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 3, 4, 9, 17 and 18 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 3 recites “at least one surface section”. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 which recites “the surface sections”. There is inconsistency in the language thus making the claim unclear.
Claim 4 recites “at least one surface section”. Claim 4 depends from claim 1 which recites “the surface sections”. There is inconsistency in the language thus making the claim unclear.
Claim 9 recites “at least one surface section”. Claim 9 depends from claim 4, which then depends from claim 1 which recites “the surface sections”. There is inconsistency in the language thus making the claim unclear.
Claim 17 recites “ Distance compensating element for positioning reground cutting inserts in a cutting insert receiving area of a cutting tool, wherein the distance compensating clement is configured according to claim 1”. The limitations of claim 17 are similar to claim 1, thus it is unclear how claim 17 further limits claim 1.
Claim 18 recites “at least one surface section”. Claim 18 depends from claim 17, which then depends from claim 1 which recites “the surface sections”. There is inconsistency in the language thus making the claim unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the bearing surface section” and “the surface sections”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Musacchia Jr. (USP 4,722,642).
Regarding claim 1, Musacchia discloses a cutting tool for machining workpieces by chip removal, having at least one cutting insert which is releasably fastened on a tool holder in a cutting insert receiving area using a gripping and/or clamping element, wherein the cutting insert receiving area has a bearing surface which substantially corresponds to the basic shape of the cutting insert and comprises at least one wall section which extends vertically in relation to the bearing surface and is provided for orienting the cutting insert in the cutting insert receiving area and positions a cutting edge of the cutting insert in the cutting insert receiving area so that the cutting insert protrudes beyond the cutting insert receiving area and is opposite the at least one wall section (figures 1 and 2), wherein at least one distance compensating element (14) is arranged at least between the cutting insert and the cutting insert receiving area for the correct positioning of a reground cutting insert in the cutting insert receiving area, by means of which distance compensating element material removal is compensated for during regrinding of the cutting insert (figures 1-3 and abstract, last 5 lines and col.1, lines 64-66). Musacchia also discloses wherein the distance compensating element (14) has a bearing surface section (defined by Examiner as B: see below) with a reduced planar extent in relation to an upper or lower side of the base body of the cutting insert (as seen below, L1 is shorter than L2, thus reads on the length of B having a reduced planar extent in relation to L2. Please note: the claim language does not require the bearing surface to be in contact with the upper or lower side of the insert) and the distance compensating element (14) is held clamped by the bearing surface section (B) between the cutting insert and the cutting insert receiving area (see below),
[AltContent: textbox (B’)][AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (L2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
431
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Musacchia discloses wherein the distance compensating element (14) has a flat, plate-shaped base body (in this case) or a plate-shaped base body with a curved or wavy profile along a longitudinal axis of the base body, and the base body is configured so as to be rectangular (in this case), square polygonal, oval, round or to have a polygonal contour profile (col. 1, lines 39-51).
Regarding claim 3, Musacchia discloses wherein the base body of the distance compensating element (14) comprises at least one surface section (26) which extends at least in part along the wall section of the cutting insert receiving area and has the same or a smaller height than the wall section of the cutting insert receiving area and/or the same or a smaller length than the wall section of the cutting insert receiving area (figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Musacchia discloses wherein the distance compensating element (14), which has the base body with the at least one surface section, comprises a bearing surface section (26) which is connected as one piece to the at least one surface section (the other 26) (figure 3), and in that the bearing surface section and the at least one surface section comprise a thickness that corresponds to the amount removed during one or multiple regrinding operations of a rake surface of the cutting insert.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Musacchia discloses wherein the at least one surface section (one of the 26 of figure 3) adjacent to the bearing surface is oriented at an angle to the bearing surface section (the other 26) (i.e. when bent as shown in figure 1) and the at least one surface section is angled with respect to the bearing surface at an angle between 40° to 90°/ 60° to 90° (90 degrees in this case: figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Musacchia discloses wherein the distance compensating element (14) is configured as a stamped part, as a stamped-bent part or as a part cut with a cutting jet or as a cutting jet bent part (figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, Musacchia discloses wherein the distance compensating element (14) is made of stainless-steel sheet, light alloy, steel, metal foil or plastics (col. 4, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Musacchia discloses distance compensating element (14) for positioning reground cutting inserts in a cutting insert receiving area of a cutting tool, wherein the distance compensating element is configured according to claim 1 (figures 1-3 and abstract, last 5 lines and col.1, lines 64-66).
Regarding claim 18, Musacchia discloses wherein, by way of the at least one surface section (B’: see above) (one of the 26 of figure 3), arranged at an angle to the bearing surface section (B: see above) of the base body, of the distance compensating element, a clamping fit for the self-retaining positioning of the distance compensating element on the cutting insert is formed (figure 1 and col. 1, line 66 through col. 2, line 1).
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.
PLEASE NOTE: claim 12 was indicated as being allowable subject matter in the previous OA. However, Applicant included a portion of claim 12 and has 112 issues thus the allowance did not stand and the claim is rejected.
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 3/14/25