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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma should be placed between the term “edges” and the word “and” in Line 20. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-16 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 “a maximum radial distance from all cutting points on each of the cutting edges” in Lines 12-13. It is unclear whether there are multiple maximum radial distances of each cutting edge or if there is a maximum radial distance among all cutting points. It is unclear as to what constitutes a cutting point - merely a point along the edge or a physical feature of a point of a tip. Furthermore, it is unclear whether there is a maximum radial distance relative to each cutting edge or if there is but one maximum radial distance relative to all cutting edges. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of cutting edges includes an S-shaped segment that extends radially from the common longitudinal axis” in Line 26. The metes and bounds of a “s-shaped segment” are not clearly delineated. That is, the boundary between something being considered S-shaped and not so shaped is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “as viewed form the cutting edge start in the direction towards the cutting edge end” in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the direction towards the cutting edge end.” The direction is unclear and view is unclear. In particular, it is unclear if the view is from the start as suggested by the language or the view is perpendicular to the axis in the manner illustrated in the Figures. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “a first circular curved shape” in Line 8 and “a second circular curved shape” in Line 13. It is unclear whether the shapes are circular as claimed or circular arcs as disclosed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the cutting point” in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the first curved region of each of the S-shaped segments is curved away from the common longitudinal axis and the second curved region is curved towards the common longitudinal axis.” It is unclear what constitutes a curve towards the axis and what constitutes a curve away from the axis. No direction is provided. It is also unclear whether this means a convexity/concavity is in a given direction or not. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 6 recites “a wedge angle and/or a clearance angle and or a rake angle of the cutting points changes along at least a portion . . . of the cutting edges.” It is unclear how a point has any of these angles. Moreover, it is unclear how the angles change in a given point. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 7 recites “the cutting head has at least four cutting teeth” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the at least four cutting teeth are part of the plurality or if the at least four are separate therefrom. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 8 recites “the cutting head has a group of at least two successive cutting teeth” in Line 3. It is unclear whether the successive teeth group are part of the plurality of teeth previously recited or different therefrom. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “said group of at least two successive cutting teeth repeats itself at least once” in Lines 8-9. It is unclear if this requires an additional group or the first group having more teeth could meet the limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the circumferential direction” in Line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “the minimum radial distance of each of the cutting edges in the first curved region” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear how the minimum radial distance is in the first curved region as each cutting edge extends from (i.e., intersects) the axis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “the maximum radial distance of each of the cutting edges in the second curved region” in Lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the maximum radial distance of the cutting edge relative to all points (i.e., the entire cutting edge) as recited in claim 1 or this is a different maximum radial distance relative to only the second curved region. If the latter, the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis for the limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 11 recites “a wedge angle and/or a clearance angle and or a rake angle of the cutting points changes along at least a portion . . . of the cutting edges.” It is unclear how a point has any of these angles. Moreover, it is unclear how the angles change in a given point. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 12 recites “the cutting head has at least four cutting teeth” in Lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the at least four cutting teeth are part of the plurality or if the at least four are separate therefrom. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 14 recites “the minimum radial distance of each of the cutting edges in the first curved region” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear how the minimum radial distance is in the first curved region as each cutting edge extends from (i.e., intersects) the axis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 14 recites “the maximum radial distance of each of the cutting edges in the second curved region” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the maximum radial distance of the cutting edge relative to all points (i.e., the entire cutting edge) as recited in claim 1 or this is a different maximum radial distance relative to only the second curved region. If the latter, the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis for the limitation. 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 2865954 Y) in view of Chen (US Pub. No. 2013/0059263 A1) and either of Kuroda (US Pub. No. 2015/0224585 A1) or Kaufeld (DE 3742942 C).
(Claim 1) Zhu et al. (“Zhu”) discloses a micro form end mill (Figs. 2-6) a tool shank (1) designed to be received in a tool holder of a milling machine, and a cutting head (2) fixedly connected to the tool shank such that the tool shank and the cutting head share a common longitudinal axis about which the micro form end mill rotates during usage (Figs. 2-6). The cutting head (2) has a plurality of cutting teeth (4-6) and each of the plurality of cutting teeth has a cutting edge (4). As best understood, a maximum radial distance from all cutting points on each of the cutting edges to the common longitudinal axis is less than 0.5 mm (Translation disclosing L as being within the range of 0.70-0.90 mm, which sets a radial distance of 0.35-0.45 mm). In the event the all cutting points is deemed to exceed the L dimension, it is worth noting that cutting diameter is a result-effective variable because it impacts the size of the cut made, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the maximum radial distance (i.e., cutting diameter) within the claimed range in order to make a cut of that size. 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.”); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984) (holding that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device). Each of the plurality of cutting edges (4) includes an S-shaped segment (as best understood, see Figs. 4, 6) that extends radially from the common longitudinal axis adjacent a minimum radial distance (cutting edge end furthest from shank 1), which is at a cutting edge start adjacent to a terminal end of the cutting head, to the maximum radial distance, which is at a cutting edge end adjacent to the tool shank (cutting edge end closest to shank 1). Zhu does not explicitly disclose the cutting edge segments extending from the rotational axis. Zhu also does not explicitly disclose the radial offset between the cutting edges as claimed.
Chen discloses a milling cutter of similar shape having cutting edges extending from the rotational axis (Figs. 5, 7; ¶¶ 0030, 0034). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the milling cutter disclosed in Zhu with cutting edges extending from the rotation axis as suggested by Chen in order to cut a groove bottom of desired shape and/or as simple substitution of one known element (i.e., cutting edges extending from the axis with the predictable result of cutting a groove bottom and/or as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions (intersecting axis vs not intersecting axis) leading to the finite solution of cutting a groove bottom. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Kuroda discloses at least first and second ones of the cutting edges are arranged with a radial offset from one another, the radial offset is a difference in radial distances from the common longitudinal axis between a first one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges and a first one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges, and the radial offset is present along only a portion of an entire length of the first and second ones of the cutting edges in a direction parallel to the common longitudinal axis (¶ 0025). The first one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges and said first one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges are intersected by a first common plane that is perpendicular to the common longitudinal axis (Id.). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the milling cutter disclosed in Zhu with the radial offset between the cutting edges as suggested by Kuroda in order to “prevent a chatter mark form being produced due to sympathetic vibration of the end mill during the cutting.” (Id.).
Kaufeld discloses at least first and second ones of the cutting edges are arranged with a radial offset from one another, the radial offset is a difference in radial distances from the common longitudinal axis between a first one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges and a first one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges, and the radial offset is present along only a portion of an entire length of the first and second ones of the cutting edges in a direction parallel to the common longitudinal axis (Fig. 2; Translation disclosing roughing cutting edges 2a being set back from finishing edges 1 by 0.2 mm). The first one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges and said first one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges are intersected by a first common plane that is perpendicular to the common longitudinal axis (Figs. 1, 2; Translation disclosing roughing cutting edges 2a being set back from finishing edges 1 by 0.2 mm). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the milling cutter disclosed in Zhu with the radial offset between the cutting edges as suggested by Kaufeld in order to perform a rough cut and then a smooth/finish cut.
(Claim 2) Each of the S-shaped segments comprises, as best understood, as viewed from the cutting edge start in the direction towards the cutting edge end: a first curved region (Zhu at A in Fig. 4), in which attack angles of the cutting edge change such that the cutting edge extends in a first circular curved shape having a first radius (Zhu Fig. 4); an intermediate region (Zhu a region between points A and B in Fig. 4), in which the cutting edge extends at a constant attack angle; and a second curved region (Zhu at B in Fig .4), in which the attack angles of the cutting edge change such that the cutting edge extends in a second circular curved shape having a second radius (Zhu Fig. 4). Each of the attack angles of each of the cutting points is the angle between is formed by a tangent line, which is tangent to the cutting edge at this the cutting point and a line parallel to the common longitudinal axis that extends through this the cutting point (Zhu attack angles could be measured in view of Fig. 4).
(Claim 3) As best understood, the first curved region of each of the S-shaped segments is curved away from the common longitudinal axis and the second curved region is curved towards the common longitudinal axis (Zhu Fig. 4).
(Claim 4) Each of the cutting edges lies in respective planes in which the longitudinal axis also lies (Zhu Figs. 2-6). This limitation does not mean what Applicant likely intends. The cutting edges are not required to lie completely or be wholly contained within the respective plane.
(Claim 5) Each of the cutting edges lies in respective planes that each intersect the longitudinal axis (Zhu Figs. 2-6). This limitation does not mean what Applicant likely intends. The cutting edges are not required to lie completely or be wholly contained within the respective plane.
(Claims 6 and 11) While it is unclear about the scope of changing angles in respective points, the Zhu reference does not explicitly disclose a changing rake/clearance/wedge angle. Variable rake/clearance/wedge angles are well-known in the art to optimize cutting performance based upon operational parameters (e.g., work material, cutting speed, feed rate, etc.), the fact of which examiner takes official notice. At a time prior to filing one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the Zhu end mill to have changing rake/clearance/wedge angles (in a portion of the S-shaped segment of each cutting edge) as is well known in the art in order to optimize cutting performance based upon operational parameters.
(Claims 7, 8 and 12) The Zhu cutting head discloses two cutting teeth distributed uniformly around the circumference of the cutting head (Figs. 3-5), but does not explicitly disclose four cutting teeth such that the cutting teeth include at least one additional identical pair.
Kuroda discloses the radial offset is especially beneficial in embodiments having three or more cutting teeth. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the milling tool disclosed in Zhu with at least four cutting teeth as suggested by Kuroda in order to avoid chatter (¶ 0025) and increase cutting efficiency. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
(Claims 9 and 14) While it is unclear how the minimum radial distance is within the claimed range, the cutting edges of the modified milling tool extend from the rotation axis. As such, the minimum radial distance, as best understood, is met. The maximum radial distance, due to the disclosure of the L dimension in Zhu or the modification of the cutting diameter, the modified device also reads upon the maximum radial distance limitation. The first radius R1 is disclosed as being within the claimed range (Zhu Translation disclosing 0.10 to 0.38 mm). The constant attach angle in the intermediate region falls within the claimed range (Zhu Fig. 4). The second radius R2 is disclosed as being within the claimed range (Zhu Translation disclosing 0.10 to 0.38 mm). The modified Zhu reference does not explicitly disclose a maximum offset being within the claimed range. Yet, the offset amount is a result-effective variable because it impacts the amount of material between the so-called rough cut and the finish cut, which impacts resonance as is well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the maximum offset within the claimed range in order to optimize resonance (i.e., cutting performance). 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.”); In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 (1984) (holding that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
(Claims 10 and 13) The Zhu cutting head discloses two cutting teeth distributed uniformly around the circumference of the cutting head (Figs. 3-5), but does not explicitly disclose eight to twelve cutting teeth.
Kuroda discloses the radial offset is especially beneficial in embodiments having three or more cutting teeth. As such, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the milling tool disclosed in Zhu with eight to twelve cutting teeth as suggested by Kuroda in order to avoid chatter (¶ 0025) and increase cutting efficiency. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
(Claims 15 and 16) In the modified device, because the cutting edge extending axially only has the radial offset, the portion adjacent the minimum diameter (at the axis) on each tooth is at the same radial distance in the manner claimed. As such, a second one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges is located outside of the portion of the entire length of the first and second ones of cutting edges in the direction parallel to the common longitudinal axis having the radial offset, a second one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges is located outside of the portion of the entire length of the first and second ones of cutting edges in the direction parallel to the common longitudinal axis having the radial offset, said second one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges and said second one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges are intersected by a second common plane that is perpendicular to the common longitudinal axis and is parallel to the first common plane, and the radial distance of said second one of the cutting points on the first one of the cutting edges is equal to the radial distance of said second one of the cutting points on the second one of the cutting edges.
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