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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hashimoto et al. (JP 2010058179 A, hereinafter ‘Hashimoto’).
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto teaches a tool part (Fig 1) comprising a main body 1 and at least one cutting zone (shown by Figs 2, 5, 7), wherein the cutting zone has a clearance face 10,13 and a rake face 6 which adjoin each other at a cutting edge 7 (Fig 2), wherein the rake face 6 has a coating 12 applied to a main body material (Abstract) of the main body 1 and extending as far as the cutting edge 7 (Figs 5,7), which coating 12 is harder than the main body material (Abstract), wherein the clearance face 10,13 is free of the coating 12 in a clearance zone 10 proceeding from the cutting edge (Figs 5,7), wherein the clearance face 10,13 has the coating 12 in a coating zone 13, wherein the clearance zone 10 extends along the cutting edge 7 only over a clearance length which is shorter than a cutting length of the cutting edge (shown by Figs 2 and 5), wherein the coating zone 13 adjoins the clearance zone 10 and extends radially outward from the cutting edge (Figs 4-5), and wherein a transition between the clearance zone 10 and the coating zone 13 comprises an axial cutting step (angled transition between 10 and 13, Figs 5-7) arranged at least partially nonparallel with respect to the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 2, Hashimoto teaches the tool part of claim 1, wherein the main body material is exposed in the clearance zone 10 (Figs 5,7; Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hashimoto does not disclose a transition between the clearance zone and the coating zone. This argument is respectfully traversed.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the remarks that Hashimoto does not disclose a transition between the clearance zone and the cutting zone. However, as explained in the rejection above, there is a clear distinction of an internal angle as a transition between the clearance zone and the cutting zone, as shown in Figures 5 and 7, that correspond with the secondary and tertiary cutting edges.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
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.
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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights