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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. In addition, Applicant has cancelled dependent claims 4 and 7 and added new claims (independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12-19) and indicates that claims 11-17 are readable on elected Group I and as such, believes that these claims should be examined. The examiner respectfully disagrees with such assertions.
The newly submitted claims 11-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The independents claims 1 and 11 lack unity of invention because the technical feature required by both claims is the structure of the original claim 1 (prior to the amendment of 06/16/2026). In other words, the technical feature required by both claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 12-19) is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Shaefer (US 20210291278A1), as relied upon in the original restriction mailed on 04/22/2026.
Since applicant has elected Group I (claims 1-8) without traverse, accordingly, claims 9-10 and 11-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention while claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8 are being examined.
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 1-3, 5-6 and 8 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 1, lines 22-23 recites the limitation “a rear end of the first rising surface is closer to the rear end of the main body than a front end of the second rising surface” which is confusing. It is unclear if the sentence is meant to read “a rear end of the first rising surface is closer to the rear end of the main body than the rear end of the first rising surface is to a front end of the second rising surface” or is meant to read “a rear end of the first rising surface is closer to the rear end of the main body than a front end of the second rising surface is to the rear end of the main body.” Should the first interpretation be considered by the Applicant, then it appears that an objection to the drawings will be assessed since such interpretation is not being depicted by any of the instant figures. For examination purposes, the second interpretation is being considered.
Similarly, claim 2 poses two different interpretations that needs to be addressed.
Claim 6, lines 2-3 recites the limitation of “a direction orthogonal to the center axis.” It is unclear if this is the same or different than the “orthogonal axis” recited in the parent claim1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 20210291278A1) in view of Onodera (US 8,784,014).
As applied to claim 1, Schaefer teaches a cutting insert (12, Figs. 1-4 and 7-8) comprising a main body having a rod shape (boom arm 34) and extending along a center axis from a front end toward a rear end (axis 18); and a cutting portion protruding laterally from the main body at a side of the front end, wherein the cutting portion (32) comprises a rake face having a triangular shape in top view (chip surface 60), and comprising a corner portion most laterally protruding from the main body at the side of the front end (portion with arcuate edge 68), a first side portion extending from the corner portion toward the main body (portion with cutting edge 58), and a second side portion extending from the corner portion toward the main body and being located closer to the rear end of the main body than the first side portion (portion with cutting edge 56); and a cutting edge located at least over the corner portion and the first side portion (cutting edge 58), the main body comprises a first surface continuous with the rake face (surface A in Annotated Fig. 7 below); a first rising surface adjacent to the cutting portion across the first surface (surface B in Annotated Fig. 7 below), the first rising surface being inclined upward away from the first surface in a direction along the center axis and being away from the center axis toward the rear end of the main body, a second surface adjacent to the first surface across the first rising surface and extending from the front end toward the rear end of the main body (surface C in Annotated Fig. 7); and a second rising surface extending from the second surface toward the rear end of the main body and being inclined upward away from the second surface in the direction along the center axis (surface D in Annotated Fig. 7 below), and in the direction along the center axis, a rear end of the first rising surface is closer to the rear end of the main body than a front end of the second rising surface (paragraphs [0004] to [0066] with embodiments of Figs. 1-4 and paragraph [0071] with embodiment in Figs. 7-8).
PNG
media_image1.png
517
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schaefer does not explicitly teach in the direction along the center axis, the rake face is inclined at a first rake angle downward farther from the corner portion in a direction orthogonal to the center axis, and is inclined at a second rake angle downward toward the rear end of the main body.
Onodera teaches a cutting tool with a cutting insert (1) including a main body, cutting portion with a rake face and rising surfaces wherein the rake face (3/3a/3b) is inclined in multiple directions including in the direction along the center axis, the rake face is inclined at a first rake angle downward farther from the corner portion (23) in a direction orthogonal to the center axis (see inclined/raised 4a1, 4b1 in Fig. 4, col. 4, lines 12-17), and is inclined at a second rake angle downward toward the rear end of the main body (angle β, Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
387
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the rake face of Schaefer’s cutting insert to be inclined at a first rake angle downward farther from the corner portion in a direction orthogonal to the center axis be inclined at a second rake angle downward toward the rear end of the main body, as taught by Onodera, as an effective means of enhancing the chip discharge performance of the cutting tool (see Onodera, col. 1, lines 34-37).
As applied to claim 2, the combination of Schaefer and Onodera teaches the invention cited including Schaefer further teaches wherein in the direction along the center axis, a rear end of the second rising surface (surface D) is closer to the rear end (right end Annotated Fig. 7) of the main body than the rear end of the first rising surface (surface B) is to the rear end of the body.
As applied to claim 3, the combination of Schaefer and Onodera teaches the invention cited including Schaefer further teaches wherein the first rising surface (surface B) is separated from the rake face (surface A, Annotated Fig. 7 above).
As applied to claim 5, the combination of Schaefer and Onodera teaches the invention cited including first and second rale angles but does not explicitly teach the first rake angle is larger than the second rake angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the cutting insert of Schaefer/Onodera to have a first rake angle larger than the second rake angle as a matter of "Obvious to try" by choosing from a finite number of identified (the first angle is either larger, equal to or smaller than the second rake angle), predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, see MPEP 2143, KSR, Rationale “E”). The resulting cutting insert would include an enhanced chip discharging capacity allowing the cutting tool to be used in a variety of cutting operations based on specific design requirement.
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Schaefer and Onodera teaches the invention cited including Schaefer further teaches wherein the main body has a notch located on a side opposite to the cutting portion on the side of the front end of the main body (a notch is shown at 58 in Fig. 6 wherein the cutting head 32 has only cutting edge 56, paragraph [0068]), and a width of the notch (58) is larger than a width of the cutting portion (56) in the direction along the center axis. (see Fig. 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the cutting insert including the third rake angle and the fourth rake angle in claimed direction and in combination with the rest of the claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito et al. (US 11,786,981) teaches a cutting insert that has a plate shape centered on an insert center axis. The cutting insert includes a front surface and a back surface facing an insert axial direction, an outer peripheral surface facing outward in an insert radial direction, and a cutting edge at an intersecting ridge line between the front surface and the outer peripheral surface. The back surface has a flat shape perpendicular to the insert center axis. The outer peripheral surface includes a flank surface coupled. The flank surface is inclined inward in the insert radial direction as extending in the insert axial direction from the front surface side to the back surface side. The front surface includes a rake surface. The rake surface is inclined from a back surface side to a front surface side in the insert axial direction as extending inward in the insert radial direction from the cutting edge (abstract, Figs. 1-14).
Tsuda (US 9,925,595) teaches a cutting insert includes an insert body, a rake face on an upper surface of an end portion of the insert body, a cutting edge on a ridge between the rake face and an end surface of the insert body, side cutting edges on ridges between the rake face and side surfaces of the insert body, each connected to both end portions of the cutting edge, and a breaker convex portion on the rake face. The breaker convex portion includes two breaker island portions extending toward the side cutting edge as extending closer to the front cutting edge. Each breaker island portion includes from the front cutting edge side a first raised portion, a descending portion which becomes lower from a top portion of the first raised portion, and a second raised portion which becomes higher, from the descending portion, than the top portion of the first raised portion (abstract, Figs. 1-3).
Inoue (US 9,327,351) teaches a cutting insert includes an end cutting edge located along an intersection of an upper surface and a front clearance surface, and a pair of side cutting edges respectively located along intersections of the upper surface and a pair of side clearance surfaces. The upper surface includes an end rake surface that is continuous with and inclined downward as departing from the end cutting edge, a pair of major protrusions that are less apart from each other as departing from the end cutting edge in a top view, and a pair of minor protrusions that are respectively located close to their adjacent side clearance surface of the pair of side clearance surfaces with respect to the pair of major protrusions. The pair of minor protrusions are located further apart from the end cutting edge than an end portion of each of the pair of major protrusions (abstract, Figs. 1A-20D).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 08/19/2026
Prosecution Insights