DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement for restriction is hereby made Final.
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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0053151 to Bauer et al. (hereinafter Bauer).
With respect to claim 1, Bauer teaches shaped abrasive particles wherein, at least, one embodiment of such particles, as shown in Figure 6, comprises a first major surface shown by reference no. 603 on the top, a second major surface shown by reference no. 604 at the bottom, and a side surface shown by reference no. 605 between the first and second major surfaces (abstract, Figures 6 and 7). The first and second major surfaces are shown by reference nos. 903 and 904 respectively, and the side surface is shown by reference no. 905 in Figure 9. The distance between the first major surface and the second major surface reads on the claimed “total height, H”. The reference teaches a tortuous contour on at least one surface, which as shown in Figures 6, 7, and 9, it is on the top or first major surface; however, the reference discloses that the tortuous contour can be on the side surface as well ([0116]-[0117]). The reference, additionally, discloses that the tortuous contour can take a majority of at least one surface, such as at least 60%, or even at least 80%, or at least 90% of the surface ([0117]). It is important to note that Bauer discloses that surfaces containing tortuous contour can have, additionally, surface features such as a fractured surface ([0118]). Therefore, the reference, also, reads “at least on fracture feature located at a height of 55%-90% H” wherein H is the height of the claimed abrasive particle; this is because the tortuous contour can be on essentially all the height of the side surface and contains fractured features as well, as that taught by the reference.
With respect to claim 2, Bauer teaches having tortuous contour on the first major surface, second major surface, or side surface, or even on more than one surface ([0116]). The reference, in addition, discloses that the surfaces exhibiting a tortuous contour may have additional features such as fractured surface ([0118]). Thus, the reference reads on having “at least one fracture feature is located on the first major surface”.
With respect to claim 3, Bauer teaches having tortuous contour on more than one surface ([0116]) wherein the surfaces exhibiting a tortuous surface may have additional features such as fractured surface ([0118]). Thus, the reference clearly reads on having fracture feature on more than one surface, and this is seen to read on claim 3 especially in light of the fact that Bauer teaches having tortuous contour on the first major surface, the second major surface, and the side surface ([0116]). Again, it is noted that according to the teachings of Bauer, any surfaces having tortuous contour may have fractured features as well.
With respect to claim 4, Bauer teaches having tortuous contour, which comes with other features such as fractures, on the side surface, and major surfaces ([0116]-[0118]).
With respect to claim 6, Bauer teaches the surfaces which are fractured surfaces also have a tortuous contour, which because of the shape of “tortuous contour”, inevitably has semicircular shape, and thus, reads on the claimed “semicircular indentation”. It is noted that due to the fact that the surface as that taught by Bauer has “fractured” feature on a tortuous contour, the claimed “indentation” is rendered obvious.
In addition, a closer look at Figure 9 reveals a shape that is concave on the top surface, and this concavity reads on the claimed “semicircular indentation” as well.
With respect to claim 7, as shown by the Figures, such as Figures 6-8, the thickness of the particle is the shortest length among the length, width and thickness of the particle. As evidenced from said figures, length is larger than the thickness, and the width is also larger than the thickness.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0325917 to Braun et al. (hereinafter Braun).
With respect to claim 1, Braun teaches shaped abrasive particles (abstract, Figures 16A, 16B, 16C, 17A, 17B, and 17C) which includes an embodiment where the shaped abrasive body has a first major surface shown by reference no. 1702, a second major surface shown by reference no. 1703 and a side surfaces shown by reference nos. 1704, 1705, and 1706 extending between the first and second major surfaces 1701 and 1702 (Figure 17A and [0160]). Thus, the reference discloses “a first major surface”, “a second major surface”, “a side surface between the first major surface and the second major surface”. The distance between the first and the second major surfaces, as shown by the figures of Braun, shows the total height of the particle; thus, the reference teaches “a total height, H” as well. The height is, in fact, the width of the side surface of the particle taught by Braun. In addition, Braun teaches the existence of fractured regions on some of the surfaces; in particular, Braun teaches an embodiment in which there is a fractured region shown by reference no. 1775 extending along the side surface 1705 ([0165]) wherein the fractured surface can define irregular scalloped edge having arcuate shaped grooves separated by ridges ([0166]). In particular, the reference teaches “at least” a portion of the side surface includes a fractured region ([0175]) but continues to disclose the fractured region can extend at least about 70%, or at least about 80% or at least about 90% of the width of the side surface ([0178]).
With respect to claims 2 and 3, a closer inspection of Figures 17B and 17C which are side-view images of shaped abrasive particles, show the top and bottom portions of the abrasive particles (i.e. the first and second major surfaces), have fracture features; thus, the reference is seen to render claims 2 and 3 obvious.
With respect to claim 4, Braun teaches fractured region on at least one side surface ([0165], [0175], [0178]).
With respect to claim 5, Braun teaches another aspect of said reference wherein the fractured region may extend along a majority of “all side surface of the body” ([0179]); this clearly indicates that different side surfaces have fractured features. Thus, when more than one side surface has a fractured feature/region, there are more than one fracture feature.
With respect to claim 6, Braun clearly teaches at least a portion of the fractured surface 1775 can define irregular scalloped edge having substantially arcuate shaped grooves separated by ridges ([0166]). The disclosed shape clearly reads on semicircular indentation.
With respect to claim 7, as can be seen from Figures 16A, 16B and 16C, and Figures 17B, and 17C, the length of the shaped abrasive particles of Braun is larger than the thickness of the shaped abrasive particles. Also, as can be seen in the same figures, especially Figures 16B and 16C, the width is larger than the thickness; what is shown as the height in said figures read on the thickness.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art do not disclose or suggest the cumulative limitations of claims 1 and 8 with particular attention given to the fracture feature comprising a radius of curvature of at least 100 microns and not greater than 3000 microns.
Bauer recognizes the presence of two different radius of curvatures on the first major surface or top surface of the shaped abrasive particle, and teaches that they may be the same or different (Bauer, [0111]). Bauer, also, recognizes that the first major surface, which has a tortuous contour, have fractured feature (Bauer, [0116]-[0118]). However, Bauer is silent as to any specific value or range for any of the two curvature features.
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