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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites “the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path, and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path and the inner eccentric relief angle is less than the outer eccentric relief angle”.
This newly added language “measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path” is not found in the originally filed specification and is considered new matter. The cutting path added to claim 1 has support from the drawings, however, there is no support to show that these relief angles are in relation to a tangent of the cutting path. It remains unclear where these angles are in relation to.
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 2 is/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 2 recites “the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path, and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path and the inner eccentric relief angle is less than the outer eccentric relief angle”.
This newly added language “measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path” is not found in the originally filed specification and is considered new matter, as discussed above. The cutting path added to claim 1 has support from the drawings, however, there is no support to show that these relief angles are in relation to a tangent of the cutting path. It remains unclear where these angles are in relation to. Further, this claim appears to be in conflict with claim 1, where the reliefs are claimed as being convex which means they are curved, but yet by claiming an angle in claim 2 would mean that the reliefs are flat surfaces and thus the scope is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 3-4, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Volokh (JP H11320240 A).
Re Claim 1, Volokh discloses rotary cutting tool 10, comprising:a shank portion (Fig. 1a); and a cutting portion extending from the shank portion to a cutting tip defining a circular cutting path having a cutting diameter (Fig. 1a), the cutting portion having a plurality of blades separated by flutes, each of the blades including a convex relief surface and a radial cutting edge formed at an intersection between a respective flute and the relief surface (Fig. 1a-1b), wherein the relief surface comprises a convex inner eccentric relief immediately adjacent the radial cutting edge and an outer eccentric relief immediately adjacent the inner eccentric relief (Fig. 1a-1b; pg. 11).
Re Claim 2, as best understood, Volokh discloses the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path, and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle measured from a tangent of the circular cutting path and the inner eccentric relief angle is less than the outer eccentric relief angle (Fig. 1a-1b; pg. 11).
Re Claims 3-4, Volokh discloses the inner eccentric relief is formed with a width, WI, and the outer eccentric relief is formed with a width, WO the width, WO, of the outer eccentric relief is at least twice the width, WI, of the inner eccentric relief, the width, WO, of the outer eccentric relief is about four times the width, WI, of the inner eccentric relief (Fig. 1a-1b; pg. 11).
Re Claim 6, Volokh discloses the rotary cutting tool comprises a solid end mill (Fig. 1a-1b; pg. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volokh in view of Maushart (EP 2093003 A1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 7, Volokh discloses each blade forms a helix angle, HA, (inherent; Fig. 1a-1b; pg. 11) but is silent that the helix angle is between about 25 degrees and about 50 degrees with respect to a central, longitudinal axis, A. However, Maushart teaches a cutting tool where each blade forms a helix angle, HA, between about 25 degrees and about 50 degrees with respect to a central, longitudinal axis, A (Fig. 1; para. 60-63). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have th helix angle, HA, between about 25 degrees and about 50 degrees, as taught by Maushart, for the purpose of obtaining desired geometric setup of the drill for optimizing cutting profiles and obtain desired characteristics of a resulting machined surface and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volokh in view of Flynn (US 7,588,396).
Re Claim 5, Volokh does not disclose the inner eccentric relief is formed with a surface finish of less than 0.15 microns Ra. However, Flynn teaches rotary cutting tool with a surface formed with a surface finish of less than 0.15 microns Ra (“a surface finish of about six microns or less”; col. 4, lines 12-14). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a surface finish in the range, as taught by Flynn, for the purpose of obtaining a smooth surface for the tool which can optimize drilling steps and obtain desired characteristics of a resulting machined surface and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot in view of the the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
