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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/02/2026:
claims 1-2, 5-21 are currently pending; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendment “wherein the first major surface comprises a graded thickness and a depression, wherein the graded thickness defines a change in thickness of the body from a first corner to the depression intersecting a first edge of the body opposite the first corner”; however, new grounds of rejection are presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yener and Braun (US 2013/0180180 A1) (“Braun” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Braun teaches a shaped abrasive particle (see Braun at [0139] teaching shaped abrasive particles) comprising:
a body having a first major surface, a second major surface, and a side surface joined to the first major surface and the second major surface, wherein the first major surface comprises a graded thickness and a depression, wherein the graded thickness defines a change in thickness of the body from a first corner to the depression intersecting a first edge of the body opposite the first corner (see Braun at [0139] teaching Fig. 20A… a shaped abrasive particle can be formed to have a body 2001 including a first layer 2002 having a first two-dimensional shape as viewed in a plane… and a second layer 2003 overlying the first layer 2002 having a second two-dimensional shape, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the graded thickness is defined by an arcuate slope of the first major surface between the first corner and the depression (claim 2), and wherein the depression is closer to the first edge than the first corner (claim 7) (see Braun at [0195] teaching any of the features of the embodiments herein (e.g., aspect ratio, multiple portions, multiple layers, diffusion interfaces, difference in thickness, difference in two-dimensional shape, etc.) can be part of a single particle, a median value from a sampling of particles of a batch, or an average value derived from analysis of a sampling of particles from a batch, see Braun at [0208] teaching the shaped abrasive particle of FIG. 23B has a body 2311 including a first layer 2312 and a second layer 2313 overlying the first layer 2312, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image2.png
411
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-6, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the thickness of the body at the first corner is greater than the thickness of the body at the depression (claim 5), and wherein the thickness of the body at the first corner is greater than the thickness of the body at the first edge opposite the first corner (claim 6) (see Braun at [0195] teaching any of the features of the embodiments herein (e.g., aspect ratio, multiple portions, multiple layers, diffusion interfaces, difference in thickness, difference in two-dimensional shape, etc.) can be part of a single particle, a median value from a sampling of particles of a batch, or an average value derived from analysis of a sampling of particles from a batch, see Braun at [0206] teaching the shaped abrasive particle of FIG. 23A has a body 2301 including a first layer 2302 and a second layer 2303 overlying the first layer 2302, shown with Examiner annotation below illustrating the claimed limitations).
PNG
media_image3.png
393
480
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the depression extends a majority of the length of the first edge between a second corner and a third corner (see Braun at [0139] teaching Fig. 20A… a shaped abrasive particle can be formed to have a body 2001 including a first layer 2002 having a first two-dimensional shape as viewed in a plane… and a second layer 2003 overlying the first layer 2002 having a second two-dimensional shape, shown with Examiner annotation above illustrating the claimed limitations).
Regarding claims 9-12, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the first edge comprises a non-linear contour between a second corner and a third corner (claim 9), wherein the first edge comprises a concavity between the second corner and the third corner (claim 10), wherein the depression intersects the concavity of the first edge (claim 11), and wherein the depression is defined by a non-circular two-dimensional shape as viewed in the plane of a length and a width of the body (claim 12) (see Braun at [0139] teaching Fig. 20A… a shaped abrasive particle can be formed to have a body 2001 including a first layer 2002 having a first two-dimensional shape as viewed in a plane… and a second layer 2003 overlying the first layer 2002 having a second two-dimensional shape, shown above illustrating the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 13, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the body comprises a generally triangular shape having three corners including the first corner and at least three edges including the first edge, wherein the three edges extend between the three corners (see Braun at [0139] teaching Fig. 20A… a shaped abrasive particle can be formed to have a body 2001 including a first layer 2002 having a first two-dimensional shape as viewed in a plane… and a second layer 2003 overlying the first layer 2002 having a second two-dimensional shape, shown above illustrating the claimed limitations).
Regarding claim 14, Braun teaches a fixed abrasive article (see Braun at [0181] teaching comprising Fig. 18 includes a cross-sectional illustration of a coated abrasive article, see Braun at [0187] teaching Fig. 19 includes an illustration of a bonded abrasive article), wherein the coated and/or the bonded abrasive article is taken to meet the claimed fixed abrasive article based on the structure as outlined below, comprising
a first plurality of abrasive particles, wherein the plurality of abrasive particles comprise particles according to the shaped abrasive particle of claim 1 (see Braun at [0181] and [0187] teaching incorporating the abrasive particulate material in accordance with an embodiment, and see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 15, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the fixed abrasive article is a coated abrasive article (see Braun at [0181] teaching comprising Fig. 18 includes a cross-sectional illustration of a coated abrasive article).
Regarding claim 16, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the fixed abrasive article is a bonded abrasive article (see Braun at [0187] teaching Fig. 19 includes an illustration of a bonded abrasive article).
Regarding claims 17-18, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the fixed abrasive article comprises a second plurality of abrasive particles (claim 17), and wherein the second plurality of abrasive particles comprises diluent abrasive particles (claim 18) (see Braun at [0181] teaching the abrasive particulate material can include… a second type of abrasive particulate material… in the form of diluent abrasive particles).
Regarding claim 21, Braun teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Braun further teaches wherein the body comprises a draft angle of at least 87o and not greater than 95o (draft angle is defined in specification at [00201]-[00202] disclosing the draft angle can be measured by cutting the shaped abrasive particle in half at an approximately 90o angle with respect to the major surface and at a perpendicular angle to one of the side surfaces, such as shown by the dotted line in Fig. 3D… to measure the draft angle, lines can be drawn along the smallest major surface and the side surface to form an intersecting angle as provided in Fig. 13F… the draft angle (i.e., the angle of the body as measured at the intersection) is determined by the interior angle formed at the intersection of the lines. Since the shaped ceramic articles as taught by Braun and the claimed shaped abrasive particle employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., wherein the body comprises a draft angle of at least 87o and not greater than 95o) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Welygan in view of Studiner (see MPEP 2112.01).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun as applied to claim 14, respectively above, and further in view of Yener et al. (US 2014/0007518 A1) (“Yener” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 19-20, Braun teaches the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but Braun does not explicitly teach wherein at least 55% of the first plurality of abrasive particles are in a predetermined side orientation (claim 19), and wherein at least 75% of the first plurality of abrasive particles are in a predetermined side orientation (claim 20).
Like Braun, Yener teaches that the shaped abrasive particles are used in bonded and coated articles (see Yener at [0044] teaching the shaped abrasive particles may be used in various abrasive articles, including for example bonded abrasive articles, coated abrasive articles, and the like). Yener further teaches the plurality of shaped abrasive particles of an abrasive article as described herein can define a first portion of a batch of abrasive particles (see Yener at [0132]).
Yener also teaches a majority of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles are oriented in a predetermined orientation with respect to the backing… wherein the predetermined orientation is in a side orientation relative to the backing… wherein at least about 55% of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles are in… a side orientation… wherein at least about 75% (see Yener at [0013]), which is taken to meet the claimed wherein at least 55% of the first plurality of abrasive particles are in a predetermined side orientation (claim 19), and wherein at least 75% of the first plurality of abrasive particles are in a predetermined side orientation (claim 20).
Yener further teaches that still, there remains a need in the industry for improving performance, life, and efficacy of abrasive particles, and the abrasive articles that employ abrasive particles (see Yener at [0009]).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a predetermined side orientation relative to the backing of least about 55% or at least about 75% of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles as taught by Yener in the bonded and/or coated abrasive articles using shaped abrasive particles as taught by Braun because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed amounts would be suitable, and there remains a need in the industry for improving performance, life, and efficacy of abrasive particles, and the abrasive articles that employ abrasive particles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the respective independent claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731