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 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 1-9 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 “the peripheral cutting edges” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The claim previously recites to a plurality of peripheral cutting edges. The claim should recite to “the plurality” to maintain consistency. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a curved tooth which is twisted in a direction reversed right and left on a way thereof” in Lines 5-6. The scope of “twisted in a direction reversed right and left on a way thereof” is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a curved shape curved in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view” in Lines 6-7. The difference between arcuate and arched manner is unclear as both appear to resemble either a bow shape or arch shape, which seem alike. In addition, the meaning of a development view is unclear. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “the respective teeth” in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “normal teeth” in Line 3. The metes and bounds of what constates a normal tooth are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the claim scope. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each adjacent pair of the peripheral cutting edges adjacent to each other are defined by the respective teeth that are different in type from each other.” The term “are” should be replaced by the word “is” as this refers back to the pair, which is singular. It is unclear how the pair is considered defined by the teeth that are different in shape from each other. It is unclear what is required by this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the peripheral cutting edges are provided in an outer periphery of the tooth portion” in Lines 4-5. The recitation to an outer periphery infers there is an inner periphery, which is not recited in the claim. It is therefore unclear whether there is an inner periphery or not. It is also worth noting that the plurality of cutting edges are peripheral cutting edges. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “where it is assumed that each of the peripheral cutting edges conceptually extends also outwardly from axially opposite ends of the tooth portion” in Lines 6-8. Due to the “where it is assumed” and “conceptually extends” recitations, it is unclear whether anything following the quoted recitation is required. Specifically, the claim speaks in terms of where something is assumed and only in concept. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the peripheral cutting edges are equally spaced in a circumferential direction of the end mill, in an equally spaced position that is located in a region between a distal-end side position that is distant axially outwardly from one of the axially opposite ends of the tooth portion by 1/4 of an axial length of the tooth portion and a shank-portion side position that is distant axially outwardly from the other of the axially opposite ends of the tooth portion by 1/4 of the axial length of the tooth portion.” It is unclear where the equally spaced position is located and what it is in relation to in the claimed apparatus. It is unclear what constitutes axially outward as the axial direction is a direction parallel to the rotation axis. The entire limitation is vague to the point of being convoluted. It is unclear what is required. Appropriate correction required.
The term “distant” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “distant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
The term “vicinity” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukihara et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0391305 A1) in view of Song (US Pub. No. 7,563,059 B2).
(Claim 1) Tsukihara et al. (“Tsukihara”) discloses an end mill (1) that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (11, 21). The peripheral cutting edges include a right-handed helical tooth that is twisted rightward (Fig. 2; θ1), and a left-handed helical tooth that is twisted leftward (Fig. 3; θ2). Each adjacent pair of the peripheral cutting edges adjacent to each other are defined by the respective teeth that are different in type from each other (Figs. 1-3). Tsukihara does not explicitly disclose a curved tooth which is twisted in a direction reversed right and left on a way thereof and which has a curved shape curved in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view of an outer circumferential surface of the end mill around an axis such that a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges is provided on a concave side of the curved shape.
Song discloses differing curved teeth twisted, as best understood, in a direction reversed right and left on a way thereof and which has a curved shape curved in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view (Figs. 5C, 6C, 7C, 8C, 9C, 10C) of an outer circumferential surface of the end mill around an axis such that a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges is provided on a concave side of the curved shape (e.g., 5c relative to 5d in Fig. 5C; Figs. 5A-10C). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the end mill disclosed in Tsukihara with curved shape cutting edges as suggested by Song in order to “reduces cutting forces on the driving tool, limits chatter at high rotation speeds, has better stability, produces smoother cutting surfaces, and has less natural resonating frequencies while in use to permit operation of the end mill over a wider range of operating conditions.” (Col. 2, Lines 31-36).
(Claim 2) The helix angles of each tooth fall within the claimed range (Tsukihara ¶¶ 0030, 0036).
(Claim 3) The peripheral cutting edges are defined by one kind of teeth selected from among normal teeth, nicked teeth and roughing teeth (Tsukihara Figs. 1-3 – as best understood, the teeth are considered norma).
(Claim 4) The end mill includes a tooth portion (Tsukihara 3) and a shank portion (Tsukihara 2) that are contiguous to each other in an axial direction of the end mill (Tsukihara Fig. 1). As best understood, where it is assumed that each of the peripheral cutting edges conceptually extends also outwardly from axially opposite ends of the tooth portion, with a constant helix angle or a constant curvature, the peripheral cutting edges are equally spaced in a circumferential direction of the end mill, in an equally spaced position that is located in a region between a distal-end side position that is distant axially outwardly from one of the axially opposite ends of the tooth portion by 1/4 of an axial length of the tooth portion and a shank-portion side position that is distant axially outwardly from the other of the axially opposite ends of the tooth portion by 1/4 of the axial length of the tooth portion (Figs. 1-3, 5).
(Claim 5) An angle difference between a helix of the right-handed helical tooth and a helix of the left-handed helical tooth approximately zero (Tsukihara ¶ 0036).
(Claim 6) At least one of a plurality of bottom cutting edges (Tsukihara 12, 21), which are contiguous to the respective peripheral cutting edges (Tsukihara Figs. 1, 4) and are provided in a distal end portion of the end mill, includes a center edge portion that reaches, as best understood, a vicinity of the axis (Tsukihara Fig. 4).
(Claim 7) A number of the peripheral cutting edges is not smaller than three and is not larger than six (Tsukihara Figs. 1-5).
(Claim 8) A surface of a tooth portion, which is provided with the peripheral cutting edges, is covered with a diamond coating (Tsukihara ¶ 0040).
(Claim 9) The end mill is made of a cemented carbide (Tsukihara ¶ 0040).
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. 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