DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the preparation method" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 102699825 A1) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as ZHU, in view of Rosenflanz et al. (US 20030110707 A1), hereinafter referred to as ROSENFLANZ, and Norton Grinding Wheel Company Limited (GB 549715 A), hereinafter referred to as NORTON.
Regrading claim 13, ZHU teaches a method for preparing a coated abrasive comprising an abrasive and a coating material coated on a surface of the abrasive (see ZHU at paragraph [1]: high-strength ceramic bond novel ceramic corundum (SG) (Seeded Gel) abrasive tool and a preparation method thereof), wherein the coating material comprises the following components in parts by mass: 100 parts to 120 parts of borate glass, 100 parts to 120 parts of potash feldspar, 10 parts to 20 parts of cryolite (see ZHU at paragraph [11]: high-strength ceramic binder are: feldspar 10-30%, boron glass 45-70%, cryolite 0-15%), (please note, for the purpose of claim interpretation, the examiner calculated weight percent of the constituents of the claimed composition based on the combined total parts by mass of 270-340), the method comprising
mixing the abrasive, a binder and the coating material to obtain a mixture (see ZHU at paragraph [20]: mix and sieve the low-temperature high-strength ceramic binder prepared in step (1) with 80 to 85% of the total weight and 15 to 20% of the new ceramic corundum abrasive to obtain a mixture, add a mass percentage of 5% of the binding wetting agent); and
subjecting the mixture to heat treatment to obtain the coated abrasive (see ZHU at paragraph [23]: the raw material … is sintered at 850-980°C).
While ZHU discloses a composition including clay, which comprises aluminum oxide (see ZHU at paragraph [11]), ZHU fails to explicitly teach 50-60 parts by weight of aluminum oxide. However, the use of aluminum oxide to form a coating for abrasive articles is known in the art, as evidenced from disclosures of NORTON and ROSENFLANZ. NORTON discloses that fused alumina is commonly used in grain form for the coating of abrasive articles (see NORTON at lines 53-55, p. 1). ROSENFLANTZ discloses examples of metal oxides used to form vitreous bonding materials including: silica, silicates, alumina, soda, calcia, potassia, titania, iron oxide, zinc oxide, lithium oxide, magnesia, boria, aluminum silicate, borosilicate glass, lithium aluminum silicate, combinations thereof, and the like (see ROSENFLANZ at paragraph [0170]). Furthermore, ROSENFLANTZ discloses that preferred vitrified bonding materials may include those comprising silica, alumina (desirably, at least 10 percent by weight alumina) (see ROSENFLANZ at paragraph [0171]).
While ZHU is silent with respect to the composition comprising 10-20 parts by weight of calcium fluoride, NORTON discloses that calcium fluoride has properties similar to cryolite, and can be used in the coating composition (see NORTON at lines 1-5, p. 2). According to MPEP § 2144.06(I), "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). 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" (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have anticipated success modifying the composition of ZHU by adjusting amount of aluminum oxide to be at least 10 wt% as disclosed by ROSENFLANZ and including calcium fluoride in addition to cryolite in an amount within the claimed range, as disclosed by NORTON based on teachings of NORTON describing alumina is commonly used in grain form for the coating of abrasive articles and calcium fluoride has properties similar to cryolite, and can be used in the coating composition (see NORTON at lines 53-55, p. 1, and lines 1-5, p. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of ZHU by adjusting amount of aluminum oxide to be at least 10 wt% as disclosed by ROSENFLANZ and including calcium fluoride in addition to cryolite in an amount within the claimed range, as disclosed by NORTON because there is a reasonable expectation of success that adding aluminum oxide and calcium fluoride as disclosed by ROSENFLANZ and NORTON would be suitable.
Regarding claim 14, ZHU as modified by ROSENFLANZ and NORTON teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein the binder comprises sodium silicate (see ZHU at paragraph [13]: the binding wetting agent is water glass).
Claims 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHU in view of ROSENFLANZ and NORTON as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of WANG et al. (CN 102699825 A) with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter referred to as WANG, and Knapp et al. (US 20030213182 A1), hereinafter referred to as KNAPP.
Regarding claims 17 and 23, ZHU as modified by ROSENFLANZ and NORTON teaches the method according to claim 13, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the heat treatment is conducted in a rotary kiln (claim 17), and wherein the mixture is fed into a rotary kiln at a feeding speed of 10 kg/min to 20 kg/min (claim 23).
However, WANG discloses that an object of the disclosed invention is to provide a heat treatment method which does not pollute the environment during the heat treatment of the abrasive and which can continuously produce a quality stable product (see WANG at paragraph [3]). WANG also discloses the heat treatment being performed by heating the abrasive in a rotary kiln (see WANG at paragraph [4]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the potential benefit of improving the method of preparing a high-strength abrasive of ZHU by conducting a heat treatment in a rotary kiln as disclosed by WANG since WANG explicitly teaches that using rotary kiln provides a heat treatment method which does not pollute the environment during the heat treatment of the abrasive and which can continuously produce a quality stable product (see WANG at paragraph [3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of ZHU by conducting a heat treatment in a rotary kiln disclosed by WANG in order to continuously produce a quality stable product.
Furthermore, KNAPP discloses coated abrasives and particularly abrasive products adapted to perform in an improved fashion when used under moderate to low pressure grinding conditions (see KNAPP at paragraph [0001]). KNAPP also discloses that the abrasive particles may include one or more of the abrasives known for use in abrasive tools, such as aluminas, including fused alumina, sintered and sol gel sintered alumina, sintered bauxite, and the like; and that particle binders useful in making the agglomerates include vitreous materials, these may be a pre-fired glass ground into a powder (a frit), or a mixture of various raw materials such as clay, feldspar, lime, borax, and soda, or a combination of fritted and raw materials, such materials fuse and form a liquid glass phase at temperatures ranging from about 500 to 1400 °C (see KNAPP at paragraphs [0029] and [0033]). KNAPP teaches the process of making coated abrasives comprising the steps of: a) feeding abrasive particles and a particle binder material, selected from the group consisting essentially of vitrified bond materials, vitrified materials, ceramic materials, inorganic binders, organic binders, water, solvent and combinations thereof, into a rotary calcination kiln at a controlled feed rate; b) rotating the kiln at a controlled speed; c) heating the mixture at a heating rate determined by the feed rate and the speed of the kiln to temperatures from about 145 to 1300 °C (see KNAPP at paragraphs [0040-43]). KNAPP also teaches that the feed rate for a small scale rotary calciner may range from about 5 to 10 kg/hour, and an industrial production scale feed rate may range from about 227 to 910 kg/hour (see KNAPP at paragraph [0075]).
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 feeding speed from within the range taught by KNAPP because there is a reasonable expectation of success that feed rate may range from about 227 to 910 kg/hour/3.8 kg/min to 15 kg/min for an industrial production scale disclosed by KNAPP would be suitable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 18-22 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beiermann et al. (WO 2020128783) discloses shaped abrasive particle comprising a microparticulate layer disposed on at least a portion of the outer surface of the abrasive particles, wherein the microparticulate layer comprises grinding aids/microparticles used to increase the life of the abrasive article (Abstract and paragraph [0001]). Beiermann et al. also discloses an improvement of performance of an abrasive tool (paragraph [0022]). Beiermann et al. teaches that the microparticulate layer comprises microparticles dispersed in a binder (paragraph [20]), wherein the examples of silicate binders include sodium silicate binder (paragraph [0035]). Beiermann et al. discloses that the grinding aids include cryolite, borate-type glass, aluminum oxide (paragraphs [0027] and [0030]). Additionally, Beiermann et al. also discloses that the microparticles in the microparticulate layer are present in amounts of from about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% and the binder is between 0.1 and 1% by weight of each of the shaped abrasive particles (claims 8 and 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANASTASIA KUVAYSKAYA whose telephone number is (703)756-5437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/ANASTASIA A. KUVAYSKAYA/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights