrificial portion of the abrasive particle precursors, the fracture portion comprising the sacrificial portion of the abrasive particle precursors (paragraphs [0023]: the shaped ceramic abrasive particle has at least one structure-weakening element/fracture portion, and [0026]: structure-weakening element at which the abrasive particles typically breaks at the beginning of a grinding operation; thus, MISAK teaches sacrificial portion), wherein the particle portion and the fracture portion are coupled to each other at a fracture point (paragraph [0029]: structure-weakening elements configured as open or closed recesses in the material; in this way, a plurality of weak places and thus potential fracture positions at which sharp edges can be formed by fracture of the abrasive particle);
removing the plurality of abrasive particle precursors from the mold (paragraph [0060]: removal of the abrasive particle precursors from the depressions); and
firing the plurality of abrasive particle precursors to form shaped abrasive particles (paragraph [0061]: sintering of the abrasive particles precursors to give abrasive particles);
embedding the plurality of fired shaped abrasive particles within the make coat layer on a backing of the abrasive article (paragraph [0051]: in a coated abrasive article, the abrasive particles adhere, by means of a base binder, to the flexible substrate); and
causing the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to fracture, wherein fracturing comprises the sacrificial portion at least partially breaking from the non-sacrificial portion during a stress event (paragraphs [0023]: the shaped ceramic abrasive particle has at least one structure-weakening element/fracture portion; [0026]: structure-weakening element at which the abrasive particles typically breaks at the beginning of a grinding operation; and [0040]: the material projection can break and thus form sharp edge even at low stresses (for example grinding with a low pressure)); and
wherein the sacrificial portion provides substantially no abrasive efficacy during the life of the abrasive article (paragraphs [0026]: the invention provides a defined weakest place in or on the material which is produced by the at least one structure-weakening element introduced in a targeted and reproducible manner and at which the abrasive particle typically breaks at the beginning of a grinding operation; this makes it possible to bring about the advantageous and desirable sharp edges of the abrasive particle without losing a large part of the material of the abrasive particle; and [0040]: it is possible for the material projection to have a lower strength than the remaining abrasive particle, so that the material projection can break and thus form a sharp edge even at low stresses (for example grinding with a low contact pressure)). It is noted, that the MISAK’s statement regarding a material projection breaking and thus forming a sharp edge (paragraph [0040]) without losing a large part of the material of the abrasive particle (paragraph [0026]), is interpreted as a projection/sacrificial portion providing no abrasive efficacy, since one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a projection detached from the abrasive particle at the beginning of the grinding operation to form a sharp edge would not participate in the abrading process; and
wherein the fracture portion extends deeper or shallower into a mold cavity than the particle portion (paragraphs [0054]: to form a material projection and/or a material overhang, the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold can be joined by a radius of curvature; and [0063]: a structure-weakening element in the form of a material projection and/or in the form of a material overhang can be realized in a particularly simple way as early as in the shaping process in the production of the abrasive particle by means of an appropriately shaped casting mold). Thus, MISAK teaches forming a material projection in the mold. It is noted, that the examiner interprets MISAK’s disclosure describing “the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold joined by a radius of curvature” as indicating a mold cavity formed by the joined mold side wall and the surface. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the area of a mold cavity wherein the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold joined by a radius of curvature is a shallower portion of a mold cavity.
Regarding claims 44-45, MISAK teaches the method of claim 36, wherein each of the plurality of mold cavities has a depth (claim 44), wherein the depth is variable (claim 45) (claim 15: each cavity of the plurality of mold cavities having a lower mold surface, a mold side wall and the depth TF between lower mold surface and surface of the casting mold; and paragraph [0054]: in one embodiment, the depth is about 450 µm).
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 37, 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISAK in view of Louapre et al. (US 20160186028), hereinafter referred to as LOUAPRE.
Regarding claim 37, MISAK teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the particle portion has a polygonal shape (see MISAK at paragraph [0054]: the mold cavity has a shape complementary to the shape of at least part of the surface of abrasive particle, being selected from among triangular, polygonal; to form the open recess in the material, the mold cavity can have corresponding projections); thus, MISAK discloses the shaped abrasive particle having polygonal shape after the projection/sacrificial portion fractures off. While MISAK teaches providing a defined weakest place which is produced by the at least one structure-weakening element introduced in a targeted and reproducible manner, MISAK fails to explicitly teach wherein 75% of the abrasive particles have at least about 90% similarity with the polygonal shape after the sacrificial portion fractures off.
However, LOUAPRE teaches a method of forming a shaped abrasive particle including forming a precursor shaped abrasive particle having a body including at least one predetermined stress concentration point and at least one predetermined stress concentration vector and processing the precursor shaped abrasive particle and fracturing the precursor shaped abrasive particle substantially along the predetermined stress concentration vector to form a fractured shaped abrasive particle (see LOUAPRE at Abstract). LOUAPRE discloses that the shaped abrasive particle fractions of the embodiments herein may be obtained through various processing methods, including molding (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0019]). LOUAPRE teaches that the shape of the precursor shaped abrasive particles and the forming process are controlled to facilitate fracturing of the precursor shaped abrasive particles in a controlled manner; and that the drying operation can be tailored to facilitate initial fracturing of the precursor shaped abrasive particles at the one or more predetermined stress concentration points (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0057]). Additionally, LOUAPRE teaches controlling the process to ensure suitable fracturing of the precursor shaped abrasive particles, thus, a majority, such as at least about 95% of the precursor shaped abrasive particles are fractured in the same manner relative to each other, such that the shaped abrasive particle fractions have substantially the same shape (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0058]). LOUAPRE also teaches the drying of the precursor shaped abrasive particles including controlling at least one of a drying rate, a drying time, a drying temperature, and a combination thereof; drying may include controlling a drying operation to fracture the precursors shaped abrasive particles along the at least one predetermined stress concentration vector (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0047]). Finally, LOUAPRE teaches that the fracturing mechanism has been found to facilitate the formation of sharper corners and surfaces (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0067]), and that a sharper tip can promote more aggressive cutting (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0062]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of modifying the method of MISAK by incorporating controlling the forming processes such as drying to ensure suitable fracturing as discloses by LOUAPRE since LOUAPRE explicitly teaches that at least about 95% of the precursor shaped abrasive particles are fractured in the same manner relative to each other, such that the shaped abrasive particle fractions have substantially the same shape (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0058]); that the fracturing mechanism has been found to facilitate the formation of sharper corners and surfaces (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0067]), and that a sharper tip can promote more aggressive cutting (see LOUAPRE at paragraph [0062]).
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 method of MISAK by controlling the forming processes to ensure suitable fracturing as discloses by LOUAPRE in order to facilitate the formation of sharper corners and surfaces which can promote more aggressive cutting.
Regarding claim 40, MISAK as modified by LOUAPRE teaches the method of claim 36, wherein the plurality of abrasive particles fracture during the drying step (see rejection of claim 37 above spanning paragraphs on pages 7-8 and LOUAPRE at paragraph [0047]: controlling a drying operation to fracture the precursors shaped abrasive particles along the at least one predetermined stress concentration vector).
Regarding claim 41, MISAK as modified by LOUAPRE teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the fracture portion extends from the particle portion at a corner of a polygonal shape of the particle portion (see MISAK at paragraphs [0036]: the at least one structure-weakening element is a material projection and/or material overhang at the at least one corner of the abrasive particle; and [0013]: geometric bodies suitable for shaped abrasive particles are polyhedra).
Regarding claim 42, MISAK as modified by LOUAPRE teaches the method of claim 40, wherein the fracture portion extends from a perimeter of a polygonal shape of the particle portion (see MISAK at paragraphs [0032]: the at least one structure-weakening element configured is located on one of the at least three faces; and [0033]: the at least one structure-weakening element has an essentially convexly curved).
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MISAK in view of Eugster et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0144480 A1), hereinafter referred to as EUGSTER.
Regarding claim 38, MISAK teaches the method of claim 36. While MISAK teaches that abrasive particles become oriented so that the apex points toward the substrate (see MISAK at paragraph [0020]), MISAK fails to explicitly teach coating the abrasive particles with a magnetically responsive material; and orienting the abrasive particles on the backing by providing a magnetic field such that a majority of the abrasive particles are each oriented with a cutting face in the same direction.
However, EUGSTER teaches an abrasive means having an abrasive means backing and a plurality of abrasive particles applied thereto, of which at least a large proportion form at least one abrasive edge unit having an abrasive edge inclined at an angle between 0° and 90° relative to a defined machining direction (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0003]). EUGSTER discloses the abrasive particles having at least one setback surface region, which is formed at least in part as a groove, which is intended to serve as a predetermined breaking point for a controlled breaking of the abrasive particle and therefore to achieve a self-sharpening effect of the abrasive particle (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0017]). Additionally, EUGSTER teaches that the abrasive particle, on account of a material and a design and/or an at least partial coating, has an electric or magnetic dipole moment, such that it can be oriented by an electromagnetic field, and that a high abrasive efficiency by an advantageous orientation of the abrasive particles can be achieved with a low technical outlay (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0064]).
Both MISAK’s and EUGSTER’s disclosures are from the same field of endeavor and drawn to the method of forming abrasive article. According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of modifying the method of MISAK by coating the abrasive particles with a magnetically responsive material, and orienting the abrasive particles by providing an electromagnetic field as disclosed by EUGSTER since EUGSTER explicitly teaches achieving a high abrasive efficiency by an advantageous orientation of the abrasive particles with a low technical outlay (see EUGSTER at paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of MISAK by applying the coating having an electric or magnetic dipole moment to the abrasive particles as disclosed by EUGSTER in order to orient the abrasive particles by an electromagnetic field and achieve a high abrasive efficiency with a low technical outlay.
Regarding claim 39, MISAK as modified by EUGSTER teaches the method of claim 38, wherein the fracture portion is intact during the orienting step, and wherein causing the plurality of abrasive particles to fracture occurs during a first use of the abrasive article (see rejection of claim 38 above spanning paragraphs on pages 10-11, and MISAK at paragraphs [0026]: structure-weakening element at which the abrasive particles typically break at the beginning of a grinding operation; and [0040]: the material projection can break and thus form sharp edge even at low stresses (for example grinding with a low pressure)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that in MISAK the material projection is produced by joining the side wall and the surface of the mold, and hence, the material projection constitutes a portion of the abrasive particle outside of the mold; therefore, MISAK fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a method of making the abrasive article in which a fracture portion extends deeper or shallower into the mold cavity than the particle portion (see Remarks received on 01/26/2026 spanning paragraphs on pages 6-8).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons. As was discussed in the rejection of claim 36 above, MISAK discloses that the casting mold for producing shaped ceramic abrasive particles, in particular shaped ceramic abrasive particles having at least one structure-weakening element configured as material projection and/or material overhang has at least one mold cavity with the at least one mold cavity having a lower mold surface, a mold side wall and a depth between lower mold surface and surface of the casting mold (see MISAK at paragraph [0054]). MISAK also discloses that to form a material projection and/or a material overhang, the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold can be joined by a radius of curvature (see MISAK at paragraph [0054]). Additionally, MISAK discloses that a structure-weakening element in the form of a material projection and/or in the form of a material overhang can be realized in a particularly simple way as early as in the shaping process in the production of the abrasive particle by means of an appropriately shaped casting mold (see MISAK at paragraph [0063]). Based on the disclosure of MISAK describing that the material projection can be formed in the shaping process by means of appropriately shaped casting mold, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the said projection is formed within the mold cavity. Furthermore, the examiner interprets MISAK’s disclosure describing “the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold joined by a radius of curvature” as indicating a mold cavity formed by the joined mold side wall and the surface. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the area of a mold cavity where the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold joined by a radius of curvature is a shallower portion of a mold cavity. See MPEP §2144.01: “"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”.
Annotated Fig. 4 below demonstrates the examiner’s interpretation of the appropriately shaped casting mold for forming a particle with a material projection as disclosed by MISAK. As can be seen from annotated Fig. 4, the circled area where the mold side wall and the surface of the casting mold joined by a radius of curvature represents a shallower portion of a mold cavity.
PNG
media_image1.png
409
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the rejection of claim 36 as being anticipated by MISAK 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 7:00am-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