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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words, uses an implied phrase (“The disclosure can realize…”), and refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (“realize further prevention of a mounting mistake caused when a cutting insert is mounted on an insert seat”).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “one of side surfaces”, which is grammatically incorrect.
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 1-20 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 “A cutting tool comprising a tool body that includes an insert mounting part for mounting a cutting insert including…”. It is unclear if claim 1 intends for the cutting insert to be positively recited as part of the cutting tool. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim broadly as written, which is that the claim merely requires the tool to be “for mounting a cutting insert” and not necessarily to include it.
Claim 1 recites “a constraint surface that is a surface including a portion that comes into contact with at least a part of a constraint target surface formed as a surface of the peripheral side surface of the cutting insert inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface, and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle”. As written , it is not clear if the limitation “inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface, and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle” is describing the insert mounting part or the cutting insert. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as describing the insert mounting part.
Claim 1 recites “so as to have a shape that allows evacuation from the constraint surface hedging the cutting edge” (see page 35, lines 1-3). It is generally unclear what this limitation is intending to express. What is allowed to be evacuated? What does “hedging” mean in this context? The limitation will be interpreted as best understood by the examiner in the context of the evacuation parts 222 and 280 of the instant application.
Claim 1 recites “a relief part that is formed at a part that the corner parts of the cutting insert approach so as to hedge the corner parts” (see page 25, lines 7-8). It is again unclear what is meant by “hedge” in this context. The examiner’s best understanding would be --surround-- or similar.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the cutting insert seated at a posture that does not fit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the cutting insert seated at the posture that does not fit to the insert mounting part" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “an appropriate seating position” in line 5. It is not necessarily clear what would constitute an “appropriate” seating position.
Claim 6 recites “screwing…the fixing screw inserted in the hole of the cutting insert is difficult”. The scope of the term “difficult” is unclear, i.e. what would constitute “difficult” versus “easy” or “not difficult”.
Claims 7-16 recite details of the cutting insert. As noted previously, it is generally unclear if the cutting insert is positively recited for the tool is merely capable of receiving such an insert.
The term “gradually” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites “long sides”. It is not necessarily clear what the scope of “long” is. For examination purposes, “long” will be interpreted as being longer than some other side.
Claim 19, similarly to claim 1, recites “A cutting tool comprising a tool body that includes an insert mounting part for mounting a cutting insert including…”. It is unclear if claim 19 intends for the cutting insert to be positively recited as part of the cutting tool. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim broadly as written, which is that the claim merely requires the tool to be “for mounting a cutting insert” and not necessarily to include it.
Claim 19 recites “a constraint surface that is a surface including a portion that comes into contact with at least a part of a constraint target surface formed as a surface of the peripheral side surface of the cutting insert inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface, and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle”. As written , it is not clear if the limitation “inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface, and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle” is describing the insert mounting part or the cutting insert. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as describing the insert mounting part.
Claim 19 recites “a relief part that is formed at a part that the corner parts of the cutting insert approach so as to hedge the corner parts” (see page 41, lines 7-8). It is again unclear what is meant by “hedge” in this context. The examiner’s best understanding would be --surround-- or similar.
Claim 20 recites “A tool body constituting the cutting tool according to claim 1”. Given that claim 1 recites “A cutting tool comprising a tool body”, it is unclear how claim 20 is distinct or otherwise different from claim 1.
Any remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida (U.S. PGPub 2022/0080517, cited in IDS) in view of Spitzenberger (U.S. PGPub 2010/0158620).
Claims 1 and 20: Yoshida discloses a cutting tool (end mill 1) comprising a tool body (3) that includes an insert mounting part (pockets 91 and 92) for mounting a cutting insert (2C and 2P) including an upper surface (10), a lower surface (20), a peripheral side surface (30 - including 31-34), a cutting edge (along 10R and 20R - paragraph 31), and a hole (40) for a screw (9), the peripheral side surface including curved corner parts (R1-R4), the cutting edge being formed at a part of an upper intersecting edge of the upper surface and the peripheral side surface (e.g. Fig. 3), and a lower intersecting edge of the lower surface and the peripheral side surface (Id.), and the hole penetrating the upper surface to the lower surface (Fig. 5), wherein the insert mounting part has a shape including a bottom surface that comes into contact with at least a part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert (evident in Fig. 8), a constraint surface (angled surface contacting the upper portion of the insert in Fig. 9 - see paragraphs 31 and 48) that is a surface including a portion that comes into contact with at least a part of a constraint target surface formed as a surface of the peripheral side surface of the cutting insert inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface (surface 32 or 34 of the insert), and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle (evident as cited above), an evacuation part that is formed at a part that the upper intersecting edge or the lower intersecting edge of the cutting insert approaches so as to have a shape that allows evacuation from the constraint surface hedging the cutting edge (e.g. the unlabeled channel having an arcuate cross section in the seat 91/92 along the bottom edge of the insert), a first protrusion area that extends hiding a part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert mounted on the insert mounting part, as seen from a direction perpendicular to the bottom surface (the acute angular wall portion of the seat as shown in Fig. 9 would “hide” or overhang at least the lower surface of the insert in contact with the bottom surface of the seat if viewing from the perpendicular to the bottom surface of the seat. Specifically, the portion of this wall located toward the radial exterior of the tool may be labeled a “first protrusion area”), a relief part that is formed at a part that the corner parts of the cutting insert approach so as to hedge the corner parts (a corner relief cavity is shown but not labeled at the internal corner of the seats), and a second protrusion area that extends from an upper side of the relief part so as to cover the part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert mounted on the insert mounting part, as seen from the direction perpendicular to the bottom surface (the portion the acute angular wall which is proximal to the corner relief would cover or overhang at least the lower surface of the insert in contact with the bottom surface of the seat). It is also noted that whether or not the first and second protrusion areas would cover the part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert would be partially dependent on the geometry of the cutting insert, where the insert is not necessarily positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Thus, a different hypothetical insert in combination with the tool of Yoshida may read on the claim. For example, a thinner insert of an otherwise similar shape might be seated such that its upper surface is positioned relatively closer to the constraint surface thus also partially hidden or covered thereby.
Yoshida does not explicitly show or describe a female screw part for a fixing screw inserted in the hole, though it could be presumed from the remaining disclosure. Nevertheless, Spitzenberger teaches a tool having a female screw part (88) for a fixing screw inserted in the hole (paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the female screw part as taught by Spitzenberger in order to have provided a means for screwing the insert into the tool.
Alternatively to the above with regard to the evacuation part, Spitzenberger also teaches an insert mounting part having an evacuation part (104a, 106a) that is formed at a part that an upper intersecting edge or a lower intersecting edge of a cutting insert approaches so as to have a shape that allows evacuation from a constraint surface (78, 80) hedging the cutting edge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such an evacuation part in the insert mounting part(s) of Yoshida in order to have provided additional clearance to the cutting insert (e.g. Spitzenberger, paragraph 30).
It is noted that Spitzenberger also more clearly depicts evacuation and relief parts (104b and 106b and corner pocket 86) as similarly cited in Yoshida above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided these features in the insert mounting part(s) of Yoshida in order to have provided additional clearance to the cutting insert (e.g. Spitzenberger, paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 20, a tool body constituting the cutting tool according to claim 1 is also taught as discussed above.
Claim 19: Yoshida discloses a cutting tool (end mill 1) comprising a tool body (3) that includes an insert mounting part (pockets 91 and 92) for mounting a cutting insert (2C and 2P) including an upper surface (10), a lower surface (20), a peripheral side surface (30 - including 31-34), a cutting edge (along 10R and 20R - paragraph 31), and a hole (40) for a screw (9), the peripheral side surface including curved corner parts (R1-R4), the cutting edge being formed at a part of an upper intersecting edge of the upper surface and the peripheral side surface (e.g. Fig. 3), and a lower intersecting edge of the lower surface and the peripheral side surface (Id.), and the hole penetrating the upper surface to the lower surface (Fig. 5), wherein the insert mounting part has a shape including a bottom surface that comes into contact with at least a part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert (evident in Fig. 8), a constraint surface (angled surface contacting the upper portion of the insert in Fig. 9 - see paragraphs 31 and 48) that is a surface including a portion that comes into contact with at least a part of a constraint target surface formed as a surface of the peripheral side surface of the cutting insert inclining with respect to the upper surface or the lower surface (surface 32 or 34 of the insert), and whose inclination angle with respect to the bottom surface is an acute angle (evident as cited above), a relief part that is formed at a part that the corner parts of the cutting insert approach so as to hedge the corner parts (a corner relief cavity is shown but not labeled at the internal corner of the seats), and a protrusion area that extends from an upper side of the relief part so as to cover a part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert mounted on the insert mounting part, (the acute angular wall portion of the seat as shown in Fig. 9, specifically the portion thereof which is proximal to the corner relief, would cover or overhang at least the lower surface of the insert in contact with the bottom surface of the seat). It is also noted that whether or not the protrusion area would cover the part of the upper surface or the lower surface of the cutting insert would be partially dependent on the geometry of the cutting insert, where the insert is not necessarily positively recited as part of the claimed invention. Thus, a different hypothetical insert in combination with the tool of Yoshida may read on the claim. For example, a thinner insert of an otherwise similar shape might be seated such that its upper surface is positioned relatively closer to the constraint surface thus also partially hidden or covered thereby.
Yoshida does not explicitly show or describe a female screw part for a fixing screw inserted in the hole, though it could be presumed from the remaining disclosure. Nevertheless, Spitzenberger teaches a tool having a female screw part (88) for a fixing screw inserted in the hole (paragraph 25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the female screw part as taught by Spitzenberger in order to have provided a means for screwing the insert into the tool.
It is noted that Spitzenberger also more clearly depicts a relief part (corner pocket 86) as similarly cited in Yoshida above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided this feature in the insert mounting part(s) of Yoshida in order to have provided additional clearance to the cutting insert (e.g. Spitzenberger, paragraph 30).
See annotated Figs. 2 and 9 of Yoshida below for various features as interpreted above.
PNG
media_image1.png
901
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
930
956
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Referring to Yoshida, the first protrusion area and/or the second protrusion area are formed protruding to a position to which a center axis of the hole of the cutting insert seated at a posture that does not fit to the insert mounting part is shifted by at least a predetermined amount with respect to the female screw part (it is expected, given the complementary angular contact at the constraint surface, that a misoriented insert, e.g. where the angles were mirrored instead of complementary, would shift the screw holes out of alignment with one another, where the “predetermined amount” can be any amount).
Claim 3: The first protrusion area is formed on a surface extended from the constraint surface (it is effectively part of the same overall angular surface and thus extends therefrom).
Claim 4: An inclination angle of the first protrusion area and/or the second protrusion area with respect to the bottom surface is such a degree of an angle that the cutting insert seated at the posture that does not fit to the insert mounting part is shifted by at least a predetermined amount from an appropriate seating position (this is similar to the discussion in claim 2, where any inclination angle would have this effect to some degree).
Claim 5: A height of the first protrusion area and/or the second protrusion area from the bottom surface is such a height that a center axis of the hole of the cutting insert seated at a posture that does not fit to the insert mounting part is shifted by at least a predetermined amount with respect to the female screw part (this is similar to the discussion in claim 2).
Claim 6: The predetermined amount is a shift amount at which screwing, to the female screw part, the fixing screw inserted in the hole of the cutting insert is difficult (presumably any misalignment of the screw holes resulting from the above would make screwing “difficult” compared to properly aligned holes).
Claim 7: The cutting insert has a substantially rectangular shape in top view toward the upper surface and in bottom view toward the lower surface (e.g. paragraph 36).
Claim 8: The upper surface and the lower surface of the cutting insert each have a rectangular shape whose lengths of a first side of the upper intersecting edge or the lower intersecting edge, and a third side facing the first side are longer than lengths of a second side and a fourth side facing the second side (e.g. paragraph 36).
Claim 9: The constraint target surface is formed on a surface of the peripheral side surface of the cutting insert adjacent to the second side or the fourth side, and the constraint surface of the insert mounting part is formed at a position facing the constraint target surface - (paragraphs 31 and 48).
Claim 10: The constraint target surface forms a flank whose clearance angle is positive with respect to a cutting edge provided on the second side (e.g. Figs. 5-6, essentially the same as in the instant application).
Claim 11: The cutting insert has a shape whose height from the lower surface to the upper intersecting edge or whose height from the upper surface to the lower intersecting edge gradually decreases from the hole to the fourth side (evident in Figs. 5-6 and paragraph 42).
Claim 12: One of side surfaces of the peripheral side surface other than the constraint surface forms a flank whose clearance angle is negative with respect to a cutting edge provided on the first side (e.g. Figs. 5-6, essentially the same as in the instant application).
Claim 13: The cutting insert adopts an axially symmetrical structure in which, when the cutting insert reversely rotates 180° about an X axis as a rotational center that is a perpendicular line passing a center of the center axis of the hole and extends along the second side and the fourth side, a side of the upper surface and a side of the lower surface have a same shape (evident in the figures and e.g. paragraph 30).
Claim 14: The cutting insert adopts a structure in which three sides (e.g. 11-13) of four sides on the upper surface side and three sides of four sides on the lower surface side (the lower surface has the same structure) can be used as cutting edges (paragraph 31).
Claim 15: The cutting insert includes cutting edges provided to two adjacent corner parts of the corner parts (implied from the fact the cutting edge includes edge segments 11, 12, and 13, where corners R1 and R2 are within this edge path. There also appears to be a continuous edge from the drawings).
Claim 17: As the insert mounting part, two insert mounting parts (91, 92) on which the cutting inserts of a same shape are mounted at different postures, and that have mutually different orientations are provided (paragraph 32).
Claim 18: The two insert mounting parts include a first insert mounting part (91) on which the cutting insert is mounted at such a posture that long sides of four sides of the upper intersecting edge or the lower intersecting edge of the cutting insert are directed to a radial direction of the tool body (Fig. 1), and a second insert mounting part (92) on which the cutting insert is mounted at such a posture that the long sides are directed to a rotational axis direction of the tool body (Fig. 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida and Spitzenberger as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Inayama (JP2001328011, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Yoshida and Spitzenberger teach a cutting tool substantially as claimed except for wherein the center axis of the hole is perpendicular to the upper surface and the lower surface. Yoshida instead teaches that the center axis (O) of the mounting hole (40) of the cutting insert is inclined, which allows the insert to be pushed into the corner of the pocket 91/92 (e.g. paragraph 48). However, Inayama teaches a cutting tool wherein the center axis of a screw hole is perpendicular to the upper surface and the lower surface of the insert (e.g. Figs. 2-4). In this design, the tapered screw head 10a interacts with the conical counterbore 4a of the screw hole to a similar effect (paragraph 16). Because both Yoshida and Inayama teach methods for screwing a cutting insert in a manner which biases the angled surfaces of the insert into a complementary angled wall of a seat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one method for the other (including making the screw hole perpendicular) to achieve this predictable result (MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The remaining references disclose cutting insert seats with similarly angled side walls.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726