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 amendment/Remarks filed on 06/19/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Application.
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 having shapes such as triangle or pyramid (Liu, [0065]), and shapes such as triangle and pyramid have, at least, 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 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 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 of 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 layers even though Peterson may not literally disclose 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, the hide glue disclosed by Peterson reads 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 filed 06/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15-16, and 18-20 over Liu alone, Applicant has asserted absent impermissible hindsight, Liu fails to disclose each and every limitation in Applicant’s independent claims 1 or 8 with specific emphasis placed on limitations recited in lines 3-6 of each of claims 1 and 8 (Remarks, page 6). Additionally, Applicant has asserted pages 3-4 of the Office Action do not indicate where Liu discloses the combination of features recites in Applicant’s independent claims 1 and 8 (Remarks, page 6).
The examiner, respectfully, submits Applicant has not provided any further details as to why they believe the rejection is impermissible hindsight.
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).
It is, additionally, noted that the rejection of claims 1 or 8 is not a 102 anticipatory rejection specifically because Liu does not disclose one specific embodiment or one specific example teaching every literal limitation of either claims 1 or 8. However, Liu properly renders both of the independent claims obvious as detailed out above and in the previous Office Action because the reference teaches each and every element. In paragraph [0043], Liu teaches the use of water-soluble binder precursor or water-dispersible binder precursor such as hide glue in the make layer precursor, as also pointed out in the previous Office Action, in page 3, and repeated above. Also, as pointed out in the previous Office Action, in page 3, and repeated hereby above, in paragraph [0010], Liu discloses a process step of manufacturing a coated abrasive article which includes steps of providing a backing having “at least” one major surface, which according to at least the Figures, clearly it has two major surfaces, followed by applying a make precursor layer over at least one major surface of the backing, followed by embedding a plurality of abrasive particles into and/or onto the make precursor, followed by at least partially curing the make precursor to form a make coat, and a few more steps. Additionally, again, as noted in the previous Office Action, in pages 3 and 4, and repeated above, in paragraph [0065], Liu discloses the use of shaped abrasive particles, for example triangle or pyramidal shapes, and in paragraph [0067], the reference teaches the use of alpha alumina abrasive “shards”. Any particle, such as shards, are three-dimensional. Nevertheless, the reference recognizes three-dimensionally shaped particles. Furthermore, and as noted in the previous Office Action in page 4, and repeated above, in paragraph [0100], Liu teaches the use of shaped abrasive particles having equilateral triangles wherein the length is approximately 500 microns, but the thickness is approximately 100 microns; because one dimension is much larger than the other, this would inevitably result in a platelet shaped particle.
In short, Liu, as detailed out in the previous Office Action teaches every limitation of the independent claims but not in one single embodiment; for that reason, Liu is seen to render the claimed language obvious.
With respect to the rejection of claims 14 and 17 over Liu in view of Culler, Applicant has asserted that because Applicant believes the independent claims should be allowable, the rejection of claims 14 and 17 should be withdrawn (Remarks, page 6).
The examiner disagrees, and respectfully, submits that the rejection of both independent claims, and in fact, all claims as had been presented in the previous Office Action is proper and stands.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 and 16-20 over the combination of Peterson in view of Culler and further in view of Kincaid, Applicant has asserted Peterson does not disclose that the make layer precursor comprises a water-based animal glue as recited (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has, additionally, asserted the rejection relies on Applicant’s specification for the proposition that hide glue is a preferred water-based animal glue, and Applicant has asserted this is insufficient to establish that Peterson teaches the claimed limitation of “water-based animal glue” (Remarks, page 7).
The examiner, respectfully, submits, as noted in the previous Office Action, Peterson specifically suggests the use of hide glue make coat (Peterson, col. 7, lines 14-17). It is important to note the present claims recite the open transitional phrase “comprising” which would allow the presence of any other components in different layers such as in make coat.
Furthermore, Applicant has asserted Peterson does not teach the claimed “three-sided platelets”, and that the Office Action acknowledged that Peterson does not disclose platelet forms of shaped abrasive particles, and relies on Culler for that feature (Remarks, page 7). Moreover, Applicant has asserted Culler is directed to specialized shaped abrasive particles formed from molds, including dish-shaped triangular particles having a concave or convex geometry; Applicant has continued to assert the Office Action does not sufficiently explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Peterson’s coated abrasive article using hide glue to employ Culler’s specialized three-sided platelet particles as recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1 (Remarks, page 7).
