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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is newly amended.
Response to Arguments
Given the new amendments, Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-6, filed 12/17/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, 14 under the non-final 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 the reference cited.
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, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren (WO 2014/191511).
Norgren describes a cemented carbide composition (title). The composite can include WC, TaC, NbC, Cr3C2 and mixtures (page 7, lines 5-11). The composition can include a transntion metal binder, such as Co, Ta, Cr and are added in the form of carbides (page 7, lines 13-19). The carbides and the binder carbides are in the form of grains (page 8, lines 8-20). Heating may cause grain growth, but binders can be used to control grain growth (page 10, lines 13-14). The processed mixture has a hardness that can include a GPa of 39.7 (see table 3, sample 2) or 37 (see table 3, sample 7). The product includes islands of the transition metal carbide (see Figures 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B). The other transition metal carbide can be considered the matrix. The islands of transition metal carbides in the matrix can be considered the droplets of Claim 1.
As to the measurement properties of determining the hardness of the composite material to have a hardness of greater than or equal to 35 MPa when measured on a film, although Selfanov does not state the features of measuring the hardness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any means of measuring hardness of a material would be sufficient to meet this feature of the claim.
As to Claim 5, Norgren teaches that the processed mixture has a hardness that can include a GPa of 39.7 (see table 3, sample 2). It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 2, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of AT 511414.
Norgren explains that WC grain growth is controlled by use of other compounds, such as TaC, Cr3C2 and others (page 10, lines 13-14). The reference does not describe a WC grain size of at most 2 nm.
‘414 describes a doped hexagonal tungsten carbide that is doped with another transition metal (abstract). ‘414 explains that the average particle size of the WC particles after heating can be reduced by reducing the heating temperature (page 5, para. 1). Furthermore, the addition of other metal carbides act as grain growth inhibitors during sintering and function to reduce grain growth and maintain low particle size of the WC (page 5, lines 1-14).
In their product, ‘414 teaches that their product is a Ta-doped WC with an average particle size of less than 1 µm (see page 8, example above example 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the features of ‘414 to produce a desired grain size in Norgren because ‘414 explains that it is known to optimize certain parameters, such as temperature and grain growth inhibitors in order to obtain a particle size of less than 1µm.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges overlap or are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I.”
Claim(s) 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (JP 2020020017).
The references do not disclose the amount of the transition metal in terms of atomic percent.
Suzuki describes a WC phase modified by another transition metal in the form of particles and bound phases (abstract). The WC is combined with another transition metal, such as Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, CR and Mo (“WC Phase”, para. 2). As to the content, Suzuki explains that the content of W in the binder phase ranges from 4 atomic % to 12 atomic % (page 4, lines 16-20). Suzuki explains that when the content of the transition metal is at least 4 atomic %, the corrosion resistance tends to improve and if the content of W is from 4 to 12 atomic %, the wear resistance is improved and the fracture resistance is improved (see page 4, lines 19-23, 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the transition metals in an amount of about 4-12 atomic %, as taught by Suzuki for use with the Norgren because this range is known to improve corrosion resistance, wear resistance as well as fracture resistance.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 207987323).
Norgren does not describe the presence of sp3 fractions in carbon atoms of 60% or greater.
Wang describes tungsten carbide alloys in their background (Background, para. 1). Specifically, Wang describes use of WC bound together with binding metals for a number of uses (Background, para. 1). Wang describes a method of improving these. Specifically, a way to improve their corrosion resistance, service life and other features (Background, para. 1, page 4, last para). In their product, Wang explains that their tungsten carbide structure, which is modified with cobalt (page 3, lines 22-27) is modified with vanadium ions (page 4, last para) used to improve the sp3 bonds of the carbon and make the carbon in the layer a diamond-like structure (page 4, last para).
Wang teaches that the layer includes additional carbon ions and vanadium ions injected into the composition (page 3, second to last para). The ratio of V to C is 1:1 (page 4, para. 2). Although Wang does not state the amount of carbon atoms are converted into sp3, Wang states that “the injection of vanadium ion can improve the bond content of sp3 carbon” (see page 4, second to last para).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that this is an optimizable feature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additional injection of carbon and vanadium ions, as taught by Wang for use in the tungsten carbide and cobalt composition of Norgren because use of these improve tungsten carbide materials by improving their service life and corrosion resistance.
As to Claim 8, Wang teaches that their composition can be deposited on a substrate (see Fig. 1, 2).
As to Claim 11, Wang teaches that the thickness of the layer is 850 nm (Claim 4).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren and Wang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Guo (CN 104072138).
The references do not describe the thickness of the layer.
Guo describes a tungsten carbide composition (title) that includes tungsten carbide combined with cobalt (Novelty, para. 1). The thickness of the tungsten carbide layer with cobalt is about 60-120nm (Novelty, para. 1 and claim).
The composition can be used for cutting (“use”) and has a high hardness (see “advantage”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the cobalt-modified tungsten carbide in a thickness of 60-120nm, as taught by Gu for use with the composition of Norgren and Wang because this thickness is known to have high hardness and have effectiveness for cutting.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren, and further in view of Ramm (US Pub.: 2007/0000772) and in view of Chistyakov (US Pub.: 2007/0188104).
The rejection of Claim 1 and re-iterated here.
The reference describes the composition of Claim 1, but does not describe the method features of Claim 12.
Ramm describes a method of using an arc to deposit an insulating layer (abstract). The arc source is connected to a power source to perform the method (abstract). The insulating material may include WC with other transition metal (para. 16) in the presence of a gas, which can include a non-oxygen gas (para. 15). The arc produces a plasma using cathodes in a non-oxygen atmosphere (para. 52). The arc applies a direct current superimposed on a pulsed or alternating current (para. 12) at a power of 50 kHz (para. 60). The width of the pulse can be varied with different frequencies in order to vary the control of the deposition rate (para. 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the width of the pulse, as taught by Ramm for use with Norgren because adjusting the width of the pulse can be used to vary the control of the deposition rate.
As to the rise of the voltage feature, Chistyakov describes a method of generating a strong plasma (title). In the background, Chistyakov explains that an increase in plasma density has had issues in the last, such as, by use of increase electrode voltage, which causes arcing and therefore damage to the electrode and contamination (para. 4). As a solution to this, Chistyakov explains that their plasma is operated at a pulse mode (para. 57) where the voltage increases sharply, such as at 0.5V/µs, so create a rapid increase in electron density and the formation of strongly ionized plasma that cause a significant rise in the discharge current (para. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the deposition of the diamond material on a substrate at a power of 10kW to 100kW for an impulse duration of 10µs to 100 µs, as taught by Stowell with the process of Norgren because this power range is a known one to effectively deposit a diamond film on a substrate.
As to the voltage rise feature, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the plasma so that it has an increase of 0.5V/µs, as taught by Christyakov for use with the process of Norgren and Ramm because this causes a significant rise in discharge current without the drawbacks described by Christyakov.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norgren, Ramm and Chistyakov as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Selifanov (US Pat.: 5643343).
The references do not describe the features of Claim 14.
Selifanov teaches use of a cathodic arc process (col. 2, lines 46-48) where a DC power supply feeds a pulsed cathodic arc discharge (col. 2, lines 62-67). Carbon is fed to this system to generate a carbon plasma (col. 4, lines 59-63). Selifanov explains that the plasma treatment is performed uses a pulse mode (col.6, lines 46-49). In one example, the frequency applied was 16 Hz (col. 15, lines 17-19). Selifanov teaches that when the pulsed vacuum electric arc exceeds 10kA, it leads to an increase in microparticle emissions (col. 10, lines 35-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a current that ranges from 16Hz to 100kA, as taught by Selifanov for use with the composition of Norgren, Ramm and Chistyakov because this range is known to generate plasma without creating microparticle emissions.
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 SHENG HAN DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5823. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Fung Coris can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/SHENG H DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 February 23, 2026