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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a groove width and depth, does not reasonably provide enablement for hard particles which appear between the rake/relieved surface and the chip/to-be-cut surface of the workpiece when the workpiece is cut. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Viewing the specification, particularly Paragraphs [0012 & 0016], the ‘hard particles, which appear between the rake/relieved surface and a chip/the to-be-cut surface’ refer to pieces of the workpiece that fall from the chip of the workpiece or are scratched off of the to-be-cut surface, pieces of the cutting tool that are scratched off the rake/relieved surface, etc. (emphasis added). The breadth of the claims is larger than the examples provided, due to the presence of ‘etc.’ at the end of the list. What else are the hard particles permitted to be? The nature of the invention is a cutting insert with grooves having a predefined groove width and groove depth, commensurate with the prior art at least identified and relied upon in the rejection(s) below. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the size of these grooves would lead to more or less friction between the workpiece and tool, more or less cooling/lubricating fluid being disposed between the tool and workpiece. The amount of direction provided by the inventor as to the formation of and composition of the hard particles and how they relate to the width and depth of the groove(s) is inadequate. If the hard particles are pieces of the chip, are they not chips in and of themselves? At what point is a piece of a chip no longer a chip and instead now a ‘hard particle’? If the workpiece is soft, in the case of plastic or even aluminum, is the particle hard? The claims say that the groove width and groove depth are greater than at least hard particles. Is that greater than the diameter of the hard particle(s), the radius of them? The lack of existence of working examples simply does not enable the limitation(s) in the claim(s). The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention to size the grooves based on the hard particles, not even mentioning the fact that the claims recite ‘at least’ hard particles, with no scope provided, can only lead to the determination that the evidence as a whole does not lead to this subject matter being enabled. See MPEP 2164.01(a).
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 5 and 9 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.
Claims 5 and 9 recite the limitations ‘the plurality of first grooves have a groove width and a groove depth greater than at least hard particles, which appear between the rake surface and the chip when the workpiece is cut.’ and ‘the plurality of second grooves have a groove width and a groove depth greater than at least hard particles, which appear between the relieved surface and the to-be-cut surface when the workpiece is cut.’ respectively. It is unclear how a groove width and depth can be greater than at least hard particles. Does this mean the width and depth are greater than the diameter of a hard particle? What is the scope of what constitutes a ‘hard’ particle? When machining a soft workpiece, are hard particles formed? As pointed out above, are the hard particles even different from chips, seeing as they are recited as being pieces of the chip themselves?
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.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondameedi et al. (US 20150321262, hereinafter ‘Kondameedi’).
Regarding claim 1, Kondameedi discloses a cutting tool (e.g. Fig. 6) comprising a cutting edge 32 configured to cut a workpiece. A rake surface includes a part 26 configured to come in contact with a chip, which appears when the workpiece is cut by the cutting edge and a relieved surface 18/22 includes a part configured to come in contact with a to-be-cut surface of the workpiece. A plurality of first grooves (teardrop-shaped grooves 30) are formed in the cutting edge side of the rake surface and a plurality of second grooves 30 are formed in the cutting edge side of the relieved surface.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kondameedi discloses the plurality of first grooves extending on the rake surface in a direction intersecting with and substantially orthogonal to the direction in which the chip is ejected (the chip being ejected tangentially to the cutting edge) (see Annotated Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Kondameedi discloses the plurality of second grooves extending on the relieved surface in a cutting direction in which the workpiece is cut by the cutting edge (i.e. extending in a direction perpendicular to the cutting edge).
Regarding claim 8, Kondameedi discloses the first groove formation area in which the plurality of first grooves are formed extends from the cutting edge side 32 toward a side opposite to/away from the cutting edge on the rake surface.
Regarding claim 10, Kondameedi discloses the plurality of second grooves having a groove depth smaller than the groove width (see Paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 11, Kondameedi discloses the plurality of second grooves extending on the relieved surface from the cutting edge side 32 to a part in proximity to an edge on a side opposite to the cutting edge (i.e. the grooves extend their groove width away from the cutting edge toward the bottom of the cutting insert as seen in Fig. 6 and as no particular proximity or dimension is claimed to this bottom edge, the bottom of the second grooves is ‘in proximity’ to the bottom edge of the cutting insert).
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.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondameedi et al. (US 20150321262).
Regarding claims 5 and 9, Kondameedi discloses the pluralities of first and second grooves having respective groove widths and depths (Paragraph [0022]). Kondameedi does not explicitly disclose the groove widths and depths being greater than at least hard particles, which appear between the rake/relieved surface and the chip/to-be-cut surface when the workpiece is cut.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the width and depth of the first/second grooves to be greater than at least hard particles which appear when the workpiece is cut in order to evacuate the particles from the tool/workpiece interface. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, A.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondameedi et al. (US 20150321262) in view of Yamaguchi (WO 2010150696).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Kondameedi does not disclose the claimed chip handler.
Yamaguchi discloses a similar cutting tool having a plurality of grooves on the rake face (the grooves lie between projections 7), wherein the rake surface has a chip handler 9 configured to bend the chip toward a side opposite to/away from the rake surface. A first groove formation area 6 is where the first plurality of grooves are formed and does not overlap the chip handler on the rake surface (see e.g. Fig. 3). The chip handler is arranged in a central part of the rake surface in a direction orthogonal to a/the direction in which the chip is ejected, and the first groove formation is formed in a U-shape so as to surround the chip handler (see e.g. Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the chip handler as taught by Yamaguchi to the middle of the rake surface of the insert of Kondameedi, surrounded by the U-shaped first groove formation area (see Fig. 6 of Kondameedi) in order to more effectively bend and discharge chips as they are cut from the workpiece during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kozmin et al. (CZ 30072) and Grzina et al. (US 9144845) disclose elements of or similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722