DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2020/0254539 to Sharivker.
Claim 7 recites an end mill. Sharivker relates to such an end mill (10). See Sharivker [0002]. Figure 1A of Shaviker shows the end mill has a tool body (12) with a columnar shape rotated with an axis line (R). Figure 1A further shows a helical flute (24) recessed in a rim of the tool body…twisted around the axis line as well as an end cutting edge (28) formed at a tip. Figure 1C of Sharivker shows a flank circumferentially extended from the end cutting edge. Figure 1B shows a gash that is recessed on the tip side of the helical flute. Specifically, the gash is the element formed by (32) on one side and the unlabeled opposing wall element, with the two coming together to form a common point. This gash forms a cutting face (32) of the end cutting edge (28). This face is a recessed curved surface as shown in figure 1B. Figure 1B further shows that the end cutting edge (28) [is] a ridge between the cutting face…and the flank (30), the flank being concavely curved. Figure 1A shows that the gash widens as it approaches the tip and therefore becomes deeper (in the axial direction) as it goes toward the tip part.
Finally, claim 7 recites that the cutting face is formed as a recessed curved surface by a groove that is…parallel with a fillet of the gash. The cutting face is defined to be central rake face (32B). This face is a recessed curved surface by a groove. The fillet of the gash is defined as the rounded surface where the unnamed face meets the bottom (32A) in a line extending axially from the tip into the tool. These two faces extend axially back for a short distance in parallel. The middle rake face is also a center part is defined by being flanked by rake faces 32A and C. Regarding claim 10, figures 1B & 1C show a curved portion of the end cutting edge [that] face[es] the axis line.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0254539 to Sharivker.
Claim 12 recites that a helix angle of the helical flute is between 20 and 50 degrees. Sharivker does not explicitly teach the helix angle, but figures 1A and 2 appear to show helix angles within this range. While figures are not necessarily to scale, it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense to reproduce the end mill with angles roughly equal to that illustrated.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 8, 9, 11, & 13 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 prior art does not explicitly teach satisfying the equations of either claim 8 or 9. Nor is there discussion in the prior art of establishing these equations as important in an end mill having the specific structures of claim 7. Likewise, there is no explicit discussion of having a fillet gash angle, in such a specific end mill structure, that is 20-65 degrees to the perpendicular plane, as recited in claim 11. Finally, the figures do not appear to show a boundary between the cutting face and gash face being a fillet of the gash.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
Regarding the anticipation rejection of claim 7, applicant argues that Sharivkar does not explicitly state that rake faces 32A, B, & C constitute a recessed curved surface. While this may be technically true, the figures show it to be the case. While figures are not presumed to be to scale, the existence of curvature and recesses shown may be used to teach a feature. It remains the Office’s position that the figures show the recited feature.
CONCLUSION
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights