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 15-32 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.
The Examiner can’t ascertain the meets and bounds of the claims because the Examiner can not determine the structure claimed or how they connect to one another.
It is not clear what the bottom face is.
For purposes of Examination the art is considered to meet the claim limitations.
Regarding claims including 31-32, it is not clear what the meets and bounds of the term shank is and how it would be located in the axial direction as claimed. The term shank is defined as, “a long, narrow part of a tool connecting the handle to the operational end”. The figures show a portion that can be considered a long narrow part connected to the tool or cutting tool face or shank (See figures).
Further, the term “chip discharge flute” as in claim 32 is not defined. It’s not clear what that structure is.
For purposes of Examination the art is considered to meet the claim limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 15-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camco (EP 0764760 A2) (cited by applicant), in view of Farrarons (EP 0628369).
Camco (EP 0764760 A2) (cited by applicant), teaches two pillar two cylindrical members with a edge area that has a recess with sides as claimed (See figures).
Caco shows a slanted surface (See figures); meeting claims 18 and rendering obvious claim 16 to optimize the angel for cutting applications.
Camco may not teach all the limitations.
Farrarons (EP 0628369) teaches a cutting tool with substantially identical structure, having a smaller and larger cylindrical members and an inclined section going inward (to the extent defined); compare to applicant’s figures (See figures, including Figure 18).
The front faces (17) of the cutting inserts (15) are machined to form concave teeth (see claims).
Farrarons (EP 0628369) teaches concave and convex shaped inclines (See figures).
Regarding claims 30 at least, Farrarons (EP 0628369) teaches the same polycrystalline diamond coating of the drill hard surface in the same geometry claimed and disclosed in the instant specification to the extent to which the geometry/structure or shape of the claimed figure can be determined (See figures).
Regarding claim 29, it would have bene obvious to provide the Claimed Youngs modulus in order to provide a hard material for a cutting tool without breaking absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 27, the cutting tool is a carbide and coated at the end portion with polycrystalline diamond (see abstract and claims).
Claims do not clearly describe the connection and geometry of the object or materials claimed. It is not clear what the structure claimed is. Specifically, (1) it is not clear what the “inward” incline direction is, (2) where the base material is or what it is; (3) where the incline portion is located.
Further claims to incline portions or walls are not clear.
For purposes of examination the cited art is considered to meet the claim limitations to the extent the claims define a discernable structure.
Regarding claims including 32, it is not clear what the meets and bounds of the term shank is and how it would be located in the axial direction as claimed. The term shank is defined as, “a long, narrow part of a tool connecting the handle to the operational end”. The figures show a portion that can be considered a long narrow part connected to the tool or cutting tool face or shank (See figures).
Further, the term “chip discharge flute” is not defined. It s not clear what that structure is.
The art teaches a cutting edge as claimed (See figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill a the time of filing to provide different inclined geometry to optimize cutting ability (especially within the disclosed embodiments), to the extent to which the claims meaning can be determined.
Regarding the new limitations, to the extent the applicant has properly defined the configuration of the art is considered to teach the same or substantially identical structure, or alternatively it would have been obvious to provide the claimed structure absent a showing of criticality; additionally it is not clear that any difference (which can’t be ascertained based on the claims) it is not clear that there is a functional difference which amounts to a patentable distinction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783