DETAILED ACTION1
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a tool with a fifth cutting blade, but then recites angles indicating the tool only has four blades. Thus, it is unclear how many blades are being claimed. For purposes of examination, claim 3 is being treated as only reciting four blades.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 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 obvious2 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 1-3 & 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2021/0245277 to Tanaka.
Claim 1 recites a rotary cutting tool having five blades. Tanaka relates to such a cutting tool. See Tanaka [0030] & Table 3. Claim 1 recites that the angles between the five blades are 60°, 75°, 60°, 75°, & 90°. Table 3 of Tanaka shows embodiments with similar angles, but not the exact combination of five angles. Closest is example 38, having 60, 65, 70, 75, & 90. But Tanaka teaches that various combinations are possible and explicitly teaches all of the chosen angular distances as known in the art. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the Tanaka to include a 60, 75, 60, 75, 90 embodiments, since applicant has not disclosed that having this specific embodiment solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs. Indeed claim 2 teaches a difference combination of angles that also functions well. Absent a teaching as to criticality of these five sequential angles, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Applicant does teach criticality to having the greatest common divisor of the unequal flutes [being] 12, 15, or 18 and teaches that this provides beneficial effects in the specification. However, the +/1° recited in claim 1 results in the recited angles not meeting this limitation because 61, 74, 59, 76 and 90 do not have the relevant common denominator. Thus, by including such a large permissible range, with no teaching in the specification that the divisor premise has a specific error allowance, the criticality is deemed to not necessarily apply.
Likewise claim 2 is also obvious for the same reasons. Claim 2 recites a five-blade cutting tool with angles of 60, 72, 60, 84, & 84 +/-1 degrees. As with claim 1, Tables 2-3 of Tanaka shows five blade embodiments having angles of 60, 72, & 83 degrees. Again, a combination having the five specific values would have been obvious as a mere design choice because as with claim 1, the recited angles lack criticality due to the +/-1 degree limitation.
Claims 3, 6 & 7 all recite rotary cutting tools having four blades. Claim 3 recites angles of 72, 108, 90, & 90; claim 6 recites angles of 105, 90, 90, & 75; and claim 7 recites angles of 90, 90, 105, and 75. Tanaka teaches cutting tools with four blades with different angular gaps between them. See Tanaka Table 3, examples 40-43. These examples have angles of 75, 90, & 105. As with the rejection of claims 1-2, any specific combination of angles in any order between the blades is deemed to be obvious as a matter of mere design choice because the use of the +/- 1 degree limitation negates the criticality of the common divisor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2020/0215631 to Sasagawa in view of U.S. 2021/0245276 to Tanaka.
Claim 4 recites a rotary cutting tool having a base metal. Sasagawa teache such a tool (1). See Sasagama [0001] and Figs. 1-4. Sasagawa also teaches this tools has three cutting blades along its circumference and that a rotation angle from the first…to the second cutting blade [as well as]…a rotation angle from the second…to the third cutting blade is 126°. Claim 4 also recites a rotation angle from the third…to the first cutting blade is 108°. Figure 6C of Sasagawa teaches an embodiment in which the values are nearly identical, being 108, 126 & 128°. If Sasagawa is presumed to have the same error tolerance of +/-1 degree as the claims, the 128° may vary down to 127° and therefore overlap. Furthermore, figure 8 shows that at 21mm out, the three angles are 107, 127, 127 which entire lies within the +/- range of claim 4. As such, Sasagawa anticipates the angular ranges with sufficient specificity to anticipate the feature.
Claim 4 also recites that the tool has three chip[s] provided on an outer circumference. Sasagawa does not relate to a drill head with attached cutting chips. Rather, Sasagawa relates to a reamer that is made of cemented carbide alloy and therefore does not need hard cutting chips. Yet it is known in the reamer field to instead use a softer base metal with harder cutting chips. For example, Tanaka such a reamer (90) with hard tool inserts (19). See Tanaka [0047] and Fig. 5. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Sasagawa to use a softer base material with hard cutting chips.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 5 is allowed.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil 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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”