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 .
Response to Amendment
The Applicant’s amendment filed 05/13/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. It is noted now that amended claim 1 includes most of the limitations of original claim 2 and is further amended to clearly recites that the plurality of tool holders is not positively required in addition to the wiper insert. As such, amended claim 1 now recites that the plurality of wipers are configured for cone-to-one correspondence with a plurality of tool holders. As such, the objection to the drawings, claims 1-8 and rejection of claims 2-7 under 112(b), as outlined in the Office action mailed 02/13/2026, have been withdrawn.
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, 3-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daker et al. (JP2020049605A, hereinafter “Daker”).
As applied to claim 1, Daker teaches a wiper insert (cutting insert 2), comprising a tool body comprising a cutting part (cutting edges 25s, 26s and section 27s) which is used to cut a workpiece, wherein the cutting part includes a plurality of wipers (first wiper blades 271/281 and second wiper blades 272/282, Fig. 4), adjacent wipers of the plurality of wipers are connected by a transition surface (side surface 23, Fig. 4), and minor cutting edge angles of the plurality of wipers are set differently; and wherein the plurality of wipers are configured for one-to-one correspondence with a plurality of tool holders (3a, 3b) 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 said one of the plurality of tool holders (paragraph [0005], see “provide cutting insert that allows a wiper blade to function at multiple cutting angles of the same cutting edge” and Figs. 6-7).
As applied to claim 3, Daker teaches the invention cited including wherein a mounting hole (24, Fig. 4) 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 (paragraph [0027], see Figs. 1, 4, 6-7).
As applied to claim 4, Daker 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 (considering the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, any two cutting points on main cutting edge 25 and corner edge 20 can be selected to be symmetrical 180° with respect to central axis through the center of the hole 24 that is not labeled, Fig. 4).
As applied to claim 7, Daker teaches the invention cited including wherein the plurality of wipers (271/281 and 272/282) are evenly spaced along a circumferential direction of the cutting part (Figs. 4-7 showing the wipers evenly spaced around a pentagon-shaped circumference).
As applied to claim 8, Daker teaches the invention cited including wherein the wiper insert is made of a various materials including cemented carbide which is an alloy (see paragraph [0028]).
As applied to claim 9, Daker teaches a tool (cutting tool 1, Fig. 1) comprising the wiper insert of claim 1 (insert 2).
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 Daker et al. (JP2020049605A, hereinafter “Daker”).
As applied to claim 5, daker teaches the invention cited including a wiper insert having a plurality of wipers adjacent to one another (Fig. 4). Daker 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 Daker 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 Daker 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, Daker teaches the invention cited including a plurality of wipers with each in a shape of an arc or a line (Fig. 5 showing line-shaped 271 and 272, paragraph [0039]).
Note that the limitation of “when each of the wipers is in the shape of the arc, each wiper is provided with an identical second arc diameter or R2, wherein each wiper is provided with an identical width of L1, wherein 0.4 mm ≤ R2 ≤ 10 mm and 0.05 mm ≤ L1 ≤ 1 mm” is a conditional limitation meaning that only when each of the wipers is an arc shape then the limitation has to be met. In the instant case, Daker teaches the wiper shape is a line.
However, providing Daker with the second diameter of each wiper and width of each wiper to be within the claimed ranges (should each wiper has an arc shape) 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 Daker 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 Daker with a wiper having second diameters and width in the claimed ranges depending on the desired design requirement including enhanced workpiece surface finish.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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 08/10/2026
Prosecution Insights