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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 June 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-9 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 8 were amended. No new claims were added. Applicant’s remarks regarding the 112(a) rejections for claims 1 and 8 set forth in the final action mailed 15 April 2026 were considered and found persuasive. Examiner withdraws the rejections.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 September 2023 was considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20100074140A (machine translation) of Gries in view of US2021079504A1 of Kido.
Regarding Claim 1, Gries discloses a tool in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Gries teaches a cemented carbide tool for metal cutting comprises at least two phases as a composite material, one of which is a binder phase and the other phase is a hard material phase. Particularly, as the hard material, materials such as tungsten, Para[0002]. Gries specifically discloses tungsten carbide as the hard material, Para[0062]. Gries also teaches that the content of cobalt in the binder phase is between 0 and 40% by weight, Para[0015], and that the binder phase additionally contains 5 wt% to 30 wt% chromium, Para[0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select values within these ranges, such as 1% for Co and 30% for Cr, resulting in a Cr/Co ratio more than 1.2. Gries does not specifically teach a distance between WC particles. Gries is also silent on a solid solubility limit of Cr to Co.
Kido teaches a cemented carbide and cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kido 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[0010]. Kido also discloses that one object of the present disclosure is to provide a cemented carbide excellent in strength even at high temperature. Another object of the present disclosure is to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength even at high temperature, Para[0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the distance between WC particles of Kido in the cemented carbide tool disclosed by Gries in order to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength at high temperature.
While Gries and Kido do not specifically mention a rate of the Cr to the Co exceeding a solubility limit, Gries and Kido disclose a cemented carbide that meets the compositional limitations of the claim. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.", see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the cemented carbide taught by Gries in view of Kido would necessarily contain a rate of Cr to the Co exceeding a solubility limit. Thus, Gries in view of Kido teaches all limitations of claim 1.
Claim 3 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the Cr value is 4 atm% or more.
Gries discloses that the content of these elements of elemental iron (Fe), cobalt (Co) and nickel (Ni) in the binder phase is between 0 and 40% by weight in the case of Co, advantageously between 5 and 40% by weight , Between 20 and 90 wt.% In the case of Fe, and between 5 and 75 wt.% In the case of Ni, the sum of these contents being up to 100%, Para[0015], and that the binder phase additionally contains 5 wt% to 30 wt% chromium, Para[0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select values within the disclosed ranges, such as 30% Cr, 1% Co, 20% Fe, and 49% Ni, resulting in an atomic percentage of Cr of 27.8 which falls within 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, Gries teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 3.
Claim 4 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the binder phase comprises the Co at a rate of 85-92 mass%.
Gries teaches Co in the binder phase between 0 and 40%, and that it is of interest to reduce the cobalt content on the binder when preparing metal cutting tools, as the cost on the binder increases as the cobalt content increases and the risk of health from the corresponding crushing dust increases during the final treatment process, Para[0007].
Kido teaches that “The binder phase contains Co as a major component” means 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[0059]. Kido also discloses that one object of the present disclosure is to provide a cemented carbide excellent in strength even at high temperature. Another object of the present disclosure is to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength even at high temperature, Para[0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the amount of Co in the binder phase of Kido in the cemented carbide tool disclosed by Gries in order to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength at high temperature. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 4.
Claim 5 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the binder phase comprises the Cr at a rate of 5 mass% or more.
Gries discloses that the binder phase additionally contains 5 wt% to 30 wt% chromium, Para[0020]. This falls within 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, Gries teaches the additional limitation of claim 5. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 5.
Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by claiming 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.
Gries teaches 6 wt% or less of tungsten to the binder, Para[0007], and that the binder phase additionally contains 5 wt% to 30 wt% chromium, Para[0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art could select values within these ranges, such as 5 wt% tungsten and 9% Cr, resulting in a Cr content/W content of 1.8 which falls within 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. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 6.
Claim 7 further limits claim 1 by claiming that the cemented carbide has a thermal conductivity of 70 W/m- K or more.
While Gries and Kido do not specifically mention the numerical limitation related to thermal conductivity, Gries and Kido disclose a cemented carbide that meets the compositional limitations of the claim. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.", see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the cemented carbide taught by Gries in view of Kido would necessarily contain a thermal conductivity in the claimed range. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Gries discloses a tool in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Gries disclose that the tool if for metal cutting, Para[0001]. Gries teaches a cemented carbide tool for metal cutting comprises at least two phases as a composite material, one of which is a binder phase and the other phase is a hard material phase. Particularly, as the hard material, materials such as tungsten, Para[0002]. Gries specifically discloses tungsten carbide as the hard material, Para[0062]. Gries also teaches that the content of cobalt in the binder phase is between 0 and 40% by weight, Para[0015], and that the binder phase additionally contains 5 wt% to 30 wt% chromium, Para[0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select values within these ranges, such as 1% for Co and 30% for Cr, resulting in a Cr/Co ratio more than 1.2. Gries does not specifically teach a distance between WC particles. Gries is also silent on a solid solubility limit of Cr to Co.
Kido teaches a cemented carbide and cutting tool in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Kido 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[0010]. Kido also discloses that one object of the present disclosure is to provide a cemented carbide excellent in strength even at high temperature. Another object of the present disclosure is to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength even at high temperature, Para[0018]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the distance between WC particles of Kido in the cemented carbide tool disclosed by Gries in order to provide a cutting tool excellent in strength at high temperature.
While Gries and Kido do not specifically mention a rate of the Cr to the Co exceeding a solubility limit, Gries and Kido disclose a cemented carbide that meets the compositional limitations of the claim. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.", see MPEP 2112.01. Therefore, the cemented carbide taught by Gries in view of Kido would necessarily contain a rate of Cr to the Co exceeding a solubility limit. Thus, Gries in view of Kido teaches all limitations of claim 8.
Claim 9 further limits claim 8 by claiming a coating film to cover at least a part of a surface of the cemented carbide.
Gries discloses a coating suitable for metal cutting, Para[0002],[0035]. Therefore, Gries teaches the additional limitation of claim 9. Thus, Gries in view of Kido covers all limitations of claim 9.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20100074140A (machine translation) of Gries in view of US2021079504A1 of Kido as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE10244955A1 of Usami.
Gries and Kido are silent regarding numerical limitations related to thermal conductivity of the cemented carbide. Usami discloses 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 teaches a thermal conductivity of 70 W/m -k or more, Pg[7]. Usami also discloses that since the cemented carbide of this invention has mechanical properties and thermal characteristics such as excellent hardness, strength and high temperature thermal conductivity as mentioned above, 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, pg[7]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to produce the cemented carbide disclosed by Gries in view of Kido, resulting in the thermal conductivity taught by Usami in order to produce a cemented carbide with characteristics suitable for a cutting tool. Thus, Gries in view of Kido and Usami covers all limitations of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (remarks, page 6 of 11) the applied references do not disclose or suggest the Cr/Co ratio of 1.2 or more. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on references Kido or Liu for the teaching of the Cr/Co ratio. The new ground of rejection relies on the teachings of Gries for the Cr/Co ratio.
Applicant argues that (remarks, page 8 of 11) the applied references do not teach or suggest “a rate of the Cr to the Co in the WC/WC region exceeds a solid solubility limit.” This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on references Kido or Liu for teaching a solid solubility limit. The new ground of rejection relies on the teachings of Gries for the composition of the cemented carbide with respect to Cr and Co. Since Gries teaches ranges for Cr and Co that meet the limitations of claim 1, by the principles of Inherency, the product of Gries cannot have mutually exclusive properties from the claimed invention. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.", see MPEP 2112.01.
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.
/JACOB BENJAMIN STILES/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/VANESSA T. LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights