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 filed on 02/17/2026. After entry of this amendment, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims 1 and 19, each recites the new limitation of “and a base region including a base of the body; wherein the body comprises a first surface, a second surface, a third surface, and a fourth surface extending between the base region and the tip region; wherein the tip region includes a tip defined by a convergence of the first surface and the second surface defining the thickness of the body” which is not supported by the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
According to paragraph [0081] of the specification (see page 15), “the tip 211 may be defined by convergence of more than two surfaces such as at least three surfaces or at least four surfaces of the body”. Furthermore, the same paragraph discloses “the tip 211 may come have a tip edge defined by the convergence of at least three or more surfaces of the body”.
Therefore, not only there is no support for two surfaces converging to form a tip, but that it is, in fact, a tip “edge” which is formed as a result of converging of at least three surfaces.
Additionally, there is no support for a body comprising the claimed first, second, third and fourth surfaces wherein they extend “between the base region and the tip region”. The Figures, also, do not provide such a support; in fact, based on what can be seen from the Figures, there is one curved surface, not more than one surface.
Moreover, there is no support in the original disclosure of the present Application under examination for the “thickness of the body” to be defined by the claimed language.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected because of depending from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Independent claims 1 and 19 have been amended to recite “wherein the tip region includes a tip defined by a convergence of the first surface and the second surface defining the thickness of the body”. It is confusing as to what exactly defines the “thickness” of the body; is it one surface, namely the second surface which defines the thickness, or is it the convergence of two surfaces, which as stated above, is not supported by the original disclosure of the present Application under examination.
According to the preceding lines, four surfaces extend between the base and the tip region; thus, how could only one surface, i.e. second surface, defines the thickness. Wouldn’t any one of said surfaces define the thickness?
In general, the language of lines 10-11 is indefinite. It is not clear how the thickness is defined.
For the purpose of examination, the distance between the base and a tip region is considered the thickness of the shaped abrasive particles.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected because of depending from rejected base claims.
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) 1-11, 13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0167481 to Yener et al. (hereinafter Yener).
With respect to claim 1, Yener teaches shaped abrasive particles which are used in making a coated abrasive article comprising a substrate onto which a plurality of shaped abrasive particles are attached (Figure 13, [0101]). The plurality of shaped abrasive particles are tapered abrasive particles (Figure 1, 4-8, [0060]-[0062]). Although Yener may not literally disclose a "taper fraction standard deviation of at least 0.025 and not greater than 0.090", the reference is expected to render this standard deviation obvious motivated by the fact that a standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation means that most of the particles are of very similar shape; a tapered region is, also, part of the shape of a shaped particle. Thus, the claimed recitation of "taper fraction standard deviation of at least 0.025 and not greater than 0.090" is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has a very similar shape especially with respect to the tapered region/portion. Considering the fact that Yener discloses the use of molding process to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles, and the fact that uniformity in shape of the shaped abrasive particles is important in Yener, it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which considering the fact that the shaped abrasive particles of Yener have tapered areas/surfaces/regions, it would result in having a very small standard deviation for the taper fraction standard deviation of the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles. This is further evidenced by the Figures of Yener, which clearly show that Yener is drawn to specific shapes for the shaped abrasive particles.
Yener teaches different shapes for the shaped abrasive particles as not only
illustrated by the Figures but also by the disclosure ([0053]-[0100]).
Also, as evidenced from the shaped abrasive particles illustrated in Figures 1, 4, 8 and 9, each of said shaped particles have at least two tips which are taken to render the claimed "tip region" obvious, and also, as illustrated, each of said tips is defined by a convergence of at least two surfaces of the body of the shaped abrasive particle. In fact, in order to recognize and form a tip in any three-dimensional shaped particle, there is a need to at least two surfaces to converge. It is important to note that the claim contains the open transitional phrase "comprising" in line 1, and therefore, the claim is not just limited to the shaped abrasive particles having only one tip, but that the claimed shaped abrasive particles can have more than one tip region. Nevertheless, it is noted that a “tip region” does not necessarily mean “tip”; thus, a tip region, as claimed, can include more than one tip.
As evidenced from, at least, some of the Figures, such as Figures 1 and 4, which present better representation of three-dimensional shapes, there are four surfaces to the illustrated shaped abrasive particles which are taken to read on the new amendment, i.e. claimed “first surface, second surface, third surface, and a fourth surface” which clearly extend between the base region, at the bottom as shown by Figures, to the tip region, which is the top region.
There is naturally a thickness to any three-dimensional object or particle, and as illustrated, there is a thickness to the disclosed shaped abrasive particles of the reference. Thus, the reference is taken to render the claimed thickness of the body obvious.
All of the newly amended limitations are clearly shown and demonstrated on, at least, the Figures 1, 4, 8 and 9.
Moreover, Yener discloses a tertiary aspect ratio of within a range of between
about 10:1 to about 1.5:1 which overlaps with the claimed range of "at least 0.5"
([0052]); however, the aspect ratio specifically disclosed as tertiary by Yener is defined as the ratio of length:height. According to the amendment to claim 1, tertiary aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of width:thickness which corresponds to the disclosed ratio of width:height as disclosed by Yener which is defined as the secondary aspect ratio.
Yener discloses a ratio of width:height (corresponding to the claimed ratio of
width:thickness or claimed tertiary ratio) of between about 5:1 and about 1:3 ([0052]).
Either way, Yener renders the claimed tertiary ratio of "at least 0.5" obvious.
As to the recitation of "a tertiary aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV(width/thickness) of at least 0.30", it is noted that as detailed out above, a standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation means that most of the particles are of very similar shape meaning having very similar width and thickness/height. Thus, said claimed recitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has a very similar shape especially with respect to the tapered region/portion.
Considering the fact that Yener discloses the use of molding process to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles, and the fact that uniformity in shape of the shaped abrasive particles is important in Yener, it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which means particles with substantially similar length, width, and height which would result in having a very small standard deviation for all aspect ratios including an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. width:thickness). This is further evidenced by the Figures of Yener, which clearly show that Yener is drawn to specific shapes for the shaped abrasive particles. It is important to note there is no disclosure in the reference that the shaped abrasive particles have to be a combination of a pluralities of particles having different aspect ratios; therefore, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles have same or substantially similar aspect ratios especially since the reference is drawn to not only using the molding process, but also drawn to obtaining "shaped" abrasive particles.
With respect to claim 2, Yener teaches that their shaped abrasive particles have tapered region (Figures, [0057]-[0063]), and this is taken to render the claim obvious in light of the fact that "at least 5%" includes 100%. While the reference does not disclose that only a portion of their shaped abrasive particles may be tapered, it is taken that all of the shaped abrasive particles, at least of the shapes disclosed to have tapered region, are tapered abrasive particles.
With respect to claim 3, Yener discloses a variety of shapes for their shaped
abrasive particles, and as illustrated in the Figures, such as Figures 4 or 8, the
reference teaches that the shaped abrasive particle has a body which has a length that is larger than the width which is larger than the thickness as also disclosed in paragraph [0017] (Figures 4, 8, and [0017]).
With respect to claim 4, Yener teaches a primary aspect ratio of length:width of at least 1:1, and in other embodiment, it is at least about 1.5:1 or even at least 5:1
([0051]).
With respect to claim 5, Yener teaches a secondary aspect ratio of length:height, which corresponds to the claimed ratio of length/thickness, of between about 10:1 and about 1.5:1 ([0052]). MPEP 2144.05 states "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists." In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 6, Yener teaches shaped abrasive particles include a body having a length which is larger or the same as the width, wherein the width is the same or larger than the thickness ([0017]).
With respect to claim 7, the fact that Yener teaches a primary aspect ratio of at least 1:1 or even at least 5:1 is taken to render a primary batch aspect ratio of at least 1.1 obvious considering the fact that while Yener teaches that their shaped abrasive particles have the disclosed primary aspect ratio, it is taken that this would be applicable to the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles, and thus, it is taken to render the claimed primary batch aspect ratio obvious as well.
With respect to claim 8, as noted above, Yener is taken to render a primary batch aspect ratio obvious due to the disclosure in Yener of primary aspect ratio of at least 1:1 or even at least 5:1. There is no disclosure in the reference that the shaped abrasive particles have to be a combination of a pluralities of particles having different aspect ratios; therefore, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles have same or substantially similar aspect ratios especially since the reference is drawn to not only using the molding process, but also drawn to obtaining "shaped" abrasive particles.
Therefore, the possibility of having a standard deviation or at least, a high standard deviation in the primary batch aspect ratio is slim. Thus, the reference is seen to render the claimed primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV-B(length/width)] of not greater than 0.55 obvious because it is expected of the shaped abrasive particles to be very similar, or same, in shape, length, width and thickness.
Assuming the above is not found persuasive with respect to the claimed a
primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV-B(length/width)] of not greater
than 0.55, it is noted that the parameters involved in the process of manufacturing the shaped abrasive particles can be modified/controlled in order to result in such a claimed standard deviation based on the end use application and the required particle shape, and considering the fact that "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law." 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); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 9, Yener, in at least the embodiment of Figure 4 shows a tip region, shown by reference no. 403, which is opposite to the surface shown by
reference no. 408, i.e. claimed base region, wherein the surfaces of 403 and 408 are opposite each other along a length of the body of the shaped abrasive particle.
However, the base and the tip depends from the angle of view. Thus, the top region can be considered the tip region with the bottom region, as the opposite region, being the base region, and thus, what is shown by “h” can be treated as length. It is important to note that Yener discloses a variety of other shapes as well; also,
With respect to claim 10, the tip region of the shaped abrasive particle of Figure 4 is tapered, as shown in Figure 5, which resulted in a reduction in the, at least, thickness of the body.
With respect to claim 11, as shown in Figure 5, there is an asymmetric taper in the tip region.
With respect to claim 13, it is noted that there is no recitation as to the size of the peaks and valleys; considering the fact that once the shaped abrasive particles are removed from the mold, during the process of manufacturing, no surfaces of the shaped particles would be left perfectly smooth, at micrometer or nanometer magnification, it is expected of the surfaces of the shaped abrasive particles, including the surface shown by reference no. 408, to have, at least, some degree of uneven-ness in the form of peaks and valleys, at, at least, micrometer or nanometer magnifications.
With respect to claim 15, as shown in Figures 4 and 5, there is an elongated
region extending between the tip region or reference no. 403 and the base region or
reference no. 408.
With respect to claim 16, Yener discloses an embodiment in which the difference between the first and second heights, i.e. h1 and h2 ([0012]), is in such a way that the first height is at least 5% greater than the second height. Considering the fact that claim 16 claims a change in width or thickness of not greater than 10%, not greater than 8%, and even not greater than 5%, the reference is seen to render the claim obvious. It is noted that what is disclosed as height, in the embodiment of for example Figure 4 (see Figure 5 as well), reads on the claimed thickness.
With respect to claim 17, the original disclosure of the present Application under examination defines "solidity" as "dividing the actual area of the body of a particle as viewed in two dimensions by a convex hull area of the body of the particle as viewed in two-dimensions" (specification, page 42, [0169]). Claim 17 depends from claim 1, and considering the fact that Yener renders shaped abrasive particles having tapered region obvious wherein there is also a convex area to the body of the particles of Yener, it is expected of the tapered abrasive particles of Yener to render an average solidity of "at least" 0.87 obvious when measured according to the disclosure of the present Application under examination.
It is, however, noted that the measurement of what is claimed to be solidity is not part of the recitation of claim 17. It is, further, noted that the claimed solidity can, reasonably, be interpreted to mean how solid, as opposed to soft, the shaped tapered abrasive particles are, and as such, considering the fact that the material for the disclosed shaped abrasive particles of Yener can be ceramic which would go through a process involving steps such as calcining, and most importantly, sintering to solidify and stiffen the shapes ([0132], [0136]-[0137]), the reference is seen to render obvious having disclosed solidified shapes, and as such, it is expected of solid, i.e. not soft or even relatively soft, particles to have a high solidify such as one which would be "at least" 0.87.
With respect to claim 18, Yener discloses different embodiments; in one such
embodiment, the reference discloses that the shape of the abrasive particles would
make it possible to have upright orientation for the particles ([0058]). Therefore, at least this embodiment would render, at least, one of the claimed predetermined
orientations/positions as claimed in claim 18 obvious.
With respect to claim 19, Yener teaches shaped abrasive particles which are
used in making a coated abrasive article comprising a substrate onto which a plurality of shaped abrasive particles are attached (Figure 13, [(0101]). The plurality of shaped abrasive particles are tapered abrasive particles (Figure 1, 4-8, [0060]-[0062]). Yener teaches a primary aspect ratio of the shaped abrasive particles is at least 1:1, or 1.5:1, or at least about 2:1 ([0051]); this is taken to render a primary batch aspect ratio of at least 2.1 and not greater than 4.7 obvious considering the fact that while Yener teaches that their shaped abrasive particles have the disclosed primary aspect ratio, it is taken that this would be applicable to the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles, and thus, it is taken to render the claimed primary batch aspect ratio within a range of 2.1 to 4.7 obvious as well. As noted above, Yener is taken to render a primary batch aspect ratio obvious due to the disclosure in Yener of primary aspect ratio of at least 1:1, or at least 1.5:1, or at least 2:1. There is no disclosure in the reference that the shaped abrasive particles have to be a combination of a pluralities of particles having different aspect ratios; therefore, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles have same or substantially similar aspect ratios especially since the reference is drawn to not only using the molding process, but also drawn to obtaining "shaped" abrasive particles.
Therefore, while the plurality of particles are expected to be of substantially similar shape and size, which would result in substantially similar primary bath aspect ratios, a primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV-B(length/width)] of at least 0.05 and not greater than 0.55 is expected to follow from the reference absence evidence proving the contrary.
Assuming the above is not found persuasive with respect to the claimed a
primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV-B(length/width)] of at least 0.05 and not greater than 0.55, it is noted that the parameters involved in the process of manufacturing the shaped abrasive particles can be modified/controlled in order to result in such a claimed standard deviation based on the end use application and the required particle shape, and considering the fact that "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law." 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); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Elf Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Also, as evidenced from the shaped abrasive particles illustrated in Figures 1, 4, 8 and 9, each of said shaped particles have at least two tips which are taken to render the claimed "tip region" obvious, and also, as illustrated, each of said tips is defined by a convergence of at least two surfaces of the body of the shaped abrasive particle. In fact, in order to recognize and form a tip in any three-dimensional shaped particle, there is a need to at least two surfaces to converge. It is important to note that the claim contains the open transitional phrase "comprising" in line 1, and therefore, the claim is not just limited to only one tip to the shaped abrasive particle, but that the claimed shaped abrasive particle can have more than one tip region. Nevertheless, it is noted that a “tip region” does not necessarily mean “tip”; thus, a tip region, as claimed, can include more than one tip.
As evidenced from, at least, some of the Figures, such as Figures 1 and 4, which present better representation of three-dimensional shapes, there are four surfaces to the illustrated shaped abrasive particles which are taken to read on the new amendment, i.e. claimed “first surface, second surface, third surface, and a fourth surface” which clearly extend between the base region, at the bottom as shown by Figures, to the tip region, which is the top region.
There is naturally a thickness to any three-dimensional object or particle, and as illustrated, there is a thickness to the disclosed shaped abrasive particles of the reference. Thus, the reference is taken to render the claimed thickness of the body obvious.
All of the newly amended limitations are clearly shown and demonstrated on, at least, the Figures 1, 4, 8 and 9.
Moreover, Yener discloses a tertiary aspect ratio of within a range of between
about 10:1 to about 1.5:1 which overlaps with the claimed range of "at least 0.5" ([0052]); however, the aspect ratio specifically disclosed as tertiary by Yener is defined as the ratio of length:height. According to the amendment to claim 1, tertiary aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of width:thickness which corresponds to the disclosed ratio of width:height as disclosed by Yener which is defined as the secondary aspect ratio.
Yener discloses a ratio of width:height (corresponding to the claimed ratio of
width:thickness or claimed tertiary ratio) of between about 5:1 and about 1:3 ([0052]).
Either way, Yener renders the claimed tertiary ratio of "at least 0.5" obvious.
With respect to the new amendment of "a tertiary aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV(width/thickness) of at least 0.30", it is noted that as detailed out above, a standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation means that most of the particles are of very similar shape meaning having very similar width and thickness/height. Thus, said claimed recitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has a very similar shape especially with respect to the tapered region/portion.
Considering the fact that Yener discloses the use of molding process to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles, and the fact that uniformity in shape of the shaped abrasive particles is important in Yener, it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which means particles with substantially similar length, width, and height which would result in having a very small standard deviation for all aspect ratios including an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. width:thickness). This is further evidenced by the Figures of Yener, which clearly show that Yener is drawn to specific shapes for the shaped abrasive particles. It is important to note there is no disclosure in the reference that the shaped abrasive particles have to be a combination of a pluralities of particles having different aspect ratios; therefore, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles have same or substantially similar aspect ratios especially since the reference is drawn to not only using the molding process, but also drawn to obtaining "shaped" abrasive particles.
With respect to claim 20, Yener, in at least the embodiment of Figure 4 shows a tip region, shown by reference no. 403, which is opposite to the surface shown by reference no. 408, i.e. claimed base region, wherein the surfaces of 403 and 408 are opposite each other along a length of the body of the shaped abrasive particle.
However, it is important to note that Yener discloses a variety of other shapes as well.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0000212 to Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0129075 to Thurber et al. (hereinafter Thurber).
With respect to claim 1, Wang discloses plurality of shaped abrasive particles
used in an abrasive article, wherein the shaped abrasive particles have a tapered end (Wang, see Figures 8, 11, 12 and 13). Although Wang may not literally disclose a "taper fraction standard deviation of at least 0.025 and not greater than 0.090", the reference is expected to render this standard deviation obvious motivated by the fact that a standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation, such as the claimed one, means that most of the particles are of very similar shape; a tapered region is also part of the shape of a shaped particle. Thus, the claimed recitation of "taper fraction standard deviation of at least 0.025 and not greater than 0.090" is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has very similar shape especially with respect to the tapered region/portion. Considering the fact that Wang discloses the use of molding process (Wang, [0067]) to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles, it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which considering the fact that the shaped abrasive particles of Wang have tapered areas/surfaces/regions, it would result in having a very small standard deviation for the taper fraction standard deviation of the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles. This is further evidenced by the Figures and disclosure, Wang is directed to specific shapes for the shaped abrasive particles (Wang, Figures, [0089]-[0093]).
At least Figure 8, if not each of Figures 9 or 10, show a shaped abrasive particles that has first surface, second surface, third surface, and a fourth one, which extend between two opposite sides or surfaces; thus, Wang is seen to render the new amendment as recited in lines 7-9 obvious. The claim recites the open phrase “comprising”; thus, shapes such as the one shown in Figure 8 is not seen to teach away from the claimed recitation.
Moreover, with respect to the tertiary aspect ratio, Wang discloses an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. claimed aspect ratio of width/thickness) of at least about 0.5:1 which fully overlaps with the claimed range of "at least 0.5" and in fact, shares an end point of 0.5 ([0076]); although this aspect ratio is disclosed as secondary aspect ratio, due to the fact that it is the aspect ratio of width:height, which is equivalent of width:thickness, it is taken that this aspect ratio renders the clamed "tertiary aspect ratio (width/thickness) of at least 0.5" obvious.
Nevertheless, even if considering the aspect ratio of Wang which specifically has been disclosed as "tertiary" aspect ratio, Wang renders the claimed tertiary aspect ratio obvious because what is disclosed as the tertiary aspect ratio by Wang is at least about 1:1 (Wang, [0077]) which overlaps with the range of "at least 0.5".
As to the recitation of "a tertiary aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV(width/thickness) of at least 0.30", it is noted that as detailed out above, a
standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation means that most of the particles are of very similar shape meaning having very similar width and thickness/height. Thus, said claimed recitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has a very similar shape. Considering the fact that Wang discloses the use of molding process to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles (Wang, [0067]), it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which means particles with substantially similar length, width, and height which would result in having a very small standard deviation for all aspect ratios including an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. width:thickness).
Although Wang discloses bonded abrasive article in the abstract, Wang, also,
discloses bonded abrasive articles as only "one aspect" of said reference in utilizing
silicon carbide abrasive particles (Wang, [0007]). Furthermore, Wang recognizes the
use of silicon carbide particles in both bonded and coated abrasive article being know in the art (Wang, [0005]). Therefore, even though Wang discloses the use of shaped abrasive particles in bonded abrasive article in the abstract, it is taken that the teaching of the reference can be utilized in coated abrasive articles as well.
Wang does not disclose applying or attaching the shaped abrasive particles onto a backing or substrate. However, coated abrasive articles are known to have a
substrate/backing onto which abrasive grains are bonded/applied.
Thurber, directed to coated abrasive articles, discloses the placement and then attachment of abrasive grains onto a substrate/backing (Thurber, Figures, [0020]-[0021]).
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 Wang in order to incorporate the use of a backing or substrate in a coated abrasive article, as that taught by Thurber, motivated by the fact that the use of a backing/substrate in coated abrasive article is known in the art, as that shown and evidenced by Thurber. It is noted that, as detailed out above, the shaped abrasive particles of Wang are expected to be capable of use in coated abrasive articles as well. Thurber recognizes silicon carbide as one type of material for abrasive particles (Thurber, [0055]), and the use of shaped abrasive particles (Thurber, [0057]).
As illustrated in the figures of Wang, such as Figures 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13, there are tips to the shaped abrasive particle which has been formed as a result of the convergence of at least two surfaces; any of those two surfaces can be taken to read on the claimed first surface and second surface whose convergence form a tip. It is important to note that the claim, in line 1, utilizes the open transitional phrase "comprising" which would allow the presence of more than one tip in the shaped abrasive particles.
Additionally, it is well recognized that any three-dimensional object, such as particles, has a thickness; the shaped particles as shown in the Figures such as Figures 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 also, each has a thickness. Thus, the claimed thickness is rendered obvious. It is noted that depending on the angle of view, a certain dimension can be considered a thickness.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because considering the fact that Wang teaches shaped abrasive particles such as shown demonstrated by Figures 12-14, it is expected of majority of the particles of Wang to have such a shape. It is noted that Wang is directed to the use of "shaped" abrasive particles, and thus, it is expected of the majority of the particles, if not all, to have the disclosed shape.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because as shown and demonstrated by the shaped abrasive particles of Wang (see Figures, especially Figures 12-14), each tapered abrasive particle has a length, a width and a thickness. It is noted that any particle is three-dimensional even though the three-dimensionality cannot be fully demonstrated in the pages of the reference.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wang teaches an aspect ratio of the length to the width of at least about 1:1 such as at least about 1.1:1 (Wang, [0074]-[0077]) which Wang refers to it as the primary aspect ratio.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wang teaches an aspect ratio of the length to the height (i.e. thickness) of at least about 1:1 such as at least about 1.5:1 (Wang, [0074]-[0077]) which Wang refers to it as the tertiary aspect ratio.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of references renders the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wang renders it obvious for width to be greater than the thickness (or height) as that demonstrated in paragraph [0076] wherein the ratio of width to height can be at least 2:1 or even at least 10:1.
Also, Wang renders it obvious to length to be greater than both width and height based on the disclosure in paragraphs [0075] and [0077] in which the ratio of length to width is "at least' about 1:1 and even at least about 10:1, and the ratio of the length to height is "at least" about 1:1 and even at least about 10:1.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wang does not open that only a portion of the particles have the disclosed aspect ratios as disclosed in paragraphs [0074]-[0077]; thus, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles of Wang would fall within the disclosed aspect ratios. As such, considering the fact that Wang discloses an aspect ratio of at least 1:1 for length:width, it is taken that this is the aspect ratio of length:width for all particles and hence the claimed "primary batch aspect ratio [B(length/width)] of at least 1.1" is rendered obvious.
With respect to claim 8, with respect to the claimed a primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation [STDEV-B(length/wiath) of not greater than 0.55, it is noted that this is a small range of value, i.e. "not greater" than 0.055, which means that most, if not all the particles, have the claimed primary batch aspect ratio.
Considering the fact that the combination of reference, in particle, Wang discloses a primary aspect ratio, i.e. length:width, of "at least" 1:1, but does not disclose that this aspect ratio is only applicable to a portion of the shaped abrasive particles, it is expected of all of the particles to have such a primary aspect ratio. Thus, the standard deviation is expected to be extremely minimal or very close to zero such as "not greater" than 0.055.
Assuming the above is not found persuasive, it is reasonable to expect that the parameters involved in the process of manufacturing the shaped abrasive particles can be modified/controlled in order to result in such a claimed standard deviation based on the end use application and the required particle shape, and considering the fact that "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law." 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); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; in particular, Wang teaches embodiments such as Figures 12 and 13 which clearly show a tapered shape where there is a tip of the body, i.e. the top portion of the shaped abrasive particles as shown in said Figure, and a base, opposite the tip along a length of the body.
With respect to claim 10, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because as it has been clearly demonstrated in Figures 12-14 of Wang, there is a reduction of the thickness and width of the particles over a length from the base to the tip.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because as demonstrated by the Figures of Wang,
especially in Figure 14, there is an asymmetric taper including a first surface and a
second surface, wherein each has a different contour; this is reflected in the top portion of the shaped abrasive particle, as shown by Figure 14.
With respect to claim 12, the combination of references renders the claim
obvious; this is, in particular, because as shown in Figures 13 and 14 of Wang, there is at least one "projection extending from the body" (see the projections extending from the body, as shown in the left side of the shaped abrasive particles of said Figures) of the shaped abrasive particles, at an angle relative to longitudinal axis of the body, wherein the base region includes a base angle of at least 91 degrees and not greater than 180 degrees. This is especially more illustrated for the projection shown for the lower left corner of the shaped particle shown in Figure 13 which clearly extends at an angle of more than 91 degrees but less than 180 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the particle.
With respect to claim 19, Wang discloses plurality of shaped abrasive particles used in an abrasive article, wherein the shaped abrasive particle has a tapered end (Wang, see Figures 12 and 13).
Although Wang discloses bonded abrasive article in the abstract, Wang, also,
discloses bonded abrasive articles as only "one aspect" of said reference in utilizing
silicon carbide abrasive particles (Wang, [0007]). Furthermore, Wang recognizes the
use of silicon carbide particles in both bonded and coated abrasive article being know in the art (Wang, [0005]). Therefore, even though Wang discloses the use of shaped abrasive particles in bonded abrasive article in the abstract, it is taken that the teaching of the reference can be utilized in coated abrasive articles as well.
Wang does not disclose the applicable or placement of the shaped abrasive
particles onto a backing or substrate. However, coated abrasive articles are known to have a substrate/backing onto which abrasive grains are bonded/applied.
Thurber, directed to coated abrasive articles, discloses the placement and then attachment of abrasive grains onto a substrate/backing (Thurber, Figures, [0020]-[0021]).
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 Wang in order to incorporate the use of a backing or substrate in a coated abrasive article, as that taught by Thurber, motivated by the fact that the use of a backing/substrate in coated abrasive article is known in the art, as that shown and evidenced by Thurber. It is noted that, as detailed out above, the shaped abrasive particles of Wang are expected to be capable of use in coated abrasive articles as well. Thurber recognizes silicon carbide as one type of material for abrasive particles (Thurber, [0055]), and the use of shaped abrasive particles (Thurber, [0057]).
The combination of references is seen to render the claim obvious; this is, in
particular, because Wang does not disclose that only a portion of the particles have the disclosed aspect ratios as disclosed in paragraphs [0074]-[0077]; thus, it is taken that the plurality of the shaped abrasive particles of Wang would fall within the disclosed aspect ratios. As such, considering the fact that Wang discloses an aspect ratio of at least 1:1 for length:width, it is taken that this is the aspect ratio of length:width for all particles and hence the claimed "primary batch aspect ratio [B(length/width)] of at least 1.1" is rendered obvious.
With respect to the claimed a primary batch aspect ratio standard deviation
[STDEV-Bi(length/width)] of not greater than 0.55, it is noted that this is a small range of value, i.e. "not greater than 0.055, which means that most, if not all the particles, have the claimed primary batch aspect ratio. Considering the fact that the combination of reference, in particle, Wang discloses a primary aspect ratio, i.e. length:width, of "at least" 1:1, but does not disclose that this aspect ratio is only applicable to a portion of the shaped abrasive particles, it is expected of all of the particles to have such a primary aspect ratio. Thus, the standard deviation is expected to be extremely minimal or very close to zero such as "not greater" than 0.055.
Assuming the above is not found persuasive, it is reasonable to expect that the parameters involved in the process of manufacturing the shaped abrasive particles can be modified/controlled in order to result in such a claimed standard deviation based on the end use application and the required particle shape, and considering the fact that "The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law." 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); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As illustrated in the figures of Wang, such as Figure 11, there is a tip to the
shaped abrasive particle which has been formed as a result of the convergence of at least two surfaces. In fact, other figures, such as Figures 8, 9, 12 and 13 also
demonstrates tips which have been defined by the convergence of at least two
surfaces. It is important to note that the claim, in line 1, utilizes the open transitional
phrase "comprising" which would allow the presence of more than one tip in the shaped abrasive particles.
At least Figure 8, if not each of Figures 9 or 10, show a shaped abrasive particles that has first surface, second surface, third surface, and a fourth one, which extend between two opposite sides or surfaces; thus, Wang is seen to render the new amendment as recited in lines 7-9 obvious. The claim recites the open phrase “comprising”; thus, shapes such as the one shown in Figure 8 is not seen to teach away from the claimed recitation.
Moreover, and with respect to the recitation directed to the tertiary aspect ratio, Wang discloses an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. claimed aspect ratio of width/thickness) of at least about 0.5:1 which fully overlaps with the claimed range of "at least 0.5" and in fact, shares an end point of 0.5 ([0076]); although this aspect ratio is disclosed as secondary aspect ratio, due to the fact that it is the aspect ratio of width:height, which is equivalent of width:thickness, it is taken that this aspect ratio renders the clamed "tertiary aspect ratio (width/thickness) of at least 0.5" obvious.
Nevertheless, even if considering the aspect ratio of Wang which specifically has been disclosed as "tertiary" aspect ratio, Wang renders the claimed tertiary aspect ratio obvious because what is disclosed as the tertiary aspect ratio by Wang is at least about 1:1 (Wang, [0077]) which overlaps with the range of "at least 0.5".
With respect to the recitation of "a tertiary aspect ratio standard deviation
[STDEV(width/thickness) of at least 0.30", it is noted that as detailed out above, a
standard deviation is a measure of how dispersed the data is in relation to the mean or average. Therefore, a very small standard deviation means that most of the particles are of very similar shape meaning having very similar width and thickness/height. Thus, said claimed recitation is interpreted to mean that the plurality of shaped abrasive particles has a very similar shape. Considering the fact that Wang discloses the use of molding process to manufacture the shaped abrasive particles (Wang, [0067]), it is, therefore, expected of the plurality of shaped abrasive particles to have substantially similar shape, which means particles with substantially similar length, width, and height which would result in having a very small standard deviation for all aspect ratios including an aspect ratio of width:height (i.e. width:thickness).
Additionally, it is well recognized that any three-dimensional object, such as particles, has a thickness; the shaped particles as shown in the Figures such as Figures 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 also, each has a thickness. Thus, the claimed thickness is rendered obvious. It is noted that depending on the angle of view, a certain dimension can be considered a thickness.
With respect to claim 20, the combination of references is seen to render the
claim obvious; this is, in particular, because Wang demonstrates shaped abrasive
particles being tapered particles (see Wang, Figures 12-14) where there is a tip region to the particle, and a base opposite to the tip along the length of the particle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted Yener does not disclose or teach the language of amended independent claims. Also, Applicant has made similar assertion about the rejection of claims over the combination of Wang in view of Thurber.
The examiner disagrees, and respectfully, submits as detailed out above, the new amendments to independent claims are rendered obvious by the teaching of the references. None of the new amendments distinguish the claimed limitation from the teaching of the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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