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 .
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 1,3 and 12 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.
The term “trace amounts” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “trace amounts” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN109402479A(CN’479).
Regarding claim 1, CN’479 discloses a high wear-resistant and tough NbC-based lightweight cermet alloy and a preparation method thereof, comprising the following steps: the powder is weighed and prepared according to the mass percentage: the mass fraction of the hard phase powder is 35-90% NbC, 0-55% (Nb,M)C; the mass fraction of the chemical powder of the strengthening phase is 5-30% WC, 0-25% TiC, 0-255% TiN, 0-25% Ti(C,N), 0-15% Mo2C, 0～10%TaC; binder phase matrix alloy powder chemical composition mass percentage is 0-20% Ni, 0-20% Mo, 0-20% Cr, 0-15% Fe, 0-15% Co; grain suppression he powder of the agent is 0 to 2.5% ZrC, 0 to 2.5% VC, 0 to 5% Cr2C3, and 0 to 1.2% of carbon black powder. The powdered material is pressed and sintered. Further, the M element of (Nb, M)C is any one or more of Mo, W, Ta, Ti, Zr, Cr, V solid solution powders, wherein the mass fraction ratio Nb accounts for 50% to 95%. See pages 1-2.
Although the prior art is silent about the core-rim structure, it has been held that same or similar process produces same or similar product. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The mass fraction of the hard phase powder is 35-90% NbC, 0-55% (Nb,M)C; the mass fraction of the chemical powder of the strengthening phase is 5-30% WC, 0-25% TiC, 0-255% TiN, 0-25% Ti(C,N), 0-15% Mo2C, 0～10%TaC; binder phase matrix alloy powder chemical composition mass percentage is 0-20% Ni, 0-20% Mo, 0-20% Cr, 0-15% Fe, 0-15% Co; grain suppressionpowder of the agent is 0 to 2.5% ZrC, 0 to 2.5% VC, 0 to 5% Cr2C3, and 0 to 1.2% of carbon black powder. The powdered material is pressed and sintered. Further, the M element of (Nb, M)C is any one or more of Mo, W, Ta, Ti, Zr, Cr, V solid solution powders, wherein the mass fraction ratio Nb accounts for 50% to 95%. See pages 1-2.
The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing
identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "close" ranges, and close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, the M element of (Nb, M)C is any one or more of Mo, W, Ta, Ti, Zr, Cr, V solid solution powders, wherein the mass fraction ratio Nb accounts for 50% to 95%.
Regrading claim 12, it has been held that same or similar process produces same or similar product. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that CN'479 fails to disclose or suggest a NbC-based cemented carbide, comprising at a bare minimum the features, "... WC present in an amount less than 5 wt.% based on a total weight of the NbC-based cemented carbide..." and "... wherein the NbC- based cemented carbide excludes nitrides and carbonitrides" recited in claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully submits that the content of the WC is in the range of 5-30%. The reference differs from Applicant's recitations of claims by not disclosing
identical ranges. However, the reference discloses "close" ranges, and close ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). The Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art disclose 0 wt.% to 30 wt.% of Ti and from 0 wt.% to 25 wt.% of Ti(C,N). Thus the content of TiN and Ti(C, N) can be zero.
The applicant argues the unexpected result of WC amount being less than 5%. The Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant must compare the instant application with the closest art. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed. In re Linder 173 USPQ 356. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside (i.e. as well as the upper and lower limits) the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The prior art teaches 5wt%, WC . Further more any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merk & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 SHUANGYI ABU ALI whose telephone number is (571)272-6453. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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.
/SHUANGYI ABU ALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731