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 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 1-9, 11-14, 16, 18-23, 25-32 and 36-38 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 “each bearing surface is substantially straight” in Line 14. The metes and bounds of “substantially straight” are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the boundary between at which the bearing surface is deemed substantially straight and not substantially straight. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each pocket comprises an insert stopper surface of each pocket” in Line 19. It is unclear what is added/required by the second recitation of each pocket. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 16 recites “an insert mounted to one pocket of the plurality of pockets” in Line 11. Yet, claim 1 already sets forth “one pocket” such that it is unclear whether the recitation here is to the same pocket previously recited or another pocket. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 16 recites “the forward most bearing surface” in Line 31. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 36 recites “adaptor first and second sides which are connected by an adaptor peripheral surface . . . the adaptor peripheral surface connecting the adaptor first and second sides” in Lines 3-5. It is unclear what is required by the first and second sides being connected by the peripheral surface in two recitations. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 36 recites “the forward most bearing surface is substantially straight” in Line 33. The metes and bounds of “substantially straight” are not clearly delineated such that one of ordinary skill would understand the boundary between at which the bearing surface is deemed substantially straight and not substantially straight. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 38 recites “one of the pockets” in Line 2. Yet, claim 1 already sets forth “one pocket” such that it is unclear whether the recitation here is to the same pocket previously recited or another pocket. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 38 recites “the other one of the pockets” in Lines 2-3. This limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The cutting edge being the only cutting edge of the insert is already recited in claim 16. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiso et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0054543 A1), or alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiso et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0054543 A1) in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333).
Kiso et al. discloses an insert adaptor (1) for parting off (¶ 0003). The adaptor being made of metal (¶ 0054). The adapter includes an adaptor index axis and parallel adaptor first and second sides, which are connected by an adaptor peripheral surface that extends peripherally around the adaptor (Figs. 1-4). The adaptor index axis extends through the center of the first and second sides (Figs. 1-4). An adaptor thickness (T) is measured between the first and second sides, in a direction parallel to the adaptor index axis (Figs. 1-4). A plurality pockets (4) are formed about the adaptor peripheral surface; each pocket has a front end and a rear end; each pocket opens out at the front end to the peripheral surface; and each pocket may be configured for resilient clamping (Figs. 1-7). The adaptor peripheral surface includes a bearing surface extending between each pair of circumferentially adjacent pockets (Figs. 1-3; annotated Fig. 2 below). In a side view of the insert adaptor, each bearing surface is substantially straight and includes, in a clearance direction (P or opposite direction of P) along the adaptor peripheral surface, a recessed portion located adjacent to one of the pockets, a transition portion, and a non-recessed portion; the transition portion connecting the recessed and non-recessed portion (Figs. 2, 3; annotated Fig. 2 below). Each bearing surface includes an abutment surface along the non-recessed portion (annotated Fig. 2 below).1 At its front end, each pocket comprises an insert stopper surface capable of abutting and preventing further insertion of a cutting insert into the pocket (Fig 3 shows the front surface of finger (5) capable of engaging the rear of a cutting insert (e.g., a surface similar to 29)). Because the front surface of the finger is capable of performing the intended stopper use depending on the shape of the cutting insert to be placed in the pocket, the prior art meets the claim limitations.2 The insert stopper surface adjoining the recessed portion of an adjacent bearing surface (Figs. 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
277
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the event Applicant traverses such an interpretation, the prior art shows that such stopper surfaces are well-known.
Hecht discloses a cutting insert pocket (24) having both rearward (60) and forward (68) stopper surfaces (Fig. 5). The forward stopper surface (68) adjoining a recessed portion of the peripheral surface (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert adaptor disclosed in Kiso with a forward stopper surface as suggested by Hecht in order to provide further support against axial forces as well as increased locating of the insert.
Gustafson discloses a cutting insert pocket (Figs. 1-3) having a stopper surface (18). The stopper surface (18) adjoining a recessed portion of the peripheral surface (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert adaptor disclosed in Kiso with a forward stopper surface as suggested by Gustafson in order to provide further support against axial forces as well as increased locating of the insert.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novkov (US Patent No. 3,551,977) in view of Betschart (DE 29908767 U1).
(Claim 36) Novkov discloses a tool assembly for parting off (Col. 2, Lines 52-54) that includes insert adaptor (13). The disclosure lacks that explicit disclosure of the adaptor being metal. Because Applicant did not traverse the well-known assertion in the official notice taken by the examiner the well-known statement concerning metal adaptors within the art of lathe turning is taken as applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03 C. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adaptor disclosed in Novkov being made of metal. The adapter includes an adaptor index axis and parallel adaptor first and second sides, which are connected by an adaptor peripheral surface that extends peripherally around the adaptor (Figs. 1-7). The adaptor index axis extends through the center of the first and second sides (Figs. 1-7). An adaptor thickness (T) is measured between the first and second sides, in a direction parallel to the adaptor index axis (Figs. 1-7). A plurality pockets (for 35) are formed about the adaptor peripheral surface; each pocket has a front end and a rear end; each pocket opens out at the front end to the peripheral surface. An insert (35) is mounted to one pocket of the plurality of pockets (Fig. 3). The insert (35) includes an insert peripheral surface connecting the rake surface (facing same direction as 30) and the base surface (facing opposite the rake surface), the insert peripheral surface includes: a front insert peripheral surface (facing same direction as 35); a rear insert peripheral surface (facing opposite to front surface) located opposite to the front insert peripheral surface; a first side insert peripheral surface connecting the front insert peripheral surface and the rear insert peripheral surface (Figs. 2, 3); and a second side insert peripheral surface connecting the front insert peripheral surface and the rear insert peripheral surface (side not visible opposite that visible in Fig. 3); and a cutting edge (35a) extending along an intersection of the rake surface and the front insert peripheral surface from the first side insert peripheral surface to the second side insert peripheral surface (Fig. 3). The adaptor peripheral surface includes a bearing surface (32, 40) extending between each pair of circumferentially adjacent pockets, one of which is a forward most bearing surface (Figs. 1-3). In a side view of the insert adaptor, the base surface is positioned below the rake surface and the forward most bearing surface extends below the base surface of the insert (Figs. 1-3).
The forward most bearing surface includes a recessed portion (32) located adjacent to the one pocket, a transition portion (corner between 32 and 40) located further than the recessed portion from the insert, and a non-recessed portion located further than the transition portion from the insert (in orientation of Figures 1, 2); the transition portion disposed between the recessed portion and the non-recessed portion (Figs. 1-3). Each bearing surface includes an abutment surface along the non-recessed portion (Figs. 1, 2).3 At its front end, each pocket comprises an insert stopper surface (abutting insert base surface) located opposite the rake surface and abutting the base surface of the insert (Figs. 1-3). The insert stopper surface adjoining the recessed portion of an adjacent bearing surface (Fig. 2). Novkov does not explicitly disclose each pocket configured for resilient clamping.
Betschart discloses that pockets may be configured for resilient clamping (8) as opposed to permanently fixing the inserts (7; Fig. 1; Translation ¶ 0012). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Novkov to have resilient clamping pockets as taught by Betschart in order to re-use the adaptor after cutting edges become worn by replacing the cutting inserts. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including improving similar devices in the same manner while providing predictable results).
(Claim 37) The forward most bearing surface connects the one pocket and the other of the pair of circumferentially adjacenet pockets (Figs. 1-3).
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12-14 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333), or alternatively, over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of either, Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333), and in view of Longwitz et al. (CH 487687 A).
(Claim 1) Betschart discloses an insert adaptor (1) for parting off (Translation ¶ 0002). The adapter includes an adaptor index axis and parallel4 adaptor first and second sides, which are connected by an adaptor peripheral surface that extends peripherally around the adaptor (Translation ¶¶ 0011-0012). The adaptor index axis extends through the center of the first and second sides (Fig. 1). An adaptor thickness is measured between the first and second sides, in a direction parallel to the adaptor index axis (Fig. 1; Translation ¶¶ 0011-0012). A plurality pockets (8) are formed about the adaptor peripheral surface; each pocket has a front end and a rear end; each pocket opens out at the front end to the peripheral surface; and each pocket may be configured for resilient clamping (Fig. 1; Translation ¶ 0012). The adaptor peripheral surface includes a bearing surface extending between each pair of circumferentially adjacent pockets (Translation ¶ 0012; annotated Fig. 1 below). The adaptor made for metal cutting is extremely likely to be made of metal (as it is common to make the adaptor out of a less expensive substance such as tool steel while the inserts are of a harder, more expensive substance such as carbide). Yet, the disclosure lacks that explicit disclosure. Because Applicant did not traverse the well-known assertion in the official notice taken by the examiner the well-known statement concerning metal adaptors within the art of lathe turning is taken as applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP § 2144.03 C. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adaptor disclosed in Betschart being made of metal. In a side view of the adaptor, each bearing surface is substantially straight and includes, in a clearance direction (from detail 8 toward detail 7) along the peripheral surface, a recessed portion located adjacent to one of the pockets, a transition portion, and a non-recessed portion, the transition portion connecting the recessed portion and the non-recessed portion (annotated Fig. 1 below).5
PNG
media_image2.png
304
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Betschart does not explicitly disclose, at its (each pocket’s) front end, each pocket comprises an insert stopper surface capable of abutting and preventing further insertion of a cutting insert into the pocket, the insert stopper surface adjoining the recessed portion of an adjacent bearing surface.
Hecht discloses a cutting insert pocket (24) having both rearward (60) and forward (68) stopper surfaces (Fig. 5). The forward stopper surface (68) adjoining a recessed portion of the peripheral surface (Fig. 5). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert adaptor disclosed in Betschart with a forward stopper surface as suggested by Hecht in order to provide further support against axial forces as well as increased locating of the insert.
Gustafson discloses a cutting insert pocket (Figs. 1-3) having a stopper surface (18). The stopper surface (18) adjoining a recessed portion of the peripheral surface (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert adaptor disclosed in Betschart with a forward stopper surface as suggested by Gustafson in order to provide further support against axial forces as well as increased locating of the insert.
In an alternative interpretation, where Betschart includes a straight bearing surface (Translation ¶ 0012), the reference does not explicitly disclose, in a side view of the adaptor, each straight bearing surface including a recessed portion located adjacent to one of the pockets, a non-recessed portion, and a transition portion connecting the recessed and non-recessed portion.
Longwitz et al. discloses an adaptor for parting off (Figs. 1-3). In a side view of the insert adaptor, each straight bearing surface includes a recessed portion (recess for metal plate 6) located adjacent to one of the pockets, a non-recessed portion (3), and a transition portion connecting the recessed and non-recessed portion (Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adaptor disclosed in Betschart with a recess portion and transition portion thereto for a hard metal insert as taught by Longwitz et al. in order to deflect chips from the adaptor so as to not cause damage to the adaptor.
(Claims 2 and 3) The Betschart insert adaptor has a material volume of greater than 55% of an imaginary cylinder encompassing the insert adapter (Fig. 1). The imaginary cylinder being a right-circular cylinder having a cylinder axis coincident with the adaptor index axis. The adapter in Betschart is larger than 55% volume of the imaginary cylinder, but it is not clear whether the volume is less than 75%. It is worth noting that the Betschart reference discloses that the disk may be other shapes, such as triangular, square or polygonal (Translation ¶ 0011). Regardless, the volume that the adapter takes up in the imaginary cylinder is a result-effective variable because it impacts the strength, weight and/or cost of the adapter as well as the holding capability to a holder (via screw holes). Thus, at a time prior to filing a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the modified Betschart adapter with the material volume within the range claimed in order to optimize strength, weight and/or cost as well as clamping capability to a tool holder. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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.").
(Claim 4) The thickness of the adapter is disclosed as being equal to or less than the cutting width (Betschart Translation ¶ 0011). Yet, the adapter thickness is not disclosed as being less than 3.5mm. Likewise, the adapter imaginary cylinder is not disclosed as having an imaginary circle with the adapter circumscribing diameter that is less than 50 mm. Yet, the diameter of the adapter is a result-effective variable because it impacts the grooving/parting cut and the strength of the adapter. Therefore, at a time prior to filing a person having ordinary sill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Betschart adapter diameter within the range claimed in order to optimize the cutting capability and strength of the adapter. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[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. ").
Hecht discloses an adaptor having a thickness within a range of 0.5 mm to 12 mm. At a time prior to filing a person having ordinary sill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Betschart adapter with a thickness within the claimed range as suggested by Hecht in order to cut grooves of relatively narrow grooves proximate the width of the thickness within the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”) (citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976)).
(Claim 8) The adapter is devoid of elasticity grooves between adjacent pockets (Betschart Fig. 1).
(Claim 9) Betschart discloses an adapter with planar first and second sides free of projecting bearing surfaces (Betschart Fig. 1; Translation ¶¶ 0002, 0010-0011).6
(Claim 12) Each of the straight bearing surfaces is planar (or at least partially so) (Betschart Fig. 1; ¶ 0012).
(Claims 13 and 14) Betschart discloses that each insert pocket opens out to a front end, the pocket further includes a rear end with upper and lower clamp surfaces extending between the front and rear ends. a rear end (Fig. 1). Yet, Betschart does not explicitly disclose a clamp surface having a ridge shape or one clamp surface having two contact areas separated by a relief recess.
Hecht discloses that each pocket opens out to a front end, the pocket further including a rear end and upper and lower clamp surfaces extending between the front and rear ends (Fig. 1); and one or both of the upper and lower clamp surfaces has a ridge shape (Figs. 1, 5, 7A). Exactly one of the upper and lower clamp surfaces (72) includes two contact areas (76, 78) separated by a relief recess (74). At a time prior to filing a person having ordinary sill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Betschart adapter with a ridge and lower clamp surface having a relief recess between two contact areas as taught by Hecht in order to protect the insert from lateral deflection and to support the insert at the front and back portions while not having to maintain machining tolerance along a single surface extending from the front and back portions.
(Claim 38) The recessed portion extends from the insert stopper surface of one of the pockets and the non-recessed portion extends to the other one of the pockets (Betschart Fig. 1).
Claims 5-7, 11, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333) further in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2013/0156516 A1), or alternatively, over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of either, Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333), and in view of Longwitz et al. (CH 487687 A) further in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2013/0156516 A1).
(Claims 5 and 6) Betschart discloses that the adapter may be attached via known means (Translation ¶ 0012), but the reference does not explicitly disclose the configurations claimed.
Hecht ‘516 discloses a fastening configuration (Figs. 7A, 7B; 326A-326E) including a plurality of screw holes (326A-326E) opening out to the first and second sides for clamping the insert adaptor to a tool (312). Each and every one of said plurality of screw holes is offset from the adaptor index axis with no screw holes located at the center of the first and second sides (Figs. 7A, 7B; 326A-326E). Each of the screw holes of the plurality of screw holes (326A-326E) is equally circumferentially about the adapter index axis (Figs.7A, 7B). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adapter disclosed in Betschart with a plurality of screw holes as taught by Hecht ‘516 in order to adequately support the adapter relative to a holder and provide “a larger cutting region and hence cutting depth may be achieved, when compared with a single clamping hole.” (Hecht ¶ 0137).
(Claim 7) The number of cutting inserts and associated pockets is not explicitly disclosed as being within the claimed range. The reference suggests more than two cutting edges (Betschart Translation ¶ 0005), but does not explicitly limit the number of cutting edges beyond that disclosure.
Hecht ‘516 discloses an adapter having five cutting portions (Figs. 7A, 7B). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adapter disclosed in Betschart with five pockets as suggested by Hecht ‘516 in order to provide five cutting inserts in the indexable adapter.
(Claim 11) Betschart discloses pockets equally circumferentially spaced about the adaptor peripheral surface relative to the adaptor index axis (Fig. 1). Each pocket also has a release aperture further inside the pocket (at insert 8)7 behind the cutting insert (Fig. 1). Each straight bearing surface is planar along the non-recessed portion and extends in a direction connecting said pair of circumferentially adjacent pockets (Fig. 1; ¶ 0012). The number of cutting inserts and associated pockets is not explicitly disclosed as being within the claimed range. The reference suggests more than two cutting edges (Betschart Translation ¶ 0005), but does not explicitly limit the number of cutting edges beyond that disclosure.
Hecht ‘516 discloses an adapter having five cutting portions (Figs. 7A, 7B). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adapter disclosed in Betschart with five pockets as suggested by Hecht in order to provide five cutting inserts in the indexable adapter.
(Claim 16) Betschart discloses an insert (8) attached to the adaptor, only one active cutting edge in a cutting position (Fig. 1), the adapter may be attached via known means (Translation ¶ 0012), and references a turning operation (Translation ¶ 0002). Betschart discloses an insert (8) with only one cutting edge attached to the adapter (Fig. 1). The cutting insert inherently includes features as claimed. However, the Betschart reference does not explicitly disclose the tool holder.
Hecht ‘516 discloses a non-rotatable8 tool holder (312) including an elongated tool shank having a forward end (end with pocket for adapter in Figs. 7A, 7B). A tool head is provided at the forward end of the tool shank (Figs. 7A, 7B). The tool head includes an adaptor recess (72 as called out in relation to the embodiment in Fig. 3A) capable of receiving an insert adaptor therein (Figs. 7A, 7B). The adaptor recess (72) having a recess periphery that includes an adaptor seating surface (surface containing screw holes (327) in Fig. 7A) and tool holes (327) formed only in the recess periphery (Fig. 7A). The tool holder only presents one cutting edge (318) the tool assembly positioned for operational use (Fig. 7B). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide/modify the adapter disclosed in Betschart to be compatible with a tool holder as disclosed in Hecht ‘516 in order to perform a grooving/parting operation in a turning environment where the groove cut is capable of being deeper than with a single screw hole. (Hecht ¶ 0137).
In an operational position, a forward most bearing surface of said bearing surfaces extends below the insert9 and extends essentially perpendicular to an operational direction (Betschart Fig. 1; Hecht ‘516 Figs. 7A, 7B).
(Claim 18) Betschart discloses an insert (8) with only one cutting edge attached to the adapter (Fig. 1).
(Claims 19 and 20) While clearance behind the cutting edge is a widely known and employed concept in grooving/parting, the Betschart reference does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the cutting insert at the cutting edge being greater than the thickness of the remaining portion of the insert and the maximum thickness of the adaptor.
Yet, Hecht ‘516 suggests the cutting edge has a cutting edge thickness measured parallel with the adaptor index axis where the maximum adaptor thickness is smaller than the cutting edge thickness (¶ 0021). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adapter disclosed in Betschart with a cutting edge thickness larger than the thickness of each of the remaining portion of the insert and the adapter as suggested in Hecht ‘516 in order to provide clearance while performing a relatively deep grooving/parting operation. That is, it is common knowledge in the art that the adapter must have a thickness less than the cutting edge if the cutting edge is to cut a groove any deeper than the cutting edge area.10
As an alternative, Longwitz discloses the cutting edge thickness measured parallel with the adaptor index axis where the maximum adaptor thickness is smaller than the cutting edge thickness (Fig. 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the adapter disclosed in Betschart with a cutting edge thickness larger than the thickness of each of the remaining portion of the insert and the adapter as suggested in Longwitz in order to provide clearance while performing a relatively deep grooving/parting operation.
(Claim 22) The modified Betschart device has exactly three tool holes (Hecht ‘516 327) in the recess periphery (Hecht ‘516 Fig. 7A).
(Claim 23) The adaptor recess of the modified Betschart device includes a recess wall extending transverse to the adaptor seating surface along the recess periphery (Hecht ‘516 Figs. 7A, 7B); and first and second tool bearing surfaces formed on, and connected to one another, by the recess wall (Hecht ‘516 ¶ 0108).
(Claim 25) The modified Betschart device includes a tool shank having a quadrilateral cross-section (Hecht ‘516 Figs. 1A, 1B, 7A, 7B).
(Claim 26) The modified Betschart device includes an elongate shank of a tool holder (Hecht ‘516 312). An operational direction that the tool holder is parallel with an elongation direction of the elongated tool shank (Hecht ‘516 Figs. 7A, 7B).
(Claim 27) The modified Betschart adapter discloses that each screw hole is capable of serving as a release aperture (Hecht ‘516 326A-326E) in that the release of the screws will release the adapter.
(Claim 28) The modified Betschart device includes a concave recessed tool head front surface (Hecht ‘516 Fig. 7A).
(Claim 29) The modified Betschart device includes first and second bearing surface formed on a recess wall which extends transverse to the seating surface along the recess periphery (Hecht ‘516 Figs. 7A, 7B); and first and second tool bearing surfaces being the only tool bearing surfaces of the tool holder, such that the insert adaptor contacts the tool holder only at one of the first and second sides of the insert adaptor, and at exactly two of the insert adaptor's bearing surfaces or straight bearing surfaces (Hecht ‘516 ¶ 0108).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333) further in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2013/0156516 A1) and Sumitomo (WO 2009/022570 A1), or alternatively, over Betschart (DE 29908767 U1) in view of either, Hecht (US Pub. No. 2005/0207854 A1) or Gustafson (US Patent No. 4,588,333), and in view of Longwitz et al. (CH 487687 A) further in view of Hecht (US Pub. No. 2013/0156516 A1) and Sumitomo (WO 2009/022570 A1).
Betschart does not explicitly disclose coolant delivery under the center point of the adapter.
Sumitomo discloses a tool holder having a coolant channel (22a, 21a) that extends underneath a recess for a cutting insert and opens out at a forward most portion of said recess (Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Betschart device with a centrally located coolant outlet relative to the insert adapter as suggested by Sumitomo in order to provide the cutting edge and therefore the groove being cut with coolant in a central location.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest the adaptor having the bearing surface portions in the clearance direction and/or being substantially straight as claimed. Examiner disagrees.
As indicated in the attached interview summary, the recitation of a clearance direction without the presence of a cutting insert lacks any specific direction. Even with the cutting insert present, the clearance direction should be oriented relative to the adaptor (e.g., parallel to the recessed/non-recessed surface and extending from the cutting edge toward the clearance surface//base surface). Unfortunately, the specification appears to be bare of a specific relationship between the recessed/non-recessed surfaces (e.g., parallel to one another). The surfaces are disclosed as being planar, but not co-planar. Yet, the inclusion of planar surfaces as opposed to a substantially straight overall surface would be clearer than the present claims. Other subject matter that may be explored/considered is that the adjacent pocket of the pair is below the one pocket.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Kemmer (US Patent No. 4,443,136); Andersson et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0003921 A1) (Fig. 14) (showing a bearing surface with a recess portion being a coolant outlet/channel); Hecht (US Pub. No. 2015/0063929 A1).
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 RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
2 Same as footnote 1.
3 A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
4 The adaptor is disclosed as being a disk. A disk is defined as “any thin, flat, circular plate or object.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disk (last visited April 11, 2024).
5 A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
6 The adaptor is disclosed as being a disk. A disk is defined as “any thin, flat, circular plate or object.” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/disk (last visited April 11, 2024).
7 This is also evidence by Gustafson in Figures 4 and 5.
8 Examiner has let this go in terms of 35 USC 112(b), but Applicant should consider re-wording or further defining the intended scope here. It is worth noting that the tool holder is capable of rotating. The tool holder may even rotate during a cutting operation. The non-rotation here is that the holder is not rotated to generate cutting torque. That is, any rotation of the turning tool holder by itself is incapable of causing (meaningful) removal of chips. The rotation for chip generation must come from the workpiece. Nevertheless, the “non-rotating” aspect of the claimed tool holder is nothing more than intended functional use. If a holder is capable of not rotating, then it meets the limitation.
9 The limitation of being “below” the insert depends on the orientation of the tool assembly or adaptor.
10 See Jansson (US Pub. No. 2019/0210115 A1) (Fig. 18) (showing an insert separable from the adaptor body and the cutting edge defining the largest thickness).