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 with traverse of Group I (claims 1-2, 4, 6-14) in the reply filed 06/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/23/2026. With regards to Applicant’s assertion that the express technical relationship between the claimed product and the claimed process for making the product was not adequately addressed, Examiner respectfully indicates that the identification of the special technical feature was correct as presented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-14 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. Specifically, claim 1 recites the term “blob”, the specification provides a definition for “blob” referring to a mass of material having an irregular shape. When the limitation including the term “blob” is read in light of the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be appraised to what an irregular shape is, as a regular shape could be interpreted subjectively. Examiner notes that the closest definition for an irregular shape has been applied to the claim for the purposes of compact prosecution, that definition being: an irregular shape is a figure that lacks symmetry because its sides are not all equal in length and its interior angles are not all equal in measure.
Claims 2, 4, 6-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-10, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adefris (US 9771504) in view of Beveridge (WO 2020/079522).
Regarding claim 1, Adefris discloses a nonwoven abrasive article comprising:
a lofty open nonwoven fiber web comprising entangled fibers (nonwoven abrasive article 1000 comprises a lofty open fibrous mat 1050 which comprises fibers, col 14 lines 31-43 Fig 10 shown below), wherein the fibers have an average diameter (fibers intrinsically have a diameter and a group of them would have an average diameter), and wherein the lofty open nonwoven fiber web has a porous interior (the article has a porous interior, col 14 lines 31-43 Fig 10); and
an abrasive material predominantly disposed within the porous interior of the lofty open fiber web (abrasive material defined as the combination of the abrasive particles 1052 and binder 1054, col 14 lines 31-43), wherein the abrasive material comprises abrasive particles at least partially retained in a binder (as seen in Fig 10 the abrasive particles 1052 are retained by binder 1054), wherein the abrasive material comprises elongated blobs (as seen in Fig 10 the abrasive particles 1052 form, together with binder 1054, elongated blobs as the shape is irregular and elongated), wherein each one of the elongated blobs is respectively bonded to at least one of the fibers (as seen in Fig 10 the blobs are bonded to the fibers 1050 via the binder 1054), and further wherein:
the abrasive particles are magnetizable (a modifying additive can be added to the ceramic precursor of the abrasive particles to enhance some desirable property of the particles and so an additive that would make the particles magnetized could be added, making the particles magnetizable, col 9 lines 30-44); or
the elongated blobs further comprise magnetizable particles different from the abrasive particles; or
both i) and ii).
Regarding the limitation “i) the abrasive particles are magnetizable; or ii) the elongated blobs further comprise magnetizable particles different from the abrasive particles; or both i) and ii). ", the limitation is phrased in the alternative. At least one of the limitations in claim 1, e.g., i), is rejected above. Therefore, no further rejections are required at this time.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Adefris fails to disclose wherein the lofty open nonwoven fiber web has first and second opposed major surfaces and wherein the elongated blobs have a minimum width of at least two times the average diameter of the fibers, wherein a majority of the elongated blobs are longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the blobs having a minimum width of at least two times the average diameter of the fibers would result in a difference in function of the Adefris device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the abrasive article of Adefris would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed minimum width of two times the average diameter. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering other acceptable widths being at least 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, or even 15 times the average diameter and offering yet another alternative width of at least 3, 6, 8, 10, or even 15 times the average diameter of the thickest fibers (pg 13 lines 25-29 of the spec) and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the elongated blobs to be at least two times the average diameter of the fiber as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Beveridge is also concerned with nonwoven abrasive articles and teaches the lofty open nonwoven fiber web has first and second opposed major surfaces and wherein a majority of abrasive particles are longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees (first and second major surfaces 14 and 16 of nonwoven web 12 as seen below, abrasive particles 22 can be oriented such that a tip is oriented in a direction substantially parallel to a line passing through first and second major surfaces, the tip can also be off of perfect alignment to greater than 20° and the total amount of particles 22 being oriented as such can exceed 50% [0041] [0042] Figs 1-2 shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
248
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
218
417
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the formation of the lofty nonwoven fiber web of Adefris for the nonwoven web of Beveridge possessing two major opposed surfaces. Different formations of abrasive articles are known to be beneficial in different scenarios, leading to the predictable result of a functioning double sided abrasive article.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the abrasive particles of Adefris so that a majority of them are longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees as taught by Beveridge so that the abrasive particles can function as intended in Beveridge ([0041]-[0042]). The device of modified Adefris provided with the teaching that the abrasive particles are longitudinally aligned means that the elongated blobs, as defined above, that hold the abrasive particles would also be longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees because the blobs, as defined above, are made of the abrasive particles combined with the binder material and would therefore also possess the alignment of the abrasive particles.
.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that the majority of elongated blobs being longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees would result in a difference in function of the Adefris device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the abrasive article of Adefris would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed majority of elongated blobs being longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, offering other acceptable ranges within 30 degrees, or even 20 degrees of each other (pg 13 lines 30-34 of the spec) and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the alignment of the elongated blobs to being longitudinally aligned within 40 degrees as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the elongated blobs collectively occupy at least 20 volume percent of the porous interior (the elongated blobs are defined as the abrasive particles combined with the binder material and the abrasive article typically comprises about 3-50 percent by volume bond material and about 30-90 percent by volume abrasive particles, and so the combination of the two by volume would easily exceed 20 percent of the volume of the porous interior, col 14 lines 8-25).
Regarding claim 4, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the abrasive particles comprise at least one of abrasive rods, shaped abrasive platelets, or crushed abrasive particles conforming to an abrasives industry specified nominal grade (the abrasive particles comprise of shaped abrasive particles and or crushed abrasive particles, col 7 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 7, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the abrasive particles are magnetizable (a modifying additive can be added to the ceramic precursor of the abrasive particles to enhance some desirable property of the particles and so an additive that would make the particles magnetized could be added, making the particles magnetizable, col 9 lines 30-44).
Regarding claim 8, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the elongated blobs comprise the magnetizable particles different from the abrasive particles (the elongated blobs as defined above include the binder material 1054 which can also contain filler materials or grinding aids which are magnetizable, as they could be made magnetic by the addition of a magnetic material, col 15 lines 41-56).
Regarding claim 9, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Adefris as modified fails to disclose a majority of the elongated blobs extend at least between the first and second opposed major surfaces.
Beveridge teaches a majority of the abrasive particles are located between the first and second opposed major surfaces (abrasive particles 22 that are not located at first major surface 14 can be located anywhere from a range of about 5% to about 100% of a thickness of fibrous web 102, thickness defined as the maximum distance between major surfaces 14 and 16 [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose a majority of the abrasive particles between the first and second major surfaces in Adefris, as taught in Beveridge so that the abrasive particles can function as intended as taught in Beveridge. The device of Adefris provided with the teaching that the abrasive particles are mostly located between the two opposed major surfaces would also have a majority of the elongated blobs, as defined above, between the major surfaces because the blobs are formed from the binder material and abrasive particles.
Regarding claim 10, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Adefris as modified fails to disclose the elongated blobs have longitudinally oriented sides that are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the lofty open fiber web.
Beveridge teaches the abrasive particles have longitudinally oriented sides that are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the lofty open fiber web (the abrasive particles 22 can be oriented such that a tip is oriented in a direction substantially parallel to a line passing through first and second major surfaces 14 and 16, or the tip can be less than, equal to, or greater than 20° and because of this a longitudinally oriented side of the abrasive particle can be aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the web [0041] [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to align the longitudinally oriented sides of the abrasive particles of Adefris so that they are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the web taught by Beveridge so that the abrasive particles can function as intended in Beveridge ([0041]-[0042]). The device of modified Adefris provided with the teaching that the abrasive particles are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the web would also have the elongated blobs be aligned as such because the blobs, as defined above, are made of the particles combined with the binder material and would therefore also possess the alignment of the abrasive particles.
Additionally, there is no evidence of record that establishes that the elongated blobs having longitudinally oriented sides that are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the lofty open fiber web would result in a difference in function of the Adefris device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the abrasive article of Adefris would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended given the claimed elongated blobs having longitudinally oriented sides that are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the lofty open fiber web. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem and therefore applicant has assigned no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the elongated blobs to have longitudinally oriented sides that are aligned within 20 degrees of being parallel to a thickness dimension of the lofty open fiber web as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 13, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses the abrasive particles comprise alpha alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, or a combination thereof (the abrasive particles can include alpha alumina, col 6 lines 20-46).
Regarding claim 14, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses at least some of the elongated blobs extend beyond at least one of the first or second major surfaces (as seen in Beveridge figure 2 above, some of the abrasive particles 22 extend beyond the major surfaces 14 and 16, and because the elongated blobs are formed of the abrasive particles combined with binder material, some of them would also extend beyond one of the major surfaces).
Claims 6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adefris (US 9771504) in view of Beveridge (WO 2020/079522) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorenson (US 2020/0332162).
Regarding claim 6, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Adefris, as modified, fails to disclose the abrasive particles comprise a material having a Mohs scale hardness of at least 8.
Sorenson is also concerned with abrasive articles and teaches the abrasive particles comprise a material having a Mohs scale hardness of at least 8 (the abrasive particles have a Mohs hardness of… at least 8 [0120]).
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 Mohs scale hardness of the abrasive particles of Adefris to be at least 8 as taught in Sorenson so that the abrasive particles have sufficient hardness and surface roughness to function as crushed abrasive particles in abrading processes (Sorenson [0120]).
Regarding claim 11, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Adefris, as modified, fails to disclose a majority of the elongated blobs have an aspect ratio of at least 5:1.
Sorenson teaches the abrasive particles have an aspect ratio of at least 5:1 (the abrasive particles may have an aspect ratio (length to thickness) of at least 5 or more [0123]).
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 aspect ratio of the abrasive particles of the device of Adefris to be at least 5:1 as taught in Sorenson in order to enhance cutting performance (Sorenson [0143] explains that volumetric aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the maximum cross sectional area passing through the centroid of a volume divided by the minimum cross sectional area passing through the centroid, this applies to aspect ratio of length to thickness because the cross section of the length would be the maximum area and the cross section of the thickness would be the minimum area, and Sorenson further teaches that it is believed that shaped abrasive particles having a larger volumetric aspect ratio have enhanced cutting performance).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adefris (US 9771504) in view of Beveridge (WO 2020/079522) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2019/0249053).
Regarding claim 12, Adefris, as modified, discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above. However, Adefris, as modified, fails to disclose the magnetizable particles comprise ferromagnetic material.
Nelson is also concerned with abrasive articles and teaches the magnetizable particles comprise ferromagnetic material (magnetizable abrasive particle 100 comprises magnetizable layer 120 [0046], magnetizable is defined as being magnetic or can be made magnetic [0017], magnetic is defined as being ferromagnetic [0016] and ferromagnetic refers to materials that exhibit ferromagnetism and therefore are a ferromagnetic material [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the magnetizable particles of Adefris for the ferromagnetic particles of Nelson, which would produce the expected result of a magnetizable material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights