CTNF 18/016,477 CTNF 99588 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 04/29/2026. Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-14 are presently pending; claims 2 and 5-7 are canceled; claims 9-14 are withdrawn; claims 1 and 8 are amended; claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are under examination. New claim objections are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-4 and 8 over KINCAID in view of DOOLAN is maintained; the rejection of claims 2 and 5-7 is moot as these claims have been canceled. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Amended claim 1 contains grammatical errors; it appears that “disposing a make layer on at least a portion of the first major surface and bonds abrasive particles to the backing” should read “disposing a make layer on at least a portion of the first major surface and bonding abrasive particles to the backing” or “disposing a make layer on at least a portion of the first major surface, wherein the make layer bonds abrasive particles to the backing”, etc. (see claim 1 at lines 5-7); and “rheology modifier at least partially curing” should read “rheology modifier, and wherein at least partially curing” (see claim 1 at lines 16-17) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kincaid, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0325466-A1) (hereinafter, “KINCAID”; it is noted that KINCAID incorporates Rowenhorst, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,366,523; hereinafter “ROWENHORST”) by reference, therefore the disclosure of ROWENHORST is considered part of the disclosure of KINCAID; see MPEP 2163.07(b)) in view of Doolan, et al. (EP-0705852-A1) (hereinafter, “DOOLAN”), with evidence from Miller-Stephenson, “Waterborne Epoxy Resins | EPI-REZ WD 510” (hereinafter, “MILLER”) as to the rejection of claim 1 . Regarding claim 1, KINCAID teaches a method of making a coated abrasive article (see KINCAID at Abstract), the method comprising: providing precisely-shaped abrasive particles (see KINCAID at paragraph [0099], teaching that useful abrasive particles include those described in ROWENHORST ; see ROWENHORST at Abstract and Figs. 1-5 and 7, teaching abrasive particles which are precisely-shaped, three-sided platelets); providing a backing layer having first and second opposed major surfaces (see KINCAID at paragraph [0066] and Fig. 1); disposing a make layer on at least a portion of the first major surface and bonds abrasive particles to the backing (see KINCAID at paragraph [0066] and Fig. 1); and further wherein a size layer is disposed over at least a portion of the make layer and the abrasive particles (see KINCAID at paragraph [0066] and Fig. 1); and and coating a supersize layer precursor over at least a portion of the size layer and at least partially curing the supersize layer precursor to provide a supersize layer (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0006], [0066], [0149] and Fig. 1), wherein the supersize layer precursor comprises a water-based epoxy resin (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0096], [0107] and [0115], teaching make layer and/or size layer precursor may comprise epoxy resin binder, and that the supersize layer may contain the same binder as those used to prepare the size or make layer; see KINCAID at Table 1, including EPI-REZ WD-510 epoxy resin as an example of an epoxy resin which may be used as a binder; EPI-REZ WD-510 is a water-based epoxy resin, as evidenced by MILLER ; see MILLER at pg. 1) and an organic polymeric rheology modifier (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0096], [0107] and [0115], teaching that the binder used to make the make/size/supersize layer may include other polymers/resins, i.e., organic polymeric rheology modifiers, in addition to the epoxy resin; see KINCAID also at paragraphs [0091] and [0111], teaching that thickeners and thixotropic materials (i.e., rheology modifiers) can be included in the binder precursor compositions), and, wherein on a solids basis, the amount of water-based epoxy resin comprises an amount overlapping with the claimed range of from 85 to 99.99 weight percent of the combined weight of the water-based epoxy resin and the organic polymeric rheology modifier (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0042], [0045], [0052], [0057], [0091], [0096], [0107], [0111] and [0115], teaching that the epoxy resin used as the binder for the aqueous make/size/supersize layer compositions may be used alone or as a mixture with other polymers, resins, thickeners or thixotropic materials (i.e., rheology modifiers); i.e., the binder of the supersize layer may be comprised of up to 100% epoxy resin based on the combined weight of the epoxy resin and a rheology modifier), thereby rendering the claimed range obvious. As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists ( In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)), and at least partially curing the supersize layer precursor occurs in a festoon oven (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0058], [0109] and [0149]). However, KINCAID fails to explicitly teach an organic polymeric rheology modifier comprising an alkali-swellable/soluble polymer. DOOLAN teaches a method of improving the flow properties of aqueous coating compositions by including an alkali-swellable rheological additive in a small amount, e.g., 0.05 to 20% by weight (see DOOLAN at Title and pg. 2, lines 5-15 and 57; pg. 3, lines 43-44 and 50-52; pg. 4, lines 30-33; and pg. 8, lines 38-41). DOOLAN teaches that rheological modifiers are one of the most essential coating components, and that alkali-swellable polymers are highly effective polymeric rheological additives for aqueous compositions, particularly coating compositions, e.g., compositions based on epoxy resins (see DOOLAN at pg. 2, lines 5-10 and 15; pg. 3, lines 50-51; and pg. 9, lines 5-6 and 10) and that they provide coating compositions with many benefits including better efficiency, viscosity control, sag resistance, spatter resistance and flow properties (see DOOLAN at pg. 2, lines 32-35 and 53-57; pg. 3, lines 43-52; and pg. 9, lines 34-35). 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 KINCAID by including an alkali-swellable polymer rheology modifier in the aqueous, epoxy-based supersize layer coating composition, in a small amount of 0.05 to 20% by weight, as taught by DOOLAN (see DOOLAN at pg. 4, lines 30-33, and pg. 8, lines 38-41; this would result in amounts of epoxy in the supersize layer which overlap with the claimed range of 85 to 99.99 weight percent based on the combined weight of the epoxy and rheology modifier, thereby rendering the claimed range obvious). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing the supersize layer composition with an essential, highly effective rheological additive which will provide the composition with better efficiency, viscosity control, sag resistance, spatter resistance and flow properties as taught by DOOLAN (see DOOLAN at pg. 2, lines 32-35 and 53-57; pg. 3, lines 43-52; and pg. 9, lines 34-35). Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, KINCAID in view of DOOLAN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the supersize layer precursor has a basis weight of 5 to 1100 grams per square meter (see KINCAID at paragraphs [0096]-[0097], [0107]-[0108] and [0115], teaching that the supersize layer comprises a grinding aid, having a basis weight of 50 to 400 gsm, and the same binder as used to prepare the size and/or make layer, which has a basis weight of, e.g., 5 to 600 gsm; see KINCAID at paragraph [0149], teaching applying a supersize coat with a basis weight of 418 g/m 2 ). Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, KINCAID in view of DOOLAN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the organic polymeric rheology modifier is selected from the group consisting of alkali-swellable/soluble acrylic polymers, hydrophobically-modified alkali-swellable/soluble acrylic polymers, hydrophobically-modified ethoxylated urethane polymers, and combinations thereof (see DOOLAN at pg. 4, lines 16-30 and 57-58, pg. 5, lines 24-29, and pg. 7, lines 36-38, teaching alkali-swellable acrylic polymers). Regarding claim 8, as applied to claim 1 above, KINCAID in view of DOOLAN teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the shaped abrasive particles comprise precisely-shaped three-sided platelets (see KINCAID at paragraph [0099], teaching that useful abrasive particles include those described in ROWENHORST ; see ROWENHORST at Abstract and Figs. 1-5 and 7, teaching abrasive particles which are precisely-shaped, three-sided platelets) . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: “As is apparent from Table 3, the abrasive article having the supersize layer of claim 1 provides an unexpected result in terms of a distance covered by the supersize layer precursor, i.e., the distance is significantly less than the supersize layer precursor of the comparative examples CSSR-A, CSSR-B, and CSSR-C… the specification provides examples having composition of the epoxy resin of 99%-99.5% by weight… it is not required to provide examples of each and every claimed value of the parameter… Accordingly, the claims when read in-line with the specification commiserate in scope with the claimed range of 85% to 99.5% of the epoxy resin” (see Remarks at pg. 6-7). “KINCAID fails to identify any problem related to puddling while curing in the abrasive particles including shaped abrasive particles, as solved by the method as recited in amended claim 1” (see Remarks at pg. 7). “KINCAID neither determines the supersize layer as a result-effective variable, nor determines a design need for bottom loop puddling related to shaped abrasive particles” (see Remarks at pg. 8). “example 26 of Helmin does not include an organic rheology modifier” (see Remarks at pg. 8). “KINCAID provides no specific teaching, suggestion, or reason to select the particular alkali-swellable/soluble polymers of DOOLAN from all possible thickening agents to solve the specific problem of bottom loop puddling for supersize layers” (see Remarks at pg. 9). “a skilled person would not arrive at the method of making the abrasive article having the specific composition of the supersize layer precursor without referring to the present invention, i.e., in hindsight” (see Remarks at pg. 9). However, for at least the following reasons the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument that the present invention is nonobvious because the supersize layer precursor of claim 1 displays unexpected results, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Arguments regarding allegations of unexpected results are discussed in MPEP § 716.02. It is not clear from Applicant’s arguments or the specification why these results would be considered unexpected; it would seem that greater flow control would be the expected result of including a polymer rheology modifier, i.e., thickener, in the composition. As set forth in the rejection above, the prior art references include organic polymer rheology modifiers. DOOLAN even explicitly teaches that alkali-swellable polymers are highly effective polymeric rheological additives for coating compositions and that they provide better viscosity control and flow properties (see DOOLAN at pg. 2, lines 5-10, 15, 32-35 and 53-57; pg. 3, lines 43-52; and pg. 9, lines 5-6, 10 and 34-35), i.e., DOOLAN explicitly teaches that these results are expected. Additionally, Table 3 only includes results for examples having a concentration of epoxy resin of 99 to 99.5% by weight, based on the weight of the epoxy resin and the rheology modifier, which is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range of 85 to 99.99%. MPEP 716.02(d) states that whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is nonobvious because KINCAID does not identify a problem related to puddling while curing or determine the supersize layer as a result-effective variable, the Examiner respectfully disagrees; as set forth in the rejection above, KINCAID explicitly teaches a supersize layer, and DOOLAN provides motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to include an alkali-swellable rheological additive. The references do not need to describe the exact problem with which the inventor is concerned to render the claimed invention obvious, and the motivation for one of ordinary skill to modify KINCAID does not need to be the same as the reason for present invention. As set forth in MPEP § 2123, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In response to Applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine , 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones , 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As discussed in the rejection above, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include an alkali-swellable rheological additive in the aqueous coating compositions of KINCAID , including the supersize layer composition, for the benefit of providing the supersize layer composition with an essential, highly effective rheological additive which will provide the composition with better efficiency, viscosity control, sag resistance, spatter resistance and flow properties as taught by DOOLAN (see DOOLAN at pg. 2, lines 32-35 and 53-57; pg. 3, lines 43-52; and pg. 9, lines 34-35). In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention is nonobvious because Example 26 of Hemlin does not use an organic rheology modifier, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As set forth in the rejection above, the organic polymeric rheology modifier comprising an alkali-swellable/soluble polymer is taught by DOOLAN ; it is the combination of the references which renders the claimed invention obvious. Additionally, as set forth in MPEP § 2123, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) . 07-37-03 AIA In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin , 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Consequently, for at least these reasons the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments unpersuasive. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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. /S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731 /ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 8 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 9 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 10 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 11 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 12 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/016,477 Page 13 Art Unit: 1731
Prosecution Insights