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
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding Claim 11, at line 2, the dash is extraneous. 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 1-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by “a second zone a same amount”. Is there a missing word, such as “including”? Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant by “a same amount, within +/-3 wt%”. The first zone could have as little as 3 wt.% binder. So in what sense would there be a same amount if the amount in the second zone could be anywhere from 0 to 6 wt.%? At just above 0 wt%, the respective amount is nearly infinite on a relative basis and at 6 wt%, the respective amount would have a two-fold relationship on a relative basis. So these do not seem “same” in any ordinary sense. Therefore, what is meant? Even if there were 6 wt.% in the first zone, this “+/- 3wt%” could mean that there is half as much or 50% more and be in the range. It is unclear how this would be “a same amount”. This indefiniteness also applies to the “less than 1.5 wt%” of Claim 4 even if less extreme when amounts of close to 1.5 wt% are present.
Regarding Claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by a “straight” interface. Straight is a linear notion, whereas the interface could have a three dimensional or two dimensional characteristic. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant. Does it mean that the zones meet at what is characterizable as a line that is straight? Is reference being made to a cross-section having this relationship?
Regarding Claim 10, it is unclear whether “dome” is a two-dimensional or three-dimensional characterization.
Regarding Claim 11, although both zones have same specified range of amount of binder and previous Claim 1 demands a same amount, it remains unclear how to understand “within +/- 3 wt%” in context of Claim 11 as well as addressed above with respect to Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 1-13, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the subject matter of these claims. Particularly, the reviewed prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed insert formed of first and second zones having claimed characteristics including presence of Cr in claimed amounts in each zone in the claimed context. For example, Massa USPN 5,679,445 teaches first zone with 9.84 wt% binder and WC having average grain size of 6.7 microns and adjacent second zone with 8.78 wt% binder and WC having average grain size of 2.8 microns (Example 1). However, Massa, alone or otherwise, does not teach or suggest inclusion of Cr in the binder in the claimed amounts. Moreover, applicant has provided evidence that inclusion of Cr in binder in both zones in claimed amounts leads to unexpected results and distinguishes over examples in which both zones lack Cr or one lacks Cr. See Specification (Examples).
EXAMINER’S COMMENT
Cited Waldenstrom USPN 6,468,680 teaches cemented carbide insert having binder phase with grain sizes specified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E. LA VILLA whose telephone number is (571)272-1539. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. from 9:00 a.m. ET to 5:30 p.m. ET.
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 N. 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.
/MICHAEL E. LA VILLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 28 September 2026
