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 species (a) (recited in claim 4) in the reply filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is founded on the conclusory allegation that the de Boer (US Pub. No. 2007/0297864 A1) fails to disclose “curved teeth each of which is twisted in a twist direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions in the entire cutting length.” (Applicant Response to Election at Page 1 citing claim 1). This is not found persuasive. While the scope of the limitation is in question, as best understood, the reference discloses the teeth as recited in the limitation as Figures 5 and 6 show teeth that twist in either (or two) directions.
In the alternative, the Muriel (ES 2288397 A1) reference also shows that claim 1 fails to make a contribution over the prior art. Muriel discloses an end mill that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges having a cutting diameter (d) that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Fig. 2). As best understood, the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, which are adjacent to each other, are defined by curved teeth each of which is twisted in a twist direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions in the entire cutting length so as to be reversed right and left on a way thereof (Fig. 5; (b), (c)). Each of which (presumably the peripheral cutting edges) 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 Fig. 5; (b), (c)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-8 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-4, 9 and 10 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 plurality of peripheral cutting edges, which are adjacent to each other, are defined by curved teeth” in Lines 4-5. The plurality refers to a singular feature. It is therefore unclear what constitutes the “which are adjacent to each other” limitation. It is unclear whether adjacent cutting edges of the plurality are being referenced or if there is a further plurality adjacent to the previously recited plurality. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “defined by curved teeth of which is twisted in a twisted direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly from one of rightward and leftward direction to the other of the rightward and leftward directions in the entire cutting length so as to be reversed right and left on a way thereof” in Lines 5-8. The recitation contains several clarity issues. The phrase “defined by curved teeth of which is twisted” is grammatically problematic, which raises a question of whether a limitation is missing therein. In particular, “curved teeth” is plural and then reciting “of which” seems to refer to less than all teeth. Furthermore, the phrase “in a twisted direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly” lacks clarity. The metes and bounds of a direction changing irreversibly and smoothly are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the claim scope. The term “smoothly” is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smoothly” 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. Likewise, it is unclear what the irreversible limitation requires. This is especially confusing given that the cited language ends with “so as to be reversed . . . on a way thereof.” Further still, it is odd to recite “in the entire cutting length” and “on a way thereof.” While “in the entire cutting length” may be tantamount to “over an entire cutting length thereof,” it isn’t clear. The “on a way thereof” recitation, at best, appears superfluous. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of which has a curved shape in an arcuate or arched manner . . . around an axis such that a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges is provided on a concave side of the curved shape.” It is unclear what each of which refers to in the claim (each peripheral edge of the plurality or something else). This is further evidenced as unclear due to the recitation that the curved shape that relates to each then has a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges (presumably of the plurality) provided on a concave side of the curved shape. Additionally, the difference between arcuate and arched manner is unclear as both appear to resemble either a bow shape or arch shape. The “around an axis” creates vagueness as the axis is not related to a feature of the end mill. Moreover, the “around an axis” limitation relates back to the development view, which is a 2D representation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “where a most recessed point” in Line 3. Due to the term “where,” it is unclear whether the limitations following the “where” clause if the “where” clause is not present. Deletion of the term “where” will resolve the issue. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “where a most recessed point” in Line 3. Due to the term “where,” it is unclear whether the limitations following the “where” clause if the “where” clause is not present. Deletion of the term “where” will resolve the issue. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the curved teeth” in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. If this recitation is meant to refer back to the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, then the claim should remain consistent. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the bottom-cutting-edge side end P2 is represented by a” in Line 7. It is unclear what is meant by “represented by a.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the bottom-cutting-edge side end P3 is represented by b” in Line 9. It is unclear what is meant by “represented by b.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “normal teeth” in Line 3. The metes and bounds of what constitutes a normal tooth are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the difference between a normal tooth and an abnormal tooth. Appropriate correction required.
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, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muriel (ES 2288397 A1).
(Claim 1) Muriel discloses an end mill that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (Fig. 5; (b), (c)) having a cutting diameter (d) that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Fig. 2). As best understood, the plurality of peripheral cutting edges (note: the plurality need not be all cutting edges, just at least two of the cutting edges), which are adjacent to each other, are defined by curved teeth each of which is twisted in a twist direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions in the entire cutting length so as to be reversed right and left on a way thereof (Fig. 5; (b), (c)). Each of which (presumably the peripheral cutting edges) 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 (Fig. 5; (b), (c)).
(Claim 2) The curved shape of each of the curved teeth in the development view is defined, at least partially, by an arc that consists of a part of a perfect circle (Fig. 5).
(Claim 4) As best understood, where a most recessed point of the curved shape of each of the curved teeth in the development view is represented by P1, a bottom-cutting-edge side end of the curved shape in a tool axial direction is represented by P2, a shank-portion side end of the curved shape in the tool axial direction is represented by P3, a circumferential distance between the most recessed point P1 and the bottom-cutting-edge side end P2 is represented by a, and a circumferential distance between the most recessed point P1 and the shank-portion side end P3 is represented by b, the circumferential distance a and the circumferential distance b are different from each other in each of the curved teeth, and each two of the curved teeth defining respective two of the peripheral cutting edges that are adjacent to each other are different from each other in terms of the circumferential distance a and the circumferential distance b (Fig. 5; (b), (c)).
(Claim 9) The plurality of peripheral cutting edges, which are adjacent to each other, are defined by one kind of teeth selected from among normal teeth (as best understood, the teeth are considered normal - Fig. 2).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Boer (US Pub. No. 2007/0297864 A1).
The de Boer reference discloses an end mill (10) that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (16A-16D) having a cutting diameter (d) that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Figs. 1, 2). As best understood, the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, which are adjacent to each other, are defined by curved teeth each of which is twisted in a twist direction that is changed irreversibly and smoothly from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions in the entire cutting length so as to be reversed right and left on a way thereof (Figs. 5, 6). Each of which (presumably the peripheral cutting edges) 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 (Figs. 5, 6).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muriel (ES 2288397 A1).
As best understood, where a most recessed point of the curved shape of each of the curved teeth in the development view is represented by P1, a bottom-cutting-edge side end of the curved shape in a tool axial direction is represented by P2, and a shank-portion side end of the curved shape in the tool axial direction is represented by P3, a circumferential distance a between the most recessed point P1 and the bottom-cutting-edge side end P2 and a circumferential distance b between the most recessed point P1 and the shank-portion side end P3 are both set in a range relative to the length (L; Figs. 2-5). The most recessed point P1 is located in a region extending from the bottom-cutting-edge side end P2 in the tool axial direction by a distance corresponding to 5-95% of the tooth length (Fig. 5). While the explicit tooth length to circumferential distance b is not explicitly disclosed, the range is a result-effective variable because it impacts cutting performance, the fact of which is well-known such that examiner takes official notice thereof. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the end mill disclosed in Muriel with a ratio within the claimed range in order to optimize cutting performance based upon operational parameters. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muriel (ES 2288397 A1) in view of Tsukihara et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0391305 A1).
Muriel does not explicitly disclose a hard coating on the tooth portion.
Tsukihara et al. discloses a surface of a tooth portion, which is provided with the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, is covered with a hard coating (¶ 0040). 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 Muriel with a hard coating as taught by Tsukihara et al. in order to increase durability and hardness associated with diamond, which is well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof.
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
Prosecution Insights