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 § 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 1-2, 4-8, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-27, 32, and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecht (U.S. PGPub 2020/0215626, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Hecht discloses a milling head (24) having a head central axis (B) that defines opposite forward and rearward directions (DF, DR) and about which the milling head is rotatable in a rotational direction (R), the milling head comprising: opposing head forward and rearward surfaces (26 and 28; or 61a and 61b of portion 54) and a head peripheral surface (30) extending therebetween, the head peripheral surface extending circumferentially about the head central axis (Fig. 3, paragraph 82); a plurality of angularly spaced apart peripherally disposed cutting portions (40); and a head through recess (44, especially portion 54 in Fig. 6) extending along the head central axis and opening out to the head forward and rearward surfaces (paragraph 87), the head through recess being delimited circumferentially by a recess peripheral surface (continuous inner edge surface of portion 54, comprising 58, etc.) and comprising a plurality of angularly spaced apart tooth-receiving lobes extending radially outwardly (radially extending portions of recess defining surfaces 58); wherein: the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of driven surfaces (58 - paragraph 88) and a plurality of radial centering surfaces (radially outermost edge surfaces beyond 58), the plurality of driven surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes (Fig. 3) and configured to abut corresponding surfaces on a tool holder to drive the milling head (e.g. 90 - paragraph 117; Fig. 14), each driven surface facing opposite the rotational direction (paragraph 91; Fig. 3) and each radial centering surface facing radially inwardly (Fig. 3); the plurality of radial centering surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes (Fig. 3) and configured to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder (e.g. Fig. 9) to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder (the examiner submits that the respective driving and driven surfaces, being of complementary size and shape, would fit together to provide a degree of centering); and the plurality of radial centering surfaces are located radially outwards from the plurality of driven surfaces (Id.).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that the claim is to the milling head per se, where the corresponding tool holder is not positively recited. Therefore, the function of the milling head, and specifically the radial centering surfaces thereof, “to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder” is dependent upon a non-positively recited element. Even if it is determined that the milling head and tool holder disclosed by Hecht would not perform the claimed function, then hypothetically the milling head of Hecht could be mated with a different tool holder which could.
Claim 2: The recess peripheral surface is oriented parallel to the head central axis (i.e. it extends axially though the cutter head).
Claim 4: The head through recess comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial recess narrowings (defined by teeth 60), circumferentially alternating with the tooth-receiving lobes along the recess peripheral surface; and the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of recess clearance surfaces (at the radially inner edge surface of 60), each recess clearance surface being located at a respective radial recess narrowing and facing radially inwardly (Fig. 3).
Claim 5: The plurality of recess clearance surfaces are convexly shaped (the inner edges of 60 are convex toward the axis B).
Claim 6: The plurality of radial centering surfaces are concavely shaped (the outermost tips of the recess 44 are concave toward the axis B).
Claim 7: The plurality of radial centering surfaces define an imaginary recess outermost cylinder centered at the head central axis (the outermost tips of the recess 44 may be circumscribed within a cylinder, e.g. as evident in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 8: The plurality of radial centering surfaces lie on an internal surface of the imaginary recess outermost cylinder (as defined above, the outermost edge surfaces may lie on said cylinder).
Claim 13: The recess peripheral surface has a recess height (generally the thickness of 60 or axial height of surface 58, for example), as measured in the axial direction; and the plurality of radial centering surfaces and the plurality of driven surfaces extend the full recess height (evident in Fig. 3).
Claim 15: Every tooth-receiving lobe has exactly one driven surface (58) and exactly one radial centering surface (radially outermost point) located thereat (evident in Figs. 3-4).
Claim 16: Hecht further discloses a plurality of angularly spaced apart chip gullets (42) which circumferentially alternate with the plurality of cutting portions along the head peripheral surface (Figs. 3-4), each chip gullet opening out to at least one of the head forward surface and the head rearward surface (Id.); and each cutting portion comprises an insert receiving pocket (inserts could theoretically be receive in the gaps or pockets between the cutting portions).
Claim 17: The head rearward surface (61b) comprises at least one rearwardly facing planar axial bearing surface (64) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof. It is also noted that in this case, “rearwardly facing planar axial bearing surface” could refer to any such surface of the rearward direction of the cutterhead, as it does not have any particular claimed function or capability.
Claim 19: The head through recess comprises a central region (any central region of 44) connecting to the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes; the radial length of each tooth-receiving lobe from the central region exceeds the radial extent of the central region (the “central region” can be defined arbitrarily such that this is true).
Claim 20: Hecht discloses a tool holder (22/74), having a holder central axis (C) that defines opposite forward and rearward directions (DF, DR) and about which the tool holder is rotatable in the rotational direction (R), the tool holder comprising: a shank peripheral surface (72 or the outer surface of 74) which extends circumferentially about the holder central axis; a shank forward end surface (78) bounded by the shank peripheral surface located at a forward end of the tool holder (portion 74); and a shank projection (84) projecting from the shank forward end surface along the holder central axis, the shank projection being delimited circumferentially by a projection peripheral surface (88) and comprising a plurality of angularly spaced apart centering drive teeth (92) extending radially outwardly; wherein: the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of driving surfaces (90) and a plurality of radial alignment surfaces (outermost peripheral edges of teeth 92), the plurality of driving surfaces (82) all being located at the plurality of centering drive teeth and configured to abut corresponding surfaces on a milling head to drive the milling head (see Fig. 14), each driving surface facing the rotational direction (Fig. 9; paragraph 109) and each radial alignment surface facing radially outwardly (Id.), the plurality of radial alignment surfaces all being located at the plurality of centering drive teeth (Fig. 9) and configured to abut corresponding surfaces of the milling head to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder (the examiner submits that the respective driving and driven surfaces, being of complementary size and shape, would fit together to provide a degree of centering); and the plurality of radial alignment surfaces are located radially outwards from the plurality of driving surfaces (Id.).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that the claim is the tool holder per se, where the corresponding milling head is not positively recited. Therefore, the function of the tool holder, and specifically the radial alignment surfaces thereof, “to abut corresponding surfaces of the milling head to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder” is dependent upon a non-positively recited element. Even if it is determined that the milling head and tool holder disclosed by Hecht would not perform the claimed function, then hypothetically the tool holder of Hecht could be mated with a different milling head which could.
Claim 21: The projection peripheral surface is oriented parallel to the holder longitudinal axis (i.e. it extends axially).
Claim 23: The shank projection comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial projection narrowings (at the bases of gaps 93), circumferentially alternating with the centering drive teeth along the projection peripheral surface (Fig. 9); and the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of projection clearance surfaces (the peripheral edge along gaps 93), each projection clearance surface being located at a respective radial projection narrowing and facing radially outwardly (Fig. 9).
Claim 24: The plurality of projection clearance surfaces are concavely shaped (Fig. 9).
Claim 25: The radial alignment surfaces are convexly shaped (Fig. 9).
Claim 26: The radial alignment surfaces define an imaginary projection outermost cylinder centered at the holder central axis (the outermost peripheral edges of teeth 92 are present along a circle as evident from Fig. 9).
Claim 27: The radial alignment surfaces lie on an external surface of the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (the cylinder can be defined such that this is the case).
Claim 32: The projection peripheral surface has a projection height, as measured in the axial direction (see Fig. 10); and the plurality of radial alignment surfaces and the plurality of driving surfaces extend the full projection height (Id.).
Claim 34: Every centering drive tooth has exactly one driving surface (90) and exactly one radial alignment surface (outer edge thereof) located thereat (Fig. 9).
Claim 35: The shank forward end surface comprises at least one forwardly facing planar axial support surface (96) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof.
Claim 36: Hecht discloses a rotary milling tool (20), comprising: a milling head in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above); and a tool holder in accordance with claim 20 (as discussed above); wherein: the milling head is releasably attached to the tool holder (e.g. by fastener 68); the shank projection is located in the head through recess (Fig. 15; paragraph 117); the plurality of radial centering surfaces directly abut the plurality of radial alignment surfaces of the shank portion (Fig. 14); and the plurality of driven surfaces directly abut the plurality of driving surfaces (Fig. 14; paragraph 117).
Claim 37: The head rearward surface comprises at least one rearwardly facing axial planar bearing surface (64) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof; the shank forward end surface comprises at least one forwardly facing planar axial support surface (96) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof; and the at least one axial bearing surface abuts the at least one axial support surface (Fig. 15; paragraph 117).
Claims 20-21, 23-27, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frey (DE102014211420, with reference to translation).
Claim 20: Frey discloses a tool holder (10), having a holder central axis (20) that defines opposite forward and rearward directions (top and bottom in Fig. 1) and about which the tool holder is rotatable in the rotational direction (paragraph 33), the tool holder comprising: a shank peripheral surface (e.g. of 22 or 26) which extends circumferentially about the holder central axis; a shank forward end surface (top of 22 or 26) bounded by the shank peripheral surface located at a forward end of the tool holder; and a shank projection (30) projecting from the shank forward end surface along the holder central axis, the shank projection being delimited circumferentially by a projection peripheral surface (outer peripheral edge of 30) and comprising a plurality of angularly spaced apart centering drive teeth (lobes of profile 32 corresponding to “leaves” of the clover shape) extending radially outwardly; wherein: the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of driving surfaces (radially extending edge surfaces) and a plurality of radial alignment surfaces (radially outer edge surfaces), the plurality of driving surfaces all being located at the plurality of centering drive teeth and configured to abut corresponding surfaces on a milling head (102) to drive the milling head, each driving surface facing the rotational direction (those of the radially extending edges that would face in that direction) and each radial alignment surface facing radially outwardly (evident in Fig. 1), the plurality of radial alignment surfaces all being located at the plurality of centering drive teeth and configured to abut corresponding surfaces of the milling head to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder (the examiner submits that the respective driving and driven surfaces, being of complementary size and shape, would fit together to provide a degree of centering); and the plurality of radial alignment surfaces are located radially outwards from the plurality of driving surfaces (Id.).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that the claim is the tool holder per se, where the corresponding milling head is not positively recited. Therefore, the function of the tool holder, and specifically the radial alignment surfaces thereof, “to abut corresponding surfaces of the milling head to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder” is dependent upon a non-positively recited element. Even if it is determined that the milling head and tool holder disclosed by Frey would not perform the claimed function, then hypothetically the tool holder of Frey could be mated with a different milling head which could.
Claim 21: The projection peripheral surface is oriented parallel to the holder longitudinal axis (it extends along the axis).
Claim 23: The shank projection comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial projection narrowings (the radially inward portions between the “leaves” of the clover shape), circumferentially alternating with the centering drive teeth along the projection peripheral surface (Fig. 1); and the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of projection clearance surfaces (the edge portions associated with the narrowings), each projection clearance surface being located at a respective radial projection narrowing and facing radially outwardly (Fig. 1).
Claim 24: The plurality of projection clearance surfaces are concavely shaped (evident in Fig. 1).
Claim 25: The radial alignment surfaces are convexly shaped (evident in Fig. 1).
Claim 26: The radial alignment surfaces define an imaginary projection outermost cylinder centered at the holder central axis (such a cylinder can be defined).
Claim 27: The radial alignment surfaces lie on an external surface of the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (the cylinder can be defined as such).
Claim 32: The projection peripheral surface has a projection height, as measured in the axial direction (i.e. its thickness extending from the top of 32); and the plurality of radial alignment surfaces and the plurality of driving surfaces extend the full projection height (evident in Fig. 1).
Claim 33: The plurality of angularly spaced apart centering drive teeth consist of three centering drive teeth (three “leaves” of the clover shape).
Claim 34: Every centering drive tooth has exactly one driving surface (the radially extending edges that would drive the milling head) and exactly one radial alignment surface located thereat (evident in Fig. 1).
Claim 35: The shank forward end surface comprises at least one forwardly facing planar axial support surface (e.g. top face of 26) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof.
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 3, 9, 14, 22, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht.
Claim 3: Each radial centering surface subtends a centering surface angle at the head central axis, but the centering surface angle does not necessarily fulfil the condition: 20°≤α≤40°. 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 modified Hecht to have the centering surface angle in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Hecht would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed angle, especially depending on how one defines this angle in the first place (i.e. what is the angular or circumferential extent of the “radial centering surface” relative to the other surfaces). Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the subtended angle would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 10 and 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subtended angle of Hecht to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 9: The head through recess comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial recess narrowings (defined by teeth 60), circumferentially alternating with the tooth-receiving lobes along the recess peripheral surface; the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of recess clearance surfaces (at the radially inner edge surface of 60), each recess clearance surface being located at a respective radial recess narrowing and facing radially inwardly (Fig. 3); the plurality of recess clearance surfaces define an imaginary recess innermost cylinder (IC - Fig. 4) co-axial with the imaginary recess outermost cylinder; the imaginary recess innermost cylinder has a recess innermost cylinder radius (half of diameter ICD); and the imaginary recess outermost cylinder has a recess outermost cylinder radius (inherent).
The recess innermost cylinder radius is not necessarily less than or equal to 75% of the recess outermost cylinder radius, although it appears to be close from Fig. 4. 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 modified Hecht to have the radius in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Hecht would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed radius given its similar apparent proportions. Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the radius would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed radius. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 16 and 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the innermost cylinder radius of Hecht to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 14: The plurality of angular spaced apart tooth-receiving lobes does not consist of three tooth-receiving lobes. Hecht contemplates numbers of teeth (and implicitly corresponding tooth-receiving lobes) other than what is shown (paragraph 111). 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 reduced the number of lobes since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, or alternatively, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 21 and 68, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of lobes.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the number of lobes would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed number since torque transfer would still occur. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed number solves any stated problem. Applicant places no criticality on the number of lobes as cited above and states that other numbers may be used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of lobes of Hecht as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 22: Each radial alignment surface subtends an alignment surface angle at the holder longitudinal axis, but the alignment surface angle does not necessarily fulfil the condition: 20°≤β≤40°. 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 modified Hecht to have the alignment surface angle in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Hecht would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed angle, especially depending on how one defines this angle in the first place (i.e. what is the angular or circumferential extent of the “alignment centering surface” relative to the other surfaces). Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the subtended angle would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 28 and 93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subtended angle of Hecht to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 28: The shank projection comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial projection narrowings (at the bases of gaps 93), circumferentially alternating with the centering drive teeth along the projection peripheral surface (Fig. 9); the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of projection clearance surfaces (the peripheral edge along gaps 93), each projection clearance surface being located at a respective radial projection narrowing and facing radially outwardly (Fig. 9); the plurality of projection clearance surfaces define an imaginary projection innermost cylinder co-axial with the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (the base of gaps 93 can fall around a circle or cylinder); the imaginary projection innermost cylinder has a projection innermost cylinder radius (inherent); the imaginary projection outermost cylinder has a projection outermost cylinder radius (inherent).
The projection innermost cylinder radius is not necessarily less than or equal to 75% of the projection outermost cylinder radius, although it appears to be close from Fig. 9. 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 modified Hecht to have the radius in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Hecht would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed radius given its similar apparent proportions. Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the radius would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tool holder, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed radius. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 34 and 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the innermost cylinder radius of Hecht to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 33: The plurality of angular spaced apart centering drive teeth does not consist of three centering drive teeth. Hecht contemplates numbers of teeth other than what is shown (paragraph 111). 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 reduced the number of teeth since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965). Additionally, or alternatively, it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 21 and 68, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the number of teeth.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the number of teeth would result in a difference in function of Hecht. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tool holder, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed number since torque transfer would still occur. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed number solves any stated problem. Applicant places no criticality on the number of teeth as cited above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the number of teeth of Hecht as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 1-9, 13-19, and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Blomstedt et al. (U.S. PGPub 2007/0081872).
Claim 1: Frey discloses a milling head (e.g. disc-style cutter head 102 in Figs. 8-10) having a head central axis (not labeled but understood as generally the central rotation axis of the circular head) that defines opposite forward and rearward directions (upper and lower direction in Fig. 10) and about which the milling head is rotatable in a rotational direction (the head would be rotatable about its axis), the milling head (24) comprising: opposing head forward and rearward surfaces (upper and lower faces shown in Figs. 8-9) and a head peripheral surface (outer peripheral edge along which cutters 104 are located) extending therebetween, the head peripheral surface extending circumferentially about the head central axis (evident in figures); a plurality of angularly spaced apart peripherally disposed cutting portions (52/104); and a head recess (62) extending along the head central axis, the head recess being delimited circumferentially by a recess peripheral surface (inner edge profile thereof) and comprising a plurality of angularly spaced apart tooth-receiving lobes extending radially outwardly (radially outermost portions of the clover-like shape); wherein: the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of driven surfaces (radially extending inner edge portions of the shape that would engage corresponding portions of 32 of the tool holder) and a plurality of radial centering surfaces (outermost edge portions of the recess), the plurality of driven surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes and configured to abut corresponding surfaces on a tool holder to drive the milling head (32 - paragraphs 35-36), each driven surface facing opposite the rotational direction (this would include only the radially extending edges which would face opposite the rotation direction for being driven by profile 32) and each radial centering surface facing radially inwardly (evident in Fig. 9); the plurality of radial centering surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes and configured to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder (the examiner submits that the respective driving and driven surfaces, being of complementary size and shape, would fit together to provide a degree of centering); and the plurality of radial centering surfaces are located radially outwards from the plurality of driven surfaces (Id.).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that the claim is to the milling head per se, where the corresponding tool holder is not positively recited. Therefore, the function of the milling head, and specifically the radial centering surfaces thereof, “to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder” is dependent upon a non-positively recited element. Even if it is determined that the milling head and tool holder disclosed by Frey would not perform the claimed function, then hypothetically the milling head of Frey could be mated with a different tool holder which could.
From Fig. 10, the recess is not necessarily a through recess opening out to the head forward and rearward surfaces (it appears to be blind at the upper surface). However, Blomstedt et al. teaches a similar milling head arrangement where the recess profile (17) comprises a through hole (e.g. paragraph 35) opening out to head forward and rearward surfaces (21, 26 - Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recess of Blomstedt et al. to be a through recess as claimed since it would have increased the effective engagement area of the driven profile, and/or would have aided with access for cleaning or maintenance for example.
Claim 2: Referring to Frey, the recess peripheral surface (62) is oriented parallel to the head central axis (it extends axially, see Fig. 10).
Claim 3: Each radial centering surface subtends a centering surface angle α at the head central axis, although it is not clear whether it fulfils the condition: 20°≤α≤40°. 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 modified Frey to have the centering surface angle in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Frey would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed angle, especially depending on how one defines this angle in the first place (i.e. what is the angular or circumferential extent of the “radial centering surface” relative to the other surfaces). Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the subtended angle would result in a difference in function of Frey. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 10 and 73). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subtended angle of Frey to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 4: The head through recess comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial recess narrowings (radially inner portions of the recess between the “leaves” of the clover shape), circumferentially alternating with the tooth-receiving lobes along the recess peripheral surface (Fig. 9); and the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of recess clearance surfaces (inner edge segments corresponding to the narrowings), each recess clearance surface being located at a respective radial recess narrowing and facing radially inwardly (as is evident from the above).
Claim 5: The plurality of recess clearance surfaces are convexly shaped (as shown in Fig. 9).
Claim 6: The plurality of radial centering surfaces are concavely shaped (they have concave portions a shown).
Claim 7: The plurality of radial centering surfaces define an imaginary recess outermost cylinder centered at the head central axis (such a cylinder may be defined about them).
Claim 8: The plurality of radial centering surfaces lie on an internal surface of the imaginary recess outermost cylinder (the cylinder may be defined such that this is true).
Claim 9: The head through recess comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial recess narrowings (radially inner portions of the recess between the “leaves” of the clover shape), circumferentially alternating with the tooth-receiving lobes along the recess peripheral surface (Fig. 9); the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of recess clearance surfaces (inner edge segments corresponding to the narrowings), each recess clearance surface being located at a respective radial recess narrowing and facing radially inwardly (as is evident from the above); the plurality of recess clearance surfaces define an imaginary recess innermost cylinder co-axial with the imaginary recess outermost cylinder (such a cylinder may be defined about them); the imaginary recess innermost cylinder has a recess innermost cylinder radius (inherent); the imaginary recess outermost cylinder has a recess outermost cylinder radius (inherent).
The recess innermost cylinder radius is not necessarily less than or equal to 75% of the recess outermost cylinder radius, although it appears to be close from Fig. 9. 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 modified Frey to have the radius in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Frey would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed radius given its similar apparent proportions. Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the radius would result in a difference in function of Frey. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed radius. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 16 and 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the innermost cylinder radius of Frey to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 13: The recess peripheral surface has a recess height (the axial extent of the recess), as measured in the axial direction; and the plurality of radial centering surfaces and the plurality of driven surfaces extend the full recess height (e.g. Fig. 10).
Claim 14: The plurality of angular spaced apart tooth-receiving lobes consists of three tooth-receiving lobes (e.g. exactly three “leaves” of the clover are shown).
Claim 15: Every tooth-receiving lobe has exactly one driven surface (i.e. one radial edge which is acted against by the tool holder) and exactly one radial centering surface located thereat (as shown).
Claim 16: Frey further discloses a plurality of angularly spaced apart chip gullets which circumferentially alternate with the plurality of cutting portions along the head peripheral surface (scooped portions behind each cutting portion 52/104), each chip gullet opening out to at least one of the head forward surface and the head rearward surface (e.g. the top surface in Fig. 9); and each cutting portion comprises an insert receiving pocket (52 in which inserts 104 are received).
Claim 17: The head rearward surface comprises at least one rearwardly facing planar axial bearing surface (either flat uppermost or lowermost surface of Fig. 10; alternatively, the landing between 58 and 62, for example) which extends along an entire angular extent thereof (implied in Figs. 8 and 10).
Claim 18: Each tooth-receiving lobe comprises a lobe narrowing (toward the base of each “leaf”) and a lobe widening (radially outer portion of each “leaf”) located radially outward of the lobe narrowing (Fig. 9); the lobe widenings have a maximum first width and the lobe narrowings have a maximum second width; and the maximum first width is greater than the maximum second width (evident in Fig. 9).
Claim 19: The head through recess comprises a central region (an arbitrary central portion thereof) connecting to the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes; the radial length of each tooth-receiving lobe from the central region exceeds the radial extent of the central region (the “central region” can be defined arbitrarily such that this is true).
Claim 36: Frey as modified by Blomstedt discloses a rotary milling tool comprising: a milling head in accordance with claim 1 (as discussed above); and a tool holder in accordance with claim 20 (as discussed above); wherein: the milling head is releasably attached to the tool holder (by fasteners - paragraph 38); the shank projection is located in the head through recess (as shown in Fig. 6, it being understood that the head 102 would function similarly); the plurality of radial centering surfaces directly abut the plurality of radial alignment surfaces of the coupling portion and the plurality of driven surfaces directly abut the plurality of driving surfaces (implied in Fig. 6 and paragraphs 36 and 41).
Claim 37: The head rearward surface comprises at least one rearwardly facing axial planar bearing surface which extends along an entire angular extent thereof (e.g. the landing between 62 and 58); the shank forward end surface comprises at least one forwardly facing planar axial support surface which extends along an entire angular extent thereof (e.g. top face of 26); and the at least one axial bearing surface abuts the at least one axial support surface (Fig. 6).
Claim 38: The milling head comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart fastening through holes (74) opening out to the head forward and rearward surfaces (Fig. 10) and spaced apart from the centering drive through recess (Figs. 9-10); and: the tool holder comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart threaded bores (36 - paragraph 34), opening out to the shank forward end surface and spaced apart from the shank projection (Fig. 1); and the milling head is releasably clamped to the tool holder by a plurality of threaded fastening members (not shown but implied in paragraph 38), each threaded fastening member being located in a respective fastening through hole and threadingly engaged with a respective threaded bore (Id.).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Blomstedt et al. and Morrison et al. (U.S. Patent 9,751,138, cited in IDS).
Claim 10: Frey discloses a milling head (e.g. disc-style cutter head 102 in Figs. 8-10) having a head central axis (not labeled but understood as generally the central rotation axis of the circular head) that defines opposite forward and rearward directions (upper and lower direction in Fig. 10) and about which the milling head is rotatable in a rotational direction (the head would be rotatable about its axis), the milling head (24) comprising: opposing head forward and rearward surfaces (upper and lower faces shown in Figs. 8-9) and a head peripheral surface (outer peripheral edge along which cutters 104 are located) extending therebetween, the head peripheral surface extending circumferentially about the head central axis (evident in figures); a plurality of angularly spaced apart peripherally disposed cutting portions (52/104); a head recess (62) extending along the head central axis, the head recess being delimited circumferentially by a recess peripheral surface (inner edge profile thereof) and comprising a plurality of angularly spaced apart tooth-receiving lobes extending radially outwardly (radially outermost portions of the clover-like shape); a plurality of angularly spaced apart fastening through holes (74 - paragraph 38, noting similar reference numerals correspond to similar elements), opening out to the head forward and rearward surfaces (Fig. 10) and spaced apart from the head through recess (Figs. 9-10); wherein the recess peripheral surface comprises a plurality of driven surfaces (radially extending inner edge portions of the shape that would engage corresponding portions of 32 of the tool holder) and a plurality of radial centering surfaces (outermost edge portions of the recess), the plurality of driven surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes and configured to abut corresponding surfaces on a tool holder to drive the milling head (32 - paragraphs 35-36), each driven surface facing opposite the rotational direction (this would include only the radially extending edges which would face opposite the rotation direction for being driven by profile 32) and each radial centering surface facing radially inwardly (evident in Fig. 9); the plurality of radial centering surfaces all being located at the plurality of tooth-receiving lobes and configured to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder (the examiner submits that the respective driving and driven surfaces, being of complementary size and shape, would fit together to provide a degree of centering); the plurality of radial centering surfaces are located radially outwards from the plurality of driven surfaces (Id.); the plurality of radial centering surfaces define an imaginary recess outermost cylinder centered at the head central axis (such a cylinder may be defined about them).
Regarding the above, it is further noted that the claim is to the milling head per se, where the corresponding tool holder is not positively recited. Therefore, the function of the milling head, and specifically the radial centering surfaces thereof, “to abut corresponding surfaces of the tool holder to center the milling head with respect to the tool holder” is dependent upon a non-positively recited element. Even if it is determined that the milling head and tool holder disclosed by Frey would not perform the claimed function, then hypothetically the milling head of Frey could be mated with a different tool holder which could.
From Fig. 10, the recess is not necessarily a through recess opening out to the head forward and rearward surfaces (it appears to be blind at the upper surface). However, Blomstedt et al. teaches a similar milling head arrangement where the recess profile (17) comprises a through hole (e.g. paragraph 35) opening out to head forward and rearward surfaces (21, 26 - Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the recess of Blomstedt et al. to be a through recess as claimed since it would have increased the effective engagement area of the driven profile, and/or would have aided with access for cleaning or maintenance for example.
Each fastening through hole is not necessarily located between two angularly adjacent tooth-receiving lobes of the head through recess. However, Morrison et al. teaches a similar milling head (14) arrangement wherein each fastening through hole (22 - column 2, lines 61-66) is located between two angularly adjacent tooth-receiving lobes (34) of a head through recess (18 - Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located fastening hole between two angularly adjacent tooth-receiving lobes of the head through recess since it would have reduced the number of required fasteners, for example.
Claim 11: The plurality of fastening through holes as modified above would be located inside, or intersected by, the imaginary recess outermost cylinder (i.e. within or intersected by a circle defined by the outermost points of the lobes).
Claim 12: Each fastening through hole as modified above would extend along a respective fastening through hole axis (e.g. the respective central axis of each hole); and the fastening through hole axes would be located inside the imaginary recess outermost cylinder (as evident in Morrison).
Claims 22 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey.
Claim 22: Each radial alignment surface subtends an alignment surface angle (B) at the holder longitudinal axis, but does not necessarily fulfil the condition: 20°≤β≤40°. 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 modified Frey to have the alignment surface angle in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Frey would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed angle, especially depending on how one defines this angle in the first place (i.e. what is the angular or circumferential extent of the “alignment centering surface” relative to the other surfaces). Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the subtended angle would result in a difference in function of Frey. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cutter head, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angles. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 28 and 93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the subtended angle of Frey to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claim 28: The shank projection comprises a plurality of angularly spaced apart radial projection narrowings (the radially inward portions between the “leaves” of the clover shape), circumferentially alternating with the centering drive teeth along the projection peripheral surface (Fig. 1); the projection peripheral surface comprises a plurality of projection clearance surfaces (the edge portions associated with the narrowings), each projection clearance surface being located at a respective radial projection narrowing and facing radially outwardly (Fig. 1); the plurality of projection clearance surfaces define an imaginary projection innermost cylinder co-axial with the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (such a cylinder can be defined); the imaginary projection innermost cylinder has a projection innermost cylinder radius (inherent); the imaginary projection outermost cylinder has a projection outermost cylinder radius (inherent);
The projection innermost cylinder radius is not necessarily less than or equal to 75% of the projection outermost cylinder radius, although it appears to be close from Fig. 1. 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 modified Frey to have the radius in the claimed range since it has been held 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777(Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). It also appears that Frey would not necessarily operate differently with the claimed radius given its similar apparent proportions. Additionally or alternatively, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the radius would result in a difference in function of Frey. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the tool holder, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed radius. Lastly, Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem. In any case, it appears that Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (specification, paragraphs 34 and 96). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the innermost cylinder radius of Frey to be within the claimed range as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Morrison et al.
Claim 29: Frey discloses a plurality of angularly spaced apart threaded bores (36 - paragraph 34), opening out to the shank forward end surface (24) and spaced apart from the shank projection (Fig. 1). Each threaded bore is not necessarily located between two angularly adjacent centering drive teeth. However, Morrison et al. teaches a similar tool holder (12) arrangement wherein each threaded hole (24 - column 2, lines 61-66) is located between two angularly centering drive teeth (32 - Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located the threaded bores between two angularly adjacent teeth of the holder since it would have reduced the number of required fasteners, for example.
Claim 30: As modified, the plurality of threaded bores would be located inside, or intersected by, the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (evident from Fig. 3 of Morrison).
Claim 31: As modified, each threaded bore would extend along a respective threaded bore axis (e.g. central axes thereof); and the threaded bore axes would be located inside the imaginary projection outermost cylinder (evident from Fig. 3 of Morrison).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant essentially relies on amendments to the claims to overcome the prior art, specifically by reciting centering function of the radial centering surfaces and radial alignment surfaces. Applicant points to separate portions of the Hecht and Frey tools which are explicitly disclosed as performing a centering function as evidence that the driving/driven surfaces would not perform a centering function. Applicant argues that “the recited elements are ‘configured’ to perform centering and driving functions respectively”, and that “‘configured’ should be given the narrower meaning as the claimed element must be made, suited by nature, character, or designed for a particular use, purpose, or situation instead of merely being capable of the claimed function”.
First, the examiner notes that the degree of “centering” is not necessarily recited. In practice, all parts would have tolerance and so the centering between the tool parts would as well. Second, the examiner asks how the intent of the design necessarily changes the claimed physical structure of an element? If a physical object is presented which is structurally capable of performing the claimed function without modification, then the intent behind its design does not matter and it would be “configured” to perform that function. Third, while Applicant has pointed to separate elements specifically designed for centering, Applicant has not explained how or why the driving/driven elements of the prior art would not also have a centering effect as claimed by virtue of forcing a degree of centered alignment between the parts. The examiner maintains that an opening in one body and a male portion in another body, specifically sized and shaped to fit closely within said opening, where both are centered and aligned relative to their respective bodies, would inherently have some centering ability. Applicant's own invention uses what is essentially analogous to the driving/driven surfaces to also center the tool parts, so why would the prior art not also function in a similar way at least to some degree? What about Applicant's claimed shape is providing a centering function any more than the prior art shapes would? The claims do not necessarily make this distinction beyond explicitly and broadly asserting a centering function.
It is also noted that each of claims 1 and 20 is drawn only to the milling head per se and the tool holder per se, respectively, and do not positively recite the other, such that the claims are attempting to define the ability of the claimed invention relative to an unclaimed non-positively recited portion. Claim 36 does not require the centering function, and claims 1 and 20 which it incorporates do not specifically require the inventions of claims 1 and 20 to align to each other specifically, but rather that the milling head of claim 1 aligns with some tool holder and the tool holder of claim 20 aligns with some milling head. The milling head of claim 1 could be mated to a hypothetical tool holder in such a way that it serves the claimed centering function, and an analogous argument could be made for the tool holder of claim 20.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant points to general differences in the prior art tools to allege that they are uncombinable without providing any specific reasoning as to why the hole locations of one could not reasonably be provided in the other with expectation of success in doing so. The mere fact that the cited tools are different does not itself preclude the proposed combination. Applicant has not necessarily established that the references are non-analogous and it is unclear if this is the intent of the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights