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
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-11, 14, and 16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment, filed 03/09/2026, has been entered. Claims 17, 22, 31, and 34 are amended, claims 3, 5-7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 32 are or were previously cancelled, and no claims are added. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 16 remain withdrawn as described above. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33-35 are pending with claims 17-19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33-35 are considered in this Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/10/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 12/09/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19, 22, 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (U.S. 5,201,916) in view of Yener et al. (U.S. 2013/0180180).
Regarding claim 17, Berg et al. (hereinafter “Berg”) teaches shaped abrasive particles and method of making the same (Title) wherein a) a dispersion comprising particles that can be converted into alpha alumina is provided, b) a mold is provided having a first generally planar surface and a second surface opposed to said first surface having an opening to a mold cavity having a specified shape, c) the dispersion is introduced into the mold cavity, d) removing a sufficient portion of the volatile component of the dispersion while said dispersion is in said mold cavity, thereby forming a precursor of an abrasive particle having a shape approximately corresponding to the shape of said mold cavity, e) removing said precursor of the abrasive particle from said mold cavity, f) calcining said removed precursor of the abrasive particle, and g) sintering said calcined precursor to form the desired abrasive particle (Col. 2 line 57 to Col. 3 line 14).
As it applies to the instant claims, Berg’s process includes dispensing material (i.e. the dispersion containing liquid and particles convertible to alpha alumina) into a mold cavity with a mold shape having a shaped perimeter and depth based upon the nature of a ‘mold cavity’ (however, see Col. 6 lines 42-59 which describes the various shapes of the cavities as well as that they all have a dimension of depth) and drying.
Returning to the prior art, Berg expressly teaches that the dimensions of the cavities approximately correspond to the desired dimensions of the abrasive particles, taking expected shrinkage into account (Col. 6 lines 59-62) and that the abrasive articles contain a blend of abrasive particles along with conventional abrasive grains, diluent grains… and materials of conventional abrasive grains including aluminum oxide, silicon carbide, garnet, fused alumina zirconia, cubic boron nitride, diamond, and the like… (Col. 11 lines 54-69; emphasis respectfully added in the interest of compact prosecution and clarity).
However, Berg is silent to the combination of a first material having a first phase and second material having a second phase that are used as the dispersion and where drying comprises inducing curvature in the first and second layers as the first and second phases are capable of drying into a first curved layer and a second curved layer.
Yener et al. (hereinafter “Yener”) teaches a composite shaped abrasive particle (Title) wherein a first mixture and a second mixture are combined in a single forming process into an integral precursor shaped abrasive particle and wherein the first mixture has a different composition than a composition of the second mixture (Abstract). Figures 6A, 6B, 7, and 8 reproduced below for clarity of the record:
PNG
media_image1.png
632
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notably, Figure 8 depicts a composite shaped abrasive particle having curved portions/segments of the composite abrasive particle and Yener teaches at Paragraph 0050 that the composite particle may comprise a first mixture and second mixture that is different from the first mixture and that may have different properties.
Additionally, Yener depicts at Figure 22:
PNG
media_image2.png
502
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Where the shaped abrasive particle has a first layer 2202 and a second layer 2203 overlying the first layer 2202 and at Figures 23A and 23B:
PNG
media_image3.png
644
366
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein the figures also show a shaped and curved multilayer abrasive particle where the second layer is described to be ‘overlying’ the first layer.
It would be obvious to use the mold method of Berg to create a composite particle, i.e. a particle containing a first material and a second material, as taught by Yener so as to achieve an improved abrasive particle that obtains the advantages of each individual component and yet achieves an integral particle. Compellingly, Yener teaches that the composite shaped abrasive particles can have a particular combination of features distinct from other particles including, but not limited to, aspect ratio, composition, additives, two-dimensional shape, three-dimensional shape, stepped configuration, different two-dimensional shapes, diffusion interfaces, difference in dopant concentration for different portions, layers, and regions, and a combination thereof (Paragraph 0209; emphasis respectfully added in the interest of compact prosecution and clarity).
While Yener does not particularly use molding processes (see Paragraph 0209), Yener does not discourage, discredit, criticize, or otherwise teach away from the manufacture of the composite particle by way of molding and sol-gel.
Thus, in view that molding is a recognized and well-known technique for manufacturing shaped abrasive particles as taught by Berg, it would be obvious to use the molding process of Berg to produce the composite particle having first and second compositions (i.e. ‘first and second materials, first and second portions, and/or first and second curved layers). Furthermore, the selection of the shape of the desired particles, and thereby the selection of a mold shape that approximately corresponds to those particles, the shape of the particles and their combined components could be selected such that the shapes of the particles curve or are otherwise arcuate.
Regarding claim 18, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Yener further teaches in at least Figure 6A, 6B, and Figure 8 that the differently compositioned materials could be arranged in such a manner that the first material has a substantially constant composition across the first portion and wherein the second material has a substantially constant composition across the second portion. For example, Yener teaches at Paragraphs 0203 and 0204 that a first mixture is printed into openings of a first screen having equilateral triangular-shaped openings to form a first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles in the first screen and then a second mixture is printed into the openings of a second screen and onto the surfaces of the first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles.
This arrangement would produce the first material in a substantially constant composition across the first portion because the first mixture is printed into the openings of the first screen as well as the second material in a substantially constant composition across the second portion because the second mixture is printed into the openings and onto the surface of the first material.
Regarding claim 19, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg further teaches that the cavities have a dimension of depth and can are various shapes (Col. 6 lines 43-62).
Thus, it would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a shape that would provide the desired dimensions of the abrasive particles (see also Berg Col. 6 lines 59-61 “…dimensions of cavities approximately correspond to the desired dimensions of the abrasive particles”) and that shape could be such that the bottom of the mold cavity is substantially planar such that it would be ‘substantially constant’ as claimed.
Additionally, it has been held that changes in shape, size, and/or proportion are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape, size, and/or proportion are significant and/or produce unexpected results.
Regarding claim 22, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg further teaches that a release coating can be applied to the surface of the mold and on the surface of the cavities of the mold so as to allow ease of removal of the precursors of the abrasive particles (Col. 7 lines 23-27).
Regarding claim 24, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Yener further teaches, in at least Figure 6A and/or 6B, an arrangement such that the first material (i.e., the first compositioned material) would necessarily have had to be dispensed as a first layer within the mold cavity. Additionally, Paragraphs 0203 and 0204 explain that a first mixture is printed into openings of a first screen having equilateral triangular-shaped openings to form a first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles in the first screen and then a second mixture is printed into the openings of a second screen and onto the surfaces of the first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles.
This arrangement would produce the first material in a first layer within the mold cavity, i.e. the screen.
Regarding claim 27, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Yener further teaches, in at least Figure 6A and/or 6B, an arrangement such that the first material (i.e., the first compositioned material) would necessarily have had to be dispensed as a first layer within the mold cavity. Additionally, Paragraphs 0203 and 0204 explain that a first mixture is printed into openings of a first screen having equilateral triangular-shaped openings to form a first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles in the first screen and then a second mixture is printed into the openings of a second screen and onto the surfaces of the first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles.
This arrangement would produce the first mold feature of the mold cavity comprising only the first material and the second mold feature comprises only the second material and where the first and second mold features comprise an interior surface, i.e. the interface where the second material is printed through the second screen and onto the first material.
Regarding claim 28, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg further teaches that the mold shape comprises a first corner and a second corner (see Figure 2 reproduced below) and that the precursors are expected to shrink (Col. 6 lines 61-62).
PNG
media_image4.png
278
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While Berg and Yener do not expressly teach that the corners curl in the same direction, the shrinkage of the precursor materials during heating would be expected to result in a shape change such that it meets the BRI of ‘curling’ as claimed. Notably, the reference point to which the ‘direction’ is not set or claimed and so the feature is broad. For example, both corners could curl upward with respect to the center of the particle.
Additionally, the selection of the desired dimensions and/or shape of the particles would also result in curling of the corners where the shape is selected to be arcuate such as a spherical triangular particle (see “…the definition of triangular extends to spherical triangles” Berg at Col. 10 lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 30, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg further teaches that the mold shape comprises a first corner and a second corner (see Figure 2 reproduced below) and that the precursors are expected to shrink (Col. 6 lines 61-62).
PNG
media_image4.png
278
436
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While Berg and Yener do not expressly teach that the corners curl in different directions, the shrinkage of the precursor materials during heating would be expected to result in a shape change such that it meets the BRI of ‘curling’ as claimed. Notably, the reference point to which the ‘direction’ is not set or claimed and so the feature is broad. For example, one corner could curl at a different angle from the other corner with respect to the center of the particle and thereby be considered to be ‘different’ directions because the angle is different.
Additionally, the selection of the desired dimensions and/or shape of the particles would also result in curling of the corners where the shape is selected to be arcuate such as a spherical triangular particle (see “…the definition of triangular extends to spherical triangles” Berg at Col. 10 lines 60-61).
Regarding claim 31, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 28 above and Examiner respectfully notes that this claim is subject to an indefiniteness rejection. In the interest of furthering prosecution, Examiner has attempted to construe and treat the claim.
Yener teaches the composite particle having two differently composited materials that form an integral abrasive particle. It would be obvious to select the shape of the desired composite particle such that the first layer and the second layers arc away from each other at the edges/corners while remaining affixed together at the center of the particle so that the first and second layers bend such that the edges or tips create additional abrasive surfaces.
Additionally, it has been held that changes in shape, size, and/or proportion are prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the shape, size, and/or proportion are significant and/or produce unexpected results.
Regarding claim 33, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Yener further teaches at Paragraph 0204 a second mixture is printed into the openings of a second screen and onto the surfaces of the first group of precursor shaped abrasive particles. Yener describes the mixture as a gel which meets the BRI of ‘slurry or a sol gel’ as claimed.
Regarding claim 34, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg and Yener both teach sintering the dried abrasive particle (Berg at Col. 3 lines 13-15 and Yener Paragraphs 0088 and 0204).
Regarding claim 35, Berg and Yener teach the method as applied to claim 17 above and Berg and Yener further teach sintering as explained above.
Berg and Yener are silent that one of the first and second materials is destroyed when heated to the sintering temperature.
However, it would be prima facie obvious that at least one of the first and second materials is destroyed when heated to the sintering temperature because the heating transforms the precursor first and second materials into the final abrasive product. To be clear, the sintering destroys the first material containing volatile material such as a liquid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the invention as currently claimed. Further amendment to require the particular shapes and arrangement(s) that Applicant argues is necessary.
While Applicant argues that ‘it is practically not possible to dispense the secondary layer portions in the first layer using the method of Berg’ (Page 3 of Remarks), Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant’s claim is too broad for this argument to be persuasive. If Applicant provided further limitations and/or frame of reference regarding which view the layers and curves are determined from, then it potentially could be persuasive to distinguish from the combination of Berg and Yener. However, the claim language to that effect is not presented and so Applicant argues an interpretation far narrower than what the claim actually embraces.
With regard to Applicant’s comment that the first material and second material are stacked one over another for making the multiphase abrasive particle (Page 4 of Remarks), Examiner notes that that language/arrangement is not positively required by the claim but, even if it were, Figures 22, 23A, and 23B of Yener show the second layer overlying (i.e., ‘stacked’) over the first layer.
Conclusion
As noted previously, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Keipert et al. (U.S. 2012/0231711) directed to a method of making a coated abrasive article having shaped abrasive particles and resulting product at least Paragraphs 0040, 0041, and Figure 1D which depict a coated abrasive article having abrasive particles made in a sol-gel process utilizing a mold where a size coat is applied that induces curvature of the size coat layer at various surfaces as it conforms to the shape of the abrasive particles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 ALEXANDRA M MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-8502. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/ALEXANDRA M MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
ALEXANDRA M MOORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights