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 4-8, 15-17 and 21 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 4 recites “the rearward-most insert pocket” in line 4, which has insufficient antecedent basis, as no “rearward-most insert pocket” has been previously introduced in the claims.
Claim 5 it its entirety is unclear and confusing. What exactly means for the axially adjacent insert pockets to be not rotationally adjacent to one another? What does it mean for the imaginary helix circles the rotational axis at least twice? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 6 it its entirety is unclear and confusing. What exactly means for “a lap sum SL, defined as the number of times the imaginary helix (H) circles the rotational axis (S)”? How is this defined? If it is an imaginary helix, then what is the specific structure that permits the helix to circle the rotational axis? How is the helix defined? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 7 recites in lines 1-2 that a majority of insert pockets are “devoid of a support protrusion associated therewith”. The phrase “associated therewith” is unclear as it is unclear how exactly the insert pocket is being devoid of a support protrusion “associated therewith”. Associated how? Therewith what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 8 recites in line 1 that “only the forward-most insert pocket includes a support protrusion associated therewith”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the forward-most insert pocket” as no forward-most insert pocket has been previously introduced in either claim 8 or claims 7 and 1, from which claim 8 directly depends on. Second, the phrase “associated therewith” is unclear as it is unclear how exactly only the forward-most insert pocket includes a support protrusion associated therewith. Associated how? Therewith what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 15 recites in line 13 “all elements of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another”. However, it is unclear what exactly defines “all elements”. It is noted that the cutting inserts are considered as being an element of the thread milling tool, and based on Applicant’s disclosure, are removable. Thus, it is unclear what exact elements are permanently fixed to one another.
Claim 15 recites in lines 14-16 that “a first insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets is devoid of a support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface associated therewith”. The phrase “associated therewith” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is being associated therewith. Associated how? Therewith, what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 15 recites in line 38 the phrase “associated therewith” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly a support protrusion is “associated therewith”. Associated how? Therewith what? Further clarification is needed. It is further unclear what exactly this “support protrusion” is. Is it a support protrusion, within the insert pocket? Is this “support protrusion” of line 38 the same as the “support protrusion” of line 14 so as to be protruding from the insert pocket? Radially protruding? Axially protruding? The metes and bounds of what specifically is being defined as the “support protrusion” are not clearly set forth. Is this support protrusion a structural element of the actual protruding cutting teeth? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 17 recites in line 14 “all elements of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another”. However, it is unclear what exactly defines “all elements”. It is noted that the cutting inserts are considered as being an element of the thread milling tool, and based on Applicant’s disclosure, are removable. Thus, it is unclear what exact elements are permanently fixed to one another.
Claim 17 recites in lines 15-17 that “a first insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets is devoid of a support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface associated therewith”. The phrase “associated therewith” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is being associated therewith. Associated how? Therewith, what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 17 recites in line 38 the phrase “associated therewith” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly a support protrusion is “associated therewith”. Associated how? Therewith what? Further clarification is needed. It is further unclear what exactly this “support protrusion” is. Is it a support protrusion, within the insert pocket? Is this “support protrusion” of line 38 the same as the “support protrusion” of line 14 so as to be protruding from the insert pocket? Radially protruding? Axially protruding? The metes and bounds of what specifically is being defined as the “support protrusion” are not clearly set forth. Is this support protrusion a structural element of the actual protruding cutting teeth? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 17 recites in lines 42- “a number N of unoccupied insert pockets, between each axially adjacent pair of thread-cutting inserts, being the same”. However, it is unclear what exactly is “the same”. What exactly means by the number of unoccupied insert pockets, being the same? The same as what? The way these limitations have been set forth is confusing. Further clarification is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2010/101512 (hereafter—WO’512--).
In regards to claim 1, WO’512 discloses a thread milling tool (23) being rotatable in a rotation direction about a rotational axis (AT) defining opposing inward and outward radial directions and opposing forward and rearward directions, the thread milling tool (23) comprising: a shank portion; and a cutting portion (where pockets 57, 157 are disposed at) located forwardly of the shank portion, the cutting portion comprising: a cylindrical-shaped cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4A, 4B); and a plurality of insert pockets (57, 157) recessed into the cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4A, 4B); each insert pocket capable of receiving a triangular thread-cutting insert (e.g. by inserting a longer side of the triangle shape into the pocket); wherein: the plurality of insert pockets (57, 157) are at least five insert pockets (see Figure 4A-4C); the shank portion and the cutting portion of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another (note that the thread milling tool is monolithic and thus has the shank portion permanently fixed to the cutting portion); and a first insert pocket (57) of the plurality of insert pockets, is devoid of support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface, (note that as per Figures 4A and 4B, the pocket 57 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way), the first insert pocket (57) spaced from a forward end of the cutting portion (see Figures 4A and 4B).
