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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “texture coefficients” is not assigned the abbreviation “(TC)” despite “TC” appearing later in the claim to refer to texture coefficients. 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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “EBSD” without denoting what this acronym stands for, rendering the claims indefinite. For purposes of examination, “EBSD” is presumed to refer to electron backscatter diffraction.
Claims 3 and 10 recite “a hardness”. This limitation is indefinite. The claims do not specify what kind of hardness is being measured (e.g., Vickers, Rockwell, etc.). For purposes of examination, it is presumed to refer to a nanoindentation hardness, which is consistent with the specification (see ¶ 39).
Claims 3 and 11 recite “modulus”. This limitation is indefinite. The claims do not specify what kind of modulus is being measured (e.g., Young’s, bulk, etc.). For purposes of examination, it is presumed to refer to an elastic modulus.
Claim 3 recites “hardness (H) to modulus (E) ratio of 0.043-0.05”. This limitation is indefinite because the claim fails to specify the units of measurement for the values when the ratio is determined. For purposes of examination, it is presumed that hardness and modulus are both given in GPa.
Claim 5 recites “n = number of reflections (7) used in the TC calculation” but recites 8 (hkl) reflections for calculating both TC(006) and TC(0012). The claim is therefore indefinite because it is unclear whether all 8 reflections are used to calculate the texture coefficient, or whether any 7 are selected from the list of 8 reflections. For purposes of examination, either interpretation will be considered.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or, in the alternative, as being obvious over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825).
Regarding claims 1-2, Tomita discloses a coated cutting tool (p. 1, ¶ 1) comprising a substrate having a TiCN layer and a α-Al2O3 layer formed thereon (p. 2, ¶¶ 3-4). Tomita teaches the TiCN contains {112} crystal grains have an area ratio of 40%-60% (p. 4, ¶ 1), and these grains have an inclination between the normal line of the {112} plane and the normal line of the substrate of 0° and 10° when examining a polished surface of the coating cross section (p. 4, ¶ 5). Tomita further teaches grains in the Al2O3 layer having {0001} plane have an area ratio of 30% or more and have an inclination between the normal line of the {0001} plane and the normal line of the substrate of 0° and 10° when examining a polished surface of the coating cross section (p. 5, ¶ 9). TiCN is deposited at a temperature between 700°C-780°C (p. 3, ¶ 8), which is considered to be “medium temperature”. One of ordinary skill in the art would presume the TiCN and α-Al2O3 grains of Tomita are columnar given their depiction, absent objective evidence to the contrary (see Fig. 1). See MPEP 2112. The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, Ex. 4-16 fall within the claimed area ratios for TiCN {112} grains within 0°-10° inclination and Al2O3 {0001} grains within 0°-10° inclination (see Table 8), thereby anticipating the claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 10-11, the TiCN layer of Tomita is substantially identical to the claimed TiCN layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the prior art TiCN layer to have a substantially similar hardness and modulus, absent objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 12, Tomita teaches the layer containing TiCN has a thickness of 3-20 μm (p. 2, ¶ 7), with exemplary thicknesses of 3-19 μm (see Table 7).
Regarding claims 13-14, Tomita teaches the α-Al2O3 layer has a thickness of 2-15 μm (p. 2, ¶ 7), with exemplary thicknesses of 2-4 μm (see Table 7).
Regarding claim 17, Tomita teaches substrate materials comprising Co or Co/Ni metallic binders for cemented carbide with 5.7%-18%, with examples between 5.7% and 15% (p. 7, ¶¶ 4-5; see Tables 1-2)
Regarding claim 18, Tomita teaches a TiCNO layer may be formed between the TiCN layer and the α-Al2O3 layer (p. 3, ¶ 5; see also Table 7).
