DETAILED ACTION
The claims 1-16 are pending and presented for the examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/25/2023 and 03/25/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-16 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.
Claim 1 recites that the binder phase comprises the components W2Co12B6, and Co3W3C, and an aluminum compound; the claim does not positively recite that WC is contained. However, the claim subsequently contains a limitation to ID, peak intensity of the WC (001) plane. It is unclear if this is meant to limit the claim scope to sintered bodies wherein the binder phase has a non-zero WC content, or if WC is able to absent and such a sintered body still falls within the claim coverage. Because of this ambiguity, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112.
Claims 3-16 depend from claim 1 and thus contain the indefinite limitations therefrom without any further clarifying limitations as to whether or not WC is actually necessarily present in the claimed binder component.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Okamura et al (US 9346716 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Okamura et al teaches a cubic boron nitride sintered body comprising a binder phase. The binding phase comprises an Al compound, W2Co12B6, and Co3W3C (see claim 1 and Table 1). Okamura et al teaches embodiments wherein the cBN content of the sintered body is between 85 vol% and 95 vol% (see Table 1, examples 5-6). The remaining portion of binder phase thus falls within the range 5-15 vol%. Okamura et al does not specify XRD intensity peaks for (111) plane of cBN, (400) plane of Co3W3C, (420) plane of W2Co12B6, or (001) plane of WC. However, the relative intensities of these intensity peaks are resultant from the amounts of each compound present in the binder phase, and said amounts are themselves resultant from the amounts of starting materials and the processing conditions. Okamura et al teaches that the binder phase is produced from a mixture with a ratio WC:Co:Al of 35:55:10 (see example 1), and the sintered cBN body is produced by ultra-high pressure sintering. The ratio WC:Co:Al of 35:55:10 is in line with the starting WC:Co:Al amounts disclosed in the instant Specification (i.e. in paragraph 0049, Table 1). The resultant binder which, as discussed above, comprises the same Al compound, W2Co12B6, and Co3W3C compounds as that of the instant claim, would thus also be proportionally equivalent to that of the instant claims. This would mean that the equivalent relative amounts of WC, W2Co12B6, and Co3W3C would also have equivalent XRD peak intensities for the (001), (420), and (400) planes, respectively; as discussed above, the amount of cBN component is within the range of the instant claims, so the XRD peak intensity for this component would also be equivalent. Because of this, the ratios IB/IA and IC/IA, and the relationship IC ≥ ID would also be the same as those found in the instantly claimed sintered body. This is because the binder is produced from a starting mixture that is the same as that of the instant Specification and because the amount of cBN is also the same.
As a result, each limitation of claim 1 is met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is anticipated by Okamura et al.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Okamura et al teaches a sintered cBN body comprising a binder having the same compounds as that of the instant claims, and produced from a starting mixture of WC:Co:Al that is proportionally equivalent to that disclosed in the instant Specification. The result would be a sintered body having equivalent XRD peak intensity features. As such, the ID/IA ratio of the Okamura et al ceramic would be in the range 0.00-0.20.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Okamura et al teaches a sintered cBN body comprising a binder having the same compounds as that of the instant claims, and produced from a starting mixture of WC:Co:Al that is proportionally equivalent to that disclosed in the instant Specification. The result would be a sintered body having equivalent XRD peak intensity features. As such, the IC/IB ratio of the Okamura et al ceramic would be in the range 0.20-15.0.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 5, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, the equivalently composed and produced Okamura et al cBN sintered body would have an IC/IB ratio in the range 0.20-15.0.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 10, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 11, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 12, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 13, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 14, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 15, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 16, Okamura et al teaches that an average particle size of the cBN component is 0.5 µm (see column 12, lines 60-65).
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura et al (US 2021/0094882 A1) in view of Andreev et al (X-ray powder diffraction analysis of a tungsten carbide-based ceramic).
Regarding claim 1, Okamura et al teaches a cubic boron nitride sintered body comprising a binder phase. The cBN content in the Okamura et al body is in the range of 85-95 vol% in embodiments (see Table 1). The binding phase comprises an Al compound, W2Co12B6, and Co3W3C (see Abstract and Table 1). Okamura et al teaches that the amount of W2Co12B6 relative to WC as represented by the IC/IB ratio 0-0.4. The IB value in Okamura et al represents the peak intensity of the (100) plane of WC, whereas in the instant Specification the WC content is represented by peak intensity of the (001) plane. However, as shown by Andreev et al, the relative intensities of the (100) plane peak and the (001) plane peak in WC are such that powders having W2Co12B6/WC ratios (IC/IB) of 0.4 or less can also have ratios wherein the W2Co12B6 peak is equal to or greater than that of the WC (001) plane (IC≥ID as represented in the instant claim). Andreev et al shows that WC has XRD peaks for the (100) and (001) planes, and the intensity of the (100) plane is greater than that for the (001) plane by a factor of approximately 2.3 (see Figure 1, wherein the intensity for (100) is approximately 160000 and that of (001) is approximately 7000). Thus, a ratio IC/IB of 0.4, as taught by Okamura et al using the (100) plane peak, would be equivalent to a ratio of approximately 0.93 when factoring in the lesser intensity of the (001) as taught by Andreev. Okamura et al teaches further embodiments having IC/IB ratios of 0.46 and 0.68, which lead to ratios using the (001) lesser intensity of 1.06 and 1.56. It is thus apparent that Okamura et does, in fact, teach embodiments wherein IC≥ID.
As the amount of cubic boron nitride in the Okamura sintered bodies is equivalent to that of the instant claims, the IB/IA and IC/IA values of said Okamura bodies are necessarily also equivalent to those of the claimed ceramic, and would fall within the respective ranges of the instant claim. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct.
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above, Okamura et al teaches a sintered cBN body comprising a binder having the same compounds as that of the instant claims, and produced by an equivalent sintering method (see paragraph 0083). The result would be a sintered body having equivalent XRD peak intensity features. As such, the ID/IA ratio of the Okamura et al ceramic would be in the range 0.00-0.20.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above, Okamura et al teaches a sintered cBN body comprising a binder having the same compounds as that of the instant claims, and produced by an equivalent sintering method (see paragraph 0083). The result would be a sintered body having equivalent XRD peak intensity features. As such, the IC/IB ratio of the Okamura et al ceramic would be in the range 0.20-15.0.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding claim 5, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above, Okamura et al teaches a sintered cBN body comprising a binder having the same compounds as that of the instant claims, and produced by an equivalent sintering method (see paragraph 0083). The result would be a sintered body having equivalent XRD peak intensity features. As such, the ID/IA ratio of the Okamura et al ceramic would be in the range 0.00-0.20.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above, the Okamura et al teaches that the inventive cBN ceramic is produced by a method of forming the binder mixture, and then subjecting the binder and cubic boron nitride particulates to ultra-high pressure sintering. The resultant binder component phases would thus be equivalent to those of the instant claims, and the FWHM of the W2Co12B6 (420) peak would inherently be in the range 0.25-0.6.
Regarding claim 10, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 11, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 12, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 13, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 14, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 15, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Regarding claim 16, Okamura et al teaches that a cBN starting particulate having a diameter of 2.5 µm is used (see paragraph 0104), and is subsequently processed by ultra-high pressure sintering under conditions equivalent to those disclosed in the instant Specification. The resultant diameter size of the cBN in the sintered body would thus also fall within the range 0.5-4.0 µm.
Conclusion
12. No claim is allowed.
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH S WIESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
NSW5 February 2026