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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamichi (US 20180154462 A1).
As to claim 1, Yamamichi teaches a cutting insert (cutting tool 1) for a tool for machining a workpiece (the cutting tool 1 is capable of machining a workpiece), wherein the cutting insert comprises: a clamping section (See Fig 4. The clamping section is the combination of body part 3a’s second member 9 and third member 11) which comprises a coolant channel configured as a through-hole ([0048]: “The body part 3a in the present embodiment may include, besides the cavity 17, a through hole 19 extending from the third member 11 through the second member 9 to the pocket 13 in the first member 7.”); a cutting head (the left-most portion of first member 7 is a cutting head) having at least one cutting member (insert 5) which comprises a main cutting edge (see Fig 2. The insert 5 has a cutting edge 21), a rake face which adjoins the main cutting edge (upper surface 23 is a rake face), and a chip-breaking geometry which protrudes from the rake face or which is introduced into the rake face (screw 31’s upper surface is illustrated in Fig 3 to protrude past the upper surface 23) and which is configured to break a chip which is machined with the main cutting edge (the surface of the screw 31 performs this function by virtue of protruding past the upper surface 23); and a cantilever arm (see Fig 4. The left-most portion of first member 7 is considered to be the cutting head. The right-most portion of the first member 7 is considered to be the cantilever arm. This coincides mostly with the width of pocket 13) which extends along a longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (the identified portion of first member 7 extends along axis X1 as illustrated in Fig 4) and connects the clamping section to the cutting head (the right-most portion of first member 7 connects the left-most portion of first member 7 to the second member 9, which was noted above to be part of the clamping section) and which has a smaller diameter than the clamping section (the right-most portion of first member 7 has a smaller diameter than either of second member 9 and third member 11); wherein the cutting insert (cutting tool 1) is configured in a monolithic manner so that the clamping section, the cutting head and the cantilever arm are integrally connected to each other (Yamamichi does not suggest the first (7), second (9), and third (11) members are not integrally connected to each other).
Yamamichi does not teach: wherein a portion of the cutting head (the left-most portion of first member 7) comprising the chip-breaking geometry (top surface of screw 31 as shown in Fig 3) when viewed along the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (this view is the same as used in Yamamichi Fig 3), covers at least 10% of a cross section of the coolant channel, but a maximum of 80% of the cross section of the coolant channel.
Rather, Yamamichi illustrates that a portion of through hole 19 is covered by the insert 5 and the screw head 31. That is, Fig 2 indicates that through-hole 19 has an oval configuration, part of which is obscured when viewed along the axis in Fig 3.
Yamamichi is silent as to the specific value or percent of the cross-section of the through hole which is covered.
However, where the prior art teaches similar proportions, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. Specifically, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Examiner asserts that the geometry of a through hole intended to dispense cooling liquid onto a cutting insert is a variable which would have been reasonably optimized through routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05.Section II. A. By attempting to optimize the cooling of the cutting insert 5, such an artisan would have naturally tried variations of the geometry and placement of through-hole 19 in which the resulting overlap of the cutting-insert and through hole cross section is within the claimed 10-80% coverage. An artisan would have expected that greater overlap would have resulted in more fluid dispersed onto the cutting head, which would have resulted in greater cooling and chip-removal.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a portion of the cutting head to cover at least 10% of a cross section of the coolant channel, but a maximum of 80% of the cross section of the coolant channel.
As to claim 2, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cantilever arm does not cover the coolant channel when viewed along the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (as shown for example in Fig 2, the pocket 13 does not cover the coolant channel).
As to claim 3, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chip-breaking geometry is spaced apart from the main cutting edge (as illustrated in Fig 2, the screw 31 is spaced apart from the cutting edge 21).
As to claim 4, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 3, wherein a first portion of the rake face extends along the main cutting edge between the chip-breaking geometry and the main cutting edge (see Examiner’s annotated Fig 2, below).
As to claim 5, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 4, wherein the cutting member (insert 5) further comprises an auxiliary cutting edge which is orientated transversely relative to the main cutting edge, and wherein a second portion of the rake face extends along the auxiliary cutting edge between the chip-breaking geometry and the auxiliary cutting edge (See Examiner’s annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 5, wherein the auxiliary cutting edge is rectilinear (the edge 21 is illustrated to be rectilinear in Yamamichi Fig 2).
As to claim 7, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the main cutting edge is rectilinear (the edge 21 is illustrated to be rectilinear in Yamamichi Fig 2).
As to claim 8, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cantilever arm extends along the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (as illustrated in Fig 4, the right-most portion of the first member 7 extends along the longitudinal axis), and wherein the cutting member (insert 5) protrudes from the cutting head (left-most portion of first member 7) in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (in the orientation of Fig 4, the longitudinal axis is left-right. The insert 5 protrudes from the cutting head in the up-down direction, which is transverse to left-right).
As to claim 9, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coolant channel extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (at least a portion of cavity 17 extends parallel to the axis. See Paragraph [0051] which teaches: “In the embodiments respectively shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, the cavity 17 is located at a central region of the second member 9 including the rotation axis X1. The rotation axis X1 is less apt to deviate because the single cavity 17 is located at the central region of the second member 9 as shown in FIGS. 13 and 14.”).
As to claim 10, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein the chip-breaking geometry is configured as a raised geometry which protrudes from the rake face (this is illustrated in Fig 3).
As to claim 11, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein a center axis of the coolant channel extends parallel to or is coplanar with a surface portion of the chip-breaking geometry (as shown for example in Figs 5 and 7, the cavities 17 extend in parallel with the axis of the tool 1. The surface of the screw 31 also extends in parallel with the axis of the tool 1. Thus, the cavities extend in parallel with the surface of the screw).
As to claim 12, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein a cross section of the coolant channel is non-round (as shown in Figs 3, 8, and 10, the through hole 19 is non-round. The through-hole 19 is instead oval.).
As to claim 13, Yamamichi teaches the cutting insert as claimed in claim 1, wherein a first cross section of the coolant channel at a first end of the coolant channel that faces away from the cutting head is larger than a second cross section of the coolant channel at a second end of the coolant channel that faces the cutting head (this is shown for example in Figs 13 and 14 where the through hole 19 (the cross-section that faces the cutting head) is smaller than the cavity 17 (the cross-section that faces away from the cutting head)).
As to claim 14, Yamamichi teaches a tool for machining a workpiece (Yamamichi described a turn-milling process in the Background. The machine performing this process is the claimed tool, a mill), having a cutting insert (the cutting tool 1 is capable of machining a workpiece) and a cutting insert holder for holding the cutting insert (as the mill holds the cutting tool to perform a turn-milling operation, the mill must inherently comprise a holder), wherein the cutting insert comprises: a clamping section (See Fig 4. The clamping section is the combination of body part 3a’s second member 9 and third member 11) which comprises at least one coolant channel configured as a through-hole ([0048]: “The body part 3a in the present embodiment may include, besides the cavity 17, a through hole 19 extending from the third member 11 through the second member 9 to the pocket 13 in the first member 7.”); a cutting head (the left-most portion of first member 7 is a cutting head) having at least one cutting member (insert 5) which comprises a main cutting edge (see Fig 2. The insert 5 has a cutting edge 21), a rake face which adjoins the main cutting edge (upper surface 23 is a rake face), and a chip-breaking geometry which protrudes from the rake face or which is introduced into the rake face (screw 31’s upper surface is illustrated in Fig 3 to protrude past the upper surface 23) and which is configured to break a chip which is machined with the main cutting edge (the surface of the screw 31 performs this function by virtue of protruding past the upper surface 23); and a cantilever arm (see Fig 4. The left-most portion of first member 7 is considered to be the cutting head. The right-most portion of the first member 7 is considered to be the cantilever arm. This coincides mostly with the width of pocket 13) which extends along a longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (the identified portion of first member 7 extends along axis X1 as illustrated in Fig 4) and connects the clamping section to the cutting head (the right-most portion of first member 7 connects the left-most portion of first member 7 to the second member 9, which was noted above to be part of the clamping section) and which has a smaller diameter than the clamping section (the right-most portion of first member 7 has a smaller diameter than either of second member 9 and third member 11); wherein the cutting insert (cutting tool 1) is configured in a monolithic manner so that the clamping section, the cutting head and the cantilever arm are integrally connected to each other (Yamamichi does not suggest the first (7), second (9), and third (11) members are not integrally connected to each other).
Yamamichi does not teach: wherein a portion of the cutting head (the left-most portion of first member 7) comprising the chip-breaking geometry (top surface of screw 31 as shown in Fig 3), when viewed along the longitudinal axis of the cutting insert (this view is the same as used in Yamamichi Fig 3), covers at least 10% of a cross section of the coolant channel, but a maximum of 80% of the cross section of the coolant channel.
Rather, Yamamichi illustrates that a portion of through hole 19 is covered by the insert 5 and the screw head 31. That is, Fig 2 indicates that through-hole 19 has an oval configuration, part of which is obscured when viewed along the axis in Fig 3.
Yamamichi is silent as to the specific value or percent of the cross-section of the through hole which is covered.
However, where the prior art teaches similar proportions, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05. Specifically, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Examiner asserts that the geometry of a through hole intended to dispense cooling liquid onto a cutting insert is a variable which would have been reasonably optimized through routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05.Section II. A. By attempting to optimize the cooling of the cutting insert 5, such an artisan would have naturally tried variations of the geometry and placement of through-hole 19 in which the resulting overlap of the cutting-insert and through hole cross section is within the claimed 10-80% coverage. An artisan would have expected that greater overlap would have resulted in more fluid dispersed onto the cutting head, which would have resulted in greater cooling and chip-removal.
Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for a portion of the cutting head to cover at least 10% of a cross section of the coolant channel, but a maximum of 80% of the cross section of the coolant channel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 19 February 2026