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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-7 and 10-20 in the reply filed on 2/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Akiyama (US Pub. No. 2007/0251360).
Regarding claim 1, Akiyama discloses a roll mold manufacturing method using a roll mold manufacturing apparatus, the roll mold manufacturing apparatus comprising a rotary device configured to rotate (headstock 12 rotated by servo motor 20), along a circumferential direction, a roll base material (W) having either a tubular shape or a circular-column shape, and a machining stage (30) configured to be movable along
a roll length direction and a roll radial direction (via guides 40 and 42) (figures 1-4 and paragraph 34), wherein the machining stage comprises a switching stage placed thereon, the switching stage comprising multiple cutting blades 36) and being capable of changing positions of the multiple cutting blades relative to the roll base material, the roll mold manufacturing method comprising: a first cutting step of cutting a roll base material surface with a cutting blade (36) on the machining stage while moving the machining stage in a direction of an orientation along the roll length direction;
subsequently a step of switching from the cutting blade (36) to another cutting blade (the other 36) on the machining stage; and subsequently a secondcutting step of cutting the roll base material surface with the cutting blade (the other 36) on the machining stage while moving the machining stage in a direction of another orientation along the roll length direction (figures 1-4 and paragraphs 39-45).
Regarding claim 2, Akiyama discloses wherein switching between the first cutting blade (36) and the second cutting blade (the other 36: figure 4) is performed by rotating the switching stage (i.e. utilizing the built-in servo motor which functions as a B axis for indexing of a cutting tool of the tool post (figure 4 and paragraph 31).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Akiyama discloses wherein the first cutting blade and the second cutting blade (both 36) are symmetrical to each other in cross section (figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claims 5, 12, 16 and 19, Akiyama discloses wherein the roll base material is rotated during at least one of the first cutting step and the second cutting step (paragraph 26).
Regarding claims 6, 13, 17 and 20, Akiyama discloses wherein the multiple cutting blades are diamond blades (36: paragraph 32).
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 4, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US Pub. No. 2007/0251360).
Akiyama discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 15, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the machining art to select any number of cutting blades as well as any type depending on the cutting operation, shape of cut, and cutting conditions such as size and material of workpiece etc.
Claims 7, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US Pub. No. 2007/0251360) and as evidenced by KR 20170050366.
Akiyama discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above. Regarding claims 7, 14 and 18, Akiyama is silent about material of the roll base (W). Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the machining art for the roll base material to be metal, as evidenced by ‘366, abstract.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 4/2/26