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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kubo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0105814).
As per claim 1, Kubo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0105814) discloses a method for machining a tool, the method comprising applying compressive residual stress to the tool by laser peening using a pulsed laser (laser peening on TiCN layer of tool body 1; paragraph [0063]), wherein the tool includes a base material and a coating layer that covers at least a portion of a surface of the base material (first layer 2 on outer surface of tool body (base material); paragraph [0063]), and in the applying, the compressive residual stress is applied to the tool such that a difference in compressive residual stress at an interface between the base material and the coating layer is at most 100 MPa (Example 4 having WC residual stress of -2140 MPa and TiCN residual stress of -2060 MPa, i.e., difference of 80 MPa; table 1).
As per claim 2, Kubo discloses the method for machining a tool according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the base material is made of a sintered body (tool body 1 is made of sintered alloy; paragraph [0058]) or a carbide having a hardness of at least 4000 HV and at most 8000 HV, and the coating layer is made of a carbide, a nitride, or a carbonitride (TiCN layer; paragraph [0063]).
As per claim 3, Kubo discloses the method for machining a tool according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein, in the applying, by controlling a difference in laser irradiation time between adjacent laser irradiation points, anisotropy is generated in the compressive residual stress applied to the tool (in the laser peening step, anisotropy is applied; paragraph [0021]).
As per claim 7, Kubo discloses the method for machining a tool according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein, in the applying, the laser peening is performed for an entire surface of the coating layer (as shown, scanning direction S of pulsed laser L follows the entire length of hard coating 2; figure 5).
As per claim 8, Kubo discloses the method for machining a tool according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein, in the applying, the laser peening is performed such that laser irradiation points are arranged in a square lattice shape (spots B (irradiation points) are arranged in diamond square lattice shape; figures 3, 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4 contains allowable subject matter because there is lack of expectation of success to obtain a difference in compressive residual stress at an interface between the base material and the coating layer is at most 100 MPa (limitation of claim 1) by applying a pulsed laser having a power density of at most 10 GW/cm2 on a surface of the tool is radiated.
In the closest prior art, Kubo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0105814) teaches a peak power density of 113 TW/cm2 in the example where the difference in the residual stress between the base material and the coating is less than 100 MPa (table 1). The difference in the power density between the claimed invention and Kubo is at least 1000 times. Kubo also demonstrated that a power density of 41 GW/cm2 which is closer to the claimed power density of 10GW/cm2 does not result in the residual stress required by claim 1. Because the power density is directly related to the residual stress obtained by laser peening, it would not be obvious to simply manipulate the power density to obtain the claimed invention.
In another prior art, Kabeya (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0330779) teaches applying less than 10 GW/cm2 (paragraph [0062]). However, Kabeya fails to teach this power intensity is capable of giving the claimed difference in the residual stress between the base material and the coating.
In another prior art, Wataya (Japanese patent document JP 2012-223808A) also laser peening of a cutting tool having a coating layer by applying laser having a power density less than 10 GW/cm2. However, Wataya also fails to teach
No relevant prior art record sufficiently teaches using a power density equal or less than 10 GW/cm2 to obtain the claimed residual stress difference of 100 MPa between the coating and the base material. Therefore, there is a lack of expectation of success to create the claimed invention and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior arts to create the claimed invention.
Claim 5 also contains allowable subject matter by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter because there is lack of expectation of success to obtain a difference in compressive residual stress at an interface between the base material and the coating layer is at most 100 MPa (limitation of claim 1) by applying a pulsed laser having a pulse width of at least 5 nsec. In the closest prior art, Kubo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0105814) teaches a peak power density of 113 TW/cm2 in the example where the difference in the residual stress between the base material and the coating is less than 100 MPa (table 1).
In the closest prior art, Kubo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0105814) teaches an example where the difference in the residual stress between the base material and the coating is less than 100 MPa (table 1) by applying a laser having pulse width of 500 fs (table 1), which is 10,000 times shorter than the claimed pulse width of 5 ns. Kubo also teaches an example where the pulse width is 1ns and 10 ns (table 1). In both of these cases, the residual stress difference was greater than 500MPa, which is 5 times greater than the claimed residual stress difference of 100MPa.
No relevant prior art record sufficiently teaches using a pulse width of 5ns or less to obtain the claimed residual stress difference of 100 MPa between the coating and the base material. Therefore, there is a lack of expectation of success to create the claimed invention and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior arts to create the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kubo (Japanese patent document JP 2021-142610A) also teaches laser peening of a cutting tool having a coating layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745