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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered.
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 1-5 and 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 1 recites “a second polygonal surface which face mutually opposite sides in an axial direction relative to an insert center axis” in Lines 2-3. The scope of a surface that faces mutually opposite sides in an axial direction is unclear. It is worth noting that a direction is a course the runs from an origin in one way. As such, it isn’t clear that the direction means opposing directions defined by the insert center axis. The opposite sides may also be interpreted as lateral sides relative to said direction. The issue may be rectified by reciting “a first polygonal surface, and a second polygonal surface opposite to the first polygonal surface.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the first corner portions is located circumferentially between a pair of the side portions in an insert circumferential direction” in Lines 10-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the side portions.” It is also unclear whether there is a respective relationship between the corner portions and the side portion or not. The issue may be rectified by reciting “each of the first corner portions is located circumferentially between a respective pair of side portions of the plurality of side portions.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the second corner portions is located circumferentially between an other pair of the side portions in the insert circumferential direction” in Lines 15-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the side portions.” It is also unclear whether there is a respective relationship between the corner portions and the side portions or not. The issue may be rectified by reciting “each of the second corner portions is located circumferentially between another respective pair of side portions of the plurality of side portions.” Appropriate correction required.1
Claim 1 recites “in a planar view facing the first polygonal surface along an insert axial direction” in Line 20. The scope of the planar view, even with the addition of “facing the first polygonal surface along an insert axial direction” remains unclear. In addition, there is already antecedent basis set forth for “an insert axial direction” such that it is unclear whether this is the same direction previously set forth or a different direction. The issues may be resolved by reciting “in a plan view of the first polygonal surface.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a first cutting edge disposed in one side portion of one first corner portion” in Lines 26-27. It is unclear what side portions of the first corner portion reference. That is, it is unclear whether this is meant to refer back to one of the plurality of side portions or if the first corner portion somehow has a side portion thereof. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a second cutting edge disposed in an other side portion on the one first corner portion in an other insert circumferential direction” in Lines 29-30. It is unclear what side portions of the first corner portion reference. That is, it is unclear whether this is meant to refer back to one of the plurality of side portions or if the first corner portion somehow has a side portion thereof. It is also unclear what is meant by an other insert circumferential direction and how it relates to the previously set forth circumferential direction. If this direction is opposite to the previously recited circumferential direction, then it would be clearer to recite the direction as being opposite to the first recited circumferential direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a cylindrical surface slightly projecting outward in the insert radial direction” in Lines 41-42. The term “slightly” is a relative term of degree, which is not defined in the specification. It is also unclear what the cylindrical projects outward in relation to in the claim. This issue may be resolved by reciting “a cylindrical surface convexly curved.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “an inclined surface shape extending to a second polygonal surface side from the first polygonal surface in the insert axial direction” in Lines 6-7. The metes and bounds of extending to the second polygonal surface side from the first polygonal surface are not clearly delineated. That is, the boundary between extending to the second side and not is unclear. This can be corrected by simply stating that the first rake extends toward the second polygonal surface in the insert axial direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the insert radial direction” in Line 4. The insert radial direction was previously set forth as being an outward direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the insert axial direction” in Line 5. The insert axial direction was previously set forth as going from the first polygonal surface toward the second polygonal surface. 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, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0034602 A1) in view of Riviere (EP 3059037 A1.
(Claim 1) Sung et al. (“Sung”) discloses a wiper insert that includes a first polygonal surface (110a) and a second polygonal surface (110b) which, as best understood, face mutually opposite sides in an axial direction relative to with an insert center axis (Figs. 1, 3, 4); an outer peripheral surface (114) connected between the first polygonal surface and the second polygonal surface and facing radially outward; and a cutting edge (120) disposed in a ridge line portion where the first polygonal surface and the outer peripheral surface are connected (Fig. 1). The first polygonal surface (Fig. 2) has a plurality of side portions disposed along the ridge line portion (Fig. 2 - portions are merely a part thereof, which may be miniscule). The first polygonal surface also includes first corner portions (122). Each of the first corner portions is located circumferentially between a pair, as best understood, of the side portions in an insert circumferential direction relative to the insert center axis (Fig. 2 - again, it is worth noting that the reference to “portions” does not require a portion tantamount to what Applicant may intend). The first polygonal surface also includes second corner portions (126). Each of the second corner portions (126) is disposed at a position different from a position of the first corner portions (122) in the insert circumferential direction (Fig. 2). As best understood, each of the second corner portions is located circumferentially between an other pair of the side portions in the insert circumferential direction (Fig. 2).
The first corner portions (122) and the second corner portions (126) alternate with one another on the first polygonal surface in the insert circumferential direction (Fig. 2), and the first polygonal surface has at least three of the first corner portions and at least three of the second corner portions (Fig. 2). Again, it is worth noting that portions may be designated arbitrarily so long as they are considered “corner” portions.
As best understood, in a planar view facing the first polygonal surface along an insert axial direction (Fig. 2), a first included angle between the pair of side portions located on both sides of each of the first corner portions in the insert circumferential direction is smaller than a second included angle between the other pair of side portions located on both sides of each of the second corner portions in the insert circumferential direction.
The cutting edge (120) has a first cutting edge (124) disposed in one side portion of one first corner portion of the first corner portions in the insert circumferential direction, and performs a finishing operation on a work material, and a second cutting edge (124) disposed in an other side portion on the one first corner portion in an other insert circumferential direction (Fig. 2). The outer peripheral surface (114) has a first flank face connected to the first cutting edge, a second flank face (114) connected to the second cutting edge, and a first restraint surface (116) located on a side opposite to the second cutting edge of the second flank face in the insert axial direction and disposed outward from the second cutting edge in an insert radial direction (Fig. 1). It is worth noting that a side opposite to the second cutting edge could simply be the opposite half of the insert (separated by a median plane perpendicular to the first and second polygonal surfaces). To avoid such an interpretation, the claim must further limit as to what the opposite side relates to in the claim (e.g., “the first restraint is on the opposite side of the second flank in relation to the second cutting edge”).
In the planar view, the first cutting edge has a convex curve shape bulging outward in the insert radial direction (¶ 0046), the first flank face is disposed over an entire length of the outer peripheral surface in the insert axial direction (Fig. 1). In the planar view, an insert shape is rotationally, front-back symmetrical by 180-degree rotation around a symmetry axis passing through one second corner portion of the second corner portions and the symmetry axis passes through the insert center (¶ 0049). Sung does not explicitly disclose the first flank face being parallel to the insert center axis and having a cylindrical surface slightly projecting outward in the insert radial direction.
Riviere discloses a first flank face (33) being parallel to the insert center axis (Figs. 1B, 1C, 1F, 1G, 1H) and having a cylindrical surface slightly projecting outward in the insert radial direction (¶ 0025). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the first flank face of the insert disclosed in Sung with the orientation and shape suggested by Riviere in order to provide structural integrity behind the cutting edge based upon operational parameters (e.g., work material, cutting speed, feed speed, etc.). See Drozda et al. (Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook) (Pages 10-32 to 10-34).
(Claim 5) The cutting edge has a corner cutting edge (126) connected to an end portion on a second side of the first cutting edge in the insert circumferential direction and an end portion on a first side of the second cutting edge in the insert circumferential direction (Fig. 2). In the planar view in the insert axial direction, each of an included angle between the first cutting edge and the corner cutting edge and an included angle between the second cutting edge and the corner cutting edge is an obtuse angle (Fig. 2).
(Claim 7) The outer peripheral surface has a second restraint surface adjacent to one second side of the first restraint surface in the insert circumferential direction (Sung Fig. 1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0034602 A1) in view of Riviere (EP 3059037 A1) and further in view of Cao et al. (CN 109158678 A).
The modified insert of Sung does not explicitly disclose the second flank and first restraint surface having the respective claimed configurations.
Cao et al. discloses a second flank face (103) has an inclined surface shape inclined with respect to the insert center axis (Fig. 4), and is located outward in the insert radial direction, as the second flank face goes away from the second cutting edge in the insert axial direction (Figs. 2, 4), and the first restraint surface (surface directly below the inclined surface shape in Fig. 4) is connected to the second flank face, and has a planar shape parallel to the insert center axis. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified insert of Sung with a second flank and first restraint surface as suggested by Cao et al. in order to “prolong its service life.” (translation).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0034602 A1) in view of Riviere (EP 3059037 A1) and further in view of Bittner et al. (EP 3315235 A1).
(Claim 3) Sung discloses the first polygonal surface (110a) has a first rake face (124a, 124b) connected to the first cutting edge, and a seating surface (surface in which leader line 110a touches in Figure 1) disposed inward from the first rake face in a direction toward to the insert center axis (Figs. 1, 2). The first rake face has an inclined surface shape extending to the second polygonal surface side from the first polygonal surface in the insert axial direction, as the first rake face extends inward in the direction toward to the insert center axis from the first cutting edge (¶ 0041; Figs. 1-6). Sung does not explicitly disclose the seating surface protruding in an opposite direction of the insert axial direction from the first cutting edge and the first rake face.
Bittner et al. discloses the seating surface protruding in an opposite direction of the insert axial direction from the first cutting edge and the first rake face (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified insert of Sung with a protruding seating surface as taught by Bittner et al. in order to provide the ability to grind the surfaces and therefore enable “more precise contact of the cutting insert and a support surface in an insert seat of the milling tool.” (¶ 0025).
(Claim 4) In the modified insert, the first polygonal surface has a second rake face connected to the second cutting edge, and the seating surface is disposed inward from the second rake face in the insert radial direction, and protrudes in the insert axial direction from the second cutting edge and the second rake face.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While much of the arguments are moot in view of the new rejections, one argument remains in Applicant’s allegation that an axial/radial direction is actually two directions. Examiner disagrees. A direction is a course from an origin. In order to set forth forward-backward directions, the claim must explicitly do so. That is, if Applicant desires a first axial direction and a second axial direction opposite to the first axial direction, the claim must put that relationship forth.
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. 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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460.
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
1 The changes mentioned here and in paragraph 7 should also necessitate changes to the language in Lines 21-24. Specifically, the presence of respective pairs will eliminate to refer to “the pair of side portions located on both sides.”
Prosecution Insights