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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 23-41 in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 42-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 30 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 30, last line, “wt%” should read –(wt%)–.
In claim 32, line 1, “wherein cemented carbide” should read –wherein the cemented carbide–.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 32 is 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.
Claim 23 recites wherein the “cemented carbide material has a strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s”, which renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear what type of strength is being measured. For example, strength could refer to compressive strength or tensile strength, which are different strength tests. For the purposes of examination, claim 23 is given the broadest reasonable interpretation such that the limitation “cemented carbide material has a strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s” is interpreted as –cemented carbide material has a compressive strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a compressive strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s–, as this appears to be what Applicant intended in view of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 23-29, 34-35, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Long et al. (CN 108118230), hereinafter “Long,” wherein an English machine translation is used and cited herein.
Regarding claim 23, Long teaches a cemented carbide material comprising a dispersed WC phase in an amount of 70.6-78.2 wt% and a binder phase comprising a metallic binder material, Co, in an amount of 16-20 wt%, and an intermetallic phase material, Ni3Al, in an amount of 5-10.2 wt% (Abstract, [0020], [0026]-[0027], Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 24 and 28-29, note that the structural Formula (M,Y)3 (Al,X) in claim 23 neither requires Y nor X to be present. Furthermore, claim 28 recites “15 at% or less combined Nb, Ti, Ta, Mo, V, and Cr content,” which also does not require the listed elements to be present. Long teaches a Ni3Al intermetallic phase material (Abstract, [0020]), which meets the limitations of claims 24 and 28-29.
Regarding claim 25, note that the limitations of “a first intermetallic material” and “a second intermetallic material” does not require that the first and second intermetallic materials are different intermetallic materials. Long teaches Ni3Al intermetallic phase material having distinct particles/grains (Abstract, [0020], Fig. 3), which meets the limitations of a first intermetallic material and a second intermetallic material.
Regarding claims 26-27, Long teaches an example wherein the binder phase comprises Co in an amount of 20 wt% of the cemented carbide material and Ni3Al in an amount of 9.4 wt% of the cemented carbide material ([0048]), which equates to the intermetallic phase, Ni3Al, accounting for 31.97% of the binder phase.
Regarding claim 34, the binder phase of Long comprises 0 wt% Fe (Abstract, [0020], [0026]-[0027]).
As to claim 35, Long teaches a cemented carbide material having an Ni3Al intermetallic phase material (Abstract, [0020], [0026]-[0027]), which has an L12 structure.
Regarding claims 37-38, Long teaches a cemented carbide material with 0% Eta phase and 0% Al2O3 phase (Abstract, [0020], [0026]-[0027]), which meets the limitation of 0.6 vol% or less of said phases in total.
With respect to claim 39, Long teaches an example wherein the binder phase comprises Co in an amount of 16 wt% of the cemented carbide and Ni3Al in an amount of 5.8% of the cemented carbide ([0056]), which equates to 26.61 wt% Ni3Al and a balance of Co for the composition of the binder phase. 26.61 wt% Ni3Al is 23.07 wt% Ni and 3.53 wt% Al, which meets the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 40, Long teaches a binder phase comprising only Co and Ni3Al (i.e., 0 wt% O) (Abstract), which meets the limitation of no more than 2 wt% O.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 30-33, 36 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (CN 108118230).
Regarding claim 30, Long does not explicitly teach wherein a carbon content of the cemented carbide material is set stoichiometrically such that the carbon content of the cemented carbide material ranges from Cstoich (wt%) -0.003*binder content (wt%) to Cstoich (wt%) -0.012*binder content (wt%). However, Long teaches a cemented carbide material comprised of the same materials in the same amounts, as detailed above regarding claim 23. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the cemented carbide material to have a carbon content of the cemented carbide material is set stoichiometrically such that the carbon content of the cemented carbide material ranges from Cstoich (wt%) -0.003*binder content (wt%) to Cstoich (wt%) -0.012*binder content (wt%). In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 31, Long does not explicitly teach wherein a coercivity (HcM) of the cemented carbide material is greater than (1.5 + 0.04*B) + (12.5-0.5*B)/D + 4 [kA/m], wherein B is a proportion of the binder phase in the cemented carbide material, in wt%, and D is an average grain size of the dispersed tungsten carbide phase. However, Long teaches a cemented carbide material comprised of the same materials in the same amounts, as detailed above regarding claim 23. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the cemented carbide material to have wherein a coercivity (HcM) of the cemented carbide material is greater than (1.5 + 0.04*B) + (12.5-0.5*B)/D + 4 [kA/m], wherein B is a proportion of the binder phase in the cemented carbide material, in wt%, and D is an average grain size of the dispersed tungsten carbide phase. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
Regarding claim 32, Long does not explicitly teach wherein the cemented carbide material has a compressive strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a compressive strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s. However, Long teaches a cemented carbide material comprised of the same materials in the same amounts, as detailed above regarding claim 23. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the cemented carbide material to have wherein the cemented carbide material has a compressive strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a compressive strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
With respect to claim 33, Long discloses a microstructure diagram of its cemented carbide material in Fig. 3, which appears to show dispersed tungsten carbide phase comprising grains having a mean diameter from that is the same or overlapping with the claimed range. Note that the limitation “comprises grains having a mean diameter ranging from 1µm to 15µm” merely requires the cemented carbide material to have two grains wherein the average diameter of the two ranges from 1-15 µm.
Regarding claim 37, Long discloses a microstructure diagram of its cemented carbide material in Fig. 3, which appears to depict intermetallic phase material having a maximum particle size that meets the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 41, Long discloses a microstructure diagram of its cemented carbide material in Fig. 3, which appears to depict where at most half of the dispersed tungsten carbide phase is formed as fully sintered crystals having a prismatic grain shape.
Double Patenting
Claims 23-40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 28-35, 40, and 42-47 of copending Application No. 18/286,436 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the reference application teach a cemented carbide material having a composition and properties that are the same or overlapping that recited in the instant claims 23-40. Regarding the instant claim 32, the claims of the reference application are silent as to the compressive strength at 800⁰C when tested at the strain rates as recited. However, as the cemented carbide of the claims of the reference application has a composition that meets or overlaps with that of the instant claim 23, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the cemented material of the claims of the reference application to have wherein the cemented carbide material has a compressive strength of 1650 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.001 1/s, or a compressive strength of 1600 MPa or greater at a temperature of 800⁰C when tested at a strain rate of 0.01 1/s. In the case where “the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness has been established.” See MPEP §2112.01.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY M LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0483. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1177. 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.
/ANTHONY M LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights