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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “attaching part” in claims 1-8.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishizawa (JP 2013-244583), reference made to the translated document submitted by applicant on 07/05/2022.
Regarding claim 1, Ishizawa discloses a shank 14 of a head-replaceable cutting tool 11, comprising an attaching part 16 to which a head 1 is attached, wherein the shank is L-shaped (Figs 1-2, 4-5), having exactly one stepped portion 11a on one side extending in a direction perpendicular to an axis of the shank (shown in the annotated figure below), and the attaching part 16 is arranged in the stepped portion at an off-center position relative to the axis of the shank (Fig 4, the lower attaching part 16 is off center of the longitudinal axis shown in the annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
229
288
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1, wherein the axis of the shank corresponds to an axis that extends in a longitudinal direction of the shank (shown in the annotated figure above), and the attaching part 16 for the head is arranged so as to be off-center in the direction perpendicular to the axis (Fig 4, the lower attaching part 16 is off center of the longitudinal axis shown in the annotated figure).
Regarding claim 3, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1, wherein the axis of the shank extends in a longitudinal direction of the shank (shown in the annotated figure above), 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 ([0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1, comprising one or more additional attaching parts 16 (Fig 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 4, wherein the one or more additional attaching parts are arranged along a direction in which the attaching part is arranged off-center (Fig 4, the lower attaching part 16 is off center of the longitudinal axis shown in the annotated figure).
Regarding claim 6, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 4, wherein one of the one or more additional attaching parts 16 is arranged at a position on the axis of the shank (Fig 4, shown in the annotated figure below claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ishizawa discloses a cutting tool 11 comprising a shank according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1, wherein a cross-section of the shank 14 in the direction perpendicular to the axis of the shank is rectangular (Figs 1-2, 4-5 show the cross-section of a square).
Regarding claim 11, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1, wherein the attaching part 16 is arranged such that the head 1 extends parallel to the axis of the shank when the head is attached to the attaching part (Fig 1).
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) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (US 20100322722 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Ishizawa discloses the shank according to claim 1. Ishizawa does not explicitly disclose an oil hole configured to discharge cutting oil toward the head attached to the attaching part. Ishizawa 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.
However, 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 Ishizawa 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 claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new combination of references than that applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh 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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722