The examiner, respectfully, submits, as noted in the previous Office Action, Culler specifically teaches shaped abrasive particles have superior performance (Culler, [0004]) and that their shaped abrasive particles having dish-shape with a concave one sidewall improves grinding performance once the sharp upturned point or corner is worn away (Culler, Figure 11, [0050]-[0051]). It is noted that any particle is three-dimensional, and a dish-shape particle with a concave on one sidewall is a geometrical shape having three sides, and being dish-shaped, it would be a flake form or platelet shape particle. Additionally, in page 12 of the previous Office Action, it was sufficiently explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the dish-shaped abrasive particles of Culler in the place of the abrasive grains of Peterson. As it was noted in the previous Office Action, the specifically shaped dish-shape particles with concave on one sidewall are capable of more effectively digging into materials and removing a significant quantity of the material as that taught by Culler (Culler, [0004], [0049], [0050], [0051]).
Moreover, it is noted that in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
In addition, Applicant has asserted the Office Action relies on Kincaid for process steps including application of a make layer precursor, embedding abrasive particles, and partial curing (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has, additionally, asserted Kincaid’s make layer precursor is based on a specific resin system including resole phenolic resin, polyepoxide, polyfunctional (meth)acrylate, water, and photoinitiator in paragraphs [0010]-[0015], [0032]-[0044] (Remarks, page 7). Applicant has asserted Kincaid does not teach or suggest a make layer precursor comprising water-based animal glue, nor the Office Action explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art would be combined the teaching in Kincaid about a resin-based partial curing process with Peterson’s hide-glue system to arrive at the features recited in Applicant’s independent claim 1 (Remarks, page 7).
The examiner, respectfully, submits as properly stated in the previous Office Action, the reliance was made on Kincaid for teaching the “process steps” otherwise, the layered structure has been disclosed by Peterson. Also, Kincaid was not relied on for teaching of the material of the make coat layer; this was taught and rendered obvious by Peterson. Again, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Moreover, 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). In this case, the layered structure of Peterson clearly shows a make coat on a backing/substrate, wherein particles are embedded therein thus, suggesting the make layer precursor needs to be applied on the backing/substrate followed by applying the abrasive particles. Also, the layered structure of Peterson clearly discloses a size coat over the abrasive grains, which again, suggests a size coat precursor inevitably is applied after application of the abrasive grains, and in order to maintain the position of the grains, an at least partial curing of the combination of make coat layer precursor with particles is also inevitable. Kincaid was, nevertheless, relied on because of teaching those process steps. It is noted that such an order of process steps has long been known in the art of coated abrasive articles; however, again, the rejection specifically relied upon a reference, i.e. Kincaid, to demonstrate the fact that such steps have long been known.
With respect to the rejection of claims 8-15, Applicant has asserted as acknowledged by the Office Action on page 21, Peterson “does not expressly and/or literally disclose any of these polymer, used for the size layer, are ‘thermoset’ polymer” (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has, then, asserted the Office Action points to Thurber’s disclosure that common adhesives for the make or size layer may include melamine-formaldehyde and urea-formaldehyde, replying on paragraph [0049] in Thurber as “evidence” that such materials are known as thermosetting resins (Remarks, page 8). Additionally, Applicant has asserted the Office Action does not indicate why one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the subset of exemplary thermosetting resins disclosed in Thurber to overcome the noted deficiency in Peterson (Remarks, page 8). Applicant has, then, concluded as such Applicant submits Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of Applicant’s claims as recited over the combination of cited art (Remarks, page 8).
The examiner, respectfully, submits as noted in the previous Office Action and hereby above, Peterson already discloses the use/presence of melamine-formaldehyde in the size coat in column 3, lines 38-48. Peterson does not expressly disclose that melamine-formaldehyde is a thermoset polymer; otherwise, Peterson discloses this compound/polymer. Thurber has been relied on to show that the melamine-formaldehyde disclosed by Peterson, is a thermoset resin. Again, Peterson is not silent to the use of melamine-formaldehyde; quite the contrary, Peterson, as the primary reference, discloses melamine-formaldehyde in, at least, the size coat. What Peterson does not expressly and/or literally disclose is the fact that this polymer is a thermoset polymer. Therefore, the use of Thurber as an evidence showing melamine-formaldehyde being a thermoset resin/polymer, is proper and stands.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights