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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 are allowed.
Claim 6 is directed towards a cubic boron nitride sintered material comprising: more than or equal to 40 volume% and less than or equal to 85 volume% of cubic boron nitride grains; and a binder phase, wherein the binder phase includes at least one selected from a group consisting of one or more first compounds and a solid solution originated from the first compounds, the one or more first compounds consisting of at least one element selected from a group consisting of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten, and at least one element selected from a group consisting of nitrogen, carbon, boron, and oxygen, the cubic boron nitride grains include, on number basis, more than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 0.5 µm, and includes, on number basis, less than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 2 µm, a content of an inevitable impurity in the cubic boron nitride sintered material is less than or equal to 0.1 mass%, the binder phase does not include aluminum, and when a mass of the cubic boron nitride grains is assumed as 100 mass%, a total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium in the cubic boron nitride grains is less than 0.001 mass%.
Claim 7 is directed towards a cubic boron nitride sintered material comprising: more than or equal to 40 volume% and less than or equal to 85 volume% of cubic boron nitride grains; and a binder phase, wherein the binder phase includes at least one selected from a group consisting of one or more first compounds and a solid solution originated from the first compounds, the one or more first compounds consisting of at least one element selected from a group consisting of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten, and at least one element selected from a group consisting of nitrogen, carbon, boron, and oxygen, the cubic boron nitride grains include, on number basis, more than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 0.5 µm, and includes, on number basis, less than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 2 µm, the binder phase does not include aluminum, and when a mass of the cubic boron nitride grains is assumed as 100 mass%, a total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium in the cubic boron nitride grains is less than 0.001 mass%.
The closest prior art is Hirano et al. (US20170362130, hereinafter referred to as Hirano). Hirano discloses or makes obvious all limitations of claims 6 and 7 as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 below, with the exception that Hirano does not disclose or make obvious the binder phase does not include aluminum (see Hirano at the Abstract, disclosing the binder phase has an Al compound). As such, claims 6 and 7 are allowed over Hirano.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirano et al. (US20170362130, hereinafter referred to as Hirano).
Regarding claim 1, a cubic boron nitride sintered material (see Hirano at the Abstract, disclosing a cBN sintered body. Examiner notes cBN denotes cubic boron nitride) comprising: more than or equal to 40 volume% and less than or equal to 85 volume% of cubic boron nitride grains (see Hirano at the Abstract, disclosing 40%-85% cBN by volume, which is the claimed range.); and a binder phase (See Hirano at the Abstract, disclosing a binder), wherein the binder phase includes at least one selected from a group consisting of one or more first compounds and a solid solution originated from the first compounds, or includes at least one selected from a group consisting of the one or more first compounds and the solid solution originated from the first compounds and an aluminum compound, the one or more first compounds consisting of at least one element selected from a group consisting of titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, chromium, molybdenum, and tungsten, and at least one element selected from a group consisting of nitrogen, carbon, boron, and oxygen (see Hirano at the Abstract, disclosing the binder phase has an Al compound including Al and at least one element selected from N, O and B, and a Zr compound including Zr and at least one element selected from C, N, O and B.), the cubic boron nitride grains include, on number basis, more than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 0.5 µm, and includes, on number basis, less than or equal to 50% of cubic boron nitride grains each having an equivalent circle diameter of more than 2 µm (see Hirano at [053], disclosing 40 to 85% by volume of the cubic boron nitride having an average particle size of 0.2 to 2.0 μm, which overlaps with the claimed ranges.) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05), a content of an inevitable impurity in the cubic boron nitride sintered material is less than or equal to 0.1 mass% (see Hirano at [0033], disclosing impurities (inevitable impurities) inevitably contained in the cubic boron nitride sintered body of the present invention may be lithium, etc., contained in starting powders, etc. A total amount of the inevitable impurities can be, in general, suppressed to 1% by mass or less based on the whole cubic boron nitride sintered body. Therefore, it is extremely rare that the inevitable impurities affect to the characteristic value of the cubic boron nitride sintered body of the present invention. Examiner notes this range of impurities overlap with the claimed range.), and when a mass of the cubic boron nitride grains is assumed as 100 mass%, a total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium in the cubic boron nitride grains is less than 0.001 mass% (see Hirano at [0033], disclosing impurities (inevitable impurities) inevitably contained in the cubic boron nitride sintered body of the present invention may be lithium, etc., contained in starting powders, etc. A total amount of the inevitable impurities can be, in general, suppressed to 1% by mass or less based on the whole cubic boron nitride sintered body. Therefore, it is extremely rare that the inevitable impurities affect to the characteristic value of the cubic boron nitride sintered body of the present invention. Examiner notes this range of impurities overlap with the claimed range.).
Regarding claim 2, while Hirano does not explicitly disclose the cubic boron nitride sintered material according to claim 1, wherein in an X-ray diffraction spectrum of the cubic boron nitride sintered material, a relation of the following formula I is indicated: (IA+IB+IC)/ID ≤ 0.05 ... formula I, where IA represents a peak intensity originated from compressed hexagonal boron nitride, IB represents a peak intensity originated from hexagonal boron nitride, IC represents a peak intensity originated from wurtzite type boron nitride, and ID represents a peak intensity originated from cubic boron nitride, this is a property which depends upon the amount of cubic boron nitride, wurtzite boron nitride, hexagonal boron nitride, and compressed boron nitride as evidenced by the instant specification at [0034]-[0035]. While Hirano is directed towards cubic boron nitride as disclosed by the Abstract, Hirano does not disclose any of the boron nitride is in a compressed hexagonal, hexagonal, or wurtzite configuration. Therefore, the amount of non-cubic boron nitride is at trace impurity levels. Because the boron nitride of Hirano is substantially entirely cubic boron nitride, the (IA+IB+IC)/ID value for Hirano would inherently be less than or equal to 0.05. 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 (see MPEP 2112.01(I) first paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Hirano discloses wherein the cubic boron nitride sintered material comprises more than or equal to 15 volume % and less than or equal to 55 volume% of the binder phase (see Hirano at claim 1, claiming a binder phase with 15% by volume or more and 60% by volume or less, which overlaps with the claimed range.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. At the first full paragraph of page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium of claim 1 which must be below 0.001 mass% are very different from the inevitable impurity in the cubic boron nitride sintered material which must be less than or equal to 0.1 mass%. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that inevitable impurities are inevitable impurities however they are named, and notes this argument cannot be found convincing by examining the two limitations as written because the inevitable impurities and the list of specific elements are made obvious by the same section of Hirano. Put another way, per the broadest reasonable interpretation, the total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium of claim 1 are inevitable impurities, as are the explicitly recited “inevitable impurities” of claim 1. As such, each limitation is met by the same section of Hirano as detailed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicant argues the inevitable impurities of claim 1 are very different from the inevitable impurities of Hirano; Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons above, mutatis mutandis.
At the second paragraph of page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Hirano uses conventional catalysts, and that because Applicant’s Samples 7-12 when using conventional catalysts contained a total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium above the claimed range of claim 1, then the invention of Hirano must also contain a total content of total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium above the claimed range of instant claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons. First, Hirano does not disclose the use of catalysts, and therefore this comparison is not appropriate. Second, Applicant’s sample results cannot provide any information concerning the invention of Hirano because Applicant’s sample’s are not identical in all ways to the invention of Hirano; while Applicant’s samples may be used to illustrate scientific principals in the general art, they cannot be used to directly overcome Hirano is such a manner without establishing they are completely the same as all inventive concepts in Hirano. This burden has not been met, and Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
At page 9, Applicant further argues that Applicant’s samples which were within the total content of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, and barium content of claim 1 had superior properties to Applicant’s samples which were not; Examiner notes this is not convincing because Applicant’s samples are not the same as the invention of Hirano, and this argument cannot be found convincing for the reasons stated above mutatis mutandis.
At the second to last paragraph of page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues the range of Hirano of 1% or less is more broad than the claimed ranges of 0.1% or less and 0.001% or less, and thus claim 1 should be allowed over Hirano. While Examiner agrees that range of Hirano is not as narrow as the instantly claimed range, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion, and notes per the rejection of claim 1 that the claimed ranges are obvious because the range of Hirano overlaps with the claimed ranges. As such, this argument is not convincing.
At the last paragraph of page 10, Applicant argues that only one specific inventive example disclosed in Hirano avoided fracturing or a 0.2mm flank wear width for longer than 10 minutes, while the material of instant claim 1 had the greatest wear over a 10 minute period of 0.092mm. Examiner notes this is not convincing because the rejection of claim 1 is not based upon the inventive example of Hirano towards which Applicant is arguing. The rejection is based upon the full disclosure of Hirano as detailed by the rejection of claim 1 above. The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain (see MPEP 2123(I)).
At pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Hirano does not make obvious claims 6 and 7 because the binder of Hirano comprises aluminum per the Abstract of Hirano. Examiner agrees, and notes claims 6 and 7 are allowable over Hirano.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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.
CAMERON K MILLER
Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731