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 .
Detailed Action
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group B (claims 9-13 readable) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In paragraph [0031], line 4, “end portion 3” should read --end portion 3C--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objection
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In claim 11, lines 1-2, “an interface portion is provided between the base portion and the cutting edge portion, and” should be deleted because this limitation has already been cited in claim 9, lines 7-8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 11, line 2, “an interface portion” is vague. Is it in addition to the one cited at line 7 of claim 9?
(2) In claims 11 and 12, “the interference portion” is indefinite. Does it refer to the one cited at line 7 of claim 9 or at line 2 of claim 11?
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishihara (U.S. Patent No. 10,730,193).
Regarding claim 9, Nishihara discloses a cutting implement (1, see Fig.4) comprising:
a blade body (1a) having a base portion (3) and a cutting edge portion (2) connected to an end portion (3C) of the base portion (3),
the base portion (3) including a first metal (e.g., “stainless steel”, see column 3, lines 66-67, same as Applicant disclose),
the cutting edge portion (2) including a second metal (2a, containing “nickel” , see column 4, lines 40-42, same as Applicants disclose) and hard particles (4, containing “tungsten carbide”, see column 5, lines 40-42, same as Applicants disclose) having a hardness higher than a hardness of the second metal (2a, see column 5, lines 11-13), and
an interface portion (see claim 12, lines 17-18) being provided between the base portion (3) and the cutting edge portion (2) as claimed except Nishihara does not explicitly mention the interface portion having a crystal grain size larger than a crystal grain size of the cutting edge portion (2).
However, since Nishihara’s cutting implement (1) is formed of the same materials as Applicants disclose and is formed by laser cladding technique (e.g., by a laser beam 7a, see Fig.17) as Applicants disclose, it is held that Nishihara’s interface portion possesses the same characteristic of a crystal grain of the interface portion being larger than a crystal grain size of the cutting edge portion (2) as claimed (note the crystal grains are coarsened in the interface portion 8 because the base portion 3 is heated by the irradiation of the laser beam 7, and thus the cooling rate becomes lower toward the vicinity of the boundary between the base portion 3 and the build-up portion 6 than the interior of the build-up portion 6 after the build-up process, see paragraph [0044] of this instant application), or it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have made Nishihara’s interface portion having a crystal grain larger than a crystal grain size of the cutting portion (2) suitable for the cutting implement (1) to perform its intended function.
Regarding claim 10, since Nishihara’s cutting implement (1) is formed of the same materials as Applicants disclosed and is formed by laser cladding technique as Applicants disclose, it is held that Nishihara’s interface portion possesses the same characteristics of an average crystal grain size of crystal grains of the interface portion being 1.2 times or more than an average crystal grain size of crystal grains of the cutting edge potion (2), and crystal grains of the interface portion having an area ratio of the crystal grains of 2 times or more than an area ratio of the crystal grains of the cutting edge portion (2), or it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have made Nishihara’s interface portion having an average crystal grain size and an area ratio of the crystal grains in the claimed ranges more than those of the cutting edge portion (2) suitable for the cutting implement (1) to perform its intended function. Moreover, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Nishihara’ interface portion has a hardness lower than a hardness of the cutting edge portion (2, due to “tungsten carbide” hard particles 4 in the cutting edge portion 2).
Regarding claim 12, since Nishihara’s cutting implement (1) is formed of the same materials as Applicants disclosed and is formed by laser cladding technique as Applicants disclose, it is held that Nishihara’s interface portion possesses the same characteristic of having a Vickers hardness of 400 HV or more and 450 HV or less as claimed, or it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have made Nishihara’s interface portion with a hardness in the claimed range of 400 HV or more and 450 HV or less suitable for the cutting implement (1) to perform its intended function. Moreover, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Nishihara’s first metal (e.g., “stainless steel”, see column 3, lines 66-67) contains iron (Fe, e.g., the main component of stainless steel), the second metal (2a) contains nickel (Ni, see column 4, lines 40-42), and the interface portion has a composition of Fe-Ni.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 6,067,784 shows a blade comprising a steel base (9, see Fig.6 and column 3, lines 65-66) having a cutting edge (see claim 1) coated with hard-material particles (7, composed of tungsten carbide, see claim 3) distributed in a matrix material (containing nickel, see claim 5).
U.S. Patent No. 6,146,476 shows laser cladding a cutting tool.
U.S. Patent No. 9,393,984 is cited to show the performance of a cutting edge of a blade (100) depends upon the size of particles of tungsten carbide that is embedded in a matrix of softer binder (containing nickel) and coated on the cutting edge. Powders containing large particles are generally less suitable because the carbide particles may not be able to be ground to a sharp edge (see column 10, lines 28-34).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0061747 shows a tool having a base portion (1) including a first material, a cutting edge portion (2) including a second material cladding onto the base portion (1), and an interference portion (3) provided between the base portion (1) and the cutting edge portion (2).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4502. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724