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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the minor cutting edge angles of the plurality of wipers set differently must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the poor quality of the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the limitation “adjacent wipers” need to be amended to - - adjacent wipers of the plurality of wipers - - to prevent any antecedent basis issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-7 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 2 recites the limitation "the tool holder" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of wipers are provided in one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of tool holders having different preset major cutting edge angles, so that when the tool body is connected with any one of the plurality of tool holders, there are wiping operations on the workpiece performed by the wiper corresponding to the tool holder” which is unclear as if the claim positively requires a plurality of tool holders or just being capable of being used with a plurality of tool holders. In addition, the limitation of “the plurality of wipers are provided in one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of tool holders” is unclear as how a plurality of wipers that are positioned on a single cutting part of a single tool body could possibly correspond to a plurality of separate tool holders.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the middle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the central axis" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the adjacent wiper inserts" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the wiper" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 which depends on claim 1 recites that adjacent wipers are connected by a transition arc surface or transition plane. However, claim 1 recites adjacent wipers of the plurality of wipers are connected by a transition surface. As such, it is unclear as if the adjacent wipers of claims 1 and 5 are the same and further unclear as to what elements are exactly connect the pair of adjacent wipers to one another.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the wiper" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the shape of an arc or a line" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second diameters of each wiper" in lines 2-3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the widths of each wiper" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the width" in line 4. 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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN111283231B, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As applied to claim 1, Zhang teaches a wiper insert, comprising a tool body (Figs. 1-3) comprising a cutting part (2, Figs. 1-3) which is used to cut a workpiece (abstract), wherein the cutting part includes a plurality of wipers (primary arc 216, secondary arc 217 and tertiary arc 218, Fig. 3), adjacent wipers are connected by a transition surface (surface connecting 216s with 217s with 218s), and minor cutting edge angles of the plurality of wipers are set differently (different radii of curvature of the arcs of the wipers would mean that the minor angles are also set differently, abstract, paragraphs [000], [0034], [0041] to [0044]).
As applied to claim 2, Zhang teaches the invention cited including the wiper insert with a plurality of wipers.
The limitations of “wherein the plurality of wipers are provided in one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of tool holders having different preset major cutting edge angles, so that when the tool body is connected with any one of the plurality of tool holders, there are wiping operations on the workpiece performed by the wiper corresponding to the tool holder” appears to be considered as being intended use limitations. Although the recitations have been fully considered, it carries limited patentable weight. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here; refer to MPEP 2114-II. In the instant case, the wiper insert of Zhang meets all of the structural limitations, as claimed, and is capable of performing the limitations above.
As applied to claim 3, Zhang teaches the invention cited including wherein a mounting hole (40) is provided in the middle of the wiper insert, and the radial cross-section of the wiper insert along the mounting hole is polygonal, and the cutting part is provided on at least one apex corner of the polygon (Figs. 1 and 3).
As applied to claim 4, Zhang teaches the invention cited including wherein two cutting parts are provided, and the two cutting parts are disposed symmetrically at 180° with respect to a central axis along the mounting hole (central axis through the center of the hole but not shown, Figs. 1 and 3).
As applied to claim 7, Zhang teaches the invention cited including wherein the plurality of wipers (21) are evenly spaced along a circumferential direction of the cutting part (Fig. 3).
As applied to claim 8, Zhang teaches the invention cited including wherein the wiper insert is made of polycrystalline cubic boron nitride (see PCBN, abstract).
As applied to claim 9, Zhang teaches a tool (cutter 2, Figs. 1-3) comprising the wiper insert of claim 1.
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(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN111283231B, hereinafter “Zhang”).
As applied to claim 5, Zhang teaches the invention cited including a wiper insert having a plurality of wipers adjacent to one another (Figs. 1 and 3). Zhang does not explicitly teach that multiple wiper inserts are adjacent to one another and connected to one another by a transition arc surface having claimed diameter range or a transition plane.
However, it appears that combining a plurality of wiper inserts adjacent to one another and connected by a transition plane would have been a matter of design choice since Applicant has not disclosed that placing a plurality of wiper inserts adjacent to one another and connected by a transition arc surface or by a transition plane provides any advantage, is used for any particular purpose or solves a stated problem. It seems that one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have been expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other transition surface between adjacent wiper inserts such as one taught by Zhang or the claimed ones because either one performs the same function of having wiper inserts having suitable wipers at the cutting part of the tool for providing an improved workpiece surface finish. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ the wiper insert of Zhang adjacent to another wiper insert and connected with a transition surface of either an arc shape having claimed diameter range and tangent position or plane transition as claimed depending on the desired design requirement including enhanced workpiece surface finish.
As applied to claim 6, Zhang teaches the invention cited including a plurality of wipers (primary, secondary and tertiary) with each in a shape of an arc having second diameters with the primary (216), secondary (217) and tertiary (218) types of wipers each having identical second diameters and each having a width (paragraphs [0034], [0041]-[0044], Figs. 1-3) but not in the claimed ranges.
However, providing Zhang with the second diameter of each wiper and width of each wiper to be within the claimed ranges would have been a matter of design choice since Applicant has not disclosed that only the claimed ranges for the second diameters and width of the wipers provide any advantages, are used for any particular purposes or solve a stated problem. It seems that one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have been expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with any other second diameters and width such as ones taught by Zhang or the claimed ones because either one performs the same function of having a wiper insert having suitable wipers at the cutting part of the tool for providing an improved workpiece surface finish. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the wiper insert of Zhang with a wiper having second diameters and width in the claimed ranges depending on the desired design requirement including enhanced workpiece surface finish.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Usui et al. (US 6,835,028, hereinafter “Usui”) teaches an indexable insert for application to turning of a cast iron product, including a first minor cutting edge 21 having a radius Ra and a second minor cutting edge 22 having a radius Rb successively provided between an arcuate nose cutting-edge 12 having a nose radius R and a linear cutting edge 16 so as to extend from the nose tip to the linear cutting edge 16. At a connection point P1 between the arcs assumed by the cutting edges 12 and 21, a smaller intersectional angle
θ
X
of a tangent T12 and a tangent T21 to the respective arcs is 1° or less. Also, at a connection point P2 between the arcs assumed by the cutting edges 21 and 22, a smaller intersectional angle .theta.y of the tangent T21 and a tangent T22 to the respective arcs is 1° or less. The radii R, Ra, and Rb are set to the dimensional relationships "Ra>R, Ra falls within a range of 3 mm to 20 mm, and Rb ≥ 1.5Ra (abstract, Fig. 2).
Heisel et al. (US 6,039,096, hereinafter “Heisel”) teaches a milling tool 10 with reduced noise emission for machining panel-like pieces of wood. The reduction in noise emission is brought about by reducing the vibrations produced in the tool and workpiece and by proportioning the cut, machining being carried out in two stages. The greatest part of the chip volume (first stage) is removed under favorable noise-emission conditions using a special cutting geometry. The tool and workpiece vibrations are reduced by a clearly reduced rise in the shear force pulse using a special cutting tooth geometry. The chip volume removed under these conditions is only small (second stage), and so good quality machining can be attained (abstract).
Oikawa (US 10,315,258) teaches a cutting insert with an upper surface (21), a lower surface (91) and a side surface (61) that connects the two surfaces. A cutting edge is formed at an intersecting edge between the upper surface (21) and the side surface (61). The cutting edge includes at least a major cutting edge (33), a corner edge (34) connected to the major cutting edge (33), and a curved wiper edge (35) located on the opposite side of the major cutting edge (33) across the corner edge (34). A first angle θ made by the major cutting edge (33) and the chord of the wiper edge (35) is 155°≤θ<180°, and a positive land is formed in the wiper edge (35). The cutting edge may further include an inner cutting edge (36) located on an opposite side of the corner edge (34) across the wiper edge (35, abstract, Figs. 1-8). Oikawa further teaches that the number of insert mounting seats provided in the cutting tool and the number of cutting inserts having a wiper edge to be mounted are not limited to those in the present embodiment, and can be determined by taking the balance between an increase of cutting resistance and finishing accuracy into consideration. In other words, what is needed is a configuration in which at least one cutting insert having a wiper edge is mounted on a cutting tool provided with a plurality of insert mounting seats (col. 6, lines 17-25).
Wuerfels et al. (US 11,325,196) teaches a double-sided, polygonal cutting insert includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface. A plurality of side surfaces extend between the first surface and the second surface. A plurality of primary concave cutting edges are formed at an intersection between the plurality of side surfaces and the first and second surfaces, and a plurality of convex wiper edges are formed at an intersection between the plurality of side surfaces and the first and second surfaces. Each wiper edge has a step extending radially outward from a respective side surface. The cutting insert is mounted in a cutting tool such that the primary cutting edge and a wiper edge contact a workpiece to produce a high-quality surface finish on the workpiece (abstract, Figs. 1-4).
Morrison et al. (US 9,205,499, hereinafter “Morrison”) teaches an indexable cutting insert includes a top surface, a bottom surface and a plurality of side surfaces. Each side surface includes a first pair of chip grooves, and a second pair of chip grooves. A planar corner surface is disposed between each side surface. A corner radius extends between the top and bottom surfaces and the planar corner surface. A plurality of primary wiper cutting edges are formed at an intersection between each of the first pair of chip grooves and the top and bottom surfaces. A plurality of secondary roughing cutting edges are formed at an intersection between each corner radius and each of the first pair of chip forming grooves. A plurality of wiper cutting edges are formed at an intersection between each planar corner surface and each of the second pair of chip forming grooves. A milling cutter is also disclosed (abstract, claim 5, Figs. 1-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 02/04/2026