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 18 and 25-32 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 18 recites to a first width, a second width and a third width. It is unclear if the first width requires anything more than the second and third widths. That is, the first width seems to be satisfied by having the second and third widths. Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claims 18, 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubert (SU 876315 A) in view of Potemkin (SU 764855 A1) or Stein (US Patent No. 3,660,877).
(Clam 18) Ubert discloses an indexable cutting insert (Figs. 1, 2) for a cutting tool. The cutting insert includes a first side surface (visible in Fig. 1), an opposing second side surface (visible in Fig. 2, but the side hidden in Fig. 1), and a peripheral surface extending between the first side surface and the second side surface (Fig. 2); a base portion (1); and a cutting portion (2), attached to the base portion, and defined by a portion of the first side surface, a portion of the second side surface, and a portion of the peripheral surface (Figs. 1, 2). The cutting portion includes a first cutting face, an opposing second cutting face, a flank face extending between the first cutting face and the second cutting face (annotated Fig. 1), a first cutting edge between the first cutting face and the flank face, and a second cutting edge between the second cutting face and the flank face (annotated Fig. 1). The first cutting face extends between a first cutting face end at the base portion and the first cutting edge, and the second cutting face extends between a second cutting face end at the base portion and the second cutting edge (annotated Fig. 1). The cutting portion is bisected by a first plane transverse to the first side surface (annotated Fig. 1). On the cutting portion, the first side surface is concave and is defined, in its entirety, by an outer circumferential surface portion of a first imaginary elliptical cylinder having a first cylinder axis in the first plane, the outer circumferential surface portion of the first imaginary elliptical cylinder extending over the entire first side surface (annotated Fig. 1). On the cutting portion, the second side surface is concave and is defined, in its entirety, by an outer circumferential surface portion of a second imaginary elliptical cylinder having a second cylinder axis in the first plane, the outer circumferential surface portion of the second imaginary elliptical cylinder extending over the entire second side surface (annotated Fig. 1). The first cylinder axis and the second cylinder axis diverge in a direction from the base towards the flank face. Each of the first and second imaginary elliptical cylinders has a semi-major axis that is perpendicular to the first plane (annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
232
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1260
1768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1194
1668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, if Applicant traverses the clearance surface being defined by an elliptical arc, at a time prior to filing prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the first and second side surfaces in the cutting portion of the Ubert cutting insert with side surfaces defined by an elliptical arc as claimed as obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of known arc shapes – with the predictable result of providing clearance during a cutting operation. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Ubert does not explicitly disclose the cutting portion width increasing toward the flank face.
Potemkin discloses a cutting insert that is concave in a manner similar to Ubert (Fig. 4), but also tapers from the cutting edges to the center of the insert in a plan view (Fig. 5). As a result, the width between the first and second side surfaces increases in a direction from the center of the cutting insert in a plan view toward the flank (Fig. 5). The cutting portion has a first width between the first side surface and the second side surface that increases towards the flank face (Figs. 4, 5), and each cutting face has a width between the first side surface and the second side surface that increases from the cutting face end (at center in Fig. 5) towards the flank face (Fig. 5). It is worth noting that the first width may be the same measurement as either cutting face width. As best understood, the claim does not require the width to be measured differently than either of the cutting widths. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a taper such that the width of the cutting portion at each cutting face increases as suggested in Potemkin in order to provide clearance for the cutting insert as it enters a groove being cut.
Stein discloses a cutting insert (10) with a cutting portion (12) having a first width between the first side surface and the second side surface that increases towards the flank face (Figs. 1-4), and the cutting face (21) has a width between the first side surface and the second side surface that increases (angle Y) from the cutting face end (at 17) towards the flank face (20). It is worth noting that the first width may be the same measurement as the cutting face width. As best understood, the claim does not require the width to be measured differently than either of the cutting widths. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a taper such that the width of the cutting portion at each cutting face increases as suggested in Stein in order to provide clearance for the cutting insert as it enters a groove being cut (Col. 2, Lines 50-54).
(Claim 25) The first cutting face has a first concave rake portion at the first cutting edge, and the second cutting face has a second concave rake portion at the second cutting edge (Figs. 1, 2). In an alternative interpretation, if the concave portion of the cutting face is not considered part of the rake face, having a concave rake is well-known. Because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known assertion, the concave rake face being well-known is taken as Applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03 C.
Potemkin discloses a cutting insert having concave rake faces relative to each cutting edge (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with concave rake faces as suggested by Potemkin in order to influence chip flow, curling and breaking.
(Claim 31) The cutting insert constitutes a unitary body (Fig. 1).
Claims 26-30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubert (SU 876315 A) in view of Potemkin (SU 764855 A1) or Stein (US Patent No. 3,660,877) further in view of Hecht (US Patent No. 8,708,613 B2).
(Claim 26) Ubert discloses the cutting insert having a base portion (1) with a proximal end. The cutting portion has a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1). The cutting portion is attached to the base portion at the proximal end of the cutting portion (Fig. 1). The first cutting edge and the second cutting edge are located at the distal end of the cutting portion (Fig. 1). Ubert does not explicitly disclose the base portion having a rounded profile at the proximal end of the base portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hecht discloses a cutting insert with a cutting portion (24) and a base portion (30a, 30b; Figs. 5-7). The base portion has a rounded profile at the proximal end of the base portion (Figs. 5-7). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a body as taught by Hecht in order to secure the cutting insert to a rotatable shaft.
(Claim 27) Ubert does not explicitly disclose the base portion having a through-going hole between the first side surface and the second side surface.
Hecht discloses the base portion having a through-going hole between the first side surface and the second side surface (58; Figs. 5-7). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a body as taught by Hecht in order to secure the cutting insert to a rotatable shaft.
(Claim 28) Ubert does not explicitly disclose the base portion having a portion shaped as a sector of a ring with a sector angle in the range 60 degrees to 180 degrees.
Hecht discloses the base portion having a portion shaped as a sector of a ring with a sector angle in the range 60 degrees to 180 degrees (Fig. 6). That is, as seen in Figure 6 and the cross formed at the center axis of the hole (58), a bisector of each sector of the cross on the right side would intersect the sector ring such that one of ordinary skill would recognize that the secotr ring is above 60 degrees and below 180 degrees. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a body as taught by Hecht in order to secure the cutting insert to a rotatable shaft.
(Claim 29) Ubert does not explicitly disclose the portion shaped as the sector of the ring having a uniform radial thickness.
Hecht discloses the portion shaped as a sector of a ring having a uniform radial thickness (Fig. 7; Col. 3, Lines 35-37). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert with a body as taught by Hecht in order to secure the cutting insert to a rotatable shaft and manufacture it efficiently.
(Claim 30) Ubert discloses the cutting insert having a thickness transverse to the first plane that increases when going from the proximal end of the base portion to the distal end of the cutting portion (Fig. 1).
(Claim 32) Ubert is silent on the material of the cutting insert.
Hecht discloses a cutting insert made of cemented carbide (Col. 3, Lines 10-11). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Ubert made of cemented carbide as taught by Hecht in order to take advantage of the strength and wear resistance characteristics of the material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Potemkin, the secondary reference, fails to disclose a base portion. Instead, Applicant argues, the widths change from a midpoint of a cutting face/portion. Examiner disagrees.
The modified Ubert insert reads upon the claimed invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (i.e., arguments against Potemkin alone), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Potemkin reference teaches the changing width in the cutting portion as claimed. While examiner does not agree with the definition of “an end portion at the base portion,” Ubert discloses the cutting portion extending from a base in such a manner. The modified Ubert insert would have the change of width in the cutting portion that extends from the base. Thus, the prior art of record reads upon claim 18.
Applicant may consider further limiting the shape of the periphery of the insert in combination with the V-shaped shoulder defining the boundary of the base portion.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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 RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722