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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 8,507,109 B2).
Claim 1:
Kim discloses a coated cutting tool (abstract) comprising:
a substrate (cemented carbide or cermet) (col. 2, lines 58 -62); and
a cutting layer (intermediate layer and top layer) disposed on the substrate (cemented carbide or cermet), wherein the cutting layer (intermediate layer and top layer) includes a brittleness suppressing layer (intermediate layer) and a wear-resistant layer (top layer) disposed on the brittleness suppressing layer (intermediate layer) (col. 3, lines 44-67),
the substrate (cemented carbide or cermet) includes a hard alloy body such as cemented carbide, cermet, ceramic, cubic boron nitride-based materials, or high-speed steel (col. 2, lines 58 -62);
the brittleness suppressing layer (intermediate layer) includes a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, the first layer and the second layer each independently includes any one of (AlbTi1-b)X (where 0.6 < b < 0.8, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO) and (TicAl1-c)X (where 0.3 < c ≤ 0.5, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO), and the first layer and the second layer include materials different from each other (col. 3, lines 58-67).
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.05(I), where the claimed ranges overlap or are encompassed by ranges disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art suggests the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. Kim teaches that adjusting the (TicAl1-c)X ratio within these ranges is a matter of routine optimization to achieve desired coating properties, such as abrasion resistance and chipping resistance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select Ti-rich and Al-rich TiAlX layers within the overlapping compositional ranges disclosed in Kim and arrange them in a multilayer coating on a cutting tool substrate as claimed, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such selection represents nothing more than routine optimization of known coating parameters. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the first layer includes (TicAl1-c)X (where 0.3 < c ≤ 0.5, X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO) and the second layer includes (AlbTi1-b)X (where 0.6 < b < 0.8, X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO) (col. 3, lines 58-67).
The compositional ranges of Kim overlap and encompass the ranges recited in claim 2. Kim further teaches depositing such layers in a multilayer coating stack and recognizes that varying the Ti/Al ratio and layer sequence is a design parameter used to adjust coating properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange a Ti-rich TiAlX layer beneath an Al-rich TiAlX layer, as recited in claim 2, because selecting and ordering known Ti-rich and Al-rich TiAlX layers from among overlapping disclosed ranges represents a routine selection and arrangement of known materials to achieve predictable coating performance. Such selection does not result in a patentably distinct structure over Kim and would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 3:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the brittleness suppressing layer (intermediate layer) includes a first alternating layer in which the first and second layers are alternately laminated with each other (alternatively depositing two films) (col. 3, lines 44-67).
Claim 4:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 3, wherein the first alternating layer includes two or more multilayers (alternatively depositing two films), and the thicknesses of the first and second layers constituting the multilayers each independently exceeds 50 nm (average stacking cycle of 1.0~50.0 nm) (col. 3, lines 44-67).
Claim 5:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 4; and, Kim fails to disclose a thickness ratio of the second layer and the first layer is 1:1.5 to 1:5. However, first and second layer thicknesses are explicitly disclosed; thickness is numerically ranged; and thickness is repeatedly linked to at least crystal alignment and hardness. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “a thickness ratio range of the second layer and the first layer is 1:1.5 to 1:5” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of improving crystal alignment and/or hardness (col. 5, lines 46-52). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the thickness ratio of the second layer and the first layer to the range of 1:1.5 to 1:5 since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of a thickness ratio of 1:1.5 to 1:5 because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 6:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 1; and, Kim fails to disclose the wear-resistant layer (top layer) includes (Ti1-aSia)X (where 0.1< a < 0.3, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO). Instead, Kim teaches (Ti1-(a+b)TiaSib)N where 0.3 <= a <= 0.5 and 0.02 <= b <= 0.08 which is close but does not overlap the claimed range. However, silicon is present; silicon content is explicitly quantified; the layer is explicitly used for abrasion resistance and oxidation resistance and the content of silicon is linked to hardness and oxidation resistance. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “where 0.1 < a < 0.3, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of improving hardness and/or oxidation resistance (col. 6, lines 25-35). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the concentration of Sia to where 0.1 < a < 0.3 since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of 0.1 < a < 0.3 because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 7:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the cutting layer further includes a second alternating layer (alternatively depositing two films) disposed between the brittleness suppressing layer (intermediate layer) and the wear-resistant layer (top layer) (col. 3, lines 58-67).
Claim 8:
Kim render obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 7, wherein the second alternating layer includes at least one structure in which a first wear-resistant layer (top layer), the second layer, and the first layer are sequentially laminated (col. 3, lines 54-67 and col. 6, lines 4-24).
Kim fails to disclose the first wear-resistant layer (top layer) includes (Ti1-aSia)X (where 0.1 < a < 0.3, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO). Instead, Kim teaches (Ti1-(a+b)TiaSib)N where 0.3 <= a <= 0.5 and 0.02<= b <= 0.08 which is close but does not overlap the claimed range. However, silicon is present; silicon content is explicitly quantified; the layer is explicitly used for abrasion resistance and oxidation resistance and the content of silicon is linked to hardness and oxidation resistance. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “where 0.1 < a < 0.3, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of improving hardness and/or oxidation resistance (col. 6, lines 25-35). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the concentration of Sia to 0.1 < a < 0.3 since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of 0.1 < a < 0.3 because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 9:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 7, wherein the cutting layer further includes an intervening layer disposed on the second alternating layer (col. 3, lines 44-67). Kim discloses a multilayer coating structure comprising multiple multilayer films stacked sequentially, with additional layers disposed between the multilayer regions. As such, providing an intervening layer disposed on the second alternating layer, as recited in claim 9, represents an obvious modification of the multilayer coating structure of Kim.
Claim 10:
Kim renders obvious the coated cutting tool of claim 9, wherein the intervening layer includes a lower layer disposed directly below the wear-resistant layer (top layer), and the lower layer includes, and X is at least one selected from N, C, CN, NO, CO, and CNO) (col. 3, lines 44-67 and col. 6, lines 4-24). Kim discloses Al-rich TiAlN layers having compositions within the claimed range of (AlbTi1-b)X where 0.6 < b < 0.8 and further discloses such Al-rich layers disposed directly adjacent to Si-containing wear-resistant layers in the multilayer coating structure. As such, providing a lower layer disposed directly below the wear-resistant layer and having the claimed composition would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun et al. (US 8,889,252 B2) discloses a cutting tool comprising a base material and a multi-layer coating formed thereon. Andersson et al. (US 8,864,861 B2) discloses a nanolaminated coated cutting tool. Anderson et al. (US 8,852,305 B2) disclose a nanolaminated coated cutting tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726