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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Citation #7 on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 15 August 2024 lists US2021/001410A1 to Takeshita. This document does not exist. It appears that this is intended to be US2021/0001410A1 and this document is listed concurrently on a PTO-892 to be properly documented. If this is the intended document, no further action is needed by applicant.
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, 3-7, and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO2013081232 – machine translation).
Considering claims 1 and 17, Park teaches a hard coating have a multilayer structure (abstract) and cutting tool with the coating (p.4, 2nd full paragraph). The tool comprises a base (i.e. substrate) with the coating thereon (p.5, 1st paragraph) and the multilayer coating comprises a second layer of a nano-multilayer structure with thin films A-D stacked where the stack is repeated two or more times (p.5, 3rd paragraph) (e.g. considered wear and bonding layers). Thin layer A has a composition of Al1-a-bTiaSibN where 0.3 ≤ a ≤ 0.7 and 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1 (p.5, 4th paragraph), thin layers B and D comprise Ti1-xAlxN where 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.7 (p.5, last paragraph – p.6 continuing paragraph), and thin layer C comprises Al1-xCrzN where 0.3 ≤ z ≤ 0.7 (p.6, 1st full paragraph). The thickness of each thin layer ranges from 3-20 nm (p.5, 3rd paragraph). The thickness range disclosed by Park overlaps the claimed third ply being smaller in successive stacks and variation thereof using the broadest reasonable interpretation as no particular thicknesses are claimed. See MPEP 2111.
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the 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 Park as this is considered a layering of conventionally known repeated stacks of nanolayers known to afford coated cutting tools and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Further, Park teaches layers having compositions and thicknesses which 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 claims 3-4, Park teaches where thin layer A has a composition of Al1-a-bTiaSibN where 0.3 ≤ a ≤ 0.7 and 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1 (p.5, 4th paragraph), thin layers B and D comprise Ti1-xAlxN where 0.3 ≤ x ≤ 0.7 (p.5, last paragraph – p.6 continuing paragraph), and thin layer C comprises Al1-xCrzN where 0.3 ≤ z ≤ 0.7 (p.6, 1st full paragraph) and these Al contents overlap those which are claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 5, Park teaches where thin layer A has a composition of Al1-a-bTiaSibN where 0.3 ≤ a ≤ 0.7 and 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1 (p.5, 4th paragraph) overlapping the claimed Si content. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 6, Park teaches where thin layer C comprises Cr (p.6, 1st full paragraph).
Considering claim 7, Park teaches where thin layers A-D are nitrides (p.5, 4th paragraph – p.6, 1st full paragraph) overlapping the claimed N content. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 9-11, Park teaches where the thickness of each thin layer ranges from 3-20 nm (p.5, 3rd paragraph). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claims 12-14, Park teaches where the thickness of each thin layer ranges from 3-20 nm (p.5, 3rd paragraph) and where the coating stack is repeated two or more times (p.5, 3rd paragraph) and the number of layers per micron would be about 250-1,666 using the thicknesses of the thin layers disclosed by Park. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 15, Park teaches where the thickness of each thin layer ranges from 3-20 nm (p.5, 3rd paragraph) which encompasses stacks having a smaller thickness and greater thickness overlapping that which is claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 16, Park teaches where the tool substrate comprises cemented carbide, cermet, etc. (p.6, Example).
Considering claim 18, in addition to the coated tool with structure as outlined above, Park teaches the method of forming the coating by PVD (p.5, 1st paragraph) and examples using arc ion plating (p.6, Example).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of Park does not adequately teach the claimed plies being cubic crystal structure of the monotonic thickness increase.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. (US 2015/0125677), Kang et al. (US 2015/0152561), Sugita et al. (US 8,932,707), Sakurai et al. (US 2018/0243837), and Takeshita (US 2021/0001410) teach 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