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 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)(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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0341162).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a cutting insert comprising: a main body extending from a first end toward a second end along a rotational axis, wherein the main body comprises a cutting edge positioned on a side of the first end (figure 1) (please note: the claim recites “on a side of the cutting edge and cutting edge (10) is positioned on a side of the cutting edge), a rake face extending from the cutting edge toward the second end, and a flute (4) extending from the rake face toward the second end (figure 1), the rake face comprises a first surface region (4c) connected to the cutting edge (10) and having a first rake angle, a second surface region (4b) positioned closer to the second end (at least partially) than the first surface region (4c), located away from the cutting edge (10: i.e. spaced away from cutting edge 10) and having a second rake angle, and a third surface region (4a) positioned closer to the second end than the second surface region (4b) and having a third rake angle, the flute (4) is positioned closer to the second end than the second surface region (4b), the third surface region (4a) is adjacent to the flute rearward in a rotational direction about the rotational axis and on a side of an outer peripheral of the main body (figure 2). Watanabe also discloses the first rake angle (of rake face 4c) being a positive angle (paragraphs 167), the second rake angle (of rake face 4b) being negative close to zero or zero degrees (paragraph 158) and the third rake angle (of rake face 4a) being -20 degrees to -10 degrees (paragraph 140), therefore,
[AltContent: textbox ( first rake angle
(positive angle))][AltContent: textbox (<)][AltContent: textbox ( second rake angle
(negative close to zero or zero degrees)]
[AltContent: textbox ( second rake angle
(negative close to zero or zero degrees)]And
[AltContent: textbox (<)][AltContent: textbox ( third rake angle
(-20 degrees to -10 degrees))]
Regarding claim 20, Watanabe discloses wherein an entirety of the second surface region (4b) is not continuous with the cutting edge (10) (figure 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0341162).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe discloses the claimed invention except for the cutting part of the tool being separate from the rest of the tool. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the tool two pieces, since it has been held that forming in two pieces and put together which has formerly been formed in one piece involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the integral tool of Watanabe two pieces for the purpose of prolonging tool like and efficiency of replacement when cutting edges are damaged.
Regarding claim 7, see paragraph 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that “The Office asserted that a rake face 4b in Watanabe corresponds to the recited "second surface region" of the rake face. Watanabe at paragraph [0127] describes a rack face 4b of the end cutting edge 9. ---Further, Watanabe in FIGs. 1 and 2 illustrates that the rake face 4b connects to the end cutting edge 9. Based on what is discussed and illustrated in Watanabe, the rake face 4b is not located away from the cutting edge”, Examiner points out the claim language recites “a cutting edge positioned on a side of the first end and cutting edge (10) is positioned on a side of the cutting edge and therefore, the second surface region (4b) is located away from the cutting edge (10: i.e. spaced away from cutting edge 10)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 8-19 are allowed.
The closest prior art of record is (US Pub. No. 2017/0341162) to Watanabe
Regarding claims 8 and 14 , Watanabe discloses a cutting insert comprising: a main body extending from a first end toward a second end along a rotational axis, wherein the main body comprises a cutting edge positioned on a side of the first end (figure 1) (please note: the claim recites “on a side of the cutting edge and cutting edge 10 is positioned on a side of the cutting edge), a rake face extending from the cutting edge toward the second end, and a flute (4) extending from the rake face toward the second end (figure 1), the rake face comprises a first surface region (4c) connected to the cutting edge (10) and having a first rake angle, a second surface region (4b) positioned closer to the second end (at least partially) than the first surface region (4c), located away from the cutting edge and having a second rake angle, and a third surface region (4a) positioned closer to the second end than the second surface region (4b) and having a third rake angle, the flute (4) is positioned closer to the second end than the second surface region (4b), the third surface region (4a) is adjacent to the flute rearward in a rotational direction about the rotational axis and on a side of an outer peripheral of the main body (figure 2). Watanabe also discloses the first rake angle (of rake face 4c) being a positive angle (paragraphs 167), the second rake angle (of rake face 4b) being negative close to zero or zero degrees (paragraph 158) and the third rake angle (of rake face 4a) being -20 degrees to -10 degrees (paragraph 140), therefore,
[AltContent: textbox ( first rake angle
(positive angle))][AltContent: textbox (<)][AltContent: textbox ( second rake angle
(negative close to zero or zero degrees)]
[AltContent: textbox ( second rake angle
(negative close to zero or zero degrees)]And
[AltContent: textbox (<)][AltContent: textbox ( third rake angle
(-20 degrees to -10 degrees))]
Suffice it to say, the patent to Watanabe does not disclose at a boundary between the rake face and the flute, the flute being recessed with respect to the rake face, as claimed in independent claim 8, nor in a side view of the cutting insert, a boundary between the rake face and the flute being convex toward the first end, as claimed in independent claim 14. Furthermore, there is no combinable teaching in the prior art of record that would reasonably motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to so modify the teachings of Watanabe and thus, for at least the foregoing reasoning, the prior art of record does not render obvious the present invention as set forth in independent claims 8 and 14.
a cutting edge positioned on a side of the first end (figure 1),
Conclusion
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 SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 3/19/26