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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “centre” should be written as “center.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “centre” should be written as “center.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “centre” should be written as “center.” 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 1-20 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 “respective first and second ends” on page 3 (numbered page 4, but page 3 of claim 1), line 14. The claim previously sets forth antecedent basis for first and second ends of each main cutting edge. The recitation of “respective first and second ends” appears to once again set forth antecedent basis for first and second ends such that it is unclear if the limitation is referring back to the previously set forth first and second ends of each main cutting edge or different first and second ends. This same rejection rationale extends to the recitation on page 3, line 23 of respective first and second ends of each ramping cutting edge. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “in a plan view of the cutting insert” in Lines 25-26 of page 3 (numbered page 4, but page 3 of claim 1). It is unclear as to what part/surface the plan view of the cutting insert is so taken. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “in a plan view of the cutting insert” in Lines 25-26 of page 3 (numbered page 4, but page 3 of claim 1). It is unclear as to what part/surface the plan view of the cutting insert is so taken. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “in a plan view of the cutting insert” in Lines 25-26 of page 3 (numbered page 4, but page 3 of claim 1). A plan view of the cutting insert has already been set forth. As such, it is unclear if this is the same plan view or another plan view. Examiner suggests setting forth the surface of the cutting insert in which the plan view is taken. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 3 recites “along a major part of its length when going from its first end to its second end or along its entire length from its first end to its second end.” The metes and bounds of “a major part of its length” are not clearly delineated. That is, it is unclear at what point the slope of the main cutting edges slopes towards the median plane is considered along a major part of its length and when it is not so considered. It is also unclear whether “its” refers to a given main cutting edge or the respective edge. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “each one of the . . . main cutting edges slopes towards the median plane with a slope that is constant or increases as seen along its entire length from its first end to its second end.” It is unclear what constitutes “as seen along its entire length.” Moreover, each edge having a slope has already been set forth in claim 1. As such, it is unclear if the slope recited here is the same or different than the sloping parts previously recited. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “as seen along its entire length” requirement applies to the slope that is constant or just the increases limitation. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 5 recites “the first main cutting edge extends along a straight or convex line, or along a line which is a series of one or more straight lines in combination with one or more convex lines, when seen in a viewing direction in parallel with the median plane and perpendicular to a straight first line intersection that intersects first and second ends of the first main cutting edge” in Lines 2-7. It is unclear whether the first main cutting edge is required to be straight or convex or merely extend along an imaginary line of the shape recited. The term “when” further adds vagueness to the claim because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or merely required if the “when” view is taken. The viewing direction is also unclear as it is unclear how the view is taken. That is, the view is a bit convoluted due to the perpendicular to a straight first line requirement. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a corresponding line when seen in a viewing direction in parallel with the median plane and perpendicular to a straight second line of intersection . . . .” It is unclear what constitutes a corresponding line. It is unclear if the requirement is required or merely “when” the view is taken. The view itself is vague. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 9 recites “a slope that is constant or increases as seen along its entire length from its first end to its second end.” It is unclear what constitutes “as seen along its entire length.” Furthermore, it is unclear whether the “as seen along its entire length” requirement applies to the slope that is constant or just the increases limitation. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 10 recites “in every point along the first curved corner cutting edge the first curved corner cutting edge has a slope which is equal to or larger than a smallest slope of the first main cutting edge in any point along the first main cutting edge” in Lines 2-5. It is unclear how the slope is measured in a point. It is also unclear whether a larger/smaller slope requires a steeper incline or a larger length. This is also odd to be measured in a point and it is unclear how that would be done. Moreover, the recitation to “a slope” is problematic as slopes for each edge have already been set forth. The same issue exists in, and the same rational applies to, the recitation in Lines 5-9. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “when seen in a viewing direction in parallel with the median plane and perpendicular to a straight first line intersection that intersects first and second ends of the first main cutting edge” in Lines 3-6. The term “when” adds vagueness to the claim because it is unclear whether the limitation is required or merely required if the “when” view is taken. The viewing direction is also unclear as it is unclear how the view is taken. That is, the view is a bit convoluted due to the perpendicular to a straight first line requirement. The same rationale applies to the recitation in Lines 9-11. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 12 recites “every tangent that can be drawn to the points along the first main cutting edge” in Lines 7-8. The scope of this limitation is unclear. It is unclear how this could be met without a view being established. In addition, the phrase “can be” infers an option, which creates a lack of clarity. These same issues exist in Liens 13-14. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 recites “a first chip breaker associated with the first main cutting edge” in Line 3. The metes and bounds of the association are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claim. The same issue exists relative to the second chip breaker. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 recites “the first chip breaker is also associated with and configured to extend along the first curved corner cutting edge” in Lines 9-11. The metes and bounds of the association are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the scope of the claim. The same issue exists relative to the second chip breaker. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 13 recites “preferably also associated with and configured to extend along the third curved corner cutting edge.” The term “preferably” infers an option, which creates a lack of clarity as to claim scope. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 14 recites “essentially U-shaped or V-shaped profile as seen in a section across the first chip breaker.” The scope of essentially U-shaped or V-shaped profile is unclear. That is, the boundary at what point a profile has the essence of either shape and does not is not clear. It is also unclear whether the section is merely a portion or a sectional view. The same issues exist relative to the second chip breaker. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 16 recites “the first end thereof to the second end thereof” in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 18 recites “a nominal rake angle that is positive or neutral.” The scope of a nominal rake angle is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 20 recites “[t]he high speed milling tool” in Line 1. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao (US Pub. No. 2017/0157685 A1) in view of Vlcek et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0030629 A1) and Astrom et al. (US Patent No. 6,196,770 B1).
Mao discloses the cutting insert for use in high-feed milling in a cutter (Figs. 1-9), as claimed but for explicit disclosure of a ramping cutting edge and corner cutting edge between the ramping edge and side cutting edge.
PNG
media_image1.png
248
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Vlcek et al. (“Vlcek”) discloses a secondary edge (17) between a main edge (18) and a ramping edge (20; ¶ 0032) as well as the ramping edge (20) between the secondary edge (17) and a side edge (21). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Mao with a ramping edge as taught by Vlcek in order to provide a ramping cut (¶¶ 0036-0037).
Astrom et al. (“Astrom”) discloses a corner cutting edge (X1) between the ramping edge and side cutting edge. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting insert disclosed in Mao with a corner cutting edge as taught by Astrom in order to further the ramping cut (¶¶ 0036-0037).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722