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 § 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 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andersson et al. (US 2015/0023751).
Considering claim 16, Andersson teaches a cutting tool for chip removal comprising a body and a nanolaminated coating of A and B layers thereon (abstract). The A and B layers alternate and the A layer comprises (Alx1Me11-x1)Ny1 with 0.3<x1<0.95, 0.9<y1<1.1 and Me1 is one or more of Ti, etc. (e.g. a further nitride layer) and where B is (Zr1-x2-z2Six2Me2z2)Ny2 with 0<x2<0.30, 0.90<y2<1.20, 0≤z2<0.25 and Me2 is one or more of Y,Y, Ti, etc. (e.g. a zirconium nitride layer) (Paragraph 12). Each layer in the nanolaminated coating may have a thickness between 1-50 nm and Andersson teaches where small, aperiodic and/or periodic thickness variations in the A and B layers are common due to normal process variations (Paragraph 32) (e.g. one B layer may be thicker than another).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed cutting 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 Andersson as this is considered a conventionally known combination of nanolaminated layers of compositions and thicknesses overlapping those which are claimed conventionally known to improve wear resistance and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, the composition and thicknesses overlap those which are claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 17, Andersson teaches where the B layers may have a thickness of 1-50 nm (Paragraph 12) and the ratio between a 50 nm to a 35 nm thick pair of B layers is about 1.4 overlapping that which is claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 18, Andersson teaches where the first layer may be the A layer (Paragraph 44; Table 1) with composition overlapping that which is claimed (Paragraph 12) which has further A layers formed thereon (Paragraph 44) and may have a variation in thickness (Paragraph 32).
Considering claim 19, Andersson teaches where the bottom A layer carries B layers (Paragraph 44; Table 1).
Considering claim 20, additionally Andersson teaches where an innermost layer may be formed between the body and nanolaminated structure optionally of (Ti,Al)N (Paragraphs 37-38) and where the total thickness of the coating is between 1-20 µm (Paragraph 38) and where the nanolaminated structure has a thickness of 0.5-15 µm (Paragraph 28). This indicates where the innermost layer may have a thickness of 0.5-19.5 µm (e.g. 500-19,500 nm) and therefore a first A layer and the innermost layer may be considered the claimed base layer due to the open nature of the transitional phrase “comprising” which overlaps the claimed thickness. See MPEP 2111.03 and 2144.05.
Considering claim 21, as outlined above, Andersson teaches where the innermost layer may have a thickness of 0.5-19.5 µm and the nanolaminated structure has a thickness of 0.5-15 µm and the ratio between the two is 1 to 30. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 22-23, Andersson teaches where the base body is cemented carbide of tungsten carbide with a 6% Co binder (Paragraph 42). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 24, Andersson teaches where the A and B layers may each have a thickness of 1-50 nm (Paragraph 12) teaching a bilayer thickness of 2-100 nm. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 25, Andersson teaches where the thickness of the A and B layers may be equal (Paragraph 31) or have small thickness variations (Paragraph 32) which is consistent with that which applicant indicates as “equal individual thicknesses” per p.4 lines 17-28 of the originally filed specification. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 26, Andersson teaches where the A and B layers may have a thickness of 1-50 nm (Paragraph 12) and the ratio between a 50 nm to a 35 nm thick pair of A and B layers is about 1.4 overlapping that which is claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 27, Andersson teaches where the nanolaminated structure may be the topmost coating (Paragraph 37) terminating with the B layer (Table 1).
Considering claim 28, Andersson teaches where the nanolaminated structure has a thickness of 0.5-15 µm (Paragraph 28) See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 29-30, Andersson teaches where the total thickness of the coating is between 1-20 µm (Paragraph 38) (e.g. 1,000 nm – 20,000 nm) which encompasses an innermost coating and the nanolaminated structure.
Considering claim 31, Andersson teaches where the A and B layers are formed by PVD (Paragraph 39). Further, the recitation of “is a physical vapor deposition layer” is considered a product-by-process limitation and is not considered to render a patentable distinction over the prior art absent a showing as to how the claimed process affects the final structure of the cutting tool. See MPEP 2113.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Selinder et al. (US 6,103,357), Johansson et al. (US 2011/0111197), and Yamamoto et al. (US 2018/0355469) teach hard film coatings with alternating ZrN layers 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