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.
Claim 5 is 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “rod-like” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rod-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The inclusion of ‘-like’ extends the claim such that the public is not appropriately appraised of the scope of the invention. This rejection may be overcome by amending to recite “A rod holder”.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeshita et al. (US 2018/0099335) and claim 5 is rejected further in view of Onodera (US 2015/0075338).
Considering claim 1, Takeshita teaches a surface-coated cutting tool of a base material and a coating film of a first alternating layer and a second alternating layer (abstract). The first alternating layer includes first and second layers which are alternated and the second alternating layer includes third and fourth layers which are alternated (Paragraph 9). The first and second alternating layers have a cubic crystal structure to improve the hardness (Paragraph 34). The first layer is composed of a nitride or carbonitride of AlaCrbM1(1-a-b) where 0≤a≤0.4, 0<b≤0.4, and 0≤(1-a-b) ≤0.1 and the second layer is composed of a nitride or carbonitride of AlcTidM2(1-c-d) and where 0.35≤c≤0.7, 0.3≤d≤0.7, and 0≤(1-c-d) ≤0.1 (Paragraph 9) and each of M1 and M2 is independently one or more elements of Si, B, etc. (Paragraph 9). Example 18 in Table 1 discloses Al0.65Cr0.3Si0.05N and the second layer is Al0.6Ti0.35Si0.05N where the Al content differs between the two layers.
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed coated tool this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Takeshita as this is considered a combination of conventionally known layers having different compositions combined with a cubic structure known to improve hardness and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While not expressly teaching the claimed striped structure or peak of a (200) plane after heat treatment with the claimed angle difference, Takeshita teaches a substantially identical coated tool with coating composition claimed and disclosed by applicant and therefore these features are expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 2, Takeshita teaches where the metal is Al (Table 1) as well as where the metal may comprise Cr (Paragraph 63).
Considering claim 3, Takeshita teaches examples in Table 2 of where the metal comprises Ti.
Considering claim 5, Takeshita teaches where the tool is a cutting tool (Paragraph 2) and may be an insert, etc. (Paragraph 41) but does not each the claimed tool structure.
In a related field of endeavor, Onodera teaches cutting tools (abstract) including a cutting insert (Paragraph 29) with a coating thereon (Paragraph 30). The tool comprises a holder with a length (e.g. a rod-like holder) with a pocket at the end where the insert is fixed to the pocket (Paragraphs 81-82).
As both Takeshita and Onodera teach cutting tools they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool of Takeshita and to include the tool holder taught by Onodera as this is considered a combination of a conventionally known insert and tool holder known to make cutting tools and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (WO 2019/239654 using US 2021/0164110 as an English language equivalent – cited by applicant) and claim 5 is rejected further in view of Onodera (US 2015/0075338).
Considering claim 1, Wang teaches hard coatings of alternately laminated layers (abstract) for cutting tools, etc. (Paragraph 2). The coating comprises nanolayers of A, B, and C compositions (Paragraph 11) where alternating layers of A and B, alternating layers of B and C, and alternating layers of A and C (Fig. 3 – reproduced below; Paragraphs 60-61). Layers A and B are disclosed as having a cubic rock-salt crystal structure for high hardness and wear-resistance (Paragraphs 59 and 60). The A composition comprises a nitride of AlaCrbSicαd where 0.30≤a≤0.85, 0.10≤b≤0.65, 0.01≤c0.45, 0≤d0.1 and α is at least one of Ti, etc. (Paragraph 59). The B composition comprises a nitride of AleTifSigβh where 0.01≤e≤0.85, 0.05≤f≤0.90, 0.05≤g≤0.45, 0≤h≤0.1 and the sum of e:h = 1 where β is one or more of Cr, etc. (Paragraph 60; Claim 1). Test Sample 21 in the tables of Figs. 10-11 depicts where the content of Al, Cr, and Ti change for the A and B layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the instantly claimed coated tool this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Wang as this is considered a combination of conventionally known layers having different compositions combined with a cubic structure known to have high hardness and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While not expressly teaching the claimed striped structure or peak of a (200) plane after heat treatment with the claimed angle difference, Wang teaches a substantially identical coated tool with coating composition claimed and disclosed by applicant and therefore these features are expected to be present as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claims 2-3, Wang teaches in the tables of Figs. 10-11 where Al, Cr, and Ti are contained in the A and B layers.
Considering claim 4, Fig. 3 of Wang above depicts where the multilayer coating has upper, middle, and lower sections of the coating have alternating A and B nanolayers. Any of these sections of coating may be considered the claimed first and second coating and the tables of Figs. 10-11 teach where the A and B layers comprise of Al, Cr, and Ti and therefore the is considered to meet the claimed configuration due to the open-language transitional phase “comprising”. See MPEP 2111.03.
Considering claim 5, Wang teaches where the coated article is a cutting tool (Paragraph 2), but does not each the claimed tool structure.
In a related field of endeavor, Onodera teaches cutting tools (abstract) including a cutting insert (Paragraph 29) with a coating thereon (Paragraph 30). The tool comprises a holder with a length (e.g. a rod-like holder) with a pocket at the end where the insert is fixed to the pocket (Paragraphs 81-82).
As both Wang and Onodera teach cutting tools they are considered analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tool of Wang and to include the tool holder taught by Onodera as this is considered a combination of a conventionally known insert and tool holder known to make cutting tools and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Astrand (US 2008/0166583), Tanaka et al. (US 2016/0175939), and Misumi et al. (US 2019/0160546) teach coated cutting tools similar to that which is claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights