DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-13 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference character 2c, illustrated at least in Figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “(N is an integer of 2 or more)” at line 3. The examiner strongly recommends removing the parentheses to clarify that the terms within the parentheses have patentable weight.
In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner will interpret the claim as if there were no parentheses.
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 2-6 and 8 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 2 recites the limitation "the cutting edge tip side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cutting edge tip side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the most protruding point side" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-6 depend from claim 4, and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 4.
The term “gradually” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gradually decreases” 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. It is unclear how one having ordinary skill the art would determine whether a particular decrease in cutting edge angle is gradual as opposed to sudden or quick. The term does not appear to be defined in the Specification.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the diameter D of the tool body" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that a diameter of the tool body is defined in claim 10, however claim 12 depends from claim 9.
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 1-4 and 7
Claims 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0056928 to Riviere et al. (hereinafter “Riviere”).
Regarding claim 1, Riviere discloses a cutting insert (30) detachably attached to an insert attachment seat (13, 14; see paragraph [0012]) formed at a tip of a tool body (10; see Figs. 1D and 1E) in a cutting-edge-replaceable cutting tool rotating around an axis, comprising: a rake face (35) which faces a rotation direction (circumferential direction; see Fig. 1D) of the tool body (10); a seating face (40) which is seated on a bottom face (planar faces of 13, 14) of the insert attachment seat (13, 14; see Figs. 1D, 1E) to face the side opposite to the rake face (35); and a flank face (side surfaces at 34B; see Fig. 2A) which extends around the rake face (35) and the seating face (40), wherein two cutting edges (32 with 38, and 33 with 39; see Fig. 2D) each including an arc-shaped cutting edge part (38, 39; see Fig. 2A) extending an in arc shape in a plan view when viewed from a direction facing the rake face (35) and a linear cutting edge part (32, 33; see Fig. 2A) extending to be in contact with the arc-shaped cutting edge part are formed at an intersection ridge line part (34A; see Fig. 3F) between the rake face (35) and the flank face (34B) so that the arc-shaped cutting edge part (38 and 39) and the linear cutting edge part (32 and 33) are located alternatively in a circumferential direction of the rake face (35; see Fig. 2A), and wherein each of the cutting edges (32 and 38; 33 and 39) includes a convex curved part (see profile views at 2C and 3C; convex curve shown at lead line 38 in Fig. 2C) moving away from the seating face (40) and then moving close to the seating face (40; see profile view) as at least the arc-shaped cutting edge part (38 and 39 in plan view; see Fig. 2A) moves away from the linear cutting edge part (32 and 33), and in a side view when viewed from a direction facing the flank face (34B; see Figs. 2C and 3C), the arc-shaped cutting edge part (38 and 39) includes a curvature change point (see Fig. 2C and second Annotated Figure below) between a cutting edge tip (tips of cutting insert at 36 and 37; see Fig. 2A) of the arc-shaped cutting edge part (38 and 39) and the most protruding point (see Annotated Figure) when the most protruding point indicates a point farthest from the seat face (40) on the convex curved part (see profile views in Figs. 2C and 3C; most protruding point extends furthest from the bottom face of the insert).
PNG
media_image1.png
206
657
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
566
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Riviere discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Riviere discloses that in the side view (see Fig. 2A) when viewed from a normal direction with respect to a tangent line of the arc-shaped cutting edge part (38, 39) passing through the most protruding point (see Annotated Figure above), each of the cutting edges includes arcs having at least two different curvatures (see second Annotated Figure above), and wherein when an arc radius on the cutting edge tip (towards tips at 36 and 37) side is R1 (see second Annotated Figure above) and an arc radius on the most protruding point side (towards center of face of cutting insert) is R2, a relationship of R1 < R2 is satisfied (see second Annotated Figure; it appears that the second radius is greater than the first radius).
Regarding claim 3, Riviere discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Riviere discloses that the arc radius R1 is 1/2 or less of the arc radius R2 (see second Annotated Figure; it appears that the second radius is larger than the diameter corresponding to the first radius).
Regarding claim 4, Riviere discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Riviere discloses that in the side view (see Fig. 2C) the cutting edge (32 and 38; 33 and 39) is formed by a first cutting edge (cutting edge at 32 and 38; uppermost portion with respect to Fig. 2C) having a curved shape (see Fig. 2C) in which the cutting edge tip side (at 36) protrudes upwards with respect to the seating face (40) and a second cutting edge having a shape in which the most protruding point side (uppermost rake face portion 35) protrudes upward with respect to the seating face (40) with the curvature change point (see Second Annotated Figure above) as a boundary, wherein the second cutting edge (cutting edge at 33 and 39) is formed as a second cutting edge (see Fig. 2C) having a curved (portion 39) or linear shape (portion 33) with a curvature smaller than that of the first cutting edge (see Second Annotated Figure above), and wherein an intersection between the first cutting edge (at 32 and 38) and the second cutting edge (at 33 and 39) is the curvature change point (see Fig. 2A; transition point between 33 and 39 is in region of illustrated circle in the Figure and between portions 32 and 38 is also in region on illustrated circle, where curvature change point is understood to be located).
Regarding claim 7, Riviere discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Riviere discloses that the cutting insert (30) is provided with a groove part (41 or 42) having a wall face (see Fig. 2E; sidewalls of grooves shown in profile) capable of abutting against a convex part protruding from the bottom face of the insert attachment seat (40), wherein two groove parts (41 and 42) are formed with an attachment hole (31) for attaching the cutting insert (30) in a sandwiched state (see Fig. 2D; hole 31 is sandwiched between grooves 41 and 42), and wherein the curvature change point (see Fig. 2A; curvature change points are more towards tip sides 36 and 37 than illustrated midline at line F-F) is formed on the cutting edge tip side in relation to one groove part close to the arc-shaped cutting edge part (curved cutting edge parts at 38 and 39) in the two groove parts (41 and 42).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-6 and 8 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the curvature of the first cutting edge is twice or more the curvature of the second cutting edge,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. While the MPEP instructs 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” (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), Riviere is understood to be the closest prior art of record, and explicitly states that “the curved edges 38, 39 have radii that in a mounted state are substantially identical” (see paragraph [0016]). It would require a substantial departure from the teachings of the reference to modify the curvatures such that the curvature of the first cutting edge is twice that of the second cutting edge in view of the teachings of Riviere, and the examiner finds that such motivation would come improperly from Applicant’s own disclosure in order to so modify Riviere.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein the first cutting edge on the tip side has an arc radius smaller than those of the second cutting edge to the N-th cutting edge, and wherein in the first cutting edge, a cutting edge angle which is an angle formed by the flank face and the rake face gradually decreases from the second cutting edge side toward the tool tip side,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose “wherein when a center point of the arc-shaped cutting edge part located on the axis of the tool body is defined as P, an angle formed by the axis and a line connecting the center point P and the most protruding point is ϴ1, and an angle formed by the axis and a line connecting the center point and the curvature change point is ϴ2, ϴ2 ≤ ϴ1, 30˚ ≤ ϴ1 ≤ 50˚, and 15˚ ≤ ϴ2 ≤ 40˚ are satisfied,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Riviere, understood to be the closest prior art of record, teaches a cutting insert (30) and a tool body (10) which can receive a plurality of inserts, however there is no explicit disclosure regarding the respective orientation relative to the tool body.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 7815,402 to Yoshida et al. teaches a cutting insert (1) having a cutting edge defining a straight edge and a curved edge portion (see Fig. 4).
United States Patent 8,454,279 to Dufour et al. teaches a cutting insert (20) having a cutting edge defining a straight edge (17) and a curved edge portion (16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726