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 and 5 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 in its entirety is convoluted to the extent that the scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear how many peripheral cutting edges and partially-uneven cutting edges are actually being claimed. In a first instance, it is believed that the claim requires a plurality of peripheral cutting edges, which means more than one. At least one of these peripheral cutting edges is partially-uneven, which is being defined as being one of type A, B, or C. However, in a second instance, as recited in lines 21-23, it is unclear if the claim requires the plurality of peripheral cutting edges to be four so as to each be defined by teeth A-D; and further in a third instance, as recited in lines 25-26, it is unclear if the claim requires the plurality of peripheral cutting edges to be four and then two be teeth A-D. Again, the claim is unclear, specifically starting from lines 21-27 the scope of the claim is unclear. Further clarification is needed.
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shpigelman et al. US 9,327,353 (hereafter--Shpigelman--), as best understood in view of the 112 2nd issues identified above.
In regards to claim 1, Shpigelman discloses an end mill (10) comprising a plurality of peripheral cutting edges (20A-D), wherein the plurality of peripheral cutting edges (20A-D) have respective helix angles that are equal to each other (see col 5, line 43), at least one of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges (20B, 20D) is constituted by a partially-uneven cutting edge that includes an uneven edge portion consisting of a nicked portion (serrations) or a roughing portion (see col 5, line 29), the uneven edge portion is provided in only a part of a tooth length of the partially-uneven cutting edge (see that the serrations are provided in only a part of a tooth length starting from offset D1, as in Figure 2B), the partially-uneven cutting edge is defined by a tooth A (20B) in which the uneven edge portion has a length within a certain range of the tooth length and is provided in a region extending from a shank-portion side end toward a bottom-cutting-edge side in an axial direction of the end mill by a distance corresponding to a certain percentage of the tooth length (see Figures 1B and 2B, and note that the uneven edge lengths goes from the shank all the way up until it reaches a certain distance D1 from the bottom-cutting-edge at cutting end face 16), each of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges (20A-D) is defined by one of four types of teeth A-D (20A-D), such that four types of teeth A-D consist of the teeth A-C each of which defines the partially-uneven cutting edge (20B, 20D) and a tooth D which does not define the uneven edge portion (20A, 20C), the plurality of peripheral cutting edges (20A-D) are defined by at least two of the four types of teeth A-D (20A/20C and 20B/20D), such that each adjacent pair of the peripheral cutting edges adjacent to each other are defined by the teeth that are different in type from each other (see Figures 1A and 2B), and the helix angles of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges are within a range.
However, Shpigelman fails to disclose that the length of the uneven edge portion ranges from 5% to 65% of the tooth length and that the distance to which the uneven edge portion extends at, corresponding to 70% of the tooth length.
Since Shpigelman does, however, disclose that the partially-uneven cutting edge is defined by tooth A (20B) in which the uneven edge portion has a length within a certain range of the tooth length and is provided in a region extending from a shank-portion side end toward a bottom-cutting-edge side in an axial direction of the end mill by a distance corresponding to a certain percentage of the tooth length (see Figures 1B and 2B, and note that the uneven edge lengths goes from the shank all the way up until it reaches a certain distance D1 from the bottom-cutting-edge at cutting end face 16); the length of the partially-uneven portion and the distance to which the portion is extending to, in relation to the tooth length, constitute a defined percentage of the cutting tool. Therefore, the length of the partially-uneven portion and the distance to which the portion is extending to, in relation to the tooth length is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the length of the partially-uneven portion and the distance to which the portion is extending to, in relation to the tooth length will depend on the desired reduction in chatter and vibration, thus providing optimum results for finishing (see col 4, lines 41-51) and depending on the desired spacing between serrations (col 4, lines 1-4). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined partially-uneven cutting edge’s length within a certain range of the tooth length and a define corresponding to a certain percentage of the tooth length (see Figures 1B and 2B, and note that the uneven edge lengths goes from the shank all the way up until it reaches a certain distance D1 from the bottom-cutting-edge at cutting end face 16), were disclosed in the prior art by Shpigelman, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Shpigelman’s length of the partially-uneven portion and the distance to which the portion is extending to, in relation to the tooth length, to be within a desired range such as having the length of the uneven edge portion ranging from 5% to 65% of the tooth length and having the distance to which the uneven edge portion extends at, to be corresponding to 70% of the tooth length. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233/In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
However, Shpigelman fails to disclose that the helix angle ranges from 0° to 5°.
Since Shpigelman does, however, disclose that the plurality of peripheral cutting edges are disposed at a constant helix angle, where in a non-limiting example is about 45° (col 5, lines 42-45; col 8, lines 20-22); the helix angle of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, constitutes a defined value of the cutting tool. Therefore, the helix angle of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the helix angle to which the plurality of peripheral cutting edges will depend on the material being machined, to lower cutting resistance of the endmill, and thus increase cutting quality. The angle will also depend upon the application to which the tool is being used (see Evidence References below). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of defined plurality of peripheral cutting edges each disposed at a constant/same helix angle, were disclosed in the prior art by Shpigelman, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Shpigelman’s helix angle of the plurality of peripheral cutting edges, to be within a desired range such as from 0° to 5°. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shpigelman et al. US 9,327,353 (hereafter--Shpigelman--), as applied to claim 1 above, and as best understood in view of the 112 2nd issues identified above, in view of Kanno et al. US 2019/0168317 (hereafter—Kanno--).
In regards to claim 5, Shpigelman as modified discloses the end mill according to claim 1, Shpigelman as modified discloses a surface of a tooth portion, which is provided with the peripheral cutting edges.
However, Shpigelman as modified fails to disclose that the tooth portion where the peripheral cutting edges are disposed, is covered with a hard coating.
Nevertheless, Kanno teaches that it is well known in the art, to have a tooth portion where peripheral cutting edges are disposed, be covered with a hard coating (DLD as in paragraph [0032]) to increase surface hardness of each of the blade faces and hence the wear and/or chipping of the blade edge can be suppressed (paragraph [0032]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the tooth portion of Shpigelman where the peripheral cutting edges are disposed, be covered with a hard coating as taught by Kanno, to increase surface hardness of each of the blade faces and hence the wear and/or chipping of the blade edge can be suppressed.
Evidence References
Stojanovski US 2018/0036810 evidences that it is well known in the art to have peripheral cutting edges be formed at a helix angle which “winds” around a cylindrical body portion 12 from a longitudinal axis of the cutting tool 10. For a cutting tool 10 with a “low helix” (or low helical flute) is a flute 30 that helically “winds” around the body portion or cylinder 12 at an angle of no more than approximately 20° (twenty degrees) from the longitudinal axis of the cutting tool 10. A “high helix” (or high helical flute) is a flute 30 that helically winds around the generally cylinder-shaped body portion 12 at an angle of greater than approximately about 30°. Low helix angle flutes 30 may be typically employed for rough cutting while high helix angle flutes may be typically employed for a finer finish cutting.
Toyozumi et al. US 2017/0106606 evidences that helix angles can range so as to have a lower limit of 0° or 5°, to lower cutting resistance of the endmill, and thus increase cutting quality and life expectancy and of the cutting blade (see paragraph [0222]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722