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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is in response to the Remarks/Response filed on 1/9/2026 and 1/12/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Application.
Even though Liu teaches the limitation of claims 5 and 11 in same paragraph [0085] as properly cited in the previous Office Action, this current Action is made Non-Final due to the fact that the Examiner, inadvertently, used the phrase “shaped abrasive particle” in the statement rejecting said claims. Other changes may have been made in the claims as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0338692 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu).
With respect to claim 1, Liu discloses a coated abrasive article and method of
manufacturing it, wherein the abrasive article comprises a backing comprising two major surfaces opposed to each other, onto one major surface, a make coat/layer precursor is applied, followed by embedding abrasive particles into the make layer precursor, then the make layer precursor is, at least, partially cured, and a size layer precursor is applied, followed by a final curing (Liu, abstract, Figure 1, [0010]). Liu discloses the use of water-soluble binder precursor or water-dispersible binder precursor such as hide glue for the make layer precursor (Liu, [0043]) which is taken to read on the claimed "water-based animal glue", especially in light of the fact that hide glue has been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as one of the preferred water-based animal glue (specification, for example, page 3, lines 15-22). It is important to note that substantially similar, if not the same, materials/compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
Moreover, Liu discloses the use of shaped abrasive particles such as triangle of aluminum oxide materials such as heat treated aluminum oxide (Liu, [0065]). Liu, also, discloses the abrasive particles may be alpha alumina abrasive shards (Liu, [0067]). Thus, the reference is seen to teach the claimed “three-sided” as well; this is because, first, any and all particles, including shaped abrasive particles in the shape of shards, are three dimensional. Second, Liu teaches abrasive particles have shapes such as triangle or pyramid (Liu, [0065]), and shapes such as triangle and pyramid have three sides. Additionally, the reference teaches specific embodiments which would recognize the use of shaped abrasive particles having equilateral triangles wherein the length of the particles is approximately 500 microns, with a thickness of approximately 100 microns (Liu, [0100]); because one dimension is larger than the other, this would result in a platelet shaped particle.
With respect to claim 2, as noted above, Liu, as the primary reference, teaches the use of hide glue (Liu, [0043]).
With respect to claim 3, Liu, as the primary reference, is taken to render the claimed viscosity of 100-200 cps (100 to 200 mPa.sec) at 21°C obvious due to the fact that Liu teaches one of the preferred animal glues, as not only claimed in dependent claim 2, but also disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination (specification, page 3, lines 15-22). Thus, because the reference teaches one of the preferred compounds as claimed in the present Application under examination, and because substantially similar, if not same compounds, cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics, the claimed characteristic is expected to follow from Liu.
With respect to claim 4, Liu teaches the use of alpha alumina as the material in abrasive particles (Liu, [0065], [0067]).
With respect to claim 5, Liu teaches the use of fillers in the make layer precursor (Liu, [0085]).
With respect to claim 6, as noted above under the rejection of claim 1, Liu discloses applying a size layer over the, at least, partially cured make layer (Liu, [0010]).
With respect to claim 8, Liu discloses a coated abrasive article, wherein the abrasive article comprises a backing comprising two major surfaces opposed to each other, onto one major surface, a make coat/layer precursor is applied, followed by embedding abrasive particles into the make layer precursor, then the make layer
precursor is, at least, partially cured, and a size layer precursor is applied, followed by final curing (Liu, abstract, Figure 1, [0010]).
Liu discloses the use of water-soluble binder precursor or water-dispersible binder precursors such as hide glue for the make layer precursor (Liu, [0043]) which is taken to read on the claimed "water-based animal glue", especially in light of the fact that hide glue has been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as one of the preferred water-based animal glue (specification, for example, page 3, lines 15-22). It is important to note that substantially similar, if not the same, materials/compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
Moreover, Liu discloses the use of shaped abrasive particles such as triangle of aluminum oxide materials such as heat treated aluminum oxide (Liu, [0065]). Liu, also, discloses the abrasive particles may be alpha alumina abrasive shards (Liu, [0067]). Thus, the reference is seen to teach the claimed “three-sided” as well; this is because, first, any and all particles, including shaped abrasive particles in the shape of shards, are three dimensional. Second, the reference teaches shapes such as triangle or pyramid (Liu, [0065]) which are known to have three sides. Additionally, the reference teaches a specific embodiment which recognizes the use of shaped abrasive particles having equilateral triangles wherein the length of the particles is approximately 500 microns, with a thickness of approximately 100 microns (Liu, [0100]); this clearly results in platelets because one dimension is much larger than the other. recognizes and teaches the use of platelets.
