Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/546,381

cBN SINTERED BODY

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Aug 14, 2023
Examiner
WIESE, NOAH S
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mitsubishi Materials Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
929 granted / 1118 resolved
+18.1% vs TC avg
Minimal -3% lift
Without
With
+-3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
45 currently pending
Career history
1163
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
50.8%
+10.8% vs TC avg
§102
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1118 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
DETAILED ACTION Claim 1 is 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 08/14/2023 and 02/06/2025 are being considered by the examiner. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al (US 5328875). Regarding claim 1, Ueda et al teaches a cubic boron nitride-based sintered ceramic used for a cutting tool. The sintered ceramic comprises cubic boron nitride main phase along with a bonding phase that comprises titanium boride (TiB2, see Abstract, Table 3). The Ueda et al sintered ceramic is formed by blending a mixture of 35 vol% Ti2AIC, which is a binder phase-forming powder, and 65 wt% cBN powder, press-molding the mixture to form a compact, and sintering the compact at a pressure of 6.2 GPa and a temperature of 1500°C (see column 4, lines 1-25 and Table 1). As such, Ueda et al teaches a sintered body comprising cBN grains in an amount falling within the range of the instant claim, and further comprising a binder phase comprising the titanium boride grains of the instant claim. Ueda et al does not specify the relation X/Y, with Y and X being the length sums of instant claim. However, per the disclosure in the instant Specification, this grain/phase structure property results from the starting composition and the sintering process. The instant Specification discloses cases wherein Ti2AIC and Ti3AIC2 were used as starting material powders for forming a binder phase, specifically a large amount of 80 vol% or more of Ti2AlC or Ti3AIC2 was added as a starting material powder for forming the binder phase, with the resulting material being sintered at a pressure of 5 GPa and a temperature of 1200-1600°C. The instant Specification then indicates that said cases satisfy the characteristics set forth in claim 1 in terms of X/Y value. It can thus be ascertained from the desired and claimed X/Y value is resultant from said processing parameters of the starting Ti2AlC – cBN mixture. As Ueda et al teaches sintering at the same temperature and approximately the same high pressure, the resultant microstructure would inherently have equivalent X/Y properties to that of the instant claims. 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). Similarly to above, the equivalently composed and produced Ueda et al sintered body would inherently have an equivalent oblateness to that of the instant claim, which would therefore fall within the range of 1.3-30.0 in the notational manner of the instant claim. Each limitation of said claim 1 is thus met by Ueda et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tajima et al (JP 2808907 B2). Regarding claim 1, Tajima et al teaches a cubic boron nitride-based sintered body produced by blending and mixing, at a ratio of 25 vol% Ti2AIC binder phase-forming powder, with 75 wt% cBN powder, press-molding the mixture to form a compact, and sintering the compact at a pressure of 5.5 GPa and a temperature of 1300°С (see Table 1 in paragraph 0013). Tajima et al also teaches an embodiment wherein a ratio of 35 vol% Ti2AIC binder phase-forming powder and 65 wt% cBN powder is compacted and sintered under the above conditions. Tajima et al thus teaches a sintered body comprising cBN grains in an amount falling within the range of the instant claim. A titanium boride phase in the binder component inherently arises from the equivalent processing taught by Tajima et al, as the TiB2 would be a reaction phase resultant from equivalent starting materials being heated under the same temperature and pressure. Tajima et al does not specify the relation X/Y, with Y and X being the length sums of instant claim. However, per the disclosure in the instant Specification, this grain/phase structure property results from the starting composition and the sintering process. The instant Specification discloses cases wherein Ti2AIC and Ti3AIC2 were used as starting material powders for forming a binder phase, specifically a large amount of 80 vol% or more of Ti2AlC or Ti3AIC2 was added as a starting material powder for forming the binder phase, with the resulting material being sintered at a pressure of 5 GPa and a temperature of 1200-1600°C. The instant Specification then indicates that said cases satisfy the characteristics set forth in claim 1 in terms of X/Y value. It can thus be ascertained from the desired and claimed X/Y value is resultant from said processing parameters of the starting Ti2AlC – cBN mixture. As Tajima et al teaches sintering at the same temperature and approximately the same high pressure, the resultant microstructure would inherently have equivalent X/Y properties to that of the instant claims. 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). Similarly to above, the equivalently composed and produced Ueda et al sintered body would inherently have an equivalent oblateness to that of the instant claim, which would therefore fall within the range of 1.3-30.0 in the notational manner of the instant claim. Each limitation of said claim 1 is thus met by Tajima et al, and the claim is anticipated by the prior art of record. Conclusion 8. No claim is allowed. 9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 10. 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 NSW26 January 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 14, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12270117
Process For Manufacturing Carbon Anodes For Aluminium Production Cells And Carbon Anodes Obtained From The Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 08, 2025
Patent 11890359
ZIRCONIA COMPOSITION, PARTIALLY SINTERED MATERIAL AND SINTERED MATERIAL AND METHODS FOR PRODUCTION THEREOF, AND LAMINATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 06, 2024
Patent 11890358
Methods for Enhancing Optical and Strength Properties in Ceramic Bodies Having Applications in Dental Restorations
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 06, 2024
Patent 11884594
High Strength Shaped Aluminas and a Method of Producing Such High Strength Shaped Aluminas
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 30, 2024
Patent 11873258
PRECERAMIC IONIC SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 16, 2024
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
83%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-3.0%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1118 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