Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: 118. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: 116. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of an informality: “the cutting edge” in line 2 should be changed to “the cutting edges”.
Claim 7 and 10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 7 and 10 as currently written have not been further treated on the merits.
Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). While claim 3 depends from 2 (and claim 11 does not), claim 11 inherently requires claim 2 since it requires at least two cutting edges.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 9-10 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “about [value]”. The term “about” is a term of degree that is indefinite because the specification lacks some standard for measuring the degrees intended.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2008/0101877 (“Engin”) in view of Emuge Corp. Circle-Segment End Mills, available at https://www.aerospacemanufacturinganddesign.com/product/emuge-corp-circle-segment-end-mills-121516/, Screen shot taken on May 12, 2019 (“Emuge”).
Regarding claim 1, Engin teaches a … cutting tool (¶ [0001]), comprising: a tool body (22/24), at least one cutting edge (34) helically extending about the tool body (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0015] & [0018]-[0020]), the at least one cutting edge having a constant lead geometry which may be subject to multiple regrinds (¶ [0021], wherein each edge has a consistent lead, and wherein one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the cutting edges are capable of being reground multiple times since it is well known in the art to regrind end mills a plurality of times and the lead of the cutting edges is consistent thus allowing a tool to be capable of regrinding them multiple times).
Engin fails to explicitly teach the cutting tool being a circle segment cutting tool, wherein “circle segment” is a term of art that refers to specific types of cutting tools. This would have been obvious in view of Emuge.
Emuge is directed to circle segment end mills (page 1, wherein all references to Emuge refer to the document submitted herewith). Circle segment end mills can machine turbine blades and enable substantially more material removal with fewer passes in 5-axis machining, e.g. more than 80% cycle time reductions and up to 50% smoother surface finishes (page 1). Circle segment end mills come in four geometries: barrel-shaped, oval, taper, and lens shape, wherein oval and taper are for curved shapes such as blades (page 1).
In this case, Engin teaches a tapered end mill for use with turbine blades (¶ [0014]-[0015]). Emuge teaches a tapered end mill geometry that can result in more than 80% cycle time reductions and up to 50% smoother surface finishes, and wherein tapered and oval geometries of the circle segment end mills are known for use with blades. Thus, in order to reduce cycle time and provide smoother surface finishes, it would be obvious to modify the end mill of Engin so that it is a circle segment end mill (i.e. the sides of the taper are rounded instead of straight). There would be a reasonable expectation of success of maintaining the consistent lead of the cutting edges because one of skill in the art appreciates that the lead of the cutting edge is related to the helix angle and diameter of the tool (see ¶ [0021] of Engin). Thus, if the geometry of the cutter is known, and the lead is predetermined, one of skill in the art can determine how to vary the helix angle of the cutting edge to maintain a consistent lead.
Regarding claim 2, Engin further teaches the at least one cutting edge comprises two or more cutting edges (fig. 4, ¶ [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Engin further teaches two or more of the cutting edges have the same constant lead (¶ [0021] & [0022], wherein since the axial distance between the cutting edges is consistent and the angle variation of each cutting edge is the same, one of skill in the art will appreciate that the cutting edges all have the same constant lead).
Claim 5 recites the at least one cutting edge comprises a plurality of cutting edges with equal indexing, wherein equal indexing is interpreted as equal spacing between cutting edges at distal end of tool. Given fig. 4 of Engin along with the description in ¶ [0019]-[0020], one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the cutting edges have equal indexing.
Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not infer equal indexing, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art of end mills and cutting tools for a plurality of cutting edges to be equally indexed at the distal end of the tool. Thus, it would be obvious and predictable for the cutting edges of Engin to be equally indexed.
Regarding claim 7, Engin further teaches the at least one cutting edge has a variable helix angle (¶ [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Engin further teaches the at least one cutting edge has a helix angle that that increases along a length of the tool away from a distal tip (figs. 2-3, ¶ [0021], wherein since the diameter of the tool increases in a direction away from the distal tip, the helix angle also increases to maintain the constant lead).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Engin fails to explicitly teach at about 5.0 mm from the distal tip, the helix angle is about 25 degrees, and, at about 25 mm from the distal tip, the helix angle is about 38 degrees, respectively.
While Engin teaches that its embodiment has higher helix angles than conventional end mills, Engin teaches that it is known for conventional end mills to have helix angles of between 10 and 40 degrees (¶ [0002]). One of skill in the art appreciates that both smaller and larger helix angles have benefits and trade-offs. For example, smaller helix angles generally have greater edge strength, increased rigidity, reduced lifting, and larger chip evacuation compared to high helix angles. Thus, one of skill in the art is capable of weighing the benefits and trade-offs of lower and higher helix angles when machining a specific product comprising a specific material. Further, Engin teaches that it is predictable to mill bladed rotors with end mills having a helix angle of 10 to 40 degrees. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the cutting tool of Engin so that the helix angles are between 10 and 40 degrees.
While the above modification, fails to teach the specific helix angles at the specific distances from the distal tip, MPEP 2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, Engin et al. teaches a tapered circle segment cutting tool having cutting edges with increasing helix angles when moving away from the distal tip in order to maintain a constant lead (wherein the helix angles are between ten and forty degrees). One of skill in the art appreciates that the specific taper angle at a specific distance from the distal end is dependent upon the diameter of the cutting tool (including the change in diameter from the distal tip) and the predetermined lead. Since providing cutting tools with different diameters (including differing rates of change) and different predetermined leads are routine for one of skill in the art, there would be a reasonable expectation of success of one of skill in the art to discover workable ranges that include the claimed helix angles at the specific distance from the distal tip.
Claims 3, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engin et al. as applied to claims 1 or 2, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2006/0188346 (“Greenwood”).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Engin fails to explicitly teach the constant lead geometry of at least one of the cutting edge is different from the constant lead of another of the cutting edges. However, this would be obvious in view of Greenwood.
Greenwood is also directed to an end mill with a plurality of helical cutting edges with constant leads (fig. 1, ¶ [0017], [0020], [0022] & [0026], wherein one of skill in the art appreciates that cutting edges with a constant helical angle along a cylindrical body results in constant leads). In order to improve performance, extend operational life, and reduce amplitudes of harmonic vibrations of the tool, Greenwood teaches the cutting edges having varying helix angles that are within two degrees of each other (¶ [0004], [0007]-[0008], [0024] & [0027]-[0028]), wherein varying helix angles provide different leads. Greenwood also teaches that the varying helix angles can be applied to cutting edges that have respective helix angles that vary along the length of the tool (¶ [0026]).
In this case, Engin et al. and Greenwood are both directed to cutting tools having a plurality of cutting edges extending helically around a body, and wherein the cutting edges all have constant leads. Greenwood teaches that it is known and predictable to vary the helix angle of different cutting edges, and that this can improve performance, extend operational life, and reduce amplitudes of harmonic vibrations of the tool. Since Greenwood also teaches that the helix angles of different cutting edges can vary when the helix angle of each cutting edge varies along the length of the tool, it would be obvious to modify the helix angles of Engin so that at least one cutting edge has a helix angle that is different but within two degrees of a second helix angle of a second cutting edge.
Given the above modification, since the helix angles of two cutting edges are different, the leads of the two cutting edges will also be different.
Regarding claim 6, Engin fails to explicitly teach the at least one cutting edge comprises a plurality of cutting edges with unequal indexing, wherein unequal indexing is interpreted as unequal spacing between cutting edges at distal end of tool. However, this would be obvious in view of Greenwood.
As detailed above, Greenwood is directed to an end mill with a plurality of helical cutting edges with constant leads. Greenwood also teaches that unequal indexing of the plurality of cutting edges can lead to improved performance, extended operational life, and reduced amplitudes of harmonic vibrations of the tool (fig. 2, ¶ [0004], [0007]-[0008], [0029]-[0032] & [0034]).
In this case, Engin et al. and Greenwood are both directed to cutting tools having a plurality of cutting edges extending helically around a body, and wherein the cutting edges all have constant leads. Greenwood teaches that it is known and predictable for the cutting edges to have unequal indexing at the distal end of the tool, and that this can improve performance, extend operational life, and reduce amplitudes of harmonic vibrations of the tool. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the cutting edges of Engin so that they have unequal indexing at the distal end of the tool.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2014/0119844 (“Osawa”) in view of Emuge.
Regarding claim 1, Osawa teaches a … cutting tool (¶ [0001]), comprising: a tool body (12/14), at least one cutting edge (20) helically extending about the tool body (fig. 1a, ¶ [0038]-[0039]), the at least one cutting edge having a constant lead geometry which may be subject to multiple regrinds (¶ [0039], wherein each edge has a constant lead, and wherein one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the cutting edges are capable of being reground multiple times since it is well known in the art to regrind end mills a plurality of times and the leads of the cutting edges are constant thus allowing a tool to be capable of regrinding them multiple times).
Osawa fails to explicitly teach the cutting tool being a circle segment cutting tool, wherein “circle segment” is a term of art that refers to specific types of cutting tools. This would have been obvious in view of Emuge.
Emuge is directed to circle segment end mills (page 1, wherein all references to Emuge refer to the document submitted herewith). Circle segment end mills can remove substantially more material with fewer passes in 5-axis machining, e.g. more than 80% cycle time reductions and up to 50% smoother surface finishes (page 1). Circle segment end mills come in four geometries: barrel-shaped, oval, taper, and lens shape (page 1).
In this case, Osawa teaches a cylindrical end mill having cutting edges with constant leads (fig. 1a, ¶ [0039]). Emuge teaches an end mill geometry that can result in more than 80% cycle time reductions and up to 50% smoother surface finishes, and can have a barrel-shape (which is similar to a cylindrical shape but with a curved/bulged outer surface). Thus, in order to reduce cycle time and provide smoother surface finishes, it would be obvious to modify the end mill of Osawa so that it is a circle segment end mill with a barrel-shape. There would be a reasonable expectation of success of maintaining the constant lead of the cutting edges because one of skill in the art appreciates that the lead of the cutting edge is related to the helix angle and diameter of the tool. Thus, if the geometry of the cutter is known, and the lead is predetermined, one of skill in the art can determine how to vary the helix angle of the cutting edge to maintain a constant lead.
Regarding claim 2, Osawa further teaches the at least one cutting edge comprises two or more cutting edges (figs. 1a-1c, ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Osawa further teaches the constant lead geometry of at least one of the cutting edge is different from the constant lead of another of the cutting edges (¶ [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, Osawa further teaches two or more of the cutting edges have the same constant lead (¶ [0039], i.e. edges 20a and 20d have equal leads, and edges 20c and 20e have equal leads).
Regarding claim 6, Osawa further teaches the at least one cutting edge comprises a plurality of cutting edges with unequal indexing (¶ [0040]).
Claim 7 recites the at least one cutting edge has a variable helix angle. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, the cutting edges have different leads, and thus different helical angles, and each individual cutting edge has a variable helix angle in order to maintain a constant lead over the length of the barrel-shaped portion.
Claim 8 recites the at least one cutting edge has a helix angle that that increases along a length of the tool away from a distal tip. Since a portion of the barrel shape has an increasing diameter away from the distal tip, the helix angle also increases along this portion to maintain the constant lead.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Osawa fails to explicitly teach at about 5.0 mm from the distal tip, the helix angle is about 25 degrees, and, at about 25 mm from the distal tip, the helix angle is about 38 degrees, respectively. However, MPEP 2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, Osawa et al. teach cutting edges wherein each cutting edge has a constant lead and a varying helix angle along a barrel-shaped portion, wherein the helix angle can include an angle around 40 degrees (see rejection to claim 1 above, see also ¶ [0039] of Osawa). One of skill in the art appreciates that end mills can comprises cutting edges at varying helix angles, wherein smaller and larger helix angles have different advantages and trade-offs. Since providing cutting tools with different diameters (including differing rates of change) and different predetermined leads are routine for one of skill in the art, there would be a reasonable expectation of success of one of skill in the art to discover workable ranges of the axial length of the barrel-shaped portion, diameters of the barrel-shaped portion, and a range of leads that include the claimed helix angles at the specific distance from the distal tip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”