Additionally, Liu recognizes the use of thermosetting binder in the size layer (Liu, [0077]).
It is noted that although Liu discloses the at least partial curing of the make coat precursor comprising hide glue, the limitation of "wherein the make layer comprises at least partially cured animal glue" implies a process step in a product claim. However, this limitation of at least partially cured animal glue is not seen to add patentable weight to the examination of a product claim. This is because it is the final product, i.e. claimed coated abrasive article, which is under examination in claim 8 and its dependent claims; thus, whether the animal glue of the make coat has been partially or fully cured after being disposed on the backing, does not add patentable weight to the examination of the final product claim. The final product claim has a backing with two major surfaces, one of which has a make coat layer with abrasive particles embedded therein and bonded to the backing using the make coat, which is then followed by a size coat over the make coat. Liu teaches this layered order of the claimed coated abrasive article. Additionally, it is noted that according to MPEP 2113 "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
With respect to claim 9, as noted above, Liu, as the primary reference, teaches the use of hide glue (Liu, [0043]).
With respect to claim 10, Liu teaches the use of alpha alumina as the material in abrasive particles (Liu, [0065], [0067]).
With respect to claim 11, Liu teaches the use of fillers in the make layer precursor (Liu, [0085]).
With respect to claim 13, as noted above under the rejection of claim 8, Liu
teaches shaped abrasive particles of triangle shape (Liu, [0065]). More importantly, Liu teaches the use of alpha alumina “shards” as shaped abrasive particles (Liu, [0067]); also, the reference teaches the use of shaped abrasive particles having equilateral triangles wherein the length of the particles is approximately 500 microns, with a thickness of approximately 100 microns (Liu, [0100]); this clearly results in an aspect ratio of the reference recognizes and teaches the use of platelets because one dimension is larger than the other.
With respect to claim 15, Liu teaches the backing can have a suitable material such as polymeric film, scrim, nonwoven material, and more (Liu, [0026]-[0027]).
With respect to claim 16, as noted above under the rejection of claim 1, Liu
teaches shaped abrasive particles of triangle shape (Liu, [0065], [0100]).
With respect to claim 18, Liu teaches the backing can have a suitable material such as polymeric film, scrim, nonwoven material, and more (Liu, [0026]-[0027]).
With respect to claim 19, Liu teaches applying the make coat precursor using any conventional technique such as roll coating, knife coating, spray coating, rotogravure coating and the like (Liu, [0064]).
With respect to claim 20, Liu teaches applying the shaped abrasive particles onto the make coat precursor using any conventional technique such as electrostatic coating or drop coating (Liu, [0065]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0165394 to Culler et al. (hereinafter Culler).
Liu discloses coated abrasive articles comprising shaped abrasive particles of alpha alumina in the shape of thin body, i.e. platelet, of triangular or shard or pyramidal shapes as detailed out above in the rejection of claim 8.
Liu does not expressly and/or literally disclose that at least one of the sidewalls of the triangle or any of the shapes is “concave”.
Culler, directed to production of shaped abrasive particles, discloses shapes
such as thin body of triangular geometric shape having at least one sidewall in concave form (Culler, abstract, Figure 11). Culler teaches their shaped abrasive particles improve grinding performance once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Liu in order to have at least one sidewall of the triangular shaped abrasive particles of Liu in concave form as that taught by Culler motivated by the fact that not only the use of such shaped abrasive particles has been known and recognized in the art as taught by Culler, but also motivated by the fact that such as a shape effectively digs into material and removes a significant quantity of the material being polished, and improves the grinding performance of the shaped abrasive particle once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, [0050]-[0051] and [0058]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0165394 to Culler et al. (hereinafter Culler).
