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
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20200090182 A.
Regarding claim 1, ‘182 discloses a shank of a head-replaceable cutting tool, comprising an attaching part (X1: see below) to which a head (10) is attached (figures 1 and 2), wherein the shank is L-shaped (figures 1, 2 and 5), having a main body part with a constant transverse section (T) and exactly one stepped portion (S) extending away from the transverse section (T) of the main body part on one side of the main body part-extending in a direction perpendicular to an axis of the shank (see figures below), wherein an entirety of the stepped portion (S) extends away from the transverse section (T) of the main body part, and wherein an entirety of the attaching part (X1) is arranged in the stepped portion (S) at an off-center position relative to the axis of the shank (X1 is at an off-center position relative to the shank’s longitudinal axis/X1 is laterally displaced from the center of the shank) (see figures below).
[AltContent: textbox (X1)][AltContent: textbox (X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
638
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (S)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (X2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (S)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (T)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
347
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
256
347
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, ‘182 discloses wherein the axis of the shank corresponds to an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction of the shank, and the attaching part
for the head is arranged so as to be off-center in the direction perpendicular to the axis
(figure 8).
Regarding claim 3, ‘182 discloses wherein the axis of the shank extends in a longitudinal direction of the shank, and the attaching part is arranged so as to be off-
center relative to the axis of the shank along a feeding direction of a workpiece, the workpiece being an object to be cut (figure 8).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, ‘182 discloses one or more additional attaching parts (X2), wherein the one or more additional attaching parts (X2) are arranged along a direction in which the attaching part (X1) is arranged off-center (see figure above).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, ‘182 discloses a shank according to claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the shank in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the shank is rectangular (figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 11,‘182 discloses wherein the attaching part (X) is arranged such that the head (10) extends parallel to the axis of the shank when the head is attached to the attaching part (figure 8).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200090182 A.
‘182 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection above. ‘182 does not one of the one or more additional attaching parts (X2) is arranged at a position on the axis of the shank. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the art to reposition attachment parts so that its center is located on the longitudinal axis of the shank in order to apply lamping force more centrally through the shank, thus reducing eccentric load, distribute the clamping load more uniformly and improving the overall stability of the connection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to reposition attachment parts since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200090182 A in view of Lin (US Pub. No. 2010/0322722).
‘182 discloses all aspects of the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection above. ‘182 does not explicitly disclose an oil hole configured to discharge cutting oil toward the head attached to the attaching part. ‘182 also does not explicitly disclose the oil hole is provided on a surface where the attaching part is arranged, at a portion other than the attaching part. Lin teaches an oil hole (152,18) configured to discharge cutting oil toward the head 20 attached to the attaching part 12 ([0025]). In addition, Lin teaches the oil hole (152, 18) is provided on a surface where the attaching part (12) is arranged (Figs 1-4), at a portion other than the attaching part (12) (Figs 1-4). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘182 to include the cutting oil hole as taught by Lin in order to increase the efficiency and precision of the cutting as a result of utilizing the cutting liquid at the cutter (Lin, [0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims 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 SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 9/5/26
Prosecution Insights