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
Amendment filed 2/27/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are pending. Claim 9 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (and as shown in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Second Moroguchi Declaration), testing was conducted to show that the dislocation density disclosed in Bezhenar is significantly different from and outside of the range of dislocation density recited in claim 1. In particular, cBN sintered materials were prepared in Sample Nos. 1, 2 and 5 of those outlined in the instant specification. The results show that the dislocation density in claim 1 is about 103 times larger than as disclosed in Table 1 of Bezhenar.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The units of the claimed dislocation density are in 1/m2, while the units of the dislocation density of Bezhenar are in 1/cm2. The conversion factor to convert from m2 to cm2 is 10,000. Specifically, 1m2 =10,000 cm2. Thus, to convert 2x1011/cm2 to the claimed units, it must me multiplied by 10,000 cm2 (e.g., (2x1011/cm2) x (10,000 cm2/m2). This converts to 2x1015/m2. The shorthand conversion simply involves adding four zeros to 2x1011 to arrive at the converted value. When written in long form, 2x1015/m2 (e.g., 2,000,000,000,000,000 m2) is greater than 1x1015/m2 (e.g., 1,000,000,000,000,000 m2) by a factor of 2, not 103. This value is also clearly less than 1x1017/m2 by 102/m2. Thus, the dislocation density of Bezhenar falls within the claimed range.
Applicant argues that (See paragraphs 17 and 18 of the second Moroguchi Declaration) it is meaningless to directly compare numerical values disclosed in Bezhenar with those claimed unless they are calculated based on the same method.
Bezhenar does not recite the exact method by which the dislocation density is measured. Soleimanian et al. is cited for disclosing a method to measure dislocation density (See paragraph 13 of Non-Final Rejection dated 12/2/2025). Soleimanian et al. disclose that the dislocation density is measured by a modified Williamson-Hall and modified Warren-Averbach approaches. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art, it taught by both Bezhenar and Soleimanian et al. to achieve the claimed dislocation density using the claimed measuring methods.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
___________________________________________________________________
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSIN et al. (US 2015/0218056) in view of BEZHENAR et al. (Physico-Mechanical Properties of cBN composites Produced by a High-Pressure Reaction Sintering of Cubic Boron Nitride and Aluminum Powders), SOLEIMANIAN et al. (A Comparison between different X-ray diffraction line broadening analysis methods for nanocrystalline ball-milled FCC powders) and HALL JR et al. (US 4,647,546)
With respect to claims 1 and 2, ANDERSIN et al. discloses a sintered cubic boron nitride material (Abstract; Paragraphs [00012], [0013], [0042]) used as a super-hard insert for a cutting tool (Paragraph [0023]) . The sintered material comprises 35 to 90 volume % cubic boron nitride and the remainder a matrix (e.g. binder) (Paragraph [0012]). The binder comprises titanium from group 4 of the periodic table and aluminum (Paragraph [0012], [0041]). The titanium is in the form of titanium carbide and the aluminum is a nitride of aluminum (Paragraph [0012]) (e.g., compounds selected from the carbon of titanium (group 4 element) and nitride of aluminum).
ANDERSIN et al. discloses both the aluminum compound and the titanium compound within the binder. Claim 1 requires an element selected from the claimed group, which does not include a compound of silicon, per se. HALL JR et al. discloses a crystalline cubic boron nitride in a binder (Abstract) for use as a tool insert (Column 8, lines 20-35). The aluminum compound in the binder is paired with silicon, which allows for complete filling of pores by activation of the surfaces of the CBN grains, substantially wetting action for CBN and significant solubility in the alloy for boron and nitrogen, and a desired catalyst/solvent activity (Column 8, lines 60-68; Column 9, lines 1-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide silicon in the binder of ANDERSIN et al., as taught by HALL JR et al. so that the silicon with the aluminum compound in the binder results in complete filling of pores by activation of the surfaces of the CBN grains, substantially wetting action for CBN and significant solubility in the alloy for boron and nitrogen, and a desired catalyst/solvent activity.
