DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/173039 to Athad in view of WO 2022/201674 to Hecht.
Claim 1 recites a two-way indexable V-shaped cutting insert. The term V-shaped is being interpreted in view of applicant’s figures which do not show a device having the actual shape of the letter V, but rather merely a structure with a wider top that tapers on both sides to a narrower bottom. Athad relates to a cutting insert having such a shape. See Athad pg. 4, ll. 22-25 and Fig. 1. Figure 1 of Athad shows the insert (20) has two opposing flat sides, which anticipate the a second insert side surface (22b) located opposite [a] first insert side surface (22a). Figure 1 further shows a peripheral insert surface connecting the [two] insert side surfaces, this surface having a front insert surface (28) located in an insert cutting portion; a back insert surface located opposite the front insert surface and located in an insert abutment portion the insert abutment portion being adjacent to the insert cutting portion, in other words the region adjacent to the where the cutting insert is placed. Figure 1 also shows first (26a) and second (26b) converging insert abutment surfaces converging towards one another in a direction away from the front insert surface (28) and towards the back insert surface (the unlabeled bottom width). See also Athad pgs. 5-6.
Athad further teaches that the front insert surface (28) comprises first (38a) and second (38b) rake surfaces. See Athad pgs. 5-6 and Fig. 1. Athad also teaches that the peripheral insert surface further [has] a first relief surface (40a, 42a) connecting the first rake surface (38a) and the first converging insert abutment surface (26a) as well as a second relief surface (40b, 42b) connecting the second rake surface (38b) and the second converging insert abutment surface (26b). See Athad pg. 4, ln. 22 to pg. 6, ln. 2 and Fig. 2a. Finally, Athad teaches that the peripheral insert surface also has a first cutting edge (36b) and a second cutting edge (36b) with each being located at the intersection of the…rake surface and…relief surface. Id.
Claim 1 also recites a through bore. In applicant’s invention, the insert is connected to the tool via a bolt through the through-bore. Athad does not connect the insert to the tool using this technique. But this technique of an inert bore and corresponding tool bore, with a connecting screw is known in the arts. For example, Hecht teaches it along with converging surfaces. See Hecht Figs. 1-2. Hecht is also analogous art, being in the exact same field. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Athad to use this alternate known technique (of corresponding bore holes) to connect the insert to the tool.
Claim 2 recites that a first relief angle formed between the first relief surface and the first converging insert abutment surface is between 90-175 degrees. Athad teaches that angle α4, which connects the first relief surface (42a) to the first converging insert (26a) is between 135-160 degrees, which lies in the recited range (and also within the narrower range recited in claim 8). See Athad pg. 7, ll. 3-7 and Fig. 2. The same angle exists on the opposing side anticipating the rest of claim 2. Regarding claim 3, figures 1-2a of Athad show that the…cutting insert [has] exactly two cutting edges constituted by the first and second cutting edges. Claim 4 recites that the insert has mirror symmetry about a plane pass[ing] through the first and second insert side surfaces. This plane creates a vertical line (S) through the center of the insert (as shown in figure 4 of the instant application). This is mirror symmetry about the central vertical axis. Figures 1-2 of Athad show that insert (20) has mirror symmetry about this Y axis. This mirror symmetry includes the two cutting edge[s] as recited in claim 4, the two converging insert abutment surface[s] as recited in claim 5, and the entire insert as recited in claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Athad teaches that the insert wedge angle…between the [two] converging insert abutment surface[s] (26a, b) has an angle (α1) between 30-80°, which lies within the recited range of 25-80°. See Athad pg. 5, ll. 5-8 and Fig. 2. Regarding claim 9, Athad shows a chip deflection protrusion (28) in the recited location. See Athad Figs. 1-2.
Claim 14 recites a cutting tool having the insert of clam 1. Figures 6-8 of Athad show the cutting tool (48) has a holder cutting portion (52) located in the forward direction from [a] shank portion (54). See Athad pg. 8, ll. 20-29. Athad further shows the holder portion has opposing top and bottom holder surfaces extending along, and on opposite sides of, the longitudinal axis (L). See Athad Figs. 6-7 and pg. 9, ll. 25-26. It should be noted as a matter of claim interpretation, that applicant’s specification and figures explain that the top and bottom surfaces refer to the top and bottom of the structure, not the surfaces that face the insert. Thus, the top and bottom are the unlabeled surfaces on the top of region (58) and the bottom of region (60). Figures 6-7 likewise shown opposing front and back holder surfaces in the form of the front face visible in figure 7 and the opposing unseen face.. The figures further show the front and back holders connec[t] the top and bottom holder surfaces. Figure 6 furtehr shows a forward holder surface (56) located between the top, bottom, front and back surfaces and delimiting the tool holder in the forward direction. Claikm 14 further recites that the holder cutting portion [has] an insert seat (64) opening out to the front and forward holder surfaces that has a first converging holder abutment surface (64b); a second converging holder abutment surface (64a) located forwardly…and a main holder abutment surface in the form of the bottom semi-circular region connecting the first and second converging holder abutment surfaces. See Athad Figs. 6-7.
Regarding claim 15, Athad teaches the insert wedge angle (α7) is between 30-80° , which directly overlaps the recited range of 25-80°. See Athad Fig. 7 & pg. 10, ll. 13-14. Claim 16 recites a first holder abutment angle…formed between a…normal to the first converging holder abutment surface and the longitudinal axis is between -10°[and] 100°. Athad does not explicitly teach the angle between the normal to surfaced (64b) and the horizontal plane. But it appears to be approximately 30°. While figures are not necessarily to scale, it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense to use this figure as a starting point when recreating the device. Claim 17 recites the angle between the normal to surface (64a) and the horizontal is 130-150°. Again, while Athad does not explicitly teach this angle, figures 7-8 show it to be in this range, thus this range is also obvious as a matter of common sense.
Regarding claim 18, figure 8 shows that the two-way…cutting insert (20) secured in the insert seat (52) is delimited in the forward direction by an active cutting edge (36a) which is the forwardmost of the first and second cutting edges. Likewise, figure 8 shows the cutting tool is delimited in the forward direction by the active cutting edge (36a) as recited in claim 19. Claim 20 recites that the V-shaped cutting insert [has]…a through bore and that the tool holder [has]…a holder bore. Athad does not connect the insert to the tool using this technique. But this technique of an inert bore and corresponding tool bore, with a connecting screw is known in the arts. For example, Hecht teaches it along with converging surfaces. See Hecht Figs. 1-2. Hecht is also analogous art, being in the exact same field. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Athad to use this alternate known technique (of corresponding bore holes) to connect the insert to the tool.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 10-133 and 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed May 18, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s argument that Athad does not anticipate claim 1, as amended, is persuasive. Thus, the previous grounds of rejection are (with the exception of claim 20) withdrawn.
But applicant’s argument that “Hecht was not cited for, and does not cure, the deficiency of Athad” is false. Hecht was precisely cited to teach modifying Athad to have a through hole, in the rejection of claim 20. Applicant has presented no arguments traversing this combination. As such, claim 1 has merely be rejected under this same logic. The remainder of the rejection is unchanged.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
3 The previous Office Action incorrectly listed claim 14 as allowable. This was a typographical error.
Prosecution Insights