DETAILED ACTION
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 1-14 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.
Claims 1-8 recite the term “nanolayer type”. The addition of the word “type” extends the scope of the claims so as to render them indefinite since it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. The addition of the word “type” to the otherwise definite expression renders the definite expression indefinite by extending its scope. Ex parte Copenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. App. 1955). Claims 9-14 are rejected as being ultimately dependent on claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the term “selected from the group”. However, it is not clear if this an open or closed group. Examiner assumes it is a closed group and for clarification, Examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “selected from the group consisting”. Clarification is requested.
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 1-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20180193924).
Tanaka discloses a coated cutting tool. Concerning claims 1, 3-6, and 8-9, Tanaka discloses coating for the cutting tool comprises an embodiment comprising layer A1 of a (Ti0.40Al0.60)N, layer B1 of a (Ti0.42Al0.58)N, layer A2 of (Ti0.80Al0.20)N, and layer B2 of (Ti0.85Si0.15)N, wherein A1/B1 and A2/B2 form repeating units, wherein the thickness is from 1.5 to 15.0 microns and each layer A1, B1, A2, and B2 is from 1 nm to 300 nm (Tables 1, 5, and 7, Invention Sample 13; para. 0038-0097). Layers A1 and B1 are equivalent to the first nanolayer, layer A2 is equivalent to the third nanolayer, and layer B2 is equivalent to the second nanolayer. Examiner notes that the instant claims do not recite a specific order with respect to the first, second, and third nanolayers and as such, the disclosure of Tanaka meets the instant limitations.
With respect to claims 2 and 7, the ratios of the specific thicknesses as shown in Invention Sample 13 are within the claimed ranges (Table 5, Invention Sample 13). Concerning claims 13 and 14, the substrate and article can be a cemented carbide drill (para. 0105 and 0107).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20180193924) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schier et al. (US 20150211105).
Tanaka discloses the above, including a lower layer comprising multiple layers of (Ti,Al)N having a thickness of 0.1 to 3.5 microns (para. 0094-0095) but is silent to the alternating layers having the composition as claimed.
Schier discloses alternating layers of sub-stoichiometric (Ti,Al)N layers having the claimed compounds at the Ti and Al ratio as claimed, wherein such a coating allows for acceptable residual stresses, and high modulus (para. 0010). As such, for a lower layer that allows for adhesion and the above properties disclosed by Schier, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the layer structure as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783