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 § 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, 4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura in US20050019614 in view of Blomqvist in US20230037384.
Regarding Claim 1: Miura teaches a cemented carbide consisting essentially of a binder phase (iron family metal), a first hard phase of WC particles, and a second hard phase (See Paragraph 9). Miura teaches that the binder phase may be chosen to be Ni or Co (See Examples; ‘iron family metals’ is understood as referring to Fe, Ni, and Co in the art). Miura teaches that the ratio of the average grain size of WC particles in the surface region (claimed second average particle diameter) to an average grain size of the first hard phase in the inner region (claimed first average particle diameter) of the carbide is between 0.8 to 1 (See Paragraph 15). Miura teaches that the surface region has a thickness from 2 to 50 microns and the particle size within such a region may be from 0.4 to slightly under 10 microns ((0.8 to less than 1)*(0.5 to 10 microns); See Para 15-16). Thus the thickness of the surface layer part may be equal to or less than the average particle diameter of the first hard phase on the surface of the cemented carbide. Miura thus teaches an overlapping range of particle sizes and layer sizes as those claimed. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Miura teaches the cemented carbide may be used to create a cutting tool, but is silent in terms of the geometry, faces, and additional treatments used in creating such a tool (See Paragraph 1-2).
However, Blomqvist teaches the creation of cutting tools from cemented carbides (See Abstract), wherein the cutting tool of Blomqvist is provided having a rake face (See Figure 1, item 2), a flank face (3), and a cutting edge. Blomqvist teaches that the cutting tool as set forth may be made from WC with an iron group metal, such as nickel, as a binder (See Paragraph 7 and examples ). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the cemented carbide of Miura in the geometry of Blomqvist in order to create a cutting tool as set forth. The cutting tool of Miura in view of Blomqvist would thus have a main body part and surface layer part provided on the surface of the main body part as taught by Miura and a surface of a plain part in a rake face of the cutting tool as claimed. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to create the cutting tool geometry of Blomqvist using the cemented carbide of Miura based on Miura’s explicit desire to create cutting tools from the carbide material (See Paragraph 1-2). Those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to create known tool geometries, such as the one of Blomqvist, in order to create industrially applicable products that could be sold for specific purposes.
Miura is silent in terms of applying a compressive residual stress to the first hard phase (WC) in the surface of the plain part in the rake face.
However, Blomqvist teaches that cracks in a turning tool often develop in the rake face and that in order to prevent such crack development, a residual compressive stress may be applied to the hard phase on the surface of the rake face. The residual compressive stress may be greater than 1500 MPa (1.5 GPa) (See Paragraph 15-17)and may be developed by shot peening the rake face (See Paragraph 23-26). Those of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to develop compressive residual stress in the hard phase at the surface of the rake face as both Blomqvist and Miura teach the creation of WC cemented carbides for use as cutting tools. Those of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to develop compressive residual stress in the hard phase on the surface of the rake face in the cutting tool of Miura in view of Blomqvist in order to prevent crack formation in the tool.
Regarding Claim 2 and 4: Miura teaches the second hard phase may be chosen from Group 4 or Group 5 Carbides or Nitrides, such as Ti(C,NB) Zr(C,N) amongst others (See Paragraph 13). The second hard phase may be of a different composition than the first hard phase and may be present in both the surface layer and main body part of the tool according to Miura in view of Blomqvist (See Miura Paragraph 11-12).
Regarding Claim 6: The cutting tool of Miura in view of Blomqvist includes a surface layer part and a main body part, which are composed of identical components (See Miura Paragraph 9, 11-13). Miura teaches that the ratio of an area of the binder phase in the surface layer part to an rea of the binder phase in the inner region is preferably from 1.1 to 2 (See Paragraph 17). Thus the surface layer includes a content of the binder phase that is larger than the content of binder phase in the main body part (inner region).
Regarding Claim 7: The instant claim sets forth limitations in terms of the conditions for ascertaining the first and second average particle sizes of the WC hard phase in the cutting tool. It is noted that the claims are drawn to a product and not a means for testing, and as this is the case patentable weight is afforded to the implications of the testing method rather than the actual manipulations as set forth. The means for determining particle size is a direct observation using a microscope for example (rather than determining particle size through secondary means such as the Scherrer equation) and would thus give a true indication of those particle sizes. Miura also references true particle sizes (not determined through secondary means), which would meet the claim limitations as they provide an overlapping range of particle sizes.
Regarding Claim 8: Miura teaches that the ratio of the average grain size of WC particles in the surface region (claimed second average particle diameter) to an average grain size of the first hard phase in the inner region (claimed first average particle diameter) of the carbide is between 0.8 to 1 (See Paragraph 15). Miura thus teaches an overlapping range of particle sizes. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 9: Miura teaches that the particle size in the main body part (first average particle diameter) is from 0.5 to 10 microns (See Paragraph 16). Miura thus teaches an overlapping range of particle sizes. Overlapping ranges have been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness over the prior art. Those of ordinary skill in the art would only need to select from the overlapping portion of the range to arrive at the invention as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 10: Miura describes the WC particles (grains) as being dispersed within the binder phase (See Paragraph 15). Those of ordinary skill in the art would expect the second hard phase to also be dispersed within the binder phase to the same degree.
Regarding Claim 11: Miura teaches that the material may be provided with a coating on its surface (See Paragraph 28).
Regarding Claim 12: The instant claims are noted as being set forth in terms of product-by-process limitations. Product-by-process limitations are given patentable weight on the basis of the implications of the process on the product and not necessarily performing the actual manipulations as set forth. Applicant argues that the process as set forth allows the tool to be used for longer cutting times. While it is unclear what the implications of the process are in terms of the actual composition or structural differences in the material, it can be seen in the table that the Comparative examples cited as having a shorter service life have a lower B/A ratio than that which is claimed. As is discussed above, the product of Miura in view Blomqvist has a ratio B/A within the ranges claimed being from 0.8 to 1 and thus would be expected to have the same service life as the inventive cutting tools. The composition of the prior art appears to meet all of the process limitations as set forth and implied. As this is the case, the product of Miura in view of Blomqvist is seen as meeting the product-by-process implications as set forth as the material is expected to be of the same composition and structure as that which is claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 9/9/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-11 under USC 103 over Miura in view of Blomqvist in US20230040103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Miura in view of Blomqvist in US20230037384.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted and appear to be supported by the original disclosure. The cancellation of claim 5 is noted, rendering the 112(d) rejection over this claim moot and withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 is noted. Applicant discusses the section of Blomqvist(‘103) cited, wherein it is taught that the residual stress within the crystal grains on the rake face is greater than 2 GPa. As the claims are drawn to the residual stress being between 1-2 GPa, the previous rejection over Miura in view of Blomqvist(‘103) is withdrawn as Blomqvist(‘103) effectively teaches away from this range of residual stress. Upon further search and consideration, the second Blomqvist reference Blomqvist(‘384) is noted. Blomqvist(‘384) teaches that crack mitigation can be accomplished by providing a residual stress of 1.5 GPa in the rake face, overlapping the claimed residual stress.
Applicants discussion regarding new claim 12 is noted and points out that applicant’s components show a longer service life when processed by the claimed process. The implications of the process as discussed by applicant are noted in the rejection of claim 12 above.
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 MATTHEW E HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/Matthew E. Hoban/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734