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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 11/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are sufficiently related. This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the Restriction Requirement of 01/27/2025, the two distinct inventions, claimed not in combination with one another require distinct search strategies and examination practices due to their relationship as subcombinations usable together.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/19/2023 contains hundreds of references clearly not relevant to the present application. For example, references such as US 40297 to Wakefield (Citation 004 on the IDS of 09/19/2023), directed to an improved medicine for curing foot-rot in horses, US 658216 to Munger (Citation 021 on the IDS of 09/19/2023) directed to a bed, US 3153366 to Yasuaki (Citation 052 on the IDS of 09/19/2023) directed to a braid for rugs and US D742714 to King, Jr. et al. (Citation 027 on the IDS of 09/19/2023) directed to a design for a screwdriver bit to name a few. Additionally, dozens of foreign and domestic Office Actions to unrelated/non-familial applications are attached, with no particular relevance pointed out.
Accordingly, the information disclosure statement filed 09/19/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Should applicant wish for the IDS of 09/19/2023 to be considered, a concise explanation of relevance for each citation is requested.
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 10-19 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 10 recites the limitation "the pocket rear surface" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kruszynski et al. (US 20090238649, hereinafter ‘Kruszynski’).
Regarding claim 1, Kruszynski discloses a cutting insert comprising a front surface 46 centered around a longitudinal axis, a rear surface and a plurality of side surfaces adjoining the front and the rear surface. Each side surface comprises a seating surface 64 and a corner surface connecting the side surface to an adjacent side surface. Arbitrary first cutting edge, second cutting edge and third cutting edge sections lie at the intersection of each side surface and top surface, wherein the second cutting edge comprises a convex curve and connects the first cutting edge to the third cutting edge (see annotated Fig. 8c below). A cutting lip 62 extends rearwardly from the first, second and third cutting edge(s) and is raised from the seating surface. A transition 66 between the seating surface and the cutting lip comprises a lip support extending rearwardly from the cutting lip to the seating surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
408
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kruszynski discloses the transition comprising a first chamfer separated from a second chamfer adjacent to the lip support (see annotated Fig. 8b below).
PNG
media_image2.png
244
744
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kruszynski discloses the second cutting edge further comprising a concave curve and a linear edge (i.e. at least a portion of the edge between concave and convex portions is linear, see annotated Fig. 8c above).
Regarding claim 6, Kruszynski discloses the lip support comprising a support height that is at least 35% of a total height of the cutting insert, wherein the total height is measured as a distance between the front face and the rear face (see Fig. 8b which clearly illustrates the support height, i.e. the height of the support from the rear face of the insert, being greater than 50% of the total insert height from the rear face to the front face).
Regarding claim 7, Kruszynski discloses the lip support being centered at least 60% along a side length of the side surface (see annotated Fig. 8b above, which illustrates the lip support being centered).
Regarding claim 9, Kruszynski discloses a side length of the side surface being at least 55% of a total width of the cutting insert, wherein the total width of the cutting insert is measured as the distance from the third cutting edge of a side face to a third cutting edge of an opposite face (see Fig. 8b).
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 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruszynski et al. (US 20090238649).
Regarding claim 3, Kruszynski illustrates in Fig. 8b a support angle of the support lip as measured from an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b below). Kruszynski does not explicitly disclose this angle.
PNG
media_image3.png
298
504
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, the support angle exhibited by the cutting insert has a direct impact on the cutting lip strength. For example, a high support angle results in a relatively thin and fragile cutting edge, while a low support angle results in a much stronger cutting edge, but a higher likelihood of heel drag/impacting the workpiece with face 64. Therefore, as the support angle is a result-effective variable, optimizing the support angle to be between 25˚ and 45˚ would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to provide the cutting lip with the desired level of support and clearance, depending on the material being machined. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Regarding claim 4, Kruszynski illustrates in Fig. 8b a lip support depth that extends a very small distance from the seating surface, but does not disclose the exact percentage of the total width of the cutting insert said lip support depth extends, wherein the total width of the cutting insert is measured as the distance from the third cutting edge of a side face to a third cutting edge of an opposite side face.
However, as explained above, the amount of overhang/lip support depth exhibited by the lip support has a direct impact on the cutting lip strength. For example, a large lip support depth results in a relatively thin and fragile cutting edge, while a low lip support depth results in a much stronger cutting edge, but a higher likelihood of heel drag/impacting the workpiece with face 64. Therefore, as the lip support depth is a result-effective variable, optimizing the support angle to be at most 5% of the total width of the cutting insert would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to provide the cutting lip with the desired level of support and clearance, depending on the material being machined. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Regarding claim 8, Kruszynski illustrates a seating surface 64 having a large side height in Fig. 8b. Kruszynski does not disclose the percentage of the total height of the cutting insert, wherein the total height is measured as a distance between the front face and the rear face, that the support height extends.
However, modifying the cutting insert such that the seating surface has a side height of at least 70% of the cutting insert’s total height would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to provide the insert with the greatest amount of centering/alignment/support in the insert pocket as possible.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruszynski et al. (US 20090238649) in view of Mergenthaler et al. (US 20090071723, hereinafter ‘Mergenthaler’).
Regarding claims 10-12, Kruszynski discloses a drilling tool system comprising a drilling tool 10 and a cutting insert 20 being secured into the drilling tool. The drilling tool comprises a drilling body comprising a central longitudinal rotational axis 32 and an interior pocket 16 in a front drilling face. The interior pocket comprises a first sidewall portion extending forward from a pocket rear surface, a bottom seating surface and a pocket rear surface comprising arbitrary upper and lower portions (see Figs. 1a & 1b) that align with the seating surface of the cutting insert (discussed below). The cutting insert comprises a front surface 46 centered around a longitudinal axis, a rear surface and a plurality of side surfaces adjoining the front and the rear surface. Each side surface comprises a seating surface 64 and a corner surface connecting the side surface to an adjacent side surface. Arbitrary first cutting edge, second cutting edge and third cutting edge sections lie at the intersection of each side surface and top surface, wherein the second cutting edge comprises a convex curve and connects the first cutting edge to the third cutting edge (see annotated Fig. 8c above). A cutting lip 62 extends rearwardly from the first, second and third cutting edge(s) and is raised from the seating surface. A transition 66 between the seating surface and the cutting lip comprises a lip support extending rearwardly from the cutting lip to the seating surface. Kruszynski does not disclose the claimed indent in the interior pocket.
Mergenthaler discloses a similar drilling tool, wherein on each pocket surface, a lower portion is provided with an indent 17 (see e.g. Fig. 3) to accommodate a projection in the cutting edge to restrict or minimize chips being trapped between the insert and pocket surface (Paragraph [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an indent aligned with the lip support to at least the lower portion of the pocket rear surface of Kruszynski (or the entire surface) having an indent height of less than the lower portion height (i.e. a height of zero) to accommodate the cutting edge/lip support projection as taught by Mergenthaler, in order to prevent chips from being trapped between the insert and pocket wall(s).
Regarding claim 13, Kruszynski discloses the transition comprising a first chamfer separated from a second chamfer adjacent to the lip support (see annotated Fig. 8b above).
Regarding claim 14, Kruszynski illustrates in Fig. 8b a support angle of the support lip as measured from an axis parallel to the longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 8b above). Kruszynski does not explicitly disclose this angle.
However, the support angle exhibited by the cutting insert has a direct impact on the cutting lip strength. For example, a high support angle results in a relatively thin and fragile cutting edge, while a low support angle results in a much stronger cutting edge, but a higher likelihood of heel drag/impacting the workpiece with face 64. Therefore, as the support angle is a result-effective variable, optimizing the support angle to be between 25˚ and 45˚ would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to provide the cutting lip with the desired level of support and clearance, depending on the material being machined. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Regarding claim 15, Kruszynski illustrates in Fig. 8b a lip support depth that extends a very small distance from the seating surface, but does not disclose the exact percentage of the total width of the cutting insert said lip support depth extends, wherein the total width of the cutting insert is measured as the distance from the third cutting edge of a side face to a third cutting edge of an opposite side face.
However, as explained above, the amount of overhang/lip support depth exhibited by the lip support has a direct impact on the cutting lip strength. For example, a large lip support depth results in a relatively thin and fragile cutting edge, while a low lip support depth results in a much stronger cutting edge, but a higher likelihood of heel drag/impacting the workpiece with face 64. Therefore, as the lip support depth is a result-effective variable, optimizing the support angle to be at most 5% of the total width of the cutting insert would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to provide the cutting lip with the desired level of support and clearance, depending on the material being machined. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Regarding claim 16, Kruszynski discloses the second cutting edge further comprising a concave curve and a linear edge (i.e. at least a portion of the edge between concave and convex portions is linear, see annotated Fig. 8c above).
Regarding claim 17, Kruszynski discloses the lip support comprising a support height that is at least 35% of a total height of the cutting insert, wherein the total height is measured as a distance between the front face and the rear face (see Fig. 8b which clearly illustrates the support height, i.e. the height of the support from the rear face of the insert, being greater than 50% of the total insert height from the rear face to the front face).
Regarding claim 18, Kruszynski discloses the lip support being centered at least 60% along a side length of the side surface (see annotated Fig. 8b above, which illustrates the lip support being centered).
Regarding claim 19, Kruszynski illustrates a seating surface 64 having a large side height in Fig. 8b. Kruszynski does not disclose the percentage of the total height of the cutting insert, wherein the total height is measured as a distance between the front face and the rear face, that the support height extends.
However, modifying the cutting insert such that the seating surface has a side height of at least 70% of the cutting insert’s total height would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to provide the insert with the greatest amount of centering/alignment/support in the insert pocket as possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722