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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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 not clear how close the smallest radius in all cross sections along an axial length of the insert seat needs to stay in order for them be considered approximately constant.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frey (DE102004011297) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Frey teaches a metal cutting milling tool, comprising:
a body (Fig. 2, 2020) that is rotatable around a central axis (Fig. 2, 204) in a rotational direction, wherein the body comprises includes a front end (Fig. 2, 208), a plurality of land portions (see figure below) extending axially rearwards from the front end (Fig. 2, 208), a plurality of chip rooms (Fig. 2, 212) extending axially rearwards from the front end (Fig. 2, 208), wherein each land portion of the plurality of land portions is delimited by a leading (Fig. 2, 214) and a trailing surface (Fig. 2, 216) as seen in the rotational direction, wherein the leading surface (Fig. 2, 214) is rotationally ahead of the trailing surface (Fig. 2, 216),
wherein each land portion, as part of the leading surface (Fig. 2, 214) in a radially outer and forward region, comprises includes an insert seat (Fig. 2, attachment surface of cutting element 218b) arranged for receiving a cutting insert (Fig. 2, 218b), each chip room (Fig. 2, 212) of the plurality of chip rooms being positioned between two adjacent land portions (see figure below) of the plurality of land portions, wherein each chip room is delimited by a chip room surface (Fig. 2, 224) comprising including the trailing surface (Fig. 2, 216) of a first land portion, the leading surface (Fig. 2, 214) of a second land portion and a bottom surface (Fig. 2a, bottom of the half circular groove 224) positioned between the trailing surface (Fig. 2, 216) and the leading surface (Fig. 2, 214),
wherein the first land portion (see figure below) is rotationally ahead of the second land portion (see figure below), wherein as seen in a cross section (Figs. 2a & 2b) perpendicular to the central axis each chip room surface (Figs. 2a & 2b, 224 & 226) has a curvature with a smallest radius ( Figs. 2a & 2b, radius at the bottom of the chip room surface (224 & 226)), and
wherein a smallest radius (radius at the bottom of the chip room surface) in a second cross section (An imaginary section between section A-A and section B-B along axial direction) and a smallest radius (Fig. 2b, radius at the bottom of the chip room surface) in a third cross section (Fig. 2, section B-B) are larger than a smallest radius (Fig. 2a, radius at the bottom of the chip room surface) in a first cross section (Fig. 2, section A-A) (The smallest radius in Fig. 2b is larger than the smallest radius in Fig. 2a.), wherein the first cross section (Fig. 2, section A-A) is axially forward of the second cross section (not shown) and the third cross section (Fig. 2, section B-B) (Fig. 2 shows the first cross section A-A closer to the front end (208) than the third section B-B.)
PNG
media_image1.png
480
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Frey teaches the metal cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the first cross section (Fig. 2, A-A) is positioned axially along an axial length of the insert seat (Fig. 2, attachment surface of the insert (218b)) and wherein the second cross section (An imaginary section between section A-A and section B-B along axial direction) and third cross section (Fig. 2, B-B) are positioned axially farther from the front end (Fig. 2, 208) than the axial length of the insert seat (Fig. 2, attachment surface of the insert (218b)).
Regarding Claim 11, Frey teaches the metal cutting milling tool according to any of the previous claim 1, wherein in the second cross section the chip room (Fig. 2, 212) extends, in the circumferential direction, to an area located in an imaginary axial extension of the insert seat (Fig. 2 and Fig. 2a shows the edge 214 and the surface 224 respectively extending to an area located in an imaginary axial extension of the insert seat.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (DE102004011297) of which attached English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 3, although Frey does not teach the second cross section, it would be reasonable to predict that a smallest radius in any cross section between the first cross section A-A and the third cross section B-B along axial direction would be larger than the smallest radius in the first cross section A-A and smaller than the smallest radius in the third cross section B-B as the size and the smallest radius of chip room (212) grows from the front end (208) to a rear end (210) according to [0032] and Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 4, although Frey does not teach the second cross section, it would be reasonable to predict that a smallest radius in any cross section between the first cross section A-A and the third cross section B-B along axial axis would strictly increase towards the third cross section B-B as the size and the smallest radius of chip room (212) grows from the front end (208) to a rear end (210) according to [0032] and Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 5, it would be reasonable to predict that a smallest radius would increase linearly from the first cross section A-A to the second cross section to the third cross section B-B as the edges (214 & 216) of the chip room (212) converges linearly from a rear end (210) to the front end (208) according to [0032] and Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 6, the smallest radius in cross sections along an axial length of the insert seat would be seen as approximately constant or varying depending on the shape and size of the chip room and a size of the insert seat which is dependent on the overall length of the cutting milling tool and a desired amount of and speed at which chips would flow through the chip room while maintaining stability of the tool.
Regarding Claim 7, although Frey does not teach a relative smallest radius size between the first cross section and the third cross section, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the smallest radius size in the first cross section and the third cross section such that the smallest radius size in the third cross section would be certain times including 2-4 times larger than the smallest radius in the first cross section depending on the overall length of the cutting milling tool and a desired amount of and speed at which chips would flow through the chip room while maintaining stability of the tool.
Regarding Claim 8, although Frey does not teach the actual dimension of the chip room, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine shape and size of the chip room including the smallest radius being 2 and 10 mm depending on the overall length of the cutting milling tool and a desired amount of and speed at which chips would flow through the chip room while maintaining stability of the tool.
Regarding Claim 9, although Figs. 2a and 2b show that the depth of the chip room in the first cross section A-A is smaller than the third cross section B-B, Frey also teaches that the depth of the chip room would vary depending on the desired overall size of the chip room according to [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the depth of the chip room along the axis of the tool including the depth in the third cross section being smaller the depth in the first cross section depending on the overall length of the cutting milling tool and a desired amount of and speed at which chips would flow through the chip room while maintaining stability of the tool.
Regarding Claim 10, although Frey does not explicitly teach the shape of the bottom surface of the chip room in all cross sections between the second cross section and the third cross section, Frey also teaches that the depth of the chip room would vary depending on the desired overall size of the chip room according to [0013]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a shape including a circular arc of the bottom surface of the chip room in all cross sections depending on the overall length of the cutting milling tool and a desired amount of and speed at which chips would flow through the chip room while maintaining stability of the tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 1/29/2026