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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 01/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of the pending invention is sufficiently related such that restriction should not be required. This is not found persuasive because in light of the prior art of record there is no special technical features shared between the claim groups. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/19/2026.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blomqvist et al. (WO 2020/002664 A1) in view of Keen et al. (US 2022/0331930 A1).
Claim 1: Blomqvist et al. discloses a method of treating a coated cutting tool (Page 3, Lines 16-17), the cutting tool including a cemented carbide substrate (abstract) and a coating (Page 3, Lines 16-19, Page 4, Lines 3-5), the method comprising a step of subjecting at least a part of the cutting tool to a shot peening treatment using a peening media (Page 3, Line 20 to Page 4, Line 2), the cutting tool (1 of Figure 1) including a rake face (2 of Figure 1), a flank face (3 of Figure 1) and a cutting edge there between (edge between 2 and 3; abstract), wherein said peening media includes beads of cemented carbide, but fails to disclose that the cemented carbide is of crystallin tungsten carbide.
However, Keen et al. discloses a method of shot peening a workpiece that includes tungsten carbide (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute tungsten carbide for the generic cemented carbine of Blomqvist et al. because it is prima facie obvious to substitute one known prior art element for another to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(B)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the tool of Blomqvist et al. would be shot peened using tungsten carbide.
Neither Blomqvist et al. nor Keen et al. explicitly disclose that the tungsten carbide is crystallin tungsten carbine, however crystallin tungsten carbide is known refined form of tungsten carbide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try using crystallin tungsten carbide as the shot peening media since it is known variant of standard tungsten carbide because it is prima facie to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(E)). In the instant case the examiner notes that there is a finite number of tungsten carbide variants and Keen et al. teaches that tungsten carbide is a useful media for shot peening. Based on this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully peening the tool of Blomqvist et al. using crystallin tungsten carbide.
Claim 2: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that an ER of at least a part of the cutting edge is 25-70 µm (Page 3, Lines 1-4).
Claim 3: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that the shot peening is performed at least on the rake face of the cutting tool (Abstract, Page 2, Lines 20-26).
Claim 4: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that an average diameter of the beads is 45-125 pm (Page 3, Line 22 to Page 4, Line 2).
Claim 5: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that peening is applied in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the coated cutting tool (Page 17, lines 6-9).
Claim 6: Blomqvist et al. fails to disclose that the coating comprises a TiCN layer and an α-A1203- layer, a thickness of the TiCN layer being 8-12 µm and a thickness of the a-A1203- layer being 4-8 µm.
However, Blomqvist et al. further discloses that the coating comprises TiCN and α-A1203 of a total thickness of 2-20 µm (Page 20, Lines 3-7, Claim 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discover optimum ranges for the layers of TiCN and α-A1203, because it has long been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Claim 7: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that the shot peening is followed by a shot blasting step applied on the same surface(s) of the cutting tool (Page 4, Lines 9-18).
Claim 8: Blomqvist et al. further discloses that a peening pressure during the shot peening is 1-3 bar (Page 20, Line 13 to Page 21, Line 10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726