Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/274,589

SURFACE-COATED CUTTING TOOL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 27, 2023
Examiner
YOO, JUN S
Art Unit
3726
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allow Rate
442 granted / 567 resolved
+8.0% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
584
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
50.5%
+10.5% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 567 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 103 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 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. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogami (JP2011224671) of which attached corresponding English translation is cited. Regarding Claim 1, Ogami teaches a surface-coated cutting tool comprising: a tool substrate ([0010], line 4, a tool substrate) and a coating film ([0010], line 2: a hard coating layer), wherein the coating film has an average thickness of 0.8 to 5.0 mm ([0010], line 2), and includes a laminated structure including at least one first layer ([0010], line 6: thin layers A) and at least one second layer ([0010], line 7, thin layers B) alternately disposed ([0010], lines 5-7, the hard coating layer is configured as an alternate laminate structure of thin layers A … and thin layers B …), and the or each first layer has an average thickness of 50 to 2000 nm ([0010], lines 7-8: 0.05 to 2 mm) and has an average composition represented by the formula: (AlxTi1-x-y-zMy)BzN ([0010], line 6, Cr, Al, Ti, and B) ([0010], lines 12, (Cr1-x-y-zAlxTiyBz)N), where M is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Groups 4, 5, and 6 elements, and lanthanide elements in the periodic table (In this case, M is Cr.), x is in a range of 0.400 to 0.65, y is in a range of 0.07 (1-0.65-0.2-0.08) to 0.585 (1-0.4-0.01-0.005), and z is in a range of 0.005 to 0.08; the or each second layer has an average thickness of 50 to 2000 nm ([0010], lines 7-8: 0.05 to 2 mm) and has an average composition represented by the formula: (AlpCr1-p-q- rM’q)BrN ([0010], line 6, Cr, Al, Ti, and B) ([0010], lines 12, (Cr1-x-y-zAlxTiyBz)N), where M’ is at least one element selected from the group consisting of Groups 4, 5, and 6 elements, and lanthanide elements in the periodic table (In this case, M is Cr.), p is in a range of 0.400 to 0.65, q is in a range of 0.07 (1-0.65-0.2-0.08) to 0.585 (1-0.4-0.01-0.005), and r is in a range of 0.005 to 0.08. Although Ogami does not explicitly teach the exact claimed ranges of the average thickness of the coating film, the average thickness of the each first layer and the each second layer and the atomic ratio of each element, Cr, Al, Ti, and B, the ranges taught by Ogami either overlap or lie inside the claimed ranges. According to MPEP 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the claimed ranges of the average thickness of the coating film, the average thickness of the each first layer and the each second layer and the atomic ratio of each element in order to achieve a desired wear resistance of the cutting tool. Regarding Claim 2, although Ogami does not teach the total number of each first layer and each second layer in the coating film, based on the ranges of the thickness of the hard coating layer (0.8 to 5.0 mm) and the thickness of each layer A and B (0.05 to 2 mm), the maximum total number of each first layer and each second layer would be 100 (5 mm /0.05 mm). Since this number resides within the claimed language, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a certain total number of the first layer and the second layer including 30 to 800 in order to achieve a desired wear resistance of the cutting tool. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogami (JP2011224671) of which attached corresponding English translation is cited in view of Takeshita et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0001410). Regarding Claim 2, Ogami teaches the surface-coated cutting tool set forth in claim 1, however, it does not explicitly teach the total number of each first layer and each second layer is in a range of 30 to 800. Takeshita teaches the total number of each first layer and each second layer is in a range of 10 to 10000 ([0117]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a certain total number of the first layer and the second layer including 30 to 800 in order to achieve a desired wear resistance of the cutting tool. According to MPEP 2144.05(I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM. 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, 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. 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. /JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/17/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 27, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 18, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12540636
PIPE SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Patent 12528145
Methods and Apparatuses for Decoupling a Fuselage from a Mandrel
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12529527
MANUFACTURING METHOD OF HEAT PIPE STRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026
Patent 12509247
Indexing For Airframes Undergoing Pulsed-Line Assembly
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12502747
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRANSPORTING A WORKPIECE IN A MANUFACTURING ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 23, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+21.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 567 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month