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 1-15 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 in line 18, “in the opposite direction”, which has insufficient antecedent basis, as no “opposite direction” has been previously introduced in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 recites in line 8 “a second forward cutting edge” and “a second rearward cutting edge”, however it is unclear in relation to what is this second cutting edge, considered as “forward” and “rearward”. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 2 recites in lines 2-3 “a first forward cutting edge” and “a first rearward cutting edge”, however it is unclear in relation to what is this first cutting edge, considered as “forward” and “rearward”. Further clarification is needed. Furthermore, the conditional term “when” in “when moving the turning tool in the first direction” as set forth in line 5, renders the claim indefinite; as it is unclear if the phrase directly after the “when” term is actually required or not. What happens when the turning tool is not moved in the first direction? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 3 recites in line 2 “when moving the turning tool in the second direction”. The conditional term “when” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the phrase directly after the “when” term is actually required or not. What happens when the turning tool is not moved in the second direction? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in line 2 “when moving the turning tool in the first direction”. The conditional term “when” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the phrase directly after the “when” term is actually required or not. What happens when the turning tool is not moved in the first direction? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recites in lines 3-4 “when moving the turning tool in the first direction”. The conditional term “when” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the phrase directly after the “when” term is actually required or not. What happens when the turning tool is not moved in the first direction? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 9 in its entirety is unclear and confusing. What is meant by: the second nose cutting edge being in the first direction ahead of the first cutting edge when moving the turning tool in the first direction? Ahead in what sense? Similarly, what is meant by: the first cutting edge is in the second direction ahead of the second nose cutting edge when moving the turning tool in the second direction? Ahead in what sense? Further clarification is needed. Furthermore, the conditional term “when” in each of “when moving the turning tool in the first direction” and “when” moving the turning tool in the second direction, renders the claim indefinite; as it is unclear if the phrase directly after the “when” term is actually required or not. What happens when the turning tool is not moved on either first or second directions? Further clarification is needed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claim 15 has been interpreted as requiring all of the claimed limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner’s reasons for allowance will be provided once all of the outstanding 112 2nd issues have been resolved, and thus the Application is ready to be allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights