DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on 20 May 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the European application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-14 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 recites “a turning insert and a tool body” at line 2 and “a pocket arranged for receiving the turning insert” at line 5. It is unclear how the tool body recited at line 2 is connected or positioned relative to the turning insert or the pocket. It appears from the reference numerals canceled from the independent claim that the pocket (7) may be part of the tool body (3) as illustrated in Figure 11.
Claims 2-14 each depend from claim 1, and therefore each is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the two opposite nose cutting edges" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 3 recites two opposite nose cutting edges, however claim 8 depends directly from claim 1.
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially flat” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is not provided with a specific definition providing clarity as to what deviations from actually being flat Applicant contemplates as reading on the claimed limitation. Nor is there evidence of record which suggests how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the claimed phrase.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first nose cutting edge" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 3 recites two opposite nose cutting edges, however claim 13 depends directly from claim 1.
Claim 14 depends from claim 13 and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons presented above with represent to claim 13.
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 1-3, 6-9 and 11-12
Claims 1-3, 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 6,769,843 to Hansson (hereinafter “Hansson”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansson discloses a turning tool (see Fig. 1) comprising: a turning insert (26) and a tool body (2), the turning insert (26) including opposite facing top and bottom surfaces (upper, unnumbered surface of 26 shown in Fig. 1 and lower, unnumbered surface facing shim 25) connected by a circumferential side surface (see Annotated Figure); and a pocket (9) arranged for receiving the turning insert (26; see Fig. 6), the pocket (9) including a bottom support surface (surface including serrations 12; see Col. 3, lines 43-47) and first and second pocket side surfaces (11a, 11b), the first and second pocket side surfaces (11a, 11b) forming an acute angle (see Col. 3, lines 27-38), wherein the first pocket side surface (11a) includes first and second side support surfaces (11a and 11a), wherein the second pocket side surface (11b) includes third and fourth side support surfaces (11b and 11b), wherein a first recess (8a) is formed between the first and second side support surfaces (see Figs. 3 and 4), wherein a second recess (8b) is formed between the third and fourth side support surfaces (see Figs. 3 and 4), and wherein each recess (8a, 8b) forms a gap (see Fig. 5; numbered gap 30 shown at first side, unnumbered gap where indentation 8b is located) between the circumferential side surface (sidewall of cutting insert 26) and the respective pocket side surfaces (11a, 11b).
PNG
media_image1.png
311
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that at least two of the side support surfaces (11a, 11a, and 11b, 11b) are convex (see Fig. 4, each side surface includes at least curved portions which can be viewed as being convex).
Regarding claim 3, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that the turning insert (26) is 180 degrees symmetrical (see Fig. 1) or indexable in relation to a central axis thereof (through centerline of aperture 28), wherein the center axis (centerline of 28) intersects the top and bottom surface (through hole 28 extends through both top and bottom surfaces of cutting insert 26), wherein the turning insert includes to opposite nose cutting edges (see Annotated Figure below), wherein in a top view the turning insert (26) extends a first distance (from center of opening 28 to nose cutting edge) between said nose cutting edges (see Annotated Figure), and extends a second distance (see Annotated Figure below) perpendicular to the first distance (see Annotated Figure), and wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (see Annotated Figure below; second distance appears to be much shorter than first distance).
PNG
media_image2.png
248
433
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that the turning insert (26) includes first and second nose portions (see Annotated Figure), wherein the first nose portion (leftmost nose portion in Annotated Figure) includes a first nose cutting edge (see Annotated Figure), wherein the second nose portion includes a second nose cutting edge (opposite/rightmost nose cutting edge in Annotated Figure), and wherein each nose portion forms an acute nose angle (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further Hansson discloses that a line (extend line labeled second distance through cutting insert 26) coinciding with the second distance (see Annotated Figure above) divides the turning insert (26) into a front half (left/lower half with respect to Fig. 1) and a rear half (right/upper half with respect to Fig 1.), and wherein only the circumferential side surface of the rear half of the turning insert in in contact with the tool body (2; see Fig. 6, cutting insert 26 side surfaces only shown extending aligned with tool body in the rear half, and Fig. 1, shim 25 separates tool from direct contact with body surface at 5).
Regarding claim 8, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that the turning insert (26) includes a central bore (28), wherein the central bore (bore 28) opens into the top and bottom surfaces (through hole 28 ) between the two opposite nose cutting edges (see Annotated Figure at rejection of claim 3) and wherein the central bore (28) is symmetrical around a center axis (center axis through middle of bore 28).
Regarding claim 9, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that in a top view a part of the central bore (28) is between two side support surfaces (11a and 11b; see Fig. 4 and Fig. 1; in assembled configuration central bore of cutting insert located between side support surfaces).
Regarding claim 11, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses that parts of the circumferential side surface (see Annotated Figure above with respect to claim 1) of the turning insert (26) which are in contact with the side support surfaces (11a, 11b) are flat (see Fig. 1; side surfaces shown as being flat) or substantially flat or are convex having a radius of curvature which is greater than 500 mm.
Regarding claim 12, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson discloses further comprising a shim (25), wherein the shim includes the bottom support surfaces of the pocket (at surface including serrations 12 understood to include upper surface of shim body; see Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 10
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansson as applied to claims 1 and 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 3, and further Hansson discloses that the tool further comprises a coupling portion (rightmost portion adjacent to lead line 1 in Fig. 1), wherein the coupling portion extends along a coupling axis (see Annotated Figure below), the coupling axis defining a longitudinal axis of the turning tool (see Annotated Figure). Hansson does not explicitly disclose that a line between the two opposite nose cutting edges (see Annotated Figure) forms an angle of 35-55˚ in relation to the coupling axis.
PNG
media_image3.png
768
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It appears that a longitudinal axis can be defined through the turning tool of Hansson which appears to lie such that an angle between the line defined by the nose cutting edges of the insert and the longitudinal axis is approximately 45 degrees, though Hansson does not explicitly define the angle. However, the MPEP instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited dimensions would cause the device of Hansson to perform differently in use, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would at least reasonably expect that the turning tool disclosed by Hansson would behave in the same manner as the claimed apparatus recited in claim 4 where the angle is actually 35 or actually 50 degrees, for example.
Thus, Hansson teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 10, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Hansson teaches that each recess (8a, 8b) is concave in a top view (see Fig. 4). Hansson does not explicitly disclose that the gap is 0.05 – 0.30 mm.
However, the MPEP instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited dimensions would cause the device of Hansson to perform differently in use, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would at least reasonably expect that the turning tool disclosed by Hansson would behave in the same manner as the claimed apparatus recited in claim 10 where the gap is 0.05 mm, for example.
Thus, Hansson teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Claims 13-14
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0236255 to Hecht (hereinafter “Hecht”).
Regarding claim 13, Hansson discloses the limitations of claim 1. A reference plane can be defined mid-way between the top and bottom surfaces of the cutting insert (26), however Hansson does not explicitly disclose that a distance from the reference plane to the first nose cutting edge is shorter than a distance from the reference plane to a part of the top surface spaced apart from the circumferential side surface. However, it is known in the art of cutting tools for cutting inserts to have the recited configuration.
For example, Hecht teaches such a cutting insert. Hecht teaches a cutting tool (see Fig. 1) having a base (20) and a cutting tool insert (30). The cutting tool insert has two opposed nose portions (40, 44, see Fig. 3) which are located at opposed ends of the tool. A reference plane can be drawn at half the maximum height of the insert (see Fig. 4 and Annotated Figure) such that a distance from the reference plane the first nose cutting edge is shorter than a distance from the reference plane to a top surface spaced from the circumferential side surface (at sides 42 of cutting insert).
PNG
media_image4.png
285
936
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Hansson to support another and conventional cutting insert having substantially the same perimeter, such as the cutting tool insert taught by Hecht. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting device would predictably allow for supporting a replaceable cutting insert in a cutting device, without modifying the principles of operation of Hansson. The similarly shaped cutting insert of Hecht would be reasonably expected to operate in substantially the same manner as the cutting insert of Hansson, allowing for predictable use as a cutting tool.
Thus, the combination of Hansson and Hecht teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hansson and Hecht teaches the limitations of claim 13, and further Hecht teaches that a distance from the reference plane (see Annotated Figure above) to any cutting edge (at 44, 44; see Fig. 4) is shorter than a distance from the reference plane to a part of the top surface spaced apart from the circumferential side surface (see Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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: Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach “wherein a distance from the first pocket side surface to the coupling axis is shorter than a distance from the second pocket side surface to the coupling axis, wherein a distance from the coupling portion to the first side support surface is shorter than a distance from the coupling portion to the second side support surface, wherein a distance from the coupling portion to the third side support surface is shorter than a distance from the coupling portion to the fourth side support surface, and wherein the third side support surface is in top view convexly curved by a radius of curvature which is smaller than the radius of curvature of the fourth side support surface,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims. Hansson teaches side support surfaces which can be selected such that the distances from the coupling portion are true with respect to the claimed limitations, however Hansson does not fairly suggest different convexly curved radii of curvatures of the respective side support surfaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 7,001,115 to Erickson et al teaches a cutting tool insert (10) received in a cutting tool (100).
United States Patent 5,921,721 to Hintze et al. teaches a cutting tool insert (see Fig. 9) for supported within a cutting tool such that there is a gap between side surfaces of the cutting tool insert and the sides of the cutting tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726