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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 13 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/26/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle, beta, … and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle, beta” (claims 2 and 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2, 8-12 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 limitation “the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle, beta, of less than about 5 degrees, and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle, beta, of between about 5 degrees and about 15 degrees”. However, these angles are not shown in the drawings and it is unclear what the angle is in relation to (such as a plane, axis, etc.). The scope is thus unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle, beta, of less than about 5 degrees, and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle, beta, of between about 5 degrees and about 15 degrees”. However, these angles are not shown in the drawings and it is unclear what the angle is in relation to (such as a plane, axis, etc.). The scope is thus unclear.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Maushart (EP 2093003 A1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, as best understood, Maushart discloses rotary cutting tool 10, comprising:a shank portion 14; and a cutting portion 13 extending from the shank portion to a cutting tip, the cutting portion having a plurality of blades 17.1-17.4 separated by flutes 18, each of the blades including a relief surface 132/122 and a radial cutting edge 121.1-121.4 formed at an intersection between a respective flute and the relief surface, wherein the relief surface comprises an inner eccentric relief 132 immediately adjacent the radial cutting edge and an outer eccentric relief 122 immediately adjacent the inner eccentric relief (Fig. 2; para. 60-72).
Re Claim 2, Maushart discloses the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle, beta, of less than about 5 degrees (alpha1 less than 10 degrees; para. 72), and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle, beta, of between about 5 degrees and about 15 degrees (alpha2 less than 40 degrees; para. 72).
Re Claim 6, Maushart discloses the rotary cutting tool comprises a solid end mill (Fig. 1; para. 60-63).
Re Claim 7, Maushart discloses 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).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maushart in view of Koch (EP 2983852 B1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claims 3-4, Maushart discloses the inner eccentric relief is formed with a width, WI, and the outer eccentric relief is formed with a width, WO, (Fig. 2; para. 70-72) but does not disclose wherein 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. However, Koch teaches inner eccentric relief 31 is formed with a width, WI, and the outer eccentric relief 33 is formed with a width, WO, and wherein 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 (page 10-11; Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the widths with these configurations, as taught by Koch, for the purpose of obtaining desired geometric setup of the drill for optimizing cutting profiles and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maushart in view of Flynn (US 7,588,396).
Re Claim 5, Maushart does not disclose the inner eccentric relief is formed with a surface finish of less than 0.15 microns Ra. Maushart does disclose performing fine grinding surface treatment (para. 64) but does not specify specific values. 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.
Re Claim 8, as best understood, Maushart discloses a rotary cutting tool 10, comprising:a shank portion 14; and a cutting portion 13 extending from the shank portion to a cutting tip, the cutting portion having a plurality of blades 17.1-17.4 separated by flutes 18, each of the blades including a relief surface 132/122 and a radial cutting edge 121.1-121.4 formed at an intersection between a respective flute and the relief surface, wherein the relief surface comprises an inner eccentric relief 132 immediately adjacent the radial cutting edge and an outer eccentric relief 122 immediately adjacent the inner eccentric relief, wherein the inner eccentric relief is formed with an inner eccentric relief angle, beta, of less than about 5 degrees (alpha1 less than 10 degrees; para. 72), and wherein the outer eccentric relief is formed with an outer eccentric relief angle, beta, of between about 5 degrees and about 15 degrees (alpha2 less than 40 degrees; para. 72; Fig. 1-2), Maushart does not disclose the inner eccentric relief is formed with a surface finish of less than 0.15 microns Ra. Maushart does disclose performing fine grinding surface treatment (para. 64) but does not specify specific values. 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. wherein the inner eccentric relief is formed with a surface finish of less than 0.15 microns Ra (alpha2 less than 40 degrees; para. 72).
Re Claim 11, Maushart discloses the rotary cutting tool comprises a solid end mill (Fig. 1; para. 60-63).
Re Claim 12, Maushart discloses 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).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maushart in view of Flynn, in further view of Koch.
Re Claims 9-10, Maushart discloses the inner eccentric relief is formed with a width, WI, and the outer eccentric relief is formed with a width, WO, (Fig. 2; para. 70-72) but does not disclose wherein 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. However, Koch teaches inner eccentric relief 31 is formed with a width, WI, and the outer eccentric relief 33 is formed with a width, WO, and wherein 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 (page 10-11; Fig. 4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the widths with these configurations, as taught by Koch, for the purpose of obtaining desired geometric setup of the drill for optimizing cutting profiles and also since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
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