Regarding claim 19, Tomita discloses a coated cutting tool (p. 1, ¶ 1) comprising a substrate having a TiCN layer and a α-Al2O3 layer formed thereon (p. 2, ¶¶ 3-4). Tomita teaches the TiCN contains {112} crystal grains have an area ratio of 40%-60% (p. 4, ¶ 1), and these grains have an inclination between the normal line of the {112} plane and the normal line of the substrate of 0° and 10° when examining a polished surface of the coating cross section (p. 4, ¶ 5). Tomita further teaches grains in the Al2O3 layer having {0001} plane have an area ratio of 30% or more and have an inclination between the normal line of the {0001} plane and the normal line of the substrate of 0° and 10° when examining a polished surface of the coating cross section (p. 5, ¶ 9). TiCN and Al2O3 are deposited by CVD (p. 3, ¶ 8), with TiCN being deposited at a temperature between 700°C-780°C which is considered to be “medium temperature”. One of ordinary skill in the art would presume the TiCN and α-Al2O3 grains of Tomita are columnar given their depiction, absent objective evidence to the contrary (see Fig. 1). See MPEP 2112. The prior art ranges overlap the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Regarding claim 20, Tomita teaches a TiCNO layer may be formed between the TiCN layer and the α-Al2O3 layer, with the α-Al2O3 layer being formed directly on the TiCNO layer (p. 3, ¶ 5; see also Table 7, Ex. 1, 3, 5-7, 13-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ono et al. (US 2020/0361002).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Tomita does not expressly teach the claimed texture coefficient for the (311) growth direction. Ono teaches a coated cutting tool (¶ 1) having a TC(311) of 3-4 (¶ 132), where TC is determined from 8 reflections: (111), (200), (220), (311), (331), (420), (422), and (511) (¶ 50). However, the (511) reflection is 0 (see Figs. 8-9), so the TC(311) of Ono is the same as the claimed TC(311). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated cutting tool of Tomita to have the TC(311) disclosed by Ono because the TC(311) of Ono contributes to achieving excellent chipping resistance (¶ 51).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0085248).
Regarding claims 5-7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Tomita does not expressly teach the claimed texture coefficients in the (006) and (0 0 12) growth directions in the α-Al2O3 layer. Liu teaches a coated cutting tool (¶ 2) comprising a TiCN layer and an α-Al2O3 layer (Table III). The α-Al2O3 layer may comprise columnar grains (¶ 47). Liu teaches the TC(006) for the α-Al2O3 layer is at least 6, and the TC(0 0 12) for the TC(006) is at least 5 (¶¶ 6-15). This overlaps the claimed ranges, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Further, examples in Liu fall within the claimed ranges (see Table VI). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated cutting tool of Tomita with the teachings of Liu because Liu teaches its α-Al2O3 layer has improved wear resistance (¶ 4).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Fukushima (US 2020/0070253).
Regarding claims 8-9, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Tomita does not expressly teach a Σ3 type of grain boundary in the TiCN layer having a length 20%-40% of the total length of all grain boundaries. Fukushima teaches a coated cutting tool (¶ 1) where the length of Σ3 grain boundaries is 20%-60% of the total length of all grain boundaries in the TiCN layer (¶¶ 12-16). Fukushima teaches exemplary ratios within 25% and 35% (see Table 4). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tomita to have the length ratio of Σ3 type grain boundaries as taught by Fukushima because this obtains a low grain boundary energy, prevents grain coarsening, and improves chipping resistance (¶ 27).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zackrisson et al. (US 2009/0017289).
Regarding claim 15, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Tomita does not expressly teach the claimed average grain width of α-Al2O3 grains. Zackrisson teaches a coated cutting tool (¶ 2) having an α-alumina layer formed on a medium temperature TICN layer (¶ 36). The alumina layer is formed on columnar grains, has a thickness of about 7-12 μm, and grain length/width ratio of about 2-12 (¶ 37). This implies a grain width of about 0.6-6 μm, which overlaps the claimed ratio, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the ordinary skill in the art to modify the coated cutting tool of Tomita to have the claimed columnar grain width of Zackrisson because this allows for the formation of an α-Al2O3 layer essentially free from transformation stresses (¶ 37).
Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2012-143825), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Okuno et al. (US 2020/0406366).
Regarding claim 16, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed above. Tomita teaches the residual stress in the α-Al2O3 layer is relaxed (p. 2, ¶ 6), but does not expressly teach the claimed residual stress value. Okuno teaches a coated cutting tool (¶ 1). The residual stress in the α-Al2O3 layer is preferably less than or equal to 1000 MPa (¶ 29). It would have been obvious at the effective time of filing for the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Tomita in accordance with the teachings of Okuno with respect to residual stress because the values of Okuno represent a conventional value to achieve within the prior art and relaxing residual stress improves chipping resistance (see Tomita, p. 1, ¶ 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Osada et al. (US 2006/0003187) discloses a coated cutting tool having a similar TiCN layer to that claimed, but does not teach or suggest the claimed α-Al2O3 layer. Tomita et al. (US 2014/0287210) and Okude et al. (US 2019/0003060) disclose coated cutting tools having a similar α-Al2O3 layer to that claimed, but do not teach or suggest the claimed TiCN layer.
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
