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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered.
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 20 and 22 – 24 is/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 20 recites the limitation "the pair of lateral faces" in lines 1 – 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 15 to which claim 20 depends has been amended to recite “a pair of side walls.” As such, claim 20 should be corrected accordingly for antecedent basis.
Claims 22 – 24 each recite “the inclined surface.” However, claim 21 to which claims 22 – 24 depend fail to recite an inclined surface. Claim 21 recites “a tapered surface” is disposed over an entire circumference…” It would appear that the claims 22 – 24 should be corrected to refer to “the tapered surface” instead of reciting the inclined surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasonde, et al. (US 9,643,334).
Kasonde, et al. teach a base body, comprising: a larger-diameter portion with a cylindrical shape having a constant diameter (item 38 – figure 2); and a smaller-diameter portion with a cylindrical shape having a constant diameter smaller than the constant diameter of the larger-diameter portion (item 36 – figure 2), wherein the larger-diameter portion has a circumference surface, an upper end surface and an outer ridge formed between the circumference surface and the upper end surface, the larger-diameter portion is co-axially connected to the smaller-diameter portion on the upper end surface thereof, and a tapered surface is disposed over an entire circumference of the outer ridge (figure 2) and extends in a longitudinal direction diagonal to an axial direction of the larger-diameter portion (see below, annotated figure):
PNG
media_image1.png
442
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruhn et al. (US 2003/0118413 A1).
Bruhn, et al. teach a base body, comprising: a larger-diameter portion with a cylindrical shape having a constant diameter (item 52 – figure 1); and a smaller-diameter portion with a cylindrical shape having a constant diameter smaller than the constant diameter of the larger-diameter portion (item 11 – figure 1), wherein the larger-diameter portion has a circumference surface, an upper end surface and an outer ridge formed between the circumference surface and the upper end surface, the larger-diameter portion is co-axially connected to the smaller-diameter portion on the upper end surface thereof, and a tapered surface is disposed over an entire circumference of the outer ridge (figure 1; examiner notes that the spring 51 connects the fitting 52 to the tool end 11 [or the smaller-diameter portion]) and extends in a longitudinal direction diagonal to an axial direction of the larger-diameter portion (see below, annotated figure):
PNG
media_image2.png
562
676
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22 – 24, 28 – 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasonde, et al.
With respect to claims 22 – 24, while Kasonde, et al. may not specifically teach the presence of a concave, convex or concave-convex portion at the inclined surface, the reference does teach different configurations for the base body (see figures 3 – 11) and thus, configuring the ridge to include a concave or convex portion is a change in shape. Examiner contends it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the base body as such. See MPEP 2144.04
With respect to claim 28, Kasonde teaches a hard sintered body comprising: the base body according to claim 21; and a cylinder part having a hollow cylindrical shape (column 7, lines 5 - 10, examiner notes that the reference teaches constructions for blank bodies comprised of a super-hard structure which is joined to the substrate, see also figures 3 – 11) covering the smaller-diameter part of the base body. In addition, the reference teaches that the cylinder part and base body are sintered integrally, wherein an inner peripheral surface of the cylinder part is bonded to an outer peripheral surface of the smaller-diameter portion, and a lower end surface of the cylinder part is bonded to the upper end surface of the larger- diameter portion (see figures 3 – 11; column 10, lines 10 – 20).
Kasonde, et al. may not specifically teach that the cylinder part has a lower coefficient of linear expansion and higher hardness than the base body, and wherein the cylinder part has an inclined portion which is bonded to the tapered surface of the base body, however, with respect to the coefficient of linear expansion, the reference teaches the same materials for both the base body and the cylinder part as that which applicant uses. For example, the base body may be cemented tungsten carbide (column 7, lines 10 – 11) and the cylinder part may be PCD or PCBN (column 7, line 12). Therefore, the examiner contends that the cylinder part would have a lower coefficient of linear expansion and higher hardness. With respect to the cylinder part having an inclined portion, because the reference teaches that the super hard construct is bonded to the substrate or core, it would be obvious that if the super hard construct would conform to the substrate surface and thus, if the substrate has an incline, the examiner contends that the super hard construct would have an inclined surface which corresponds to and complements the contour of the substrate. This is further obvious as figures 3 – 11 clearly show the construct(s) following the contour of the core or substrate.
