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 1-4, 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 “each of the curved teeth is curved in an arcuate or arched manner . . . around an axis” in Lines 11-13. The difference between arcuate and arched manner is unclear as both appear to resemble either a bow shape or arch shape. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the curved shape” in Line 14. There is insufficient basis for this limitation. 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.
(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, 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)) on curved teeth (it is worth noting here that the teeth are only considered curved because the cutting edges thereon are curved) and having a cutting diameter (d) that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Fig. 2). The plurality of peripheral cutting edges are all peripheral cutting edges of the end mill (Fig. 2). The peripheral cutting edges (note: the plurality need not be all of the cutting edges on the end mill, merely that the plurality are all peripheral edges of the end mill) are adjacent to each other (Fig. 2). While the claim language permits for an interpretation of less than all cutting edges/teeth on the end mill to have the curved shape, Muriel discloses the shape variations as examples (Translation). Figure 5 is described as a schematic representation of four practical embodiments. The reference further states that the teeth may all be different, may all be the same, or may have opposed pairs that are the same while another pair differs (Translation). The curved teeth are each twisted in a twist direction that reverses from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions once along the entire cutting length (Fig. 5; (b), (c)). Each of the curved teeth is curved shape in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view of an outer circumferential surface of the end mill around an axis of the end mill 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 is a part of a perfect circle (Fig. 5).
(Claim 4) A most recessed point of the curved shape of each of the curved teeth in the development view is P1, a bottom-cutting-edge side end of the curved shape in a tool axial direction is P2, a shank-portion side end of the curved shape in the tool axial direction is P3, a circumferential distance between P1 and P2 is A, and a circumferential distance between P1 and P3 is B, A and B are different from each other in each of the curved teeth, and each two of the curved teeth that are adjacent to each other are different from each other in terms of A and B (Translation; Fig. 5; (b), (c)).
(Claim 9) The teeth are 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 Napflin (US 2006/0245838 A1).
Napflin discloses an end mill (Figs. 1-4) that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (3) on curved teeth (Figs. 2-4) and having a cutting diameter that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Figs. 2-4). The plurality of peripheral cutting edges are all peripheral cutting edges of the end mill (Figs. 1-4). The peripheral cutting edges are adjacent to each other (Figs. 1-4). The curved teeth are each twisted in a twist direction that reverses from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions once along the entire cutting length (Figs. 2-4). Each of the curved teeth is curved shape in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view of an outer circumferential surface of the end mill around an axis of the end mill such that a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges is provided on a concave side of the curved shape (Fig. 2).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fronius (WO 2019145208 A1).
Fronius discloses an end mill (1) that includes a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (9) on curved teeth (7-7.4 disclosed as identical) and having a cutting diameter that is constant over an entire cutting length thereof (Figs. 2, 3). The plurality of peripheral cutting edges are all peripheral cutting edges of the end mill (9; Figs. 2, 3). The peripheral cutting edges are adjacent to each other (Fig. 2). The curved teeth are each twisted in a twist direction that reverses from one of rightward and leftward directions to the other of the rightward and leftward directions once along the entire cutting length (Fig. 3). Each of the curved teeth is curved shape in an arcuate or arched manner in a development view of an outer circumferential surface of the end mill around an axis of the end mill such that a corresponding one of the peripheral cutting edges is provided on a concave side of the curved shape (Fig. 3).
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).
A most recessed point of the curved shape of each of the curved teeth in the development view is P1, a bottom-cutting-edge side end of the curved shape in a tool axial direction is P2, and a shank-portion side end of the curved shape in the tool axial direction is P3, a circumferential distance between P1 and P2 and a circumferential distance between P1 and P3 are both in a range relative to the length (L; Figs. 2-5). P1 is located in a region extending from P2 in the tool axial direction by a distance that is 5-95% of the tooth length (Fig. 5). While the explicit tooth length to circumferential distance 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. Because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known assertion, the official notice of the well-known fact is taken as applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03 C. 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 includes 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicanat argues that there is an explicit definition defining a “normal” tooth. In relation to the Muriel reference, Applicant alleges that the claim language requires all teeth of the cutter to be of the plurality. Examiner disagrees.
The proffered definition fails to define the phrase “normal teeth” with the particularity to act as its own lexicographer. The definition is merely set forth as a note “that each of the normal teeth is a smooth and standard tooth which defines neither a nicked portion (grooved portion) nor a roughing portion (corrugated portion) and which has a constant outside diameter.” (Written Description Paragraph 0014). This statement lacks explicit recitation that “normal tooth” means X. Furthermore, the proffered definition lacks clarity as the boundaries of what is considered smooth and standard are not clearly delineated. Thus, the indefiniteness rejection stands.
Turning to the prior art of record, the failure to obviate the rejection lies with the language employed. The recitation “the plurality of peripheral cutting edges are all peripheral cutting edges of the end mill” is not tantamount to “the plurality of cutting edges is all of the peripheral cutting edges on the end mill.” Nevertheless, the prior art reaches the claimed invention without the interpretation having only two cutting edges (of a cutter with more than two cutting edges) qualifying as the plurality. As such, the prior art reads upon the claimed end mill.
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 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