DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains several issues that render the claim indefinite. First, claim 1 uses the phrase average in front of a large number of different terms. This term is unclear. For example, claim 1 refers to an average maximum content of Ti. Paragraph [0020] of the published specification explains the intent of this phase as being the average of the measured maximum of Ti at eight consecutive locations (along the periodic sine wave of Ti%). But even this explanation is not fully clear because claim 1 recites that the average maximum content of Ti being from 14 to 18 at.%.2 There are at least two ways this can be interpreted.
Interpretation 1: The average maximum value over the entire thickness is always a single value, and that value may be chosen from within the range of 18-22%. In other words, one coated tool might have a consistent average of 19% over all of the peaks (with each peak having a very small variation, but mostly all being very close to 19%).
Interpretation 2: Each different eight peak sequence may have a different average value, but all of the values will lie within the 18-22% range. Thus, the peak values might consistently rise with the 1st to 8th peaks averaging 18%, the 4th to 12th peaks averaging 20%, and the 10-18th peaks averaging 22%. (This will be referred to as a rolling average.)
It is unclear which interpretation is intended.
Additionally, if the term average is intended to always refer to the average value a measured object at eight consecutive periodic points, this creates confusion for other uses of the term average in the claim. For example. claim 1 also recites the noble gas has [has] an average content of from 0.1 to 5 at.%. The noble gas in question does not have relative peaks and minimums. Thus, the term average is being used differently for the noble gas measurement. But it is unclear how differently. Also, just as with Ti, Al, & Si, it is unclear if the range is intended to recite that the chosen noble gas value remains roughly constant through the thickness (but multiple values may be chosen as that single value), or is allowed to vary within the thickness range. If it is the latter, the claim also does not define the measurement series that would define each average section.
Claim 1 then recite that there is an average gradual change in contents of Ti per distance over the thickness of the (Ti,Al,Si)N layer, between [mins and maxes at a rate of]… 0.8 to 1.5 at%/nm. Again, the scope of this feature is unclear because are multiple potential interpretations of this feature.
Interpretation A: The rate of change between each maximum and minimum changes at a single, consistent value of at%/nm that is averaged over eight consecutive slope regions. This rate of change may exist within the range of 0.8-1.5.
Interpretation B: The rate of change varies for each nm between the peak and the trough, with the average of all these varied nm regions (i.e. slope variations) coming to a value within 0.8-1.5, but this average is the same for each peak to trough region.
Interpretation C: The rate of change varies for each nm between the peak and the trough, the average value of these varied slopes lies within 0.8-1.5, and the rate may be different for each peak to trough region, provided it lies within the range.
Interpretations D: further defines Interpretation 2 – in which the rolling 8 peak average is changing – and further defines the rate at which this change must occur. As with interpretation A above, the rate of increase (or decrease) is constant.
Interpretation E: Interpretation D, but with B instead of A.
Interpretation F: Interpretation D, but with C instead of A.
The claim must clarify which of these six options is intended for all of the average gradual change values.
Claim 4 recites the average distance between peaks in the pattern is 5 to 10 nm. As with earlier averages, it is unclear if this is an 8-peak rolling average or a straight average of the entire width. Regarding claim 5, the definition of recited average will likely be clarified as the averages in claim 1 are defined further, but it is also indefinite at this time.
All remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence.
PRIOR ART STATUS
The lack of clarity as to the metes and bounds of claim 1, as discussed above, precluded complete examination. But examination was performed looking for all of the various options, as best understood. The prior art does teach coating tools with a (Ti,Al,Si)N layer. See e.g. Effect of modulation structure on the miscrostructural and mechanical properties of TiAlSiN/CrN thin films prepared by high power impulse magnetron sputtering by Liu et.al. (hereafter Liu) and Effect of miscrostructure on mechanical and tribological properties of TiAlSiN nanocomposite coatings deposted by modulated pulsed power magnetron sputtering by Wu et.al. (hereafter Wu) both submitted in applicant’s IDS. The prior art further teaches such coatings are known to have the general range of Ti, Al, and Si recited in claim 1, such as the T21.1Al27.4Si3.9N47.6 coating discussed in Wu. Wu further teaches the various atomic ratios can be controlled by altering the gas flow rate (fn). See Wu. Separately, the prior art teaches forming multi-layer gradient coatings, with the atomic %s of each element altered to achieve designed properties. See BG 1461U1 to Lilyana. The prior art further teaches periodic gradients, in which the coating alternates between (TiAlSi)N layers and CrN layers. See Liu Introduction and JP 2018 094670 Abstract.
The prior art does not, however, appear to teach periodi[c] change of (Ti,Al,Si)N alone, in which the three elements (Ti, Al, & Si) vary at regular intervals between maximum and minimum values (like sine waves) within predetermined max and min ranges in combination with the Titanium peaks aligning with the minimums of Aluminum and Silicon, as also recited in claim 1. Nor does the prior art teach that the changes occur at specific rates of variation per nanometer as recited in claim 1. This combination of features appears to be allowable over the prior art. As such, no prior art rejection is being made. A full indication of allowability will be withheld pending clarification of the scope of claim 1.
NEW MATTER COMMENT
Examiner will allow applicant to amend claim 1 to clarify the intended interpretation (from the several discussed in the 112 rejection) without raising an issue of new matter. Examiner will consider this single interpretation set to have been intended by the language of the specification and to be described and enabled. But only one interpretation will be given this latitude. If applicant attempts to claim multiple interpretations, a new matter rejection will be issued because there is no evidence applicant was in possession of more than one of the interpretations.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 As a side note, examiner is puzzled as to why the minimum content of Ti alone was amended to replace the word being to is.