In regards to claim 2, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, WO’512 also discloses that all of the insert pockets (57,157) are axially spaced apart from one another along the rotational axis (AT).
In regards to claim 4, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 2, WO’512 also discloses that the plurality of insert pockets (57/157.) are evenly distributed about and define an imaginary helix (H) centered about the rotational axis (S) and extending from a forward-most insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets to the rearward-most insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets (see annotated Figure 4A below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1359
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 4, WO’512 also discloses that axially adjacent insert pockets (157 and 57) are not rotationally adjacent to one another and the imaginary helix circles the rotational axis (AT) at least twice (see annotated Figure 4A above).
In regards to claim 7, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, WO’512 also discloses that a majority of the insert pockets (57) are devoid of a support protrusion associated therewith.
In regards to claim 9, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, WO’512 also discloses that there are six axially spaced apart insert pockets (see Figures 4C and 4B), thus meeting the claimed limitation of “at most seventeen axially spaced apart insert pockets”.
In regards to claim 10, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, WO’512 also discloses that each pair of rotationally adjacent insert pockets (57 or 157; or 57 and 157; or pair of 57 or pair of 157) are, at least partially, rotationally spaced apart from one another in the rotation direction.
In regards to claim 11, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, WO’512 also discloses that at least one insert pocket (57 or 157) is surrounded by the cutting peripheral surface.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 07-266121 (hereafter—JP’121--).
In regards to claim 1, JP’121 discloses a thread milling tool (1) being rotatable in a rotation direction about a rotational axis defining opposing inward and outward radial directions and opposing forward and rearward directions, the thread milling tool (1) comprising: a shank portion; and a cutting portion (where pockets 2 are disposed at) located forwardly of the shank portion, the cutting portion comprising: a cylindrical-shaped cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a,b); and a plurality of insert pockets (2) recessed into the cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a, b); each insert pocket configured to receive a triangular thread-cutting insert (3); wherein: the plurality of insert pockets (2) are at least five insert pockets (see Figure 4a, and note that there are 6, thus meets the at least five limitation); the shank portion and the cutting portion of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another (note that the thread milling tool is monolithic and thus has the shank portion permanently fixed to the cutting portion); and a first insert pocket (2) of the plurality of insert pockets, is devoid of support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface, (note that as per Figures 4b, the pocket 2 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way), the first insert pocket (2) spaced from a forward end of the cutting portion (see Figure 4a).
In regards to claim 2, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that all of the insert pockets (2) are axially spaced apart from one another along the rotational axis (see Figure 4a).
In regards to claim 7, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that a majority of the insert pockets (2) are devoid of a support protrusion associated therewith.
In regards to claim 9, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that there are six axially spaced apart insert pockets (see Figures 4C and 4B), thus meeting the claimed limitation of “at most seventeen axially spaced apart insert pockets”.
In regards to claim 10, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that each pair of rotationally adjacent insert pockets (3) are, at least partially, rotationally spaced apart from one another in the rotation direction.
In regards to claim 11, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that at least one insert pocket (2) is surrounded by the cutting peripheral surface.
In regards to claim 15, JP’121 discloses a thread milling cutter comprising: a thread milling tool (1) being rotatable in a rotation direction about a rotational axis defining opposing inward and outward radial directions and opposing forward and rearward directions, the thread milling tool (1) comprising: a shank portion; and a cutting portion (where pockets 2 are disposed at) located forwardly of the shank portion, the cutting portion comprising: a cylindrical-shaped cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a,b); and a plurality of insert pockets (2) recessed into the cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a, b); the plurality of insert pockets (2) are at least five insert pockets (see Figure 4a, and note that there are 6, thus meets the at least five limitation); all elements of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another (note that the thread milling tool is monolithic and thus has the shank portion permanently fixed to the cutting portion, in the same way as presented by Applicant); and a first insert pocket (2) of the plurality of insert pockets, is devoid of support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface associated therewith, (note that as per Figures 4b, the pocket 2 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way), the first insert pocket (2) spaced from a forward end of the cutting portion (see Figure 4a), and a plurality of thread-cutting inserts (3) releasably secured to the thread milling tool (1) thereto, each thread-cutting insert (3) comprising: opposing top and bottom insert surfaces (see Figure 4b); a peripheral insert surface (Figures 4b) connecting the top and bottom insert surfaces; and a single active protruding cutting tooth (3) formed with a protruding cutting edge located at an intersection of the top insert surface and the peripheral insert surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant), the protruding cutting tooth (3) protruding in the outward radial direction from the respective insert pocket (2); each insert pocket (2) of the thread milling tool (1) has an insert seat center (e.g. where screw 9 is inserted into); and all axially adjacent insert pockets (2) which are located at different axial locations are axially spaced apart from one another by a tool pitch length (LPT as in annotated Figure 4a below) measured parallel to the rotational axis, from the insert seat center of one of said insert pockets (2) to an axially adjacent one of said insert pockets (2); wherein: all axially adjacent thread-cutting inserts (3) which are located at different axial locations are distanced by an insert pitch length (LPI as in annotated Figure 4a below, defined as an axial distance along the rotational axis between the protruding cutting edges (3) belonging to said each pair of axially adjacent thread-cutting inserts (2); and at least one of the protruding cutting teeth (3) is devoid of an associated support protrusion (note that as per Figures 4b, the pocket 2 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way) associated therewith.
PNG
media_image2.png
776
661
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
776
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 17, JP’121 discloses a thread milling cutter comprising: a thread milling tool (1) being rotatable in a rotation direction about a rotational axis defining opposing inward and outward radial directions and opposing forward and rearward directions, the thread milling tool (1) comprising: a shank portion; and a cutting portion (where pockets 2 are disposed at) located forwardly of the shank portion, the cutting portion comprising: a cylindrical-shaped cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a,b); and a plurality of insert pockets (2) recessed into the cutting peripheral surface (see Figures 4a, b); the plurality of insert pockets (2) are at least five insert pockets (see Figure 4a, and note that there are 6, thus meets the at least five limitation); all elements of the thread milling tool are permanently fixed to one another (note that the thread milling tool is monolithic and thus has the shank portion permanently fixed to the cutting portion, in the same way as presented by Applicant); and a first insert pocket (2) of the plurality of insert pockets, is devoid of support protrusion that extends radially beyond the cutting peripheral surface associated therewith, (note that as per Figures 4b, the pocket 2 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way), the first insert pocket (2) spaced from a forward end of the cutting portion (see Figure 4a), and a plurality of thread-cutting inserts (3) releasably secured to the thread milling tool (1) thereto, each thread-cutting insert (3) comprising: opposing top and bottom insert surfaces (see Figure 4b); a peripheral insert surface (Figures 4b) connecting the top and bottom insert surfaces; and a protruding cutting tooth (3) formed with a protruding cutting edge located at an intersection of the top insert surface and the peripheral insert surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant), the protruding cutting tooth (3) protruding in the outward radial direction from the respective insert pocket (2); each insert pocket (2) of the thread milling tool (1) has an insert seat center (e.g. where screw 9 is inserted into); and all axially adjacent insert pockets (2) which are located at different axial locations are axially spaced apart from one another by a tool pitch length (LPT as in annotated Figure 4a above) measured parallel to the rotational axis, from the insert seat center of one of said insert pockets (2) to an axially adjacent one of said insert pockets (2); wherein: all axially adjacent thread-cutting inserts (3) which are located at different axial locations are distanced by an insert pitch length (LPI as in annotated Figure 4a above), defined as an axial distance along the rotational axis between the protruding cutting edges (3) belonging to said each pair of axially adjacent thread-cutting inserts (2); and at least one of the protruding cutting teeth (3) is devoid of an associated support protrusion (note that as per Figures 4b, the pocket 2 does not have any protrusion, protruding in a radially outward way) associated therewith, and the thread-cutting inserts (3) are capable of being releasably secured to a subset of the insert pockets (2) such that at least some of the insert pockets (2), which are located at different axial locations, are capable of being unoccupied, with a number N of unoccupied insert pockets, between each axially adjacent pair of thread-cutting inserts (37), being the same. Since the inserts 3 are releasably secured to the pockets 2 via screw 9, then at least the middle insert 3, between a first one insert 3 and a last one insert 3 on tool 1 as seen in Figure 4a, can be removed so as to have seat middle seat 2 unoccupied).
In regards to claim 21, JP’121 discloses the thread milling cutter according to claim 15, JP’121 also discloses that each thread-cutting inserts (3) is triangular.
In regards to claim 22, JP’121 discloses the thread milling cutter according to claim 1, JP’121 also discloses that each insert pocket (2) is defined by an insert seat floor (in the same way as presented by Applicant), a rearward insert seat surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s rearward insert seat surface 72), and a back insert seat surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant’s back insert seat surface 78), the rearward insert seat surface slants in the rearward direction towards the back insert seat surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant), the insert seat floor extending between the rearward insert seat surface and the back insert seat surface and configured to engage a major surface of an insert (3) received in the insert pocket (2) (in the same way as presented by Applicant, see Figure 4a and 4b).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2010/101512 (hereafter—WO’512--).
In regards to claim 3, WO’512 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 2, WO’512 also discloses that the cutting portion has a diameter.
However, WO’512 fails to disclose that the diameter fulfills the following condition: Dm ≤ 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide WO’512 cutting portion with a desired diameter size, such as being less than or equal to 50 mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g. depending on the size of the workpiece being machined. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 07-266121 (hereafter—JP’121--) in view of Kuderer US 2017/0129029 or in the alternative over Staedt et al. US 2007/0243030 (hereafter—Staedt--).
In regards to claim 3, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 2, JP’121 also discloses that the cutting portion has a diameter.
However, JP’121 fails to disclose that the diameter fulfills the following condition: Dm ≤ 50 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide JP’121 cutting portion with a desired diameter size, such as being less than or equal to 50 mm since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g. depending on the size of the workpiece being machined. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regards to claim 4, JP’121 discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 2, JP’121 also discloses that the plurality of insert pockets (2) are evenly distributed and extend from a forward-most insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets to the rearward-most insert pocket of the plurality of insert pockets (see annotated Figure 4A below).
JP’121 fails to disclose that the plurality of insert pockets are distributed about and define an imaginary helix (H) centered about the rotational axis (S).
Kuderer teaches that it is well known in the art of thread milling tools to have a plurality of insert pockets distributed about and defining an imaginary helix centered about a rotational axis (see paragraph [0025] and [0061]. This can be advantageous in relatively narrow bore holes in which the diameter of the hole and the thread to be produced are only slightly larger than the diameter of the rotational circle of the cutting tips, because in that way the chips produced in the milling operation can also be transported further in the axial direction between the individual spaces and out of the bore hole. In that respect, it would further be possible for the transitions between adjacent chip spaces to be still further flattened off and smoothed so that the impression and also the effect of a chip flute is still further improved.
Staedt teaches a plurality of triangular cutting teeth being circumferentially offset with respect to any other of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts (Figs. 1, 2) so as to be distributed about and define an imaginary helix (H) centered about the rotational axis (S). The offset in the circumferential direction of mutually closest triangular cutting teeth of adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes correspond to a twist angle, which is selected so that chip spaces of the mutually closest triangular cutting teeth arranged in adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes overlap in the helical direction (Figs. 1, 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed modify the cutter disclosed in JP’121 to have the plurality of insert pockets be distributed about and define an imaginary helix (H) centered about the rotational axis, based on the teachings of either Kuderer and/or Staedt in order to improve chip evacuation while cutting hard materials and/or reduce vibration/resonance during cutting by staggering the cutting edges circumferentially (i.e., not all cutting inserts of a given column hitting the workpiece at the same location at the same time). See (paragraph [0025] and [0061] of Kudered and/or paragraph [0002] of Staedt disclosing "[h]elical thread mills provide for improved chip control and chip evacuation).
In regards to claim 5, JP’121 as modified discloses the thread milling tool according to claim 4, JP’121 as modified also discloses that axially adjacent insert pockets (2 of JP’121) are not rotationally adjacent to one another and the imaginary helix circles the rotational axis at least twice (as taught by Kuderer and/or Staedt).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 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.
Claim 6, 8, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant's amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-3, 9-14 has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant's amendments, a new 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 4-8, 15-17 and 21 has been incorporated as aforementioned.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/20/2026 with respect to claims 1-5, 7, 9-15, 17, 21 and 22 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under
35 USC § 102(a)(1) over JP 07-266121 (hereafter—JP’121--) for claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 15, 17, 21 and 22; and
35 USC § 103 over JP 07-266121 (hereafter—JP’121--) in view of Kuderer US 2017/0129029 or in the alternative over Staedt et al. US 2007/0243030 (hereafter—Staedt--) for claims 3-5
have been incorporated as aforementioned.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/20/2026, regarding the WO 2010/101512 (hereafter—WO’512--) reference and claim 1, as in “there is no reason or possibility of the thread milling tool of Koshiken (WO’512) to function with a triangular insert as recited in claim 1”
Regarding the intended use limitations configured to receive a triangular thread-cutting insert” it is noted that the prior art used in the rejection is capable of being used for this function. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations”, if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) See MPEP 2114. The pocket recess 57 and 157 are capable of receiving a triangular thread-cutting insert by inserting a major surface of a triangle shaped cutting insert. As such, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
Applicant argues on page 15-16, regarding claim 2 that in WO’512 “the inserts 37 completely overlap one another along a central axis of the milling tool 23 and the inserts 137 completely overlap one another along the central axis of the milling tool” and thus as best understood, does not disclose “all of the inserts pockets are axially spaced apart from one another along the rotational axis”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that none of the inserts in WO’512 overlap1 one another along a central axis. On the contrary, there is an offset between all of the insert.
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 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 NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Sunil K 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.
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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 Overlap: “to extend over or past and cover a part of” OVERLAP Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights