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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (directed to a cutting carrier) in the reply filed on 01/27/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant argues that claims 1-20 are readable on elected Species A and as such should be examined. However, upon further review and examination of the claims, it is determined that claims 2-6 and 8-9, directly or indirectly, are readable on the non-elected Species B which is directed to a tool head. As such, claims 2-6, 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B (tool head). Therefore, claims 1, 7 and 10-20 will be examined and once claim 1 is found to be allowable, the withdrawn claims 2-6, 8 and 9 will be rejoined and fully examined for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 6-7, the limitation “fifty mm” should be amended to - - 50 mm - and the limitation “ten mm” should be - - [[ten]] 10 mm - -.
In claim 10, lines 5-6, the limitation “fifty mm” should be amended to - - 50 mm - and the limitation “ten mm” should be - - [[ten]] 10 mm - -.
In claim 18, line 3, the limitation “ten mm” should be - - [[ten]] 10 mm - -.
In claim 19, line 3, the limitation “three mm” should be - - 3 mm - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 7 and 10-20 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 1 recites the pronoun “it” at line 3. It is difficult to determine to what claim element the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claim element each time it is to be referenced.
Claim 1 recites a milling tool including a cutting carrier. However, claim 7 which depends on claim 1 further recites a centering ring for centering a cutter carrier. It is unclear if there are two distinct cutting carriers or the cutting carrier in claim is the same as the one in claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the base body" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of the cutter carrier comprises a plurality of cutting edges distributed around its periphery, each cutter comprising a front facing face cutter and a peripheral cutter extending at an angle thereto and wherein the cutter carrier, including the cutters, at a diameter of at least fifty mm, has a thickness of at most ten mm. However, claim 10 dependent on claim 1 further recites the same limitations which is unclear if these are two distinct cutter carriers or the same as claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of “hard metal” which is unclear as to what exactly is considered as a hard metal in oppose to a soft metal.
Claim 16, line 2 recites the limitation “wherein the cutter carrier is formed as a flat, annular plate with coolant grooves.” However, claim 14 which claim 16 directly depends from also recites the cutter carrier comprises coolant grooves. As such, it is unclear if the coolant grooves in claim 16 are the same as the ones in claim 14 or additional ones.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the axial direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20, line 4 recites the limitation “it either is the case” and in lines 5-6 the limitation “or it is the case” which is unclear what exactly the case is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1, 7, 10-11, 13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US 20200086404A1, hereinafter “Schmid”) or over Schmid et al. (US 20200086404A1, hereinafter “Schmid”) in view of Honda et al. (WO 2021060271A1 or English equivalent US 20220371109A1, hereinafter “Honda ‘109”).
As applied to claims 1, 10 and 18, Schmid teaches a Honda ‘109 teaches a milling tool (10) with a tool head (14) and an exchangeable cutting carrier (replaceable ring 18 including collar 36 and support disc 30 having a toothed rim contour 32), wherein the tool head (14) is configured to be coupled to a tool holder (intended use limitation as the tool head of Schmid is capable of being coupled to a tool holder) and the cutter carrier comprises a plurality of cutting edges distributed around a periphery/circumference (cutting inserts 16), each cutter comprising a front facing face cutter (42, Fig. 7) and a peripheral cutter (46) extending at an angle thereto. Schmid teaches that the cutter carrier has a nominal diameter of 100 mm with a thickness (paragraph [0038]) but does not explicitly teach wherein the cutting carrier has a thickness of at most 10 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Schmid and choose any diameter and thickness for the cutter carrier depending on the size of the tool and cutting operational requirements, 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 (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Alternatively, Honda ‘109 teaches a milling tool having an exchangeable cutting carrier (11), with the cutting carrier (11) comprises a plurality of cutting edges distributed around a periphery/circumference, each cutter comprising a front facing face (front-side planar) cutting edge (121) and a circumferential cutting edge (122) running at an angle thereto (paragraphs [0023]-[0027]), wherein the cutting carrier (3), including the cutting edges, for a diameter of at least 50 mm (79 mm, paragraph [0031]) has a thickness of at most 10 mm (5 mm, paragraph [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutter carrier of Schmid with a thickness of at most ten mm for a diameter of at least fifty mm, as taught by Honda ‘109, as a matter of use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “C”). The resulting tool would reasonably expected to perform in the same manner taught by Schmid without modification of the principles of operation of Schmid, because Schmid does not dissuade one of ordinary skill in the art from forming the cutting carrier from a material having thickness in the claimed range for having the diameter of the claimed range and thus understood to permit any conventional cutter carrier having desired thickness and diameter.
As applied to claim 7, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 teaches the invention cited including Schmid teaches a centering ring (20) formed on base body (body of tool 10, Fig. 1) and projecting in the axial direction for centering a cutter carrier (replaceable ring 18 including collar 36 and support disc 30 having a toothed rim contour 32) on the base body.
As applied to claim 11, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 teaches the invention cited including Schmid teaches that it is well-known that a main body of milling tool is made of steel and aluminum (paragraph [0003]) and that the cutting edges are made of polycrystalline diamond cutting material (PCD) or cubic boron nitride (CBN, paragraph [0039]) or hard metal and cermet (paragraph [0040]). Honda ‘109 teaches alloy tool steel is used as material of the blade-body portion (11, paragraph [0031]).
As applied to claim 13 and 19, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 teaches the invention cited including Schmid teaches wherein the face cutter and the peripheral cutter are each formed on cutting elements, and the cutting elements are attached to the cutter carrier with a material bond (cutting inserts 16 soldered into the recesses 44 of ring 18, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] and [0039]). Schmid further teaches the cutting element (16) protrude in the axial direction by 0.005 mm (paragraph [0039], Fig. 3, which meets the limitation of “less than 3 mm” as in claim 19). In addition, Honda teaches the cutting element (tip 12) protrudes on a front-end surface (111) side of the blade-body portion (11, paragraph [0033]).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmid et al. (US 20200086404A1, hereinafter “Schmid”) or over Schmid et al. (US 20200086404A1, hereinafter “Schmid”) in view of Honda et al. (WO 2021060271A1 or English equivalent US 20220371109A1, hereinafter “Honda ‘109”) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Nagata et al. (US 20220203463A1, hereinafter “Nagata”).
As applied to claims 14 and 15, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 teaches the invention cited including Schmid teaches coolant distribution channels (40) distributed over the annular collar 36 of the cutter carrier (18, paragraph [0035]) and Honda teaches the body may have a cutting-fluid supply path of which an outlet for supplying a cutting fluid opens at the body-side groove (paragraph [0025]) but does not explicitly teach the cooling grooves are on an face/a front end face running in a radial direction.
Nagata teaches a milling tool (paragraphs [0001] and [0002]) wherein radial grooves (54) are formed in a front end face to provide to cutting fluid to the cutters during operation of the tool on a workpiece (paragraph [0043], Figs. 6 and 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutter carrier of Schmid and Honda with radial grooves on a front end face , as taught by Nagata, based on specific design requirements and as an effective means of machining external grooves rather than forming more difficult radial interior passages in the front end face of the carrier member (see Nagata, paragraph [0043]).
As applied to claims 16 and 17, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 and Nagata teaches the invention cited including the cutter carrier made of a flat, annular plate with coolant grooves. Honda further teaches the cutter carrier has fastening holes with screw head receptacles (holes and counterbores 119 for flat-head bolts 30, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutter carrier of Schmid with fastening holes and screw head receptacles formed thereon, as taught by Honda, as an effective means of coupling the cutter carrier to the base body of the tool.
As applied to claim 20, Schmidt in view of Honda ‘109 teaches the invention cited including Schmid teaches that it is well-known that a main body of milling tool is made of steel and aluminum (paragraph [0003]) and that the cutting edges are made of polycrystalline diamond cutting material (PCD) or cubic boron nitride (CBN, paragraph [0039]) or hard metal and cermet (paragraph [0040]). Honda ‘109 teaches alloy tool steel is used as material of the blade-body portion (11, paragraph [0031]). Schmid further teaches wherein the face cutter and the peripheral cutter are each formed on cutting elements, and the cutting elements are attached to the cutter carrier with a material bond (cutting inserts 16 soldered into the recesses 44 of ring 18, paragraphs [0019]-[0021] and [0039]). The combination teaches coolant channels as including Schmid teaches coolant distribution channels (40) distributed over the annular collar 36 of the cutter carrier (18, paragraph [0035]) and Honda teaches the body may have a cutting-fluid supply path of which an outlet for supplying a cutting fluid opens at the body-side groove (paragraph [0025]). The combination teaches the cutter carrier made of a flat, annular plate with coolant grooves (see Fig. 3 of Schmid, Fig. 4 of Honda). Honda further teaches the cutter carrier has fastening holes with screw head receptacles (holes and counterbores 119 for flat-head bolts 30, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutter carrier of Schmid with fastening holes and screw head receptacles formed thereon, as taught by Honda, as an effective means of coupling the cutter carrier to the base body of the tool.
The combination of Schmid and Honda does not explicitly teach the cooling grooves are on a frontal end face running in a radial direction.
Nagata teaches a milling tool (paragraphs [0001] and [0002]) wherein radial grooves (54) are formed in a front end face to provide to cutting fluid to the cutters during operation of the tool on a workpiece (paragraph [0043], Figs. 6 and 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the cutter carrier of Schmid and Honda with radial grooves on a front end face , as taught by Nagata, based on specific design requirements and as an effective means of machining external grooves rather than forming more difficult radial interior passages in the front end face of the carrier member (see Nagata, paragraph [0043]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ericson (US 10,710,173) teaches a slot milling disc that has an outer peripheral surface provided with a number of cutting edges, an attachment arrangement allowing rotary preventing attachment of the slot milling disc to a rotatable mounting shaft and at least one flushing fluid channel having a confined cross-section and extending within the milling disc from an inlet opening located in a central part of the disc and configured to be connected to a source of flushing fluid to at least one outlet opening in the peripheral surface of the disc. The flushing fluid channel has an inner channel portion extending from the inlet opening towards the peripheral surface and ending before reaching the peripheral surface and at least one outer channel portion extending from the inner channel portion while changing direction of the flushing fluid channel and extending to the at least one outlet opening (abstract, Figs. 1-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 04/03/2026
Prosecution Insights