DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a clamp structure of a cutting insert. This phrase claims a clamp that has an intended use of holding a cutting insert, but that the cutting insert is not an element of the clamp. Yet the body of the claim then claims two elements the cutting insert and a supporter that clamps this insert. This creates confusion as to the metes and bounds of the claim. Examiner recommends amending the preamble to merely recite ‘a clamp structure that is detachably mounted on a main tool body comprising.’ The body can then claim the insert and the supporter. For purposes of examination, the preamble has been given precedence. Thus, the cutting insert is not a claimed element. However, in the interest of expedited prosecution, an extra section has been added to each claim rejection addressing the structures of the insert.
Claim 7 recites the lower side of the surface. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
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 1-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2012/0282046 to Taylor.
Claim 1 recites a clamp structure of a cutting insert. As noted in the 112 rejection, this is claiming a clamp structure that has the intended use of holding a cutting insert. The preamble then recites additional intended use defining that the clamp is designed to be detachably mounted on an insert mounting seat of a tool main body with a clamp member. Taylor relates to such a clamp structure that is designed to both hold an insert and be mounted to a tool. See Taylor [0027] and Fig. 1.
Figures 1 and 4 of Taylor show the clamp structure [has] a supporter (12) in a plate shape. This supporter is capable of performing the intended use of hold[ing] an outer peripheral surface of the cutting insert (14) from a side and a rear side. Figure 4 further shows the supporter has a supporter main body (18) to which the clamp member is locked via bolt hole (25) as well as a gripping arm (54) that protrudes from the supporter main body in a direction orthogonal to a plate thickness direction of the supporter and that elastically deforms with respect to the supporter main body. See Taylor [0027] & [0038]. Figure 4 also shows the supporter has a pocket (26) that has a recessed shape recessed from a front end portion of the supporter to the rear side and in which the cutting insert is disposed. Taylor also teaches the main body has a restraining surface (30) that comes into contact with the surface [of the cutting insert] and that the gripping arm has a pressing surface (28) that comes into contact with the surface[of the cutting insert] to be pressed. See Taylor [0032], [0038], and Figs. 1 & 4.
Claim 1 further recites a slit that is disposed between the supporter main body and the gripping arm and that is open to both sides of the supporter in the plate thickness direction. Figure 4 of Taylor shows a small indented groove where the surface (28) meets surface (30). This is defined to be the slit. Claim 1 then recites the slit has a pocket opening that is open to the pocket, and the pocket opening is disposed between the restraining surface and the pressing surface. The groove of Taylor is open to the pocket (26) and is disposed between the two surfaces.
The following additional section now addresses how Taylor would anticipate the cutting insert. Figure 1 of Taylor shows the cutting insert (14) ha[s] a polygonal columnar shape and at least a front end portion at which a cutting edge is disposed. See Taylor [0027]. Figure 1 further shows the cutting insert has a surface to be pressed that is disposed at a portion of the outer peripheral surface which faces at least the side. Specifically, these are the two parallel side surfaces flowing from the pointed cutting edge to the back of the pentagonal insert. Figure 1 also shows a surface to be restrained that is disposed at a portion of the outer peripheral surface which is positioned on the rear side of the surface to be pressed in the form of the rear surface opposite the pointed cutting edge.
Regarding claim 2, figures 1-4 of Taylor show the diamond shaped cutting insert has a front-back inverted symmetrical shape in the plate thickness direction and has a front-rear inverted symmetrical shape in a front-rear direction. Claim 3 recites that the cutting insert has a hexagonal prismatic shape. As noted above, the cutting insert is not a claimed element. Thus, the feature only impacts the claim insofar as to whether the structure of Taylor is capable of accepting a hexagonal cutting insert. It could be modified to do so. Specifically, examiner draws attention to figure 3B of U.S. 2017/0028478 submitted in applicant’s IDS. Examiner also notes figure 3B of ‘478 likely renders the use a hexagonal, rather than a pentagonal, cutting insert as obvious. Regarding claim 4, figures 1-4 shows the main body has a through hole (25) positioned on a center axis that is capable of accepting a part of the clamp member. The clamp member is not a claimed element as it is a structure of the tool, not the clamp structure. Regarding claim 5, figure 4 of Taylor shows the supporter (12) has a rectangular plate shape, and a center axis of the through hole (25) is coaxially disposed with the center axis of the supporter. Regarding claim 6, figure 1 shows the intended use of the device of Taylor has a rear end portion of the cutting insert…positioned on a front side of the center axis of the supporter.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 recites that the slit extends about a center axis of the supporter when viewed from the plate thickness direction. The view from the plate thickness direction is interpreted to mean an overhead view of the X-Y axis, i.e. the view shown in figure 3A of the instant application and figure 4 of Taylor (reproduced below). The center axis could have several meanings. It could be the Z axis line coming out of the page at the center of the bore. Alternately, it could mean a central mirror symmetry axis, such as shown by the added dotted line. The broadest reasonable interpretation includes both interpretations. The rejection uses the latter. The two slits (with the solid arrow pointing to one of the slits) are symmetrically disposed about the dotted line axis. As such, they extend about a center axis. They also each have an hemispherical arc shape in this view, as recited in claim 11. Regarding claim 12, figure 4 of Taylor shows a pair of the gripping arms (54) are provided and the pocket (26)…disposed between [them].
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.
Claims 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2012/0282046 to Taylor in view of U.S. 2017/0028478 to Fiori.
Claim 7 recites the cutting insert is pulled out from the pocket to an upper side [and] the part of the clamp member is inserted from a lower side into the through hole. These are both method steps that involve non-claimed elements. As such, they do not materially affect the rejection. Regardless, the device of Taylor appears to be intended to perform both of these steps. Claim 7 then recites that and the through hole has a surface to be contacted that is disposed at an inner peripheral surface of the through hole and that comes into contact with the part of the clamp member. Figure 6 of Taylor shows the through hole (25) has an inner surface.
Claim 7 then recites a stopper that is disposed on the lower side of the surface…that protrudes more than the surface. Figure 6 of Taylor does not show such a protrusion inside the through hole (25). But it would have been obvious to add such a stopper in view of Fiori. Fiori also relats to a clamp structure (17) for a cutting insert (23) that is then bolted to a tool (13). See Fiori [0035] and Fig. 1. As such, Fiori is analogous art. Fiori teaches the through hole (17d) may have two inner diameters to complement the shape connecting element. See Fiori Figs. 1 and 3A. It therefore would have been obvious to modify Taylor to have a stopper that is disposed on the lower side of the surface…that protrudes more than the surface, to complement the shape of a connective element that had a stepped shape.
Regarding claim 8, both the surface and the stopper would be disposed along the entire periphery of the bore and thus would be disposed at least [at] a posterior end portion of the inner peripher[y].
Claim 13 recites a tool having the clamp structure of claim 1, the insert mounting seat and the system being capable of fix[ing] the clamp structure…to the insert mounting seat. The device of Taylor is designed for such a tool and to be mounted in this fashion, but the figures and text do not explicitly show this. Fiori, however, shows a highly similar clamp structure (17) being attached to a tool (13) via a insert mounting seat (15a). See Fiori Figs. 1a-2b. As such, it would have been obvious to modify Taylor to include the same type of tool and mounting because it is obvious to combine known prior art elements in a predictable manner. See MPEP 2143(A).
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 recites that the through hole has an up-down inverted symmetrical shape. The through-hole of Taylor is symmetric alone this axis. But the modification to add a stopper element, based on Fiori would result in a non-symmetric shape because Fiori does not teach having symmetrically matched stopper elements. Nor would such a symmetry be obvious because the entire point would be to match the contour of a presumably non-symmetric connective element.
CONCLUSION
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.”