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 .
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 06/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At the third to last paragraph of page 7, Applicant argues that feature X specifies the cBN grains are substantially free of catalyst element lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium … the catalyst elements were not detected. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium are not detected) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, this argument is not relevant to the question of patentability.
At the last paragraph of page 7, Applicant argues this means the “catalyst elements” are present in Hirano because Hirano at [0033] recites 1% by mass or less of inevitable impurities such as lithium, while the instant claims mean the catalyst element is not present. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this interpretation of both Hirano and instant claim 1. Per Hirano at [0033], 1% or less includes 0%, and thus Hirano does not require the present of any of the elements lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium. Additionally, claim 1 recites “less than 0.001 mass% lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium” which allows for values of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium above 0%, which means claim 1 can very much have positive values of all of lithium, magnesium, calcium, strontium, beryllium, or barium. As such, this argument cannot be found convincing.
At the first full paragraph of page 8, Applicant argues the claim range recited in claim 1 is more narrow than the range disclosed by Hirano, and that Hirano does not provide any teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the more narrow range of claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 1 is obvious because Hirano discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed range, and Hirano calls such compounds “impurities”. A person having ordinary skill in the arts when practicing the invention of Hirano would naturally seek to suppress impurities as much as possible, and therefore Applicant’s arguments are not convincing.
Examiner notes MPEP 2144.05(III) states “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In the instant case, arguments supported by convincing evidence that the claimed range is critical to achieving some unexpected result could potentially be successful at overcoming the outstanding rejection. However, the present arguments do not. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record (see MPEP 716.01(c)).
At the second full paragraph of page 8, Applicant presents generic arguments that the “catalyst elements” promote phase conversion from cubic boron nitride to hexagonal boron nitride, however, these arguments are not supported by evidence and do not argue the criticality of the claimed range. Hirano also teaches suppressing the same impurities. As such, unless the claimed range is successfully established as critical to achieving an unexpected result, this argument is not convincing.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not convincing and claim 1 remains rejected over Hirano.
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 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
Prosecution Insights