ANDERSIN et al. does not explicitly disclose the claimed dislocation density. BEZHENAR et al. discloses a cubic boron nitride composite for use as a high speed cutting tool (Introduction, second and third paragraphs), that also includes aluminum. One factor affecting the composite hardness is the reconstruction of the cBN dislocation structure of the type of deformation strengthening structure defects. In composites with 10% aluminum, the observed dislocation density (e.g., ρ in Table 5; page 7) is between 2x1011/cm2 and 15x1011/cm2. This converts to 2x1015/m2 to 15x1015/m2 (as also required by claim 2). BEZHENAR et al. further notes that a reduction in the dislocation density through annealing decreases hardness through the removal of the dislocation densities (Page 7; Second full paragraph through sixth full paragraph; Page 11, Conclusions, Third paragraph). The dislocation density is determined through X-ray diffraction analysis (Page 3, Paragraphs 7 and 8). It therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the formation of dislocation densities on the order of between 2x1011/cm2 and 15x1011/cm2 into the composite structure of ANDERSIN et al. during formation thereof, and to prevent the reduction of said dislocation densities through any type of annealing process, as taught by BEZHENAR et al. so that the hardness of the composite is appropriate for tool cutting applications.
Modified ANDERSIN et al. does not explicitly claim that the dislocation density is determined in the claimed manner. SOLEIMANIAN et al. discloses the use of X-ray diffraction analysis (XDA) to measure microstructural characteristics, such as dislocation density (Abstract). Measuring these characteristics with modified Williamson-Hall and modified Warren-Averbach approaches are done to decrease the inaccuracy in conventional XDA methods (Introduction; Fourth full Paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to measure the dislocation density of modified ANDERSIN et al., using a modified Williamson-Hall and modified Warren-Averbach approach, as taught by SOLEIMANIAN et al., so as to decrease the inaccuracy of measuring this value when compared to other conventional XDA methods.
ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the binder includes titanium from group 4 of the periodic table and aluminum (Paragraph [0012], [0041]).
ANDERSIN et al. discloses the use of tiantium and aluminum (Paragraphs [0012], [0041]). The instant application does not define “essential element”. Thus, the phrase is given is plain and ordinary meaning. Examiner is taking this phrase to mean a necessary component of the binder. Given that ANDERSIN et al. discloses these materials as being used, they are considered essential elements.
With respect to claims 3-5, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the PCBN consists essentially of cBN grains dispersed in a matrix (Paragraph [0012]). Thus, the scope of ANDERSIN et al. includes gains of only cubic boron nitride and not calcium. The scope of claims 3-5 include zero mass% of calcium.
With respect to claim 6, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the sintered material includes 35-90 volume % cubic boron nitride grains (Paragraph [0012]).
With respect to claim 8, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the binder includes titanium from group 4 of the periodic table and aluminum (Paragraph [0012], [0041]).
With respect to claim 10, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the aluminum is aluminum nitride (Paragraph [0012]).
With respect to claim 11, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the titanium is titanium nitride (Paragraph [0051]).
With respect to claim 12, ANDERSIN et al. discloses that the mean grain size is 0.7-1.2 microns (e.g., 700-1200 nanometers) which falls within the claimed range (Paragraph [0039], [0041])
____________________________________________________________________
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ANDERSIN et al. (US 2015/0218056) in view of BEZHENAR et al. (Physico-Mechanical Properties of cBN composites Produced by a High-Pressure Reaction Sintering of Cubic Boron Nitride and Aluminum Powders), SOLEIMANIAN et al. (A Comparison between different X-ray diffraction line broadening analysis methods for nanocrystalline ball-milled FCC powders) and HALL JR et al. (US 4,647,546) as applied to claims 1-6, 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of ROSENFLANZ et al. (US 2004/0020245).
With respect to claim 7, ANDERSIN et al. does not explicitly disclose that the binder contains the claimed amount of calcium.
ROSENFLANZ et al. discloses cutting tool inserts (Paragraph [0028]) using cubic boron nitride and a binder (Paragraphs [0120] [0116]). The materials comprise calcium in an amount of between 0 and 25 wt% (Paragraphs [0047], [0048]), to aid in densification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide calcium in the binder material of ANDERSIN et al., in an amount of between 0 and 25 wt%, as taught by ROSENFLANZ et al. so as to aid in densification of the material, and other properties of the material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEX B EFTA whose telephone number is (313)446-6548. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights