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 .
Drawings
The replacement of Figure 5 of the Drawings filed on 08/20/2025 are accepted.
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 1-9, and 18-20 are 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 1 recites in lines 8-9 that “the cutting portion is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes that have a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases”. However, it is unclear what exactly defines this “variable rate” of the helical flutes and what exactly is being impacted by this “rate”. Is this the rate of helix angle? Rate of depth of flute? Width of flutes? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in line 4 that the ridge extends “linearly away from the axis at an acute angle relative to the axis”. However, the metes and bounds of where exactly this axis is being located at, are unclear. From where to where is this angle defined at? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 18 recites in lines 8-9 that “the cutting portion is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes that have a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases”. However, it is unclear what exactly defines this “variable rate” of the helical flutes and what exactly is being impacted by this “rate”. Is this the rate of helix angle? Rate of depth of flute? Width of flutes? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 20 recites in line 4 that the ridge extends “linearly away from the axis at an acute angle relative to the axis”. However, the metes and bounds of where exactly this axis is being located at, are unclear. From where to where is this angle defined at? Further clarification is needed.
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) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddall US 4,065,224 in view of Onose et al. US 2009/0016832 (hereafter—Onose--).
In regards to claims 1 and 8, Siddall discloses a boring tool (Figure 3) comprising: a coupling portion for interfacing with a powered driver; a shank operably coupled to the coupling portion; a cutting portion operably coupled to the shank; and a cutting tip operably coupled to a distal end of the cutting portion relative to the shank, wherein the coupling portion, the shank, the cutting portion and the cutting tip share an axis, wherein the cutting portion is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes, wherein the shank comprises a torsion zone; and wherein the cutting tip comprises a point angle (P) between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees (see column 3, lines 35-38).
However, Siddall fails to discloses that the flutes have a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, wherein the variable is nonlinear; and that a width of grooves of the flutes decreases as distance from the cutting tip increases (claim 8).
Nevertheless, Onose teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools to have flutes with a non-linear variable rate (see Figures 2A and 2B), in this case varying helix/torsion angles, which increases as distance from the cutting tip increases. Note that in Figure 2B, the helix angle α1/αx/α2, increases non linearly from the tip portion to a shank portion along the entire length of L (made up of L1+L2+L3). Onose also discloses to have a width of grooves of the helical cutting flutes decrease as distance from the cutting tip increases (see that in Figures 1 and 2A, an axial width of the groove closest to the cutting tip is larger than an axial width of the groove closes to the shank 14). This variable rate and width influences the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
1205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Siddall’s flutes with a variable rate, nonlinear increase that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, and to have a width of grooves of the helical cutting flutes decrease as distance from the cutting tip increases (for claim 8), as taught by Onose, to influence the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
Claim(s) 1-9, 18-19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas et al. US 2010/0054881 (hereafter—Thomas--) in view of Siddall US 4,065,224 and in further view of Gischus et al. US 2012/0275875 (hereafter—Gischus--) and in further view of Onose et al. US 2009/0016832 (hereafter—Onose--).
In regards to claim 1, Thomas discloses a boring tool (Figures 1-5) comprising: a coupling portion (refer to a portion of the shank 12 which will be coupled to a power driver) for interfacing with a powered driver; a shank (12) operably coupled to the coupling portion; a cutting portion (16) operably coupled to the shank (12); and a cutting tip (14) operably coupled to a distal end of the cutting portion relative to the shank (see Figure 1), wherein the coupling portion, the shank, the cutting portion and the cutting tip share an axis (see Figures 1-2), wherein the cutting portion (16) is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes (see flutes on 16) that are disposed at a helix angle, and wherein the cutting tip comprises a point angle (in the same way as presented by Applicant in Figure 5, refer to the point angle defined by cutting edges on Figure 1 of Thomas).
However, Thomas fails to discloses that the shank comprises a torsion zone.
Nevertheless, Gischus teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools (Figures 1-12), to have a shank (12) with a torsion zone (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc.) having a reduced diameter relative to other portions of the shank (so as to be capable of absorbing shock from an impact driver), and a hexagonal coupling portion at the distal end of the shank (12). In the event the mechanical stresses in the machine tool bit exceed a critical level, the tool will fail (by breaking, fracturing and so on) at the torsion zone (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc.), meaning that the work portion of the tool remains undamaged and may be removed quickly and easily from the component (paragraph [0056]). Hexagonal coupling portions are well known to those skilled in the art to provide secure engagement with a correspondingly shaped receiving portion in the machine tool (paragraph [0014]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Thomas’s shank with a torsion zone of reduced diameter as taught by Gischus and to have the coupling portion be hexagonal as also taught by Gischus, to allow failure of the tool be at that torsion zone thus, allowing the work portion of the tool to remain undamaged and allow easily removal from the broken component, in the event the mechanical stresses in the machine tool bit exceed a critical level (paragraph [0056] of Gischus) and to provide secure engagement with a correspondingly shaped receiving portion in the machine tool (paragraph [0014] of Gischus).
However, Thomas fails to discloses that point angle of the cutting tip is between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees.
Nevertheless, Siddall teaches that it is well known in the art to have a boring tool (Figure 3) comprising: a coupling portion for interfacing with a powered driver; a shank operably coupled to the coupling portion; a cutting portion operably coupled to the shank; and a cutting tip operably coupled to a distal end of the cutting portion relative to the shank, wherein the coupling portion, the shank, the cutting portion and the cutting tip share an axis, wherein the cutting portion is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes, wherein the shank comprises a torsion zone; and wherein the cutting tip comprises a point angle (P) between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees (see column 3, lines 35-38). Siddall discloses that the ranges of the point angle, will depend on the type of material being machined.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify the point angle of the cutting tip of Thomas, to be between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees as taught by Siddall, depending on the type of material being machined.
Additionally, since Thomas does, however, disclose that there is a point angle defined by the cutting tip; the value of the point angle of the cutting tip constitutes a defined angle of the cutting tool. Therefore, the value of the point angle of the cutting tip is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the point angle of the cutting tip will depend on the type of material being machined and strength of the cutting tip (see at least col 1, lines 17-29 and lines 50-68 of Siddall). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined cutting tip disposed at a point angle, were disclosed in the prior art by Thomas, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Thomas’s point angle of the cutting tip, to be within a desired range such as between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees as taught by Siddall. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Thomas fails to discloses that the helix angle to which the flutes are disposed is a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, wherein the variable is nonlinear.
Nevertheless, Onose teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools to have flutes with a non-linear variable rate helix angle (see Figures 2A and 2B), in this case varying helix/torsion angles, which increases as distance from the cutting tip increases. Note that in Figure 2B, the helix angle α1/αx/α2, increases non linearly from the tip portion to a shank portion along the entire length of L (made up of L1+L2+L3). Onose also discloses to have a width of grooves of the helical cutting flutes decrease as distance from the cutting tip increases (see that in Figures 1 and 2A, an axial width of the groove closest to the cutting tip is larger than an axial width of the groove closes to the shank 14) (for claim 8). This non-linear helix variable rate and width influences the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
1205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Thomas’s flutes with a variable rate, nonlinear increase that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, and to have a width of grooves of the helical cutting flutes decrease as distance from the cutting tip increases (for claim 8), as taught by Onose, to influence the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
In regards to claim 2, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that the point angle of the cutting tip is between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees; however, fails to explicitly disclose that the point angle is less than 115°.
Since Thomas does, however, disclose that there is a point angle defined by the cutting tip; the value of the point angle of the cutting tip constitutes a defined angle of the cutting tool. Therefore, the value of the point angle of the cutting tip is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the point angle of the cutting tip will depend on the type of material being machined and strength of the cutting tip (see at least col 1, lines 17-29 and lines 50-68 of Siddall). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined cutting tip disposed at a point angle, were disclosed in the prior art by Thomas, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed, based on the teachings of Siddall, to provide Thomas’s point angle of the cutting tip, to be within a desired range such as less than 115 degrees. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 3, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that the cutting tip further comprises a split point (in the same way as presented by Applicant, refer to the split point as in Figure 3 of Thomas).
In regards to claim 4, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 2, Thomas as modified also discloses that the cutting tip (Figure 3 of Thomas) comprises a first face and a second face each extending away from the axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s Figure 6, refer to Figure 3 of Thomas), wherein the first and second faces are disposed between adjacent grooves of the helical cutting flutes, and wherein the first and second faces meet at a ridge that extends linearly away from the axis at an acute angle relative to the axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 5, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that the torsion zone (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc. of Gischus) comprises a portion of the shank (12 of Thomas) having a reduced diameter (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc. of Gischus) relative to other portions of the shank (of Thomas) so as to be capable of absorbing shock from an impact driver.
In regards to claim 6, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 5, Thomas as modified also discloses the reduced diameter and that the shank has a diameter.
However, Thomas as modified fails to disclose that the reduced diameter is between about 80% to about 95% of a diameter of the other portions of the shank.
Since Thomas as modified does, however, disclose that the shank has a diameter and that there is a reduction in diameter at the torsion zone (as taught by Gischus); the amount of diameter reduction in relation to the other portions of the shank constitutes a defined reduction in diameter amount of the cutting tool. Therefore, the amount of reduced diameter on the torsion zone, in relation to the diameter of the shank, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the amount of reduced diameter in relation to other portions of the shank depend on maintaining the integrity of the shank strength while still allowing the tool to be quickly and easily removed from a tool component in the event of tool failure (paragraph [0056] Gischus). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined amount of diameter reduction in relation to the other portions of the shank, were disclosed in the prior art by Thomas as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed, based on the teachings of Gischus, to provide Thomas’s amount of diameter reduction, to be within a desired range such as between about 80% to about 95% of a diameter of the other portions of the shank. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claim 7, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that a depth of grooves (of Thomas) of the helical cutting flutes (of Thomas) decreases as distance from the cutting tip increases (see Figure 2, and note that due to the tapering nature of the core of Thomas, the depth of the grooves decreases from the tip towards the shank).
In regards to claim 8, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that a width of grooves of the helical cutting flutes decreases as distance from the cutting tip increases (as modified by Onose above).
In regards to claim 9, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 1, Thomas as modified also discloses that the coupling portion (of Thomas as modified by Gischus) is a hex head.
However, fails to explicitly disclose that it is a 1/4 inch hex head.
Nevertheless, the Examiner took Official Notice1 on the fact that it is well known in the art of rotary tools, that rotary tools come in different shapes and sizes that will depend on the type of machining being performed and the type of material being machined; ¼ inch hex head is an example of a standard size of rotary tool, e.g. drill bit. To change the shape and size of the hex head of the coupling portion of the rotary tool would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the type of machining being performed and type of material being machined.
Therefore, since the Examiner took Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant's invention was filed, to modify Thomas's hex head coupling portion size to be ¼ inch, will depending on the type of machining being performed, size of the workpiece being machined and type of material being machined; and no traversal was made on the Examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See Ahlert, 424 F.2d at 1091, 165 USPQ at 420. See MPEP section 2144.03 C.
Furthermore, it would’ve been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the hex head of Thomas be ¼ inch, since the only difference between modified Thomas’s hex head, and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, i.e., ¼ inch, and the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device of Thomas, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
In regards to claim 18, Thomas discloses a boring tool (Figures 1-5) comprising: a coupling portion (refer to a portion of the shank 12 which will be coupled to a power driver) for interfacing with a powered driver; a shank (12) operably coupled to the coupling portion; a cutting portion (16) operably coupled to the shank (12); and a cutting tip (14) operably coupled to a distal end of the cutting portion relative to the shank (see Figure 1), wherein the coupling portion, the shank, the cutting portion and the cutting tip share an axis (see Figures 1-2), wherein the cutting portion (16) is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes (see flutes on 16) disposed at a helix angle, and wherein the cutting tip comprises a point angle (in the same way as presented by Applicant in Figure 5, refer to the point angle defined by cutting edges on Figure 1 of Thomas).
However, Thomas fails to discloses that the shank comprises a portion having a reduced diameter that is 80% to 95% of a diameter of other portions of the shank so as to be capable of absorbing shock from an impact driver.
Nevertheless, Gischus teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools (Figures 1-12), to have a shank (12) with a torsion zone (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc.) having a reduced diameter relative to other portions of the shank (so as to be capable of absorbing shock from an impact driver), and a hexagonal coupling portion at the distal end of the shank (12). In the event the mechanical stresses in the machine tool bit exceed a critical level, the tool will fail (by breaking, fracturing and so on) at the torsion zone (24, 34, 44, 65, 63, etc.), meaning that the work portion of the tool remains undamaged and may be removed quickly and easily from the component (paragraph [0056]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Thomas’s shank with a torsion zone of reduced diameter as taught by Gischus, to allow failure of the tool be at that torsion zone thus, allowing the work portion of the tool to remain undamaged and allow easily removal from the broken component, in the event the mechanical stresses in the machine tool bit exceed a critical level (paragraph [0056] of Gischus).
Since Thomas as modified does, however, disclose that the shank has a diameter and that there is a reduction in diameter at the torsion zone (as taught by Gischus); the amount of diameter reduction in relation to the other portions of the shank constitutes a defined reduction in diameter amount of the cutting tool. Therefore, the amount of reduced diameter on the torsion zone, in relation to the diameter of the shank, is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the amount of reduced diameter in relation to other portions of the shank depend on maintaining the integrity of the shank strength while still allowing the tool to be quickly and easily removed from a tool component in the event of tool failure (paragraph [0056] Gischus). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined amount of diameter reduction in relation to the other portions of the shank, were disclosed in the prior art by Thomas as modified, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed, based on the teachings of Gischus, to provide Thomas’s amount of diameter reduction, to be within a desired range such as between about 80% to about 95% of a diameter of the other portions of the shank. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Thomas fails to discloses that point angle of the cutting tip is between about 110 degrees and about 100 degrees.
Nevertheless, Siddall teaches that it is well known in the art to have a boring tool (Figure 3) comprising: a coupling portion for interfacing with a powered driver; a shank operably coupled to the coupling portion; a cutting portion operably coupled to the shank; and a cutting tip operably coupled to a distal end of the cutting portion relative to the shank, wherein the coupling portion, the shank, the cutting portion and the cutting tip share an axis, wherein the cutting portion is defined by a plurality of helical cutting flutes, wherein the shank comprises a torsion zone; and wherein the cutting tip comprises a point angle (P) between about 120 degrees and about 90 degrees (see column 3, lines 35-38), which the claimed range is within. Siddall discloses that the ranges of the point angle, will depend on the type of material being machined.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify the point angle of the cutting tip of Thomas, to be between about 110 degrees and about 100 degrees as taught by Siddall, depending on the type of material being machined.
Additionally, since Thomas does, however, disclose that there is a point angle defined by the cutting tip; the value of the point angle of the cutting tip constitutes a defined angle of the cutting tool. Therefore, the value of the point angle of the cutting tip is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the point angle of the cutting tip will depend on the type of material being machined and strength of the cutting tip (see at least col 1, lines 17-29 and lines 50-68 of Siddall). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined cutting tip disposed at a point angle, were disclosed in the prior art by Thomas, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Thomas’s point angle of the cutting tip, to be within a desired range such as between about 110 degrees and about 100 degrees as taught by Siddall. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
However, Thomas fails to discloses that the helix angle to which the flutes are disposed is a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, wherein the variable is nonlinear.
Nevertheless, Onose teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools to have flutes with a non-linear variable rate helix angle (see Figures 2A and 2B), in this case varying helix/torsion angles, which increases as distance from the cutting tip increases. Note that in Figure 2B, the helix angle α1/αx/α2, increases non linearly from the tip portion to a shank portion along the entire length of L (made up of L1+L2+L3) (see annotated Figure 2B of Onose above). This non-linear helix variable rate and width influences the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Thomas’s flutes with a variable rate, nonlinear increase that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, as taught by Onose, to influence the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
In regards to claim 19, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 18, Thomas as modified also discloses that the cutting tip further comprises a split point (in the same way as presented by Applicant, refer to the split point as in Figure 3 of Thomas).
In regards to claim 20, Thomas as modified discloses the boring tool of claim 19, Thomas as modified also discloses that the cutting tip (Figure 3 of Thomas) comprises a first face and a second face each extending away from the axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s Figure 6, refer to Figure 3 of Thomas), wherein the first and second faces are disposed between adjacent grooves of the helical cutting flutes, and wherein the first and second faces meet at a ridge that extends linearly away from the axis at an acute angle relative to the axis (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant's amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-9, and 18-20 have been carefully and fully considered and are not persuasive. As stated in the rejection above, it is unclear what exactly defines this “variable rate” of the helical flutes and what exactly is being impacted by this “rate”. Is this the rate of helix angle? Rate of depth of flute? Width of flutes? Further clarification is needed.
Rejections not based on Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/20/2025 with respect to claims 1-9, and 18-20 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over Thomas et al. US 2010/0054881 (hereafter—Thomas--) in view of Siddall US 4,065,224 and in further view of Gischus et al. US 2012/0275875 (hereafter—Gischus--) and in further view of Onose et al. US 2009/0016832 (hereafter—Onose--) for Claim(s) 1-9, 18-19 and 20 have been incorporated as aforementioned.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddall US 4,065,224 in view of Onose et al. US 2009/0016832 (hereafter—Onose--), for amended claim 1, that teaching reference Onose fails to disclose that cutting flutes have a variable rate that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, wherein the variable is nonlinear. This, as best understood is because section L2 (as annotated by Applicant on page 9 of the remarks) shows a linear increase.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and point out to the rejection above for details.
As set forth in the rejection above, teaching reference Onose teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary cutting tools to have flutes with a non-linear variable rate (see Figures 2A and 2B), in this case varying helix/torsion angles, which increases as distance from the cutting tip increases. Note that in Figure 2B, the helix angle α1/αx/α2, increases non linearly from the tip portion towards a shank portion. Note that as the distance from the tip increases, the helix angle changes non-linearly from α1, to αx, to α2, along the entire length of L (made up of L1+L2+L3). This variable rate influences the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
1205
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since the claim does not set forth how exactly this non-linear variable rate is being defined, and the claim does not clearly define the metes and bounds of this non-linear variable rate, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded and a prima facie case of obviousness has been properly established.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Siddall’s flutes with a variable rate, nonlinear increase that increases as distance from the cutting tip increases, as taught by Onose, to influence the strength (rigidity) of the tool, such as the bending strength, swarf shape (size), and increase swarf dischargeability of the tool (see paragraph [0042]).
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 NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 See pages 10-11 of Non-Final rejection date 05/20/2025