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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/SE2023/050522.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are related closely enough that there would be no serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the search and prosecution of method and product claims presents a serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
It is noted that the abstract begins with “There is disclosed”. The examiner suggests its deletion.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1 lines 5-6, from which claims 2-15 depend, the term “the top surface” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 3 line 3, the phrase “5, 10, … or 99% of the thickness” is deemed vague and confusing as to which percentage is being claimed.
In claim 10 line 3, the appropriate Markush terminology is --selected from the group consisting of--.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlisle (2013/0239769).
Carlisle teaches of surface treating a knife for wood processing (title) in which a knife structure 100 is plated with chromium 104 (0032) and specifically by electroplating (0069). The knife body can have a cutting surface 101 (0005) and can be composed of iron such as steel (0030), which meets the claimed limitation of a first element. In addition, a thermochemical diffusion treatment is used on the thermally conductive plating (0035) which produces a gradient of thermochemical diffusion elements (0062) and properties using a non-repeated diffusion zone (claim 9). It is the examiner’s position that since diffusion occurred, the claimed time and temperature of the heat treatment must have been present.
With respect to the gradient being formed by a reaction of the first element and the second element, it is specifically noted that Carlisle teaches a gradient of thermochemical diffusion elements (0062), which inherently means that a reaction occurred.
In addition, with respect to the claimed plating process, it is specifically noted that Carlisle teaches that the plating may be deposited by electroplating, electroless plating, sputtering, chemical vapor deposition, ion implantation, f5riction welding, or a combination (0069). To select electroplating or sputtering would have been obvious because Carlisle teaches a variety of plating methods.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant requires partial diffusion. It is noted that Carlisle teaches diffusing into the apex region (0125) and varying diffusion depths (0148). Given Carlisle’s teaching, it would have been obvious to vary utilize partial diffusion with the expectation of success depending on the desired final product.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant requires a specific depth. As noted above, Carlisle teaches of partial diffusion. To utilize a specific depth would have been obvious in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant requires full diffusion and a specific coverage. It is noted that Carlisle teaches of coating all portion of the knife body (0028). With respect to full diffusion, it is noted that Carlisle teaches diffusing into the apex region (0125) and varying diffusion depths (0148). Given Carlisle’s teaching, it would have been obvious to vary utilize full diffusion with the expectation of success depending on the desired final product.
Regarding claim 5, Carlisle teaches carbon (0031) and alloys (0032).
Regarding claim 6, Carlisle teaches boron (0036) and electroplating (0069).
Regarding claim 7, Carlisle teaches sputtering (0069), which is a PVD process.
Regarding claim 8, Carlisle teaches a diffusion temperature of 850-950oC (0142) and a diffusion time up to 24 hours (0148).
Regarding claim 9, Carlisle teaches an iron containing metal such as steel and carbon (0030-0031).
Regarding claim 10, Carlisle teaches carbon and boron (0030-0036).
Regarding claim 11, Carlisle teaches chromium carbide (0043).
Regarding claim 12, Carlisle teaches carburization (0041).
Regarding claim 13, Carlisle teaches carbon (0062).
Regarding claim 14, Carlisle teaches covering the cutting edge (0028).
Regarding claim 15, Carlisle teaches 5 to 125 microns (0032).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 03/26/2026