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:
Claim 1 recites “for respective land portion” in line 21. It appears this should be amended to recite --for a respective land portion--.
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 3-4 and 6 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 3 recites the limitation "the upper side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each screw" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, noting that screws per se were not positively recited. It appears that this should actually be amended to recite --each screw hole-- based on claim 5 as well as the omitted limitations in the amendments to claim 6, and this will be the examiner’s interpretation for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (JP2007268693, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Kobayashi discloses a metal cutting milling tool (end mill 20), comprising: a body (22) rotatable around a central axis (L1) in a rotational direction, wherein the body comprises a front end (33), a plurality of land portions (24/40) extending axially rearwards from the front end (paragraph 28), a plurality of chip rooms (27) extending axially rearwards from the front end, wherein each chip room of the plurality of chip rooms is positioned between two adjacent land portions of the plurality of land portions (e.g. five of each alternating around the circumference, evident in the figures), each land portion of the plurality of land portions being delimited by a leading surface (on which the inserts 23 are mounted) and a trailing surface (opposite to the above) as seen in the rotational direction (e.g. Fig. 1), and wherein each land portion as part of the leading surface in a radially outer and forward region, includes an insert seat (40) arranged for receiving a cutting insert (23) wherein at the front end of the milling tool, in a plane perpendicular to the central axis, an angle between a radius intersecting a radially outer point in the insert seat of a first land portion of the plurality of land portions and a radius intersecting a corresponding point in the insert seat of a second land portion of the plurality of land portions defines a seat pitch angle (essentially each of α1- α5, where in Kobayashi this angle is shown between adjacent insert faces rather than seats but ultimately measures an analogous angle and is merely circumferentially offset by insert thickness) for the first land portion, and wherein the first land portion and a second land portion are adjacent consecutive land portions in the rotational direction (see Fig. 1), at least three different land portions of the plurality of land portions have seat pitch angles that differ in value (all five are different, e.g. 60°, 75°, 72°, 76°, and 77° - paragraph 35), and wherein at the front end of the milling tool, each land portion of the plurality of land portions has a respective arc length (base end thicknesses W1-W5) defined by the circumferential distance along the radial periphery of the milling tool between the insert seat and the trailing surface for respective land portion (Fig. 1), wherein a longest arc length is at most 10% longer than a shortest arc length (e.g. they may be set equal - paragraph 50).
Claim 2: Kobayashi further discloses cutting inserts (23) that are positioned one in each of the insert seats (40) and wherein all the cutting inserts are identical (the inserts 23 are presumed identical at least for the first embodiment for lack of disclosure to the contrary, and in view of a second embodiment where the inserts may differ - paragraph 51).
Claim 3: At the front end of the milling tool, in a plane perpendicular to the central axis, a line parallel to the upper side of a cutting insert and a line parallel to the trailing surface, associated with the same chip room as the cutting insert, of the adjacent land portion, defines an opening angle (chip space angle β) for a respective cutting insert, and wherein at least three of the opening angles differ in value (paragraph 39).
Claim 5: The insert seats each include a screw hole (29) for fixing one of the cutting inserts (paragraph 28), wherein the screw hole extends transverse to the insert seat, and wherein each screw hole is a through hole (this appears to be the case, e.g. in Figs. 3-5).
Claim 6: Each screw [hole] extends from one chip room to an adjacent chip room to an adjacent chip room in the rotational direction (this appears to be the case, e.g. in Figs. 3-5).
Claim 7: A longest screw hole is at most 10% longer than a shortest screw hole (given the holes pass through the thickness of portions 46 and their lengths would correspond essentially to the base end thicknesses W1-W5 discussed above, the screw holes are also presumed to be within 10% of each other, e.g. equal as cited for W1-W5).
Claim 8: The longest arc length (W) is at most 5% longer than the shortest arc length (they may be equal as noted above).
Claim 9: The shortest arc length (W) is at least as long as a thickness of the cutting inserts (evident in e.g. Fig. 1, 3, 7).
Claims 10-11: A largest seat pitch angle (α) is at least 5° larger than a smallest seat pitch angle, or at least 8° larger than a smallest seat pitch angle of the seat pitch angles (the largest angle is 77°while the smallest is 60°, where the difference is 17° - paragraph 35).
Claim 12: All the seat pitch angles have different values (e.g. 60°, 75°, 72°, 76°, and 77° - paragraph 35).
Claim 13: All the cutting inserts are positioned at a same radial distance from the central axis (this is presumed the case for lack of disclosure otherwise and in view of Fig. 1).
Claims 14-15: The milling tool is an indexable (having inserts 23) end milling tool (paragraph 21) or slot milling tool (the tool could mill a slot).
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 2-3, 9, and 13 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Schneider et al. (U.S. PGPub 2002/0085887, cited in IDS).
Claim 2: In the event that Kobayashi is insufficient in disclosing all the cutting inserts being identical, Schneider et al. teaches a similar tool wherein all the cutting inserts are identical (paragraph 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used identical cutting inserts so that they can be exchanged if necessary (Id.).
Claims 3, 9, and 13: Claims 3, 9, and 13, being dependent from claim 2, may alternatively be rejected over Kobayashi in view of Schneider et al. for substantially the same reasons as indicated above in view of Kobayashi alone.
Claims 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (or alternatively in further view of Schneider et al.).
Claim 4: The opening angles (chip space angles β) of Kobayashi are all acute and are thus all less than 100°, and appear to be at least about 45°, but it is unclear wherein all the opening angles are within 60-100°. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the opening angles to within 60-100° it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Additionally or alternatively, Kobayashi discloses that the opening angle is a result effective variable and is selected in view of chip discharge performance, for example (paragraphs 39-40). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kobayashi to have opening angles within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kobayashi by making the opening angles to within 60-100° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 9: Alternatively, while it appears to be that the shortest arc length (W) is at least as long as a thickness of the cutting inserts, it is further noted that Kobayashi discloses that the arc length is a result effective variable and is selected in view of based on the cutting resistance calculated from the cutting conditions of the workpiece, the number of chips 23 to be attached, and the shape of the chips 23, for example (paragraphs 40, 47). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Kobayashi to have arc lengths within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Kobayashi by making the shortest arc length (W) at least as long as a thickness of the cutting inserts as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional references pertain to similar milling cutters having differential pitch.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726