Liu discloses coated abrasive articles comprising shaped abrasive particles of alpha alumina in the shape of thin body, i.e. platelet, triangular or shard or pyramidal shape as detailed out above in the rejection of claim 8.
Liu does not expressly and/or literally disclose that at least one of the sidewalls of the triangle or any other shape is “concave”.
Culler, directed to production of shaped abrasive particles, discloses shapes
such as thin body of triangular geometric shape having at least one sidewall in concave form (Culler, abstract, Figure 11). Culler teaches their shaped abrasive particles improve grinding performance once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, [0050]-[0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Liu in order to have at least one sidewall of the triangular shaped abrasive particles in concave form as that taught by Culler motivated by the fact that not only the use of such shaped abrasive particles has been known and recognized in the art as taught by Culler, but also motivated by the fact that such as a shape effectively digs into material and removes a significant quantity of the material being polished, and improves the grinding performance of the shaped abrasive particle once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, [0050]-[0051] and [0058]).
Claim(s) 1-7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,988,554 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter Peterson) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0165394 to Culler et al. (hereinafter Culler), additionally, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0325466 to Kincaid et al. (hereinafter Kincaid).
With respect to claims 1, 16, and 17, Peterson teaches coated abrasive articles comprising a backing having two major surfaces (Peterson, abstract, Figure 1, col. 2, lines 25-31) over one of which abrasive grains are applied and bonded to the backing using a first adhesive layer referred to as a make coat, and a second adhesive layer known as size coat which is applied onto the make coat (Peterson, col. 3, lines 25-45) followed by another layer referred to as a loading resistant coating (Peterson, col. 3, lines 45-69). Peterson, also, discloses the material of the abrasive grains is aluminum oxide (Peterson, col. 3, lines 34-36). Peterson discloses the use of hide glue in their make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18); hide glue is disclosed as one of the preferred water-soluble animal glues in the original specification of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 3, lines 15-22). It is noted that substantially similar, if not the same, materials/compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics. Also, any particle is three dimensional; thus, the abrasive grains of Peterson meet the limitation of having at least three sides.
However, Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose the use/application of platelet forms of shaped abrasive particles.
Culler, directed to shaped abrasive particles, discloses a method of forming shaped abrasive particles, of alpha alumina, which are used in abrasive articles such as coated abrasive articles, wherein the shaped abrasive particles have thin bodies such as dish-shape in the shape/form of triangular platelets with a concave on one sidewall (Culler, abstract, see Figure 11, [0004], [0046]-[0053]). Culler teaches shaped abrasive particles have superior performance (Culler, [0004]); additionally, Culler teaches their shaped abrasive particles having dish-shape with a concave on one sidewall improve grinding performance once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, Figure 11, [0050]-[0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson with the teachings of Culler in order to have utilized shaped abrasive particles comprising three-sided platelets as that taught by Culler (Culler, Figure 11, [0050]-[0051]), in the coated abrasive articles of Peterson motivated by the fact that shaped abrasive particles have a superior performance than randomly crushed abrasive particles (Culler, [0004]) and the specifically shaped abrasive particles of Culler being three-sided platelets with a concave surface, are capable of more effectively digging into materials and removing a significant quantity of the material as that, again, taught by Culler (Culler, [0049], [0050] and [0051]).
Peterson teaches coated abrasive articles having the layers of a backing, coated with a make coat having abrasive particles embedded therein, followed by a size coat, and a final loading resistant coat; however, Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose the steps of applying a make coat precursor onto the backing, followed by applying and embedding abrasive particles, followed by at least partially curing the make coat precursor.
Kincaid, also drawn to coated abrasive articles, discloses the process steps of producing a coated abrasive article in which a make coat/layer precursor is applied onto a major surface of a backing followed by an application and embedding abrasive particles in the make layer precursor, followed by at least partially curing the make layer precursor (Kincaid, abstract, [0096]-[0098], [0105]-[0107]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson or Peterson in view of Culler in order to incorporate the steps of disposing/applying make coat precursor onto one major surface of a backing, following by applying and embedding abrasive grains in the make coat precursor, followed by at least partially curing the make coat precursor, as those steps taught by Kincaid, in the teaching of Peterson in view of Culler motivated by the fact that having the order or layers, i.e. make coat having abrasive particles embedded therein, covered by a size coat would require following the disclosed steps by Kincaid, and the fact that such application steps have long been known in this field of art. Further motivation would be the fact that Peterson recognizes the order of layer event though Peterson may not literally disclosed disposing or applying the precursor of each layer and any partial or full curing; the fact that Peterson teaches the order of layers on the backing would inevitably proves the fact that Peterson recognizes the order of applying the precursors although not expressly disclosing them. Kincaid, additionally, discloses applying a size coat precursor, after at least partial curing of the make layer precursor which had already been embedded by abrasive particles, followed by curing it (Kincaid, [0109]).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references, in particular, Peterson as the primary reference, teaches hide glue as the material for the make coat precursor (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18).
With respect to claim 3, considering the fact that the combination of references, in particular Peterson, as the primary reference, discloses one of the preferred types of animal glue, i.e. hide glue, as disclosed in the original specification of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 3, lines 15-22), the characteristic of the claimed viscosity of 100-200 cps (100-200 mPa.sec) at 21°C is expected to follow from the disclosed material for the make coat of Peterson considering the fact that same materials cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references is seen to render the
material of the shaped abrasive particles comprising alpha alumina obvious; this is
because not only Peterson, as the primary reference, recognizes and teaches the
abrasive particles comprise of ceramic type material in particular, aluminum oxide
(Peterson, col. 3, lines 34-38), but also Culler specifically discloses that the shaped
abrasive particles having three-sided walls and in the form of dish-shape, are of alpha alumina material (Culler, [0006], [0021], [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson with the teachings of Culler in order to have the shaped abrasive particles made of alpha alumina especially motivated by the fact that utilizing abrasive particles containing alpha alumina has been known in the art, and the fact that the use of ceramic type abrasive particles such as those containing aluminum oxide has been known and recognized by Peterson as well.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; although Peterson may not literally and/or expressly disclose the presence of filler in the make coat precursor, Kincaid discloses the make layer precursor additives such as fillers with the aim of modifying performance and/or appearance of the make layer (Kincaid, [0111]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson in view of Culler with the teachings of Kincaid, not only for the purpose explained in the rejection of claim 1, but also in order to incorporate additives such as fillers in the make coat/layer with the aim of modifying the performance and/or appearance of such as coat/layer as that taught by Kincaid.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; as noted above, under the rejection of claim 1, Kincaid teaches the steps of applying make coat precursor onto one major surface of a backing, applying and embedding abrasive grains, at least partially curing the make coat precursor (Kincaid, abstract, [0096]-[0098], [0105]) which is then followed by applying a size coat precursor and curing it as well (Kincaid, [0106]-[0107]). It is important to note that Peterson, i.e. the primary reference, as detailed out in the rejection of claim 1, discloses a coated abrasive article comprising a backing having a layer of make coat wherein abrasive particles are embedded therein, having a size coat on top of the make coat and abrasive particles, which is then followed by applying a loading resistant coat (Peterson, col. 3, lines 25-68).
Thus, Peterson is not silent to the presence of a size coat, and Kincaid, as noted above, is used for specifically teaching the order of applying the steps which inevitably would have been followed in Peterson because the order of the layers of backing, make coat with abrasive particles, size coat, and loading resistant coat, is the same as the order of applying make coat precursor, applying abrasive particles, at least partially curing the make coat precursor, applying a size coat precursor, followed by curing it, and applying a supersize coat, in Kincaid (Kincaid, [0105]-[0109], [0115]).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is in particular because the layer of load resistant coat of Peterson is taken to read on and render a supersize layer obvious (Peterson, abstract, cols. 3 and 4).
Although Peterson may not literally disclose the steps of applying the layers,
including applying a supersize layer on top of a cured size layer, Peterson teaches the presence of a load resistant coat, on top of the size layer; also, Kincaid discloses application of a supersize layer on at least a portion of the size layer with the aim of preventing or reducing accumulation of sward (the material abraded from a workpiece) between abrasive particles, which can dramatically reduce the cutting ability of the coated abrasive articles (Kincaid, [0115]). As that taught by Kincaid, the supersize layer typically comprises grinding aids, metal salts of fatty acids, and more (Kincaid, [0015]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson in view of Culler in order to dispose a supersize layer on the at least partially cured size layer, and in order to recognize the load resistant coat of Peterson as a supersize layer, motivated by the fact that the supersize layer is applied on top of a size layer, as that taught by Kincaid, which is where the load resistant coat of Peterson is applied, and further motivated by the fact that the load resistant coat of Peterson prevents particles from the workpiece being abraded from becoming lodged between the abrasive grains (Peterson, col. 3, lines 60-63) and said load resistant coat comprises other materials such as lithium salt of fatty acids, fillers and more (Peterson, col. 3, line 64 to col. 4, line 7). Kincaid teaches the fact that a supersize layer serves to prevent or reduce accumulation of swarf (the material abraded from a workpiece) between abrasive particles and that the supersize layer comprises grinding aids, metal salts of fatty acids, and more (Kincaid, [0115]). Thus, the load resistant coat of Peterson is equivalent to the supersize layer of Kincaid.
With respect to claim 18, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Peterson, as the primary reference, discloses polymeric film, polymeric fiber, nonwoven material, woven material, and a few more material as the material for the backing (Peterson, col. 3, lines 30-34).
With respect to claim 19, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is in particular, because Kincaid which the reference relied on in the rejection of claim 1 to which this claim depends from for the teaching the steps of applying precursors in the order to result in make layer precursor on the backing covered by abrasive grains, partially curing it, followed by applying size layer precursor, at least partially cured make layer and abrasive grains, followed by a supersize layer, discloses applying the make layer precursor using roll coating, gravure coating, curtain coating, spray coating, knife coating, and the like (Kincaid, [0096]).
With respect to claim 20, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Kincaid which was relied on for the teaching of the steps of applying precursors in the order to result in make layer on the backing covered by abrasive grains, partially cured, followed by size layer precursor, at least partially cured, and followed by a supersize layer, discloses applying the abrasive particles onto the make layer precursor using drop coating and/or electrostatic coating (Kincaid, [0098]).
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent No. 4,988,554 to Peterson et al. (hereinafter Peterson) in view of U.S.
Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0165394 to Culler et al. (hereinafter Culler),
additionally, with evidence provided from U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0129075 to Thurber et al. (hereinafter Thurber).
With respect to claims 8, 13, and 14, Peterson teaches coated abrasive articles comprising a backing having two major surfaces (Peterson, abstract, Figure 1, col. 2, lines 25-31) over one of which abrasive grains are present and bonded to the backing using a first adhesive layer referred to as a make coat, wherein a second adhesive layer known as size coat is present on the make coat and abrasive grains (Peterson, col. 3, lines 25-45) which is, then, followed by another layer referred to as a loading resistant coat (Peterson, col. 3, lines 45-69) onto the size coat. This load resistant coat is taken to render supersize layer obvious as will be detailed out in more details in the rejection of dependent claim 12; it is important to note the recitation of “supersize layer” is not present in claims 8, 13, or 14. Peterson, also, discloses the material of the abrasive grains to be aluminum oxide (Peterson, col. 3, lines 34-36). Peterson discloses the use of hide glue in the make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18); hide glue is disclosed as a water-soluble animal glue in the original specification of the present Application under examination (see specification, page 3, lines 15-22). It is noted that substantially similar, if not the same, materials/compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics. Therefore, hide glue disclosed by Peterson read on the claimed animal glue.
It is noted claim 8, and all its dependent claims, are product claims; the limitation of "wherein the make layer comprises at least partially cured animal glue" implies a process step in a product claim. However, this limitation of at least partially cured animal glue is not seen to add patentable weight to the examination of a product claim. This is because it is the final product, i.e. claimed coated abrasive article, which is under examination. Thus, whether the animal glue of the make coat has been partially or fully cured after being disposed on the backing, does not add patentable weight to the examination of the final product claim. The final product under examination is a coated abrasive article having a backing onto one major of which, there is the order of layers of a make layer having abrasive particles embedded therein, covered by a size layer, and then covered by a load resistant coat. Additionally, it is noted that according to MPEP 2113 "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose the use/application of shaped abrasive particles comprising platelets having three-sided walls.
Culler, directed to shaped abrasive particles, discloses a method of forming shaped abrasive particles which are used in abrasive articles such as coated abrasive articles, wherein the shaped abrasive particles have a dish-shape in the shape of triangular platelets with one sidewall being concave (Culler, abstract, see Figure 11, [0004], [0046]-[0053]). Culler teaches the shaped abrasive particles have superior performance (Culler, [0004]) and that the dish-shaped alpha alumina abrasive particles comprising thin bodies separated by a sidewall with a concave in the center improves grinding performance once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, Figure 9 and [0046]-[0051]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson with the teachings of Culler in order to have utilized shaped abrasive particles comprising three-sided platelets as that taught by Culler (Culler, Figure 9) which would be platelets of triangular shape, in the coated abrasive articles of Peterson motivated by the fact that shaped abrasive particles have a superior performance than randomly crushed abrasive particles (Culler, [0004]) and the fact that the specifically shaped abrasive particles of Culler which are three-sided platelets with a concave surface (Culler, Figure 9 and [0051]) are capable of more effectively dig into materials and remove a significant quantity of the polished material as, again, taught by Culler (Culler, [0049], [0050] and [0051]).
Peterson teaches coated abrasive articles having the layers of a backing, coated with a make coat having abrasive particles embedded therein, followed by a size coat, and a final loading resistant coat; additionally, Peterson discloses the fact that common adhesives for the make or size layer is an adhesive or binder material of melamine-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, and a few more (Peterson, col. 3, lines 38-48). However, Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose any of these polymers, used for the size layer, are "thermoset" polymer.
Thurber, drawn to coated abrasive articles, discloses the use of thermosetting
resins such as melamine-formaldehyde, urea-formaldehyde, and a few more in the size layer precursor (Thurber, abstract, Figure 1, [0049]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have identified the teaching of Peterson in disclosing melamine-formaldehyde and urea-formaldehyde for the size layer to satisfy the claimed "thermoset" polymer because these polymers are known as thermoset polymers as that evidenced by Thurber (Thurber, [0049]).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Peterson as the primary reference discloses the presence/use of hide glue in the make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references is seen to render the
material of the shaped abrasive particles comprising alpha alumina obvious; this is
because not only Peterson, as the primary reference, recognizes and teaches the
abrasive particles comprise of ceramic type material in particular, aluminum oxide
(Peterson, col. 3, lines 34-38), but also, Culler specifically discloses that the shaped
abrasive particles having three-sided walls in the form of dish-shape, are of alpha alumina material (Culler, [0006], [0021], [0046]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson with the teachings of Culler in order to have the shaped abrasive particles made of alpha alumina especially motivated by the fact that utilizing abrasive particles containing aluminum oxide is recognized and taught by Peterson, but also that alpha alumina has been known in the art, as that shown by Culler, as the material for abrasive particles and in fact, for shaped abrasive particles in production of coated abrasive articles. Thus, the combination of Peterson in view of Culler and additionally in view of Thurber is taken to render the claim obvious.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is in particular because the layer of load resistant coat of Peterson is taken to read on and render a supersize layer obvious (Peterson, abstract, cols. 3 and 4). This is because it is the coat that is present on the size coat, and the claims are silent as to any further details specifying the material for the claimed supersize coat. Therefore, the load resistant coat of Peterson reads on the claimed supersize coat absence evidence proving the contrary, and in light of the fact that the load resistant coat taught by Peterson prevents particles from the workpiece being abraded from becoming lodged between abrasive grains (Peterson, col. 3, lines 60-69).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because Peterson discloses polymeric film, polymeric
fiber, nonwoven material, woven material, and a few more material as the material for the backing (Peterson, col. 3, lines 30-34).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson in view of Culler with evidence provided from Thurber as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,975,988 to Christianson.
The combination of Paterson in view of Culler as evidenced by Thurber renders claim 8 obvious as detailed out above. Although Peterson discloses embodiment teaching hide glue make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18), the Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose the use of a filler in the make coat.
Christianson, directed to coated abrasive articles, discloses backing having a make coat thereon, followed by a size coat wherein the abrasive particles are embedded within the make coat, and the size coat covers them as well as the make coat (Christianson, abstract, Figures 1 and 2; cols. 5-11). Christianson, also, teaches the presence of fillers in the make and size coat with the aim of hardening the cured thermoset resin in said coats, and toughen the bond system (Christianson, col. 9, line 55 to col. 11, line 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Peterson in view of Culler with evidence provided from Thurber in order to include a filler in the make coat, as that taught by Christianson motivated by the fact that filler particles harden the cured thermoset resin of make and size coat, and toughen the bond system, as that taught by Christianson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3 and 4, filed 01/12/2026, with respect to the arguments directed to the combination of Liu in view of Conwell on the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive because a closer reflection on Liu indicated that this reference, in fact, teaches the features for which Conwell had been used previously. The rejection of said claims over Liu in view of Conwell has been withdrawn, but Liu alone has been relied on for teaching the limitations of claim 1 as detailed out above.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 with respect to other rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 3 over Liu, as the primary reference, Applicant has asserted Liu does not disclose hide glue being dissolved or dispersed in water (Remarks, page 4). Applicant has, additionally, asserted the viscosity depends on concentration and molecular weight (Remarks, page 4). Furthermore, Applicant has asserted without any further information beyond the mere mention of hide glue is a water-soluble binder precursor, a person skilled in the art cannot conclude what the viscosity of water-based hide glue in Liu would be (Remarks, page 5). Moreover, Applicant has asserted because the relied upon art has no disclosure of a viscosity of water-based hide glue, it logically follows, as argued by Applicant, that the knowledge has been improperly gleaned from Applicant’s own specification; Applicant has then concluded the Office relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in the rejection of claim 3 over Liu in view of Conwell (Remarks, page 5).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits hide glue has been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as an animal glue which is water-based (see specification, page 3, lines 15-22) and which would have the claimed viscosity. Thus, because Liu teaches hide glue as an organic binder for make and/or size layer (Liu, [0043]), which is one of the very same compounds/materials disclosed by the present Application under examination, the characteristic of hide glue being water-based or water-soluble or having the claimed viscosity of 100-200 cps are expected from the hide glue disclosed by Liu. The very same compounds/materials cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics.
Furthermore, 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).
With respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 11, Applicant has asserted because the Office action states Liu, as the primary reference teaches the use of fillers in their shaped abrasive particles, the reference does not disclose the limitation of claims 5 and 11 because said claims recite filler in make layer precursor (Remarks, page 5).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that in fact, Liu teaches the use of filler in make layer precursor in the cited paragraph, i.e. paragraph [0085]; the Examiner, inadvertently, utilized the phrase “shaped abrasive particle” in the place of “abrasive article” in the statement made in the rejection of the claims. Nevertheless, due to the inadvertent use of the wrong phrase, the present Office Action is made Non-Final.
With respect to the rejection of claim 14, Applicant has asserted because Culler does not remedy, what Applicant has referred to, the deficiency of the rejection based on Liu in view of Conwell, the rejection of claim 14 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner, respectfully, submits the combination of Liu in view of Conwell has been withdrawn in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the argument is moot. Nevertheless, it is noted Culler needs not add anything to the rejection of claim 1 because Culler was used in the rejection of claim 14.
With respect to the rejection of claim 17, Applicant has asserted because Culler does not remedy, what Applicant has referred to, the deficiency of the rejection based on Liu in view of Conwell, the rejection of claim 17 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner, respectfully, submits the combination of Liu in view of Conwell has been withdrawn in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the argument is moot. Nevertheless, it is noted Culler needs not to add anything to the rejection of claim 1 because Culler was used in the rejection of claim 17.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-20 over Peterson in view of Culler and in view of Kincaid, Applicant has asserted Peterson fails to state the hide glue is water-based (Remarks, page 6). Applicant has, also, asserted because the relied-upon art has no disclosure of hide glue being water-based, and water-based hide glue is described only in the application as filed, it logically follows that the knowledge has been improperly gleaned from Applicant’s own specification (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has, the, concluded that the Office has relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in the rejection based on Peterson in view of Culler in view of Kincaid.
The Examiner, respectfully, submits that same compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics; thus, the fact that Peterson teaches hide glue, which is one of the preferred water-based animal glue as disclosed in the original specification of the present Application under examination, the characteristic of being water-based or water-soluble is expected to be drawn from the disclosure of hide glue of Peterson as well.
Furthermore, 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).
With respect to rejection of claim 3 over Peterson in view of Culler in view of Kincaid, Applicant has asserted the Office Action fails to provide evidence that the hide glue disclosed by one mention in Peterson is the “same”, as asserted by Applicant, as the water-based animal glue presently claimed (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has, additionally, asserted the arguments provided in response to the rejection of claim 3 over Liu in view of Conwell are equally applicable to the rejection based on Peterson in view of Culler and further in view of Kincaid (Remarks, page 7); thus, the arguments presented against the rejection of claim 3 over Liu in view of Conwell is repeated below:
Applicant has asserted without any further information beyond the mere mention of hide glue is a water-soluble binder precursor, a person skilled in the art cannot conclude what the viscosity of water-based hide glue in Liu would be (Remarks, page 5). Moreover, Applicant has asserted because the relied upon art has no disclosure of a viscosity of water-based hide glue, it logically follows, as argued by Applicant, that the knowledge has been improperly gleaned from Applicant’s own specification; Applicant has then concluded the Office relied upon impermissible hindsight reasoning in the rejection of claim 3 over Liu in view of Conwell (Remarks, page 5).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits hide glue has been disclosed in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination as an animal glue which is water-based (see specification, page 3, lines 15-22). Peterson teaches “make coat” as an adhesive layer or a binder layer (Peterson, col. 3, lines 38-43); Peterson teaches hide glue in the make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-18). Because hide glue is one of the very same compounds/materials disclosed by the present Application under examination, the characteristic of hide glue being water-based or water-soluble is expected from the hide glue disclosed by Peterson. The very same compounds/materials cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics. Additionally, because of the same fact that same compounds cannot have mutually exclusive characteristics, the claimed viscosity of 100-200 cps, for the claimed animal glue, is also expected to follow from the hide glue make coat of Peterson.
Furthermore, 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).
With respect to the rejection of claims 8-15, Applicant has asserted the rejection rationale concludes with the statement that use of the fillers in a make layer is known from Thurber (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has, then, asserted this statement is clearly insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness according to the MPEP (Remarks, page 8).
The Examiner, respectfully, submits the presence of filler is not claimed in claim 8, but that it is in claim 11. Moreover, as stated in page 22 of the Office Action, the rationale was stated as “it has been known in the art as that shown and demonstrated by Thurber” to use fillers as one of additives known to be incorporated into a make coat/layer composition.
Applicant has asserted there is unexpected result for the claimed invention as presented in Table 2, and asserted a person skilled in the art would not have expected any of the relied upon references that the combination of animal glue and triangular platelets would have provided the improved cut shown in Table 2.
The Examiner, respectfully, submits based on Table 2, which is followed after Table 1, the results shown in Table 2 has to do with the concentration of make coat, abrasive particles, and size coat; no experimental data has been provided to show any unexpected results as a result of, as Applicant has asserted, the use of the specific shape of the particles in addition to the use of animal glue. However, even if such result would have been provided, considering the fact that the specifically shaped particles as well as an animal glue have been taught in the prior art, such a result would have been expected from the references of record.
Conclusion
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