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 § 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 3-4 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 3 recites the limitation "the hard film does not have a diffraction peak intensity corresponding to an AlN having a hexagonal closest-packed structure in an intensity profile of a selected area diffraction pattern using a transmission electron microscope". The claim is describing elements that are NOT part of the invention thus it is unclear what the scope of the claim is.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the hard film does not have a diffraction peak intensity corresponding to an AlN having a hexagonal closest-packed structure in an intensity profile of a selected area diffraction pattern using a transmission electron microscope". The claim is describing elements that are NOT part of the invention thus it is unclear what the scope of the claim is and if any of the claimed elements are part of the claimed tool or not.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (PGPub 2002/0168552) in view of Sasaki (PGPub 2020/0198017).
Re Claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a coated cutting tool comprising: a substrate; and a hard film that is formed on the substrate, wherein the hard film is a nitride in which with respect to a total amount of metal elements (including a metalloid), Al is 60 at% or more and 70 at% or less, Ti is 20 at% or more and 40 at% or less, and one or more selected from W, Cr, Ta, Nb, Zr, Mo, and V are 1 at% or more and 10 at% or less, and with respect to a total amount of metal elements (including metalloid) (Ex. 1 in Table 1; Ex. 1 in Table 19; Ex. 1 in Table 21; claim 1), a nitrogen element (para. 25), and an Ar element (para. 25), and a crystal structure of the hard film is a face-centered cubic lattice structure (Ex. 1 in Table 1; para. 104-105), and a half-value width of an X-ray diffraction peak of a (111) plane is 0.750 or more and 0.95° or less (claim 9). Yamamoto does not disclose Ar is contained in an amount of 0.01 at% or more and 0.15 at% or less. However, Sasaki teaches Ar is contained in an amount of 0.01 at% or more and 0.15 at% or less (para. 44, 46; claim 1). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize Ar in this amount, as taught by Sasaki, for the purpose of optimal cleaning (bombardment treatment) of the tool (para. 67) and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 2, Yamamoto discloses the half-value width of the X-ray diffraction peak of the (111) plane of the hard film is 0.78° or more and 0.95° or less (claim 9). Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Re Claim 3, as best understood, Yamamoto discloses the hard film does not have a diffraction peak intensity corresponding to an AlN having a hexagonal closest-packed structure in an intensity profile of a selected area diffraction pattern using a transmission electron microscope (claim 1).
Re Claim 4, as best understood, Yamamoto discloses the hard film does not have a diffraction peak intensity corresponding to an AlN having a hexagonal closest-packed structure in an intensity profile of a selected area diffraction pattern using a transmission electron microscope (claim 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights