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 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “a” in Line 10 before the term “opposite” should be “an.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a second polygonal surface which faces the first surface along with an insert center axis” in Line 3. The recitation of the second polygonal surface facing the insert center axis is new matter. In addition, the recitation that the second polygonal surface faces the first surface is new matter. Appropriate correction required.
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 faces the first surface along with an insert center axis” in Line 3. The scope of this limitation is vague. It is unclear whether the second polygonal surface faces the first surface or faces opposite to the first surface. It may be simpler to state that the second surface is opposite to the first if that is the intended scope. Furthermore, it is unclear how the “along with an insert axis” impacts the limitation. In particular, it is unclear whether the second polygonal surface faces the insert center axis somehow or if there is a different intended scope. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the first corner portions located between a pair of the side portions aligned in an insert circumferential direction” in Lines 14-15. The scope of “aligned in an insert circumferential direction” is vague. It is also unclear how the alignment is determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether each of the first corner portions are located between one pair of side portions or if there is a respective relationship here (i.e., a first corner portion between a given pair). It is also unclear if the pair of side portions are part of the plurality or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the first corner portion” in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously recites to first corner portions. As such, it is unclear as to which of the portions is being referenced. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the side portions aligned in the insert circumferential direction” in Lines 18-19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously recites to a pair of the side portions aligned in the insert circumferential direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the second corner portions . . . located between an other pair of the side portions aligned in the insert circumferential direction” in Lines 16-19. The scope of “aligned in the insert circumferential direction” is vague. It is also unclear how the alignment is determined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether each of the second corner portions are located between one pair of side portions or if there is a respective relationship here (i.e., a second corner portion between a given other pair). It is also unclear if the pair of side portions are part of the plurality or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the first corner portions and each of the second corner portions are alternately aligned . . . in the circumferential direction” in Lines 20-21. The scope of “alternately aligned” is unclear. It is unclear as to what each is alternately aligned in reference to and whether the alternate alignment is with respect to each other. Furthermore, it is unclear if the alternate alignment is meant to be alternately disposed/arranged. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the first polygonal surface has at least the three first corner portions and at least the three second corner portions” in Lines 21-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitations “the three first corner portions” and “the three second corner portions.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “in a planar view in the insert axial direction” in Line 24. It is unclear what constitutes a planar view. A plan view of a given surface is understood. The recitation “the insert axial direction” lacks proper antecedent basis. The direction is unclear as to whether it is a direction parallel to the axis, defined by the axis or somehow toward the axis. Recitations throughout the claim to the planar view and the insert axial direction are rejected on the same grounds. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “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 pair of side portions located on both sides of each of the second corner portions” in Lines 24-27. Again, it is unclear if there is a respective relationship between the corner portions and side portions. That is, the limitation is ambiguous as to whether each (being all) of the corner portions are between a single pair or if there is a respective relationship between a corner and a side. In addition, the recitation to “the pair of side portions located on both sides of each of the second corner portions” lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a first cutting edge disposed in one side portion in the side portions” in Lines 29. This limitation is ambiguous as to whether the first cutting edge is in one of the side portions or is in a side portion that is in the side portion (seemingly a sub-part of the side portions). This issue persists with recitations of the first corner portion in first corner portions. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a second cutting edge disposed in the one side portion on a second side of the one first corner portion” in Lines 32-33. It is unclear how the second cutting edge could be disposed in the one side portion while also being on a second side of the one first corner portion. Reference to portions creates vagueness, which puts the scope of the claim in doubt. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the insert radial direction” in Line 39. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the insert radial direction” in Line 41. This appears to be a different direction than the previously recited radial direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “one second corner portion in the second corner portions adjacent to the first side of the one first corner portion in the insert circumferential direction and the insert center axis” in Lines 29. This limitation is ambiguous as to whether the second corner portion is in the second corner portions of the corner portions or is in a second corner portion that is in the corner portions (seemingly a sub-part of the corner portions). It is also unclear what the recitation of “and the insert center axis” adds to the limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the first rake face has an inclined surface shape extending to the second polygonal surface side” in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis “the second polygonal surface side” limitation. It is also unclear how the first rake face “extends to the second polygonal surface.” Specifically, it is unclear how the rake face on the first polygonal surface extends to the opposing second first polygonal surface. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “in the insert radial direction” in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The insert radial direction here presents a conflict with the same direction set forth in claim 1, which is in the opposite direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “in the insert axial direction” in Line 5. The insert axial direction here presents a conflict with the same direction set forth in claim 1, which is in the opposite direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “in the planar view in the insert axial direction” in Line 5. It is unclear what constitutes a planar view. A plan view of a given surface is understood. The direction is unclear as to whether it is a direction parallel to the axis, defined by the axis or somehow toward the axis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a second side of the first restraint surface" in Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether there is a first side of the first restraint surface. Appropriate correction required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Due to the lack of clarity of the claims, the prior art arguments are rendered moot. The absence of a prior art rejection should not be construed as the claimed invention defining over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and present claim 1. See Eriksson et al. (US Patent No. 11,229,960 B2).
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 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. 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