With respect to claim 29, while Kasonde, et al. do not specifically teach the base body has a Young's modulus of 300 GPa or higher, and the cylinder part has a Young's modulus of 600 GPa or higher, examiner contends that these properties are obvious as the reference teaches the same materials for the base body and cylinder part. For example, the base body may be cemented tungsten carbide (column 7, lines 10 – 11) and the cylinder part may be PCD or PCBN (column 7, line 12).
With respect to claim 30, the reference teaches wherein the base body is made of any one of cemented carbide, cermet, and ceramics (column 7, lines 10 – 11), and the cylinder part is made of any one of polycrystalline diamond and polycrystalline cubic boron nitride (column 7, line 12).
With respect to claim 32, while not specifically teaching that the base body and super-hard construct is made into a cutting tool, examiner contends that such is obvious based on the teachings in Kasonde, et al. For example, the reference teaches that once the super-hard construct is made, it may be further ground and processed to form cutting edges for an end mill or router cutting tool (column 12, lines 40 – 42). Furthermore, while not specifically reciting the inclusion of a chip discharge flute, because Kasonde, et al. teach that the super-hard construct may be ground to form the cutting edge for a rotary cutting tool or router cutting tool the inclusion of a chip discharge flute is also obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 – 18, 25 – 27 and 31 is/are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Examiner first notes that claim(s) 25 and 31 depend on claim 15 and as such examiner addresses allowable subject matter in claim 15 below.
With respect to claim 15, the closest prior art reference (cited previously) of Camco (EP 0764760 A2) teaches a base body (see figure 6), with a large diameter portion with a cylindrical shape and constant diameter, wherein the larger diameter portion has a circumference surface, an upper end surface and an outer ridge formed between the circumference surface and the upper end surface (see figure 6 and 7); Camco further teaches a plurality of slits formed on the outer ridge of the larger-diameter portion with intervals therebetween (examiner notes that there are notches dispersed along the outer perimeter). In addition, the slits include a pair of sidewalls facing each other in a circumferential direction; however, the slits do not include an inclined surface formed at the bottom of the slit and between the pair of sidewalls, wherein the inclined surface extends in a longitudinal direction diagonal to an axial direction of the larger diameter portion. The surface(s) as seen in figure 6 and 7 (see cross-section) are not inclined but are fully vertical. Thus, claim 15 is neither taught nor rendered obvious over the prior art.
Examiner further notes that claim 20 depends on allowable claim 15; however, claim 20 has been rejected for lack of antecedent basis and thus, must be corrected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed June 2, 2026, with respect to the prior rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive and thus, such rejections have been withdrawn.
With respect to applicant’s arguments, see page 12 – 13, filed June 2, 2026 with respect to the prior art rejection(s) over the references of Camco and Farrarons, such arguments are also found persuasive. Examiner concurs with respect to claim 15 and 21, that neither reference teaches the presence of slits with an inclined surface or a tapered surface as claimed. In addition, examiner concurs that while Farrarons appears to teach an incline, there is no motivation to combine the two references.
Upon further search and consideration, the examiner has cited the additional references of Kasonde, et al. and Bruhn, et al., however as noted in the action above, claim 15 is indicated allowable as none of the closest prior art references teaches or renders obvious the presence of slits formed on the outer ridge of the large-diameter portions wherein such slits specifically include an inclined surface formed at the bottom of the slit and between the pair of side walls, wherein the inclined surface extends in a longitudinal direction diagonal to an axial direction of the larger-diameter portion. Examiner concurs that while Camco teaches slits or recesses, the slits do not include an inclined surface but a vertical surface which is parallel with the axial direction of the larger-diameter portion and not diagonal.
With respect to claim 21, however, the examiner finds that both Bruhn, et al. and Kasonde, et al. teach the taper at the outer ridge. Kasonde, et al. is further applied to teach or render obvious the dependent claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA VERONICA EWALD whose telephone number is (571)272-8519. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri ~9am-5:30pm 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-270-7769. 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.
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights