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 § 112
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim defines interfacial region as having a region A having W content of WA and C content of CA and having a region B having W content of WB and C content of CB. The Specification at paragraph 27 explains that “region” is a thickness portion of the interfacial layer from the underlying substrate to the overlying coating layer. Thus, this could be understood to mean that these contents of WA, CA, WB, and CB represent contents of respective elements in respective portions of the interfacial layer. The Specification in explaining how to measure these quantities refers to midpoint values as being what is meant by content. See Specification (paragraphs 41 and 43). This is consistent with the claim which refers contents “at the midpoint” and places limitations on amounts of WA, CA, WB, and CB. The actual amounts in region and at midpoint are not necessarily the same. To the extent that these are not the same, i.e., the content in the overall thickness portion versus the content at the midpoint, it is unclear what is being claimed. Specifically, in this possible situation, it is unclear why the same variable would arguably be used to refer to different contents. Is it the midpoint values that necessarily must meet content limitations regardless of what content amounts could be present elsewhere in regions A and B?
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “the midpoint”. The Specification at paragraph 31 explains that midpoints for region A and region B can be different. The explanation appears to mean that A regions and B regions are separately evaluated to ascertain midpoints of average thickness of respective regions. The claim refers to “the” midpoint across the average thickness of the interfacial layer. The claim does not appear to require determining separate midpoints for A regions and B regions which is what the Specification appears to indicate is to be done. It is unclear how what is claimed takes into account, if it is supposed to, what the Specification directs as being what is the midpoint for region A and region B. Does the midpoint requirement apply to all regions A and B, only to at least one of each, or something else?
Regarding Claim 2, it is unclear whether the amounts of Cr and Co being claimed refer to amounts in the overall thickness portion, at the midpoint, both, or something else.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest claimed surface coated cutting tool having interfacial layer having different regions of amounts of W and C, in the claimed context. For example, Maekawa WO 2020/184352 teaches or suggest surface coating cutting tool having interfacial layer having different regions of amounts of W and C, but the amounts of C are much higher than those claimed in the instant application. See Maekawa (Table 4). Furthermore, Maekawa does not expressly teach or suggest those being claimed and teaches and suggests different process of making articles such that claimed features would not be expected. Maekawa teaches lower surface temperatures during ion bombardment and prefers nitrogen atmosphere (Tables 2 and 5), whereas the instant application teaches higher surface temperatures and Ar or Kr atmosphere. See Specification (Table 2). See Maekawa (entire document). Thus, there is no expectation of inherently obtaining claimed features in Maekawa. Bennett USPN 5,494,635 is cited as teaching surface treatment of cemented WC carbide substrate, but does not teach or suggest claimed interfacial layer or conditions that would be expected to lead to such interfacial layer. See Bennett (entire document).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
6 January 2026