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 Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 repeats the statement “0.020 ≤ Xmax - Xmin ≤ 0.400”. Claim 1 recites Xavg + Yavg” which is not properly formatted. Claim 1 recites “XRD pattern” without denoting what ‘XRD’ stands for. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 2 recites “a variable amount of Al and a variable amount of V” which is inconsistent with the language “a variable amount X of Al” in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 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.
Claim 1 recites: “the average Xmax of the maxima Xmax* and the average Xmin of the minima Xmin* of X in the crystal grains”. This limitation is indefinite. The claim requires multiple maximum values and multiple minimum values. However, the claim fails to specify how these multiple maxima and minima are obtained. For purposes of examination, it is presumed maximum and minimum values are obtained from each crystal grain, are a maximum and minimum for the entire coating, or refer to local maxima and local minima.
Claim 2 recites: “the average Ymax of the maxima Ymax* and the average Ymin of the minima Ymin* of Y”. This limitation is indefinite. The claim requires multiple maximum values and multiple minimum values. However, the claim fails to specify how these multiple maxima and minima are obtained. For purposes of examination, it is presumed maximum and minimum values are obtained from each crystal grain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sato et al. (US 2017/0342552).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a coated tool having a complex nitride or carbonitride of TiAlV (see Table 7, Ex. 11). The grains have a NaCl type fcc structure (¶ 15) and are columnar (see ¶ 104). The ratios of the (TiAlV)(CN) are compared to the claimed formula below (see Table 7):
Claim 1
Ex. 11
Xavg (Al)
0.600-0.950
0.87
Yavg (V)
0.010-0.300
0.033
Xavg + Yavg
0.610-0.990
0.903
αavg (C)
0-0.0050
≤0.0001
Xmax - Xmin
0.020-0.400
0.11
A*
0.4066914
Lattice Constant (nm)
0.4076
| A-A* |
0.0009
In the alternative, Sato teaches a coated tool on which a coating layer including a complex nitride or carbonitride (¶ 13) represented by the following formula: (Ti1-x-yAlxMey)(CzN1-z) where Me is selected from Si, Zr, B, V, or Cr and having a NaCl type fcc structure (¶ 15). The grains are columnar (see ¶ 104). An average Xavg ≥ 0.60, an average Yavg is between 0.005 and 0.10 inclusive, an average Zavg is between 0 and 0.005 inclusive, and Xavg + Yavg is between 0.605 and 0.95 (¶ 16). The difference between the averages of local maxima Xmax and minima Xmin in the crystal grains is between 0.03 and 0.25 (¶ 16). Regarding the value | A* - A |, as the values for Xavg and Yavg in the prior art substantially overlap the claimed Xavg and Yavg values, the prior art impliedly teaches an overlapping range of values for | A* - A |. As the prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sato et al. (US 2017/0342552), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Tatsuoka et al. (US 2017/0298505).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Sato does not expressly teach the Ymax - Ymin range of values. Tatsuoka discloses a coated tool having an identical composition to that of Sato (see ¶ 16). Tatsuoka also teaches varying the amount of V in the crystal grains to increase hardness and toughness, resulting in chipping and defect resistance (¶¶ 15-16). Hence, varying the concentration of V is recognized as a result effective variable in the prior art. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine, through routine optimization, the ideal variation of V in the crystal grains of Sato to achieve the benefits disclosed by Tatsuoka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights