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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed 02 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 remain pending in the application, wherein no claims have been amended in this submission, and claims 8-12 and 20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 9,896,767, previously cited).
Claim 1: Kumar teaches hard refractory coatings for cutting tools and wear parts (i.e. for forming tools to be used in a forming operation of a workpiece material) (Col. 1, l. 12-15). The coated cutting tool includes a substrate and a refractory layer deposited by PVD adhered to the substrate (i.e. deposited on a substrate surface) and having a thickness greater than 5 µm and hardness of at least 25 GPa (Col. 2, l. 1-12). Kumar teaches that the refractory layer can be adhered to the substrate by one or more intermediate refractory layers (i.e. a lower layer, and therefore the refractory layer is an upper layer) which can comprise one or more metallic elements selected from the group consisting of aluminum and metallic elements of Groups IVB, VB, and VIB of the Periodic Table (i.e. chromium is an element of Group IVB) and one or more non-metallic elements selected from the group consisting of Groups IIIA, IVA, VA, and VIA of the Periodic Table (i.e. nitrogen is an element of Group VA) (i.e. chromium and nitrogen would be a chromium nitride) and wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness in the range of 100 nm to 5 µm (Col. 12, l. 46-62). The refractory layer comprises M1-xAlxN wherein x≥0.68 and M is titanium chromium or zirconium (i.e. titanium is an obvious choice which would be an aluminum titanium nitride) and includes a cubic crystalline phase (Col. 2, l. 13-19). The value of x (i.e. corresponding to the fraction of Al when considering only Al and M, where M is Ti) equates to the value of 1-x being about ≤0.32, and the therefore a ratio of the Al content/Ti content is about ≥2.1 (i.e. calculated as 0.68/0.32). This range of ratio overlaps the instantly claimed range for the ratio of Al/Ti, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. Kumar teaches that the refractory layer can be deposited as a plurality of sublayer groups comprising a cubic phase forming nanolayer and an adjacent nanolayer of M1-xAlxN (i.e. an aluminum titanium nitride; i.e. an A-layer), wherein a cubic phase forming nanolayer can comprise a cubic nitride etc. such as chromium nitride (i.e. a B-layer) etc. (Col. 11, l. 20-39). As depicted in Fig. 3, the sublayer groups are repeated or stacked (i.e. forming a sequence of …/A/B/A/B/A/B/…-layers) to provide the refractory layer the desired thickness and the intermediate layer (i.e. lower layer) is positioned between the substrate and the refractory layer (Col. 13, l. 11-24). The refractory layer an have any thickness such as 1 µm to 10 µm (Col. 6, l. 65 to Col. 7, l. 33), and specifically for a refractory layer deposited as a plurality of sublayers a summation of the sublayer thicknesses is greater than 5 µm (Col. 10, l. 9-26). This thickness in view of the thickness of the intermediate layer (i.e. 100 nm to 5 µm as disclosed in Col. 12, l. 46-62) equates to a ratio of greater than 1 (i.e. calculated as the refractory layer of greater than 5 µm divided by the intermediate layer maximum of 5 µm) and can clearly be much greater than 1, and these ranges overlap the instantly claimed range for the ratio of upper and lower layer thickness. See MPEP § 2144.05. The sum of the layer thicknesses also overlap the instantly claimed range for the sum of upper and lower layer thickness. See MPEP § 2144.05. As indicated in Fig. 3, the outer layer is the refractory layer (i.e. upper layer) and therefore is considered to form an outer surface of the coating.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed coating, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because Kumar discloses each of the instantly claimed features for a coating for a cutting tool, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-3: Kumar teaches that the thickness of a sublayer group (i.e. an A/B-bilayer period based on the sublayer group outlined above regarding claim 1) can generally range from 5 nm to 50 nm (Col. 11, l. 40-46), which is considered to be in a nanometer range and overlaps the instantly claimed range of 30 nm to 60 nm. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 4: Kumar teaches that the thickness of an individual M1-xAlxN nanolayer (i.e. an A-layer as outlined above) can range from 5 nm to 30 nm and a thickness of an individual cubic phase forming nanolayer (i.e. a chromium nitride nanolayer; i.e. a B-layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 2 nm to 20 nm. A ratio of these thicknesses overlap the instantly claimed range of 0.8-2. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 5: Kumar teaches the refractory layer (i.e. the upper layer) has a hardness of at least 25 GPa (Col. 4, l. 4-10), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 6: Kumar teaches the refractory layer has a residual compressive stress less than 2.5 GPa (Col. 7, l. 26-32) and where the elastic modulus is inversely proportional to the residual stress (Col. 9, l. 4-37). The range of residual compressive stress of less than 2.5 GPa equates to an elastic modulus that increases with decreasing stress, and therefore the elastic modulus of the refractory layer (i.e. upper layer) of Kumar overlaps the instantly claimed range of elastic modulus.
Claims 13-14: Kumar teaches that the refractory layer an have any thickness such as 1 µm to 10 µm (Col. 6, l. 65 to Col. 7, l. 33), and specifically for a refractory layer deposited as a plurality of sublayers a summation of the sublayer thicknesses is greater than 5 µm (Col. 10, l. 9-26). This thickness relative to the thickness of the intermediate layer (i.e. 100 nm to 5 µm as disclosed in Col. 12, l. 46-62) equates to a ratio of greater than 1 (i.e. calculated as the refractory layer of greater than 5 µm divided by the intermediate layer maximum of 5 µm) and can clearly be much greater than 1, including values of the instantly claimed range, which therefore overlap the instantly claimed range for the ratio of upper and lower layer thickness. See MPEP § 2144.05. The sum of the layer thicknesses also overlap the instantly claimed range for the sum of upper and lower layer thickness. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 15: Kumar teaches that the refractory layer (i.e. the upper layer as outlined above) can be deposited as a plurality of sublayer groups comprising a cubic phase forming nanolayer and an adjacent nanolayer of M1-xAlxN (i.e. an aluminum titanium nitride; i.e. an A-layer), wherein a cubic phase forming nanolayer can comprise a cubic nitride etc. such as chromium nitride (i.e. a B-layer) etc. (Col. 11, l. 20-39). Since chromium nitride (i.e. CrN) commonly adopts a face-centered cubic structure (i.e. based on the physical properties of CrN), and the refractory layer can include or be solely of a cubic crystalline phase (Col. 5, l. 38-48), then the upper layer is considered to comprise a face-centered cubic phase.
Claim 16: Kumar teaches that the thickness of a sublayer group (i.e. an A/B-bilayer period based on the sublayer group outlined above regarding claim 1) can generally range from 5 nm to 50 nm (Col. 11, l. 40-46), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 10 nm to 70 nm. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 17: Kumar teaches that the thickness of an individual M1-xAlxN nanolayer (i.e. an A-layer as outlined above) can range from 5 nm to 30 nm and a thickness of an individual cubic phase forming nanolayer (i.e. a chromium nitride nanolayer; i.e. a B-layer as outlined above) has a thickness ranging from 2 nm to 20 nm. A ratio of these thicknesses overlap the instantly claimed range of 1-1.3. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 18: Kumar teaches the refractory layer (i.e. the upper layer) has a hardness of at least 25 GPa (Col. 4, l. 4-10), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 19: Kumar depicts in Fig. 3 an outer layer having reference number 36, which corresponds to a nanolayer of M1-xAlxN (i.e. an A-layer as outlined above) (figure description at Col. 13, l. 11-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection applied in the Office Action mailed 28 November 2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the prior art of Kumar outlined above, Applicant’s arguments regarding Kumar, in the remarks filed 08 October 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, see p. 7, that Kumar does not teach certain recited features of the instantly claimed coating. Initially these arguments were taken at face value and the subsequent Office Action mailed 28 November 2025 did not rely on the Kumar reference. However, upon further consideration, Kumar does disclose or render obvious each of the instantly claimed features as outlined above and does not necessitate a separate primary reference. Applicant had further argued, see p. 7-8 of remarks filed 08 October 2025, that Kumar lacks the inventive goal of features that are not recited in the claims. However, as outlined above, Kumar teaches a substantially identical coating as the instantly claimed coating and therefore has substantially identical properties and functions (see MPEP § 2112.01) and prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or properties present but not recognized in the prior art nor are limitations from the specification to be read into the claims. See MPEP § 2145(II) and § 2145(VI).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784