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
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 1,4, and 5 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 claims a region in a cross section of the cemented carbide where a distance X between surfaces of the tungsten carbide particles adjacent to each other having an opposing surface length L of 100 nm or more is 5 nm or less is a WC/WC region. The instant specification specifies that the lower limit value of the distance X may be 0 nm, Para[0014]. However, claim 1 also requires Co and Cr in the binder phase. If the distance between WC particles is 0, it appears Co and Cr could not be included in the binder phase. Thus, it is unclear whether Co and Cr must be included in the invention. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim 4 requires that the binder phase comprises the Co at a rate of 85-92 mass%. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 “a Co value” is defined, however, “Co” itself is not mentioned, nor has it been specifically listed as a required element. This makes it unclear whether “the Co” in claim 4 is synonymous with “the Co value” of claim 1, or if “the Co” is referring to a different, general amount of Co in the binder phase. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim 5 requires that the binder phase comprises the Cr at a rate of 5 or more mass%. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 “a Cr value” is defined, however, “Cr” itself is not mentioned, nor has it been specifically listed as a required element. This makes it unclear whether “the Cr” in claim 4 is synonymous with “the Cr value” of claim 1, or if “the Cr” is referring to the general amount of Cr in the binder phase. The specification does not provide clarity and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised of the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210079504 of Kido.
Claim 1 claims a cemented carbide, comprising a plurality of tungsten carbide particles, and a binder phase comprising at least Co, wherein the binder phase further comprises Cr, a region in a cross section of the cemented carbide where a distance X between surfaces of the tungsten carbide particles adjacent to each other having an opposing surface length L of 100 nm or more is 5 nm or less is a WC/WC region, a maximum value (atm%) of the Cr obtained by an elemental analysis in a transverse direction from one tungsten carbide particle to another tungsten carbide particle in the WC/WC region is a Cr value, a maximum value (atm%) of the Co thus obtained is a Co value, and a ratio of the Cr value and the Co value (Cr value/Co value) is a Cr/Co ratio, and the Cr/Co ratio is larger than 1.0.
Kido teaches a cemented carbide and cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kido teaches a cemented carbide comprising a first hard phase comprising tungsten carbide particles and a binder phase including Co and Cr, Para[0012]. Kido also discloses a region in which there is a distance X of 5 nm or less between surfaces respectively of tungsten carbide particles adjacent to each other, with the surfaces facing each other along a length L of 100 nm or more, being referred to as a WC/WC interface, Para[0014]. Kido teaches a Cr/Co ratio of 0.17 or more, Para[0015]. This overlaps with the claimed range of more than 1.0. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by requiring the Cr value to be 4 atm% or more.
Kido discloses that the composition of the binder phase including Co and Cr, that is, a mass ratio ‘Co included in “a binder phase including Co and Cr”’ to ‘the binder phase including Co and Cr’ is 50 mass % or more and less than 100 mass %, Para[0069]. Kido teaches a range for Co in the binder phase of 50 -100 mass%. The portion of the binder phase that is not Co can be Cr. Thus, the disclosed range of Cr would be 0-50 mass%. This corresponds to a range of 0-53.2 atm% Cr. This encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by requiring the amount of Co in the binder phase to be in the range of 85-92 mass%.
Kido discloses that the composition of the binder phase including Co and Cr, that is, a mass ratio ‘Co included in “a binder phase including Co and Cr”’ to ‘the binder phase including Co and Cr’ is 50 mass % or more and less than 100 mass %, Para[0069]. This encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by requiring the amount of Cr in the binder phase to be in the range of 5 mass% or more.
Kido discloses that the composition of the binder phase including Co and Cr, that is, a mass ratio ‘Co included in “a binder phase including Co and Cr”’ to ‘the binder phase including Co and Cr’ is 50 mass % or more and less than 100 mass %, Para[0069]. The portion of the binder phase that is not Co can be Cr. Thus, the disclosed range of Cr would be 0-50 mass%. This encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by stating that the binder phase further comprises W, wherein a content (mass%) of W in the binder phase is a W content, and a content (mass%) of Cr in the binder phase is a Cr content, and a ratio of the Cr content and the W content (Cr content/W content) is 1.2-2.0.
Kido teaches that the binder phase may include constituent elements of the first hard phase, i.e., tungsten, carbon, or other inevitable constituent elements. The other elements constituting the binder phase including Co and Cr are permitted to be included in the binder phase within a range which does not impair a function serving as a binder phase, Para[0073]. Since Kido discloses a range of 0-50 mass% of Cr, and any amount of W that doesn’t impair the function of the binder phase, one of ordinary skill in the art could select amounts of Cr and W, disclosed in Kido, that would result in a Cr content/W content in the claimed range. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 8 further limits claim 1 by requiring a cutting tool comprising the cemented carbide.
Kido discloses that the cemented carbide has excellent strength even at high temperature, and can be used as a substrate for cutting tools, wear-resistant tools and grinding tools, Para[0140]. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 8 by requiring the cutting tool to comprise of a coating film to cover at least a part of a surface of the cemented carbide.
Kido teaches that the wear-resistant and grinding tools according to the present embodiment may further comprise a hard coating which coats at least a portion of a surface of the substrate, Para[0144]. Therefore, Kido covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210079504 of Kido in view of CN109252081 of Liu.
Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by requiring the Cr/Co ratio to be 1.2 or more.
While Kido teaches a Cr/Co ratio of 0.17 or more, Para[0015], Kido also discloses that the amount of Co in the binder phase is 50-100 mass%, Para[0069]. This means that the maximum amount of Cr in the binder phase would be 50 mass%. A 50 mass% Co – 50 mass% Cr composition would result in a value of Cr/Co of 1.13. Thus, Kido does not specifically teach a Cr/Co ratio of 1.2 or more.
Liu discloses a high-entropy alloy binding phase ultrafine tungsten carbide hard alloy and preparation method thereof in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Liu teaches the component (component) of the high-entropy alloy is at least five of Al, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, and Ni, and the atomic percentage of each element is 5 to 35%, Para[0011]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select values for Co and Cr resulting in a Cr/Co value in the claimed range of 1.2 or more. Liu also discloses that by adjusting the components and their contents in the high-entropy alloy binder phase, the Co element can be partially or completely replaced, which effectively reduces the raw material cost, Para[008].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of the cemented carbide disclosed in Kido to that disclosed in Liu to produce a carbide with a Cr/Co value in the claimed range, in order to reduce the raw material cost of the product. Thus, Kido in view of Liu covers all limitations of claim 2.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210079504 of Kido in view of DE10244955 of Usami.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by requiring the cemented carbide to have a thermal conductivity of 70 W/m*K or more.
While Kido does not mention thermal conductivity, Usami teaches a cemented carbide for cutting tool for cutting hardly machinable material, e.g. stainless steel, has hard phase component, binder phase component with iron-group metal(s), and surface region of specified minimum hardness in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Usami discloses that the cemented carbide has a thermal conductivity of 70 W/m*K or more, Para[0076]. Usami discloses that since the cemented carbide of this invention has thermal characteristics such as high temperature thermal conductivity it can be adapted for molding, abrasion resistant member, high temperature structural material, etc. and can be suitably used as a cutting tool, particularly a cutting tool for difficult-to-process material such as stainless steel, Para, [0086].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a cemented carbide disclosed in Kido with a thermal conductivity in the range disclosed in Usami which encompasses the claimed range. Thus, Kido in view of Usami covers all limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BENJAMIN STILES whose telephone number is (571)272-0598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am - 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733