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 .
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 2, 5-6, 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.
Claims 2, 5, 8 each recite the limitation “as coming closer” when describing surfaces. This wording is confusing since it makes it appear that movement is being claimed instead of geometric structure.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the first flute comes closer to the rotation axis”. It is unclear what it means to be closer to an axis. Is this supposed to mean closer to a center of the axis? The axis is not a fixed component so the scope is unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the elastic body is located closer to the rotation axis than the first flute”. It is unclear what it means to be closer to an axis. Is this supposed to mean closer to a center of the axis? The axis is not a fixed component so the scope is unclear.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the second flute comes closer to the rotation axis”. It is unclear what it means to be closer to an axis. Is this supposed to mean closer to a center of the axis? The axis is not a fixed component so the scope is unclear.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yamashita (JP2010149231A, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Yamashita discloses a cutting tool 1, comprising:a body 10/12 which extends from a front end (bottom end) toward a rear end (top end) along a rotation axis CZ and comprises a pocket located on a side of the front end (Fig. 1-2); a cutting part CB which is located in the pocket and comprises a cutting edge C1 located on a side of the front end (Fig. 1-2); and an elastic body P/PS which is located between the body and the cutting part and applies an urging force in a direction toward the rear end to the cutting part, wherein the pocket comprises a first seating surface 20a directed to a front side in a rotation direction of the rotation axis, the cutting part comprises a rear surface (surface which contacts 20a) which is located on a rear side in the rotation direction of the rotation axis and which is in contact with the first seating surface, the elastic body is in contact with the first seating surface and the rear surface, and the rear surface is slidable toward the rear end (Fig. 1-2; para. 19-26; the movement of the rear surface can broadly be considered sliding).
Re Claim 2, Yamashita discloses the first seating surface is inclined to a front side in the rotation direction as coming closer to the rear end (upper portion of 20a is inclined; Fig. 1-2).
Re Claim 10, Yamashita discloses a cutting tool 1, comprising:a body 10/12 which extends from a front end (bottom end) toward a rear end (top end) along a rotation axis CZ and comprises a pocket located on a side of the front end; a cutting part CB which is located in the pocket and comprises a cutting edge C1 located on a side of the front end; and an urging means P/PS located between the body and the cutting part, wherein an urging force is applied from the urging means to the cutting part so that a position of the cutting edge not in contact with a workpiece comes closer to the rear end than a position of the cutting edge in contact with the workpiece (Fig. 1-2; para. 19-26).
Re Claim 11, Yamashita discloses a method for manufacturing a machined product, comprising: rotating the cutting tool according to claim 1; bringing the cutting tool into contact with a workpiece; and moving the cutting tool away from the workpiece (Fig. 1-2; para. 19-26).
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.
Claim(s) 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Opelt (US 6,203,251).
Re Claim 3, Yamashita discloses the first seating surface comprises a first concave part (upper part of 20a; Fig. 1-2) and the elastic body is in contact with the first concave part (Fig. 1-2) but does not disclose the rear surface comprises a second concave part opposed to the first concave part, and the elastic body is in contact with the second concave part, the first seating surface comprises a first flute extending from a side of the front end toward a side of the rear end, and the rear surface comprises a first convex part inserted into the first flute. However, Opelt teaches a rear surface of a cutting part 2 comprises a concave part 18 (Fig. 8-9). It would be obvious to utilize a concave part on the rear surface, as taught by Opelt, for the purpose of providing a desired geometry and reduced weight and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 4, Yamashita does not disclose the first seating surface comprises a first flute extending from a side of the front end toward a side of the rear end, and the rear surface comprises a first convex part inserted into the first flute. However, Opelt teaches first seating surface comprises a first flute (circular opening adjacent element 23 in Fig. 8) extending from a side of the front end toward a side of the rear end, and a rear surface of a cutting part 2 comprises a first convex part 38 inserted into the first flute (Fig. 8-10). It would be obvious to utilize surfaces in this configuration, as taught by Opelt, for the purpose of providing a desired geometry and reduced weight with optimal geometries and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 5, as best understood, Opelt teaches the first flute comes closer to the rotation axis as coming closer to the rear end (Fig. 8-10).
Re Claim 6, as best understood, Yamashita/Opelt discloses the elastic body is located closer to the rotation axis than the first flute.
Re Claim 7, Yamashita does not disclose the rear surface comprises a second flute extending from a side of the front end toward a side of the rear end, and the first seating surface comprises a second convex part inserted into the second flute. However, Opelt teaches a rear surface of a cutting part 2 comprises a flute 18/30 extending from a side of the front end toward a side of the rear end, and the first seating surface comprises a convex part 46 inserted into the flute (Fig. 8-10). It would be obvious to utilize surfaces in this configuration, as taught by Opelt, for the purpose of providing a desired geometry and reduced weight with optimal geometries and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Re Claim 8, as best understood, Opelt teaches the second flute comes closer to the rotation axis as coming closer to the rear end (Fig. 8-10).
Re Claim 9, Yamashita does not disclose the cutting part further comprises a front surface located on a front side in the rotation direction, a through hole opening in the front surface and the rear surