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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in claim format and contains legal phraseology, e.g. “comprises”.. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by MacArthur (US Pub. No. 2002/0141833).
Regarding claim 1, MacArthur discloses a cutting tool comprising: a tool body having first end and a second end; a shank (5) extending from the first end to a cutting portion (6) located on the second end side of the tool body, the cutting portion including a high feed axial cutting face (46) provided at a distal tip of the second end and a circle segment-cutting portion extending from the high feed axial cutting face towards the shank (see figure A below).
Regarding claim 2, MacArthur discloses wherein the shank (5) is cylindrical in shape defined by a shank diameter (figure 1).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure A)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image1.png
559
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, MacArthur discloses wherein the high feed axial cutting face is convex (see figure B below).
Regarding claim 4, MacArthur discloses axial cutting face comprises a plurality of teeth (figure 1).
[AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Figure B)]
PNG
media_image1.png
559
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, MacArthur discloses a plurality of flutes helically extending along the cutting portion, each of the flutes defining a circle segment cutting edge (see figure A above).
Regarding claim 6, MacArthur discloses wherein circle segment portion includes a curved cutting edge (see the dashed circle in figure A above).
Regarding claim 8, MacArthur discloses further comprising an intermediate portion (4) arranged between the shank portion (5) and the cutting portion (6) (figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, MacArthur discloses wherein the intermediate portion (4) is cylindrical in shape having a second diameter (figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, MacArthur discloses wherein the second diameter (disclosed as neck diameter) is less than the shank first diameter (figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, MacArthur discloses a corner radius portion (45) positioned between the circle segment cutting portion and the high feed axial cutting face, wherein the corner radius portion is defined by a corner radius (figure 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 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US Pub. No. 2002/0141833) in view of Stanbach et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0258616).
MacArthur discloses all aspects of the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection above. MacArthur is silent about the helix angle (i.e. does not disclose wherein at least one cutting edge has a variable helix angle). Stanbach discloses varying helix angle (paragraph 20). It should be noted that varying helix angle along the axial length of the flute will have varying lead geometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the helix angle/lead geometry of MacArthur’s cutting edge, as taught by Stanbach for the purpose reducing chatter and producing better results by changing both the timing and angle at which the cutting edge contacts the workpiece (paragraph 20).
Claims 7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US Pub. No. 2002/0141833) in view of Flynn et al. (US Pub. No. 2003/0118411).
MacArthur discloses all aspects of the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection above. MacArthur is silent about the helix angle (i.e. does not disclose wherein at least one cutting edge has a variable helix angle/lead geometry nor the helix angle increasing from the distal tip toward the shank). Flynn discloses varying helix angle as well as the helix angle increasing from the distal tip toward the shank (paragraphs 9 and 38). It should be noted that varying helix angle along the axial length of the flute will have varying lead geometry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the helix angle/lead geometry of MacArthur’s cutting edge, as taught by Flynn for the purpose of having smoother cut, better shearing and chip evacuation thus reducing chatter (paragraph 9).
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 1/16/25