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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirose et al. (JP2003071613 – machine translation provided by applicant).
Considering claim 1, Hirose teaches a cemented carbide cutting tool having a β-free layer on its surface (Paragraphs 6-7). The β-free layer has a thickness a on the flank face (Paragraph 15) and a thickness c on the rake face (Paragraph 18) where the rake and flank faces meet at a cutting edge (Paragraph 11). Examples are taught of an insert with a cutting edge comprised of WC, TaC, TiC, and Co (Paragraphs 34 and 46) where the mixture of materials is milled, shaped, and sintered at 1450 °C for 1 hour and then edge honed (Paragraph 34) which is substantially identical to the materials and conditions disclosed by applicant as forming a hard phase of W and C and a solution phase of W, C, and Ti (Specification Paragraphs 65-67) and therefore the sintered body of Hirose is expected to display a substantially identical hard phase, solid solution phase, and where the β-free layer comprises only WC and Co (an iron group element) as that which is claimed as substantially identical materials treated in a substantially identical manner are expected to behave the same, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.02. Examples 3-18, 3-19, and 3-20 have β-free layer thicknesses a for the flank face of 18 µm, 18 µm, and 25 µm (respectively) and β-free layer thicknesses b for the rake face of 20 µm, 22 µm, and 28 µm (Table 6) giving ratios of flank/rake of 18/20, 18/22, and 25/28 and these values fall within and anticipate that which is claimed. See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 2, the values disclosed by Hirose of flank and rake β-free layer thicknesses of Examples 3-18 – 3-20 outlined above have rake/flank ratios of 20/18 (~1.11), 22/18 (~1.22), and 28/25 (1.12) falling within and anticipating that which is claimed. See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 4, Hirose teaches where the β-free layer is removed from the edge honed portion (e.g. intersection region of end of the rake and flank surfaces) (Paragraph 12) and therefore the thickness of the edge region (e.g. ~zero) is less than either the rake and flank face thicknesses. See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 5, Hirose teaches where the edge has a minimum radius of curvature (Fig.1) where the β-free layer is removed from the edge honed portion (Paragraph 12).
Considering claims 8-10, Hirose teaches where the cemented carbide is coated sequentially with layers of TiN, TiCN, and Al2O3 (Paragraph 47).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (JP2003071613 – machine translation provided by applicant) as applied to claim 1 in view of Uchino et al. (JPH07113180 – machine translation; hereafter Uchino’180).
Considering claim 3, the teachings of Hirose as applied to claim 1 are outlined above. Hirose teaches cemented carbide cutting tools with a β-free layer, but does not teach the claimed monotonic decrease.
In a related field of endeavor, Uchino’180 teaches coated cemented carbide cutting tools (Paragraph 1) with a de-β phase on its outermost surface of the base consisting only of WC and bond metals (e.g. binder) (Paragraphs 5 and 10). The edge region is honed such that the de-β layer thickness gradually decreases (Paragraph 10) from a side of the rake face to a side of the flank face (Figs. 1-2) and this improves chipping resistance (Paragraph 14).
As Hirose and Uchino’180 teach cemented carbide 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 teachings of Hirose with the gradual decrease of the de-β layer taught by Uchino’180 as this is known to improve chipping resistance and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al. (JP2003071613 – machine translation provided by applicant) as applied to claims 1 and 4 in view of Uchino et al. (US 2010/0067992; hereafter Uchino’992).
Considering claim 6, Hirose teaches a cutting tool of a cemented carbide with rake and flank faces meeting at a cutting edge and having a β-free layer. However, Hirose does not teach where the region (i.e. edge) is closer to the flank surface than rake surface.
In a related field of endeavor, Uchino’992 teaches a cutting tool having a rake face, flank face, and cutting edge at the intersection thereof (abstract) including where the tool comprises and insert of a sintered cemented carbide with a hard thin film thereon (Paragraph 101). An embodiment is taught where the rake face is closer to the central clamp region and increased distance from the cutting edge (Paragraph 88) (i.e. the cutting edge is closer to the flank face than the rake face) which ensures sufficient distance for smooth chip discharge.
As both Hirose and Uchino’992 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 teachings of Hirose with the rake face edge distance taught by Uchino’992 as this is known to ensure sufficient distance for smooth chip discharge and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. The combination of Hirose and Uchino’992 is considered to meet the claimed region located closer to a side of the flank face as Uchino’992 teaches where there is greater distance between the rake face and cutting edge.
Considering claim 7, Uchino’992 teaches where the width of the edge along the rake face is larger than that of the edge and the flank face (Fig.3).
Considering claim 11, Uchino’992 teaches where the tool comprises a holder which extends from a first end toward a second end with a recessed mounting seat at and end (i.e. a pocket) where the insert is mounted to the seat (Fig.6; Paragraphs 71-73).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Omori et al. (US 2009/0232611) and Hirano (US 2014/0227052) teach β-free layers on carbide 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