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 § 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.
Claims 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida (JP H08126904) in view of Stricker (US 4479744).
Regarding claim 16, Ishida discloses a cutting insert capable of producing a V-shaped profile in a workpiece by radial piercing relative to an axis of rotation of the workpiece (turning). The cutting insert comprises a reference plane and a V-shaped piercing region converging in a V-shaped manner at a cutting corner connecting two edges together. A cutting angle is measured between the two edges and an axis of symmetry bisects the corner of the insert. The insert comprises a rake face 4 and a plurality of elongate chip-guiding depressions 5 are formed in said rake face. Each chip-guiding depression has a low point lying below said reference plane (see e.g. Fig. 3) and extend parallel to a depression extension axis contained in said reference plane in a viewing direction perpendicular to said reference plane. The depression extension axes each extend at a depression chip-guiding angle measured on a side of the corner between said axis of symmetry and said depression extension axis in a viewing direction perpendicular to the reference plane. The rake face also comprises a plurality of chip-guiding elevations 6 extending to above the reference plane, alternating with said chip-guiding depressions 5 in a viewing direction perpendicular to said reference plane (see e.g. Figs. 6 & 7). The chip-guiding elevations are elongate and each extend parallel to an elevation axis contained in the reference plane in a viewing direction perpendicular to said reference plane. The elevation extension axes each extend at an elevation chip-guiding angle from 0˚ to 45˚ measurable on a side of the cutting corner between the elevation axis and axis of symmetry in a viewing direction perpendicular to the reference plane (Page 2, Paragraph 5 and Page 3, Paragraph 5 which both describe the grooves and ridges being similarly sized and arranged). Ishida only illustrates a single cutting edge and does not explicitly disclose two cutting edges meeting at the cutting corner, each cutting edge being provided with chip-guiding depressions, or a specific cutting edge angle.
Stricker discloses a cutting insert for producing a V-shaped profile in a workpiece by turning. The V-shaped piercing region has two cutting edges 10/10” converging in a V-shaped manner, each cutting edge being provided with chip-guiding depressions 1/2/3. The two cutting edges exhibit a cutting edge angle of 20˚ to 60˚ (60˚ in this case).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the cutting insert of Ishida with two converging cutting edges on either side of the cutting corner, each cutting edge being provided with chip-guiding depressions as taught by Stricker, in order to increase the utility of the turning insert by allowing machining in either feed direction. Additionally, providing the rhombus-shaped insert of Ishida with a 20˚ to 60˚ cutting edge angle as taught by Stricker would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, depending on the turning operation being performed on the workpiece. Such a cutting edge angle would result in the depression chip-guiding angle of Ishida lying in the range of from 0˚ to 45˚, as Ishida discloses the angle α being between 0˚ and 40˚ with respect to the cutting edge. In the case of a 60˚ cutting edge angle, the depression chip-guiding angle would be between -10˚ and 30˚ with respect to the corner bisector.
Regarding claim 17, Ishida discloses the depression chip-guiding angle being between 10˚ and 40˚ as discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, the modified cutting insert of claim 16 would have at least two of the depression extension axes being disposed mirror-symmetrically to the axis of symmetry in a viewing direction perpendicular to the reference plane.
Regarding claim 19, Ishida discloses the chip-guiding depressions, in a viewing direction perpendicular to said reference plane (i.e. Fig. 2) each having a maximum length measured parallel to said depression extension axis and a maximum width W measured perpendicularly to said depression extension axis. Neither Ishida nor Stricker explicitly disclose a specific length to width ratio of between 1.1 to 20.
However, optimizing the length and width of the chip guiding depressions to have a ratio of length to width to be between 1.1 and 20 would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to provide adequate chip evacuation while not overly weakening the structure of the insert and depending on the material being machined.
Regarding claim 20, Ishida discloses the arrangement/placement of the chip-guiding depressions being determined arbitrarily (Page 2, 3rd Paragraph of the attached English translation), but neither Ishida nor Stricker explicitly disclose the claimed minimum distance.
However, simply arranging the chip-guiding depressions to a minimum distance, in this case 1 to 3 times greater than the cutting corner width from the intersection point of the cutting corner and axis of symmetry would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made. Such chip-guiding depression spacing would result in a strong, uninterrupted cutting edge at the point of greatest machining load, while allowing for chip guiding/breaking farther from the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 23, Ishida discloses the chip-guiding elevations and chip-guiding depressions alternately alternating in a viewing direction perpendicular to the reference plane (i.e. Fig. 6). As discussed above the chip-guiding angle of the depressions and elevations are disclosed as being ‘similar’, but there is not an explicit difference in angle taught.
Stricker discloses a difference in extension angle between chip-guiding features of from 0˚ to 15˚ (Col. 4, Lines 54-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a difference between at least one of the chip-guiding depressions and chip-guiding elevations of the insert of claim 16 to be between 0˚ and 15˚ as taught by Stricker, in order to reduce the cutting load and thermal stress on the insert (Col. 4, Lines 20-29).
Regarding claim 24, neither Ishida nor Stricker explicitly disclose the claimed cutting edge angle, as the art recognizes that cutting edge geometry is applicable across a wide variety of shapes of inserts. Therefore, Examiner takes Official Notice that providing a turning insert having chip-forming geometry with a cutting edge angle of between 35˚ and 45˚ would have been an obvious modification to the insert of claim 16 one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, depending on the operation (e.g. grooving, finishing, etc.) being performed on the workpiece.
Regarding claim 25, Ishida discloses the invention having all the structural limitations as set forth above with respect to claim 16, and specifically discloses a device whose component members could have been made by forming the chip-guiding depressions without grinding and sintering. However, if applicant does not agree that Ishida anticipates the process of how the device’s components were made, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of filing to make the device using any known manufacturing process, such as not grinding the depressions and sintering the insert, to produce an insert that is easier to manufacture/requires fewer machining operations than producing an insert then grinding depressions therein. Furthermore, “unground, sintered surface” is considered a Product-by-Process limitation. (See MPEP Section 2113).
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Regarding claim 26, Ishida discloses the insert being rhombus-shaped (i.e. Fig. 1), such that said V-shaped piercing region is a first V-shaped piercing region, and at least one second V-shaped piercing region (i.e. the opposite corner) has two cutting edges contained in said reference plane and converging in a V-shaped manner towards each other in a viewing direction perpendicular to the reference plane. Said two cutting edges of said at least one second V-shaped piercing region directly follow said two cutting edges of said first V-shaped piercing region perpendicular to the axis of symmetry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 with respect to claims 16-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant makes the argument that Ishida discloses a perpendicular line n with respect to the cutting edge, and that the angle α defines a clockwise deviation of the grooves/elevations present in the rake face of the insert. This assertion is incorrect, and the argument is respectfully traversed.
Viewing the annotated Figure 2 of Ishida below, it can be clearly seen that the perpendicular line n is defined as the right line, and the angle α is actually a counter-clockwise rotation with respect to line n. Therefore, if α were to be increased in the disclosed range of 0 to 40 degrees, the grooves/elevations would become closer to parallel with the corner bisector, not farther away as asserted.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Ishida as modified above, to have cutting edges provided on both edges of an insert with a cutting corner of 20 to 60 degrees, such as the insert taught by Stricker, would read on independent claim 16 as amended. Accordingly, the rejection(s) are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights