DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/16/2023, 3/18/2024 and 11/5/2025 were filed timely. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 requires removal of the independent claim topmost layer, which is improper. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2020146777 A) to Sato (hereinafter Sato).
Sato is directed toward a surface coated cutting tool. Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that it has multiple layers and that the total layer thickness is 0.5 to 8 microns, which reads on Applicants range of 1). Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the top and bottom sublayers are alternated over each other that reads on Applicants requirement 2). Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the following is an A layer:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The A layer above reads on Applicants composition for requirement 3).
Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the following is an B layer:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The B layer above reads on Applicants composition for requirement 4).
Sato discloses at paragraph [0020] that the structure is cubic:
PNG
media_image3.png
232
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This reads on Applicants requirement of cubic structure for the crystals for requirements 5) and 6). Sato discloses each and every element as arranged in claim 1 that forms a prime facie case of obviousness.
8. Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP 2020146777 A) to Sato (hereinafter Sato) in view of (US 2023/0119858 A1) to Sato (hereinafter Sato2).
Sato is directed toward a surface coated cutting tool. Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that it has multiple layers and that the total layer thickness is 0.5 to 8 microns, which reads on Applicants range of 1). Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the top and bottom sublayers are alternated over each other that reads on Applicants requirement 2). Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the following is an A layer:
PNG
media_image1.png
222
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The A layer above reads on Applicants composition for requirement 3).
Sato discloses at paragraph [0017] that the following is an B layer:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The B layer above reads on Applicants composition for requirement 4).
Sato discloses at paragraph [0020] that the structure is cubic:
PNG
media_image3.png
232
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This reads on Applicants requirement of cubic structure for the crystals for requirements 5) and 6).
Sato2 is directed toward a surface coated cutting tool. Sato and Sato2 are both directed toward a surface coated cutting tool and therefore are analogous art. Sato2 teaches at paragraph [0044] a 3rd layer type, which provides motivation to combine by adding chipping and breaking resistance to the tool
PNG
media_image4.png
126
426
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sato2 teaches at paragraph [0019] a W content of variation of 1 to 100 nm that follows the following relation:
PNG
media_image5.png
125
426
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sato2 teaches at paragraph [0022] an intermediate layer:
PNG
media_image6.png
136
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the of the disclosure of Sato in view of the teachings of Sato2 to modify the coating of the tool to improve resistance to chipping by adding an adhesive layer, which forms a prime facie case of obviousness for claims 2-6.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY D WASHVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
10. 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.
11. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-272-1302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
12. 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.
/JEFFREY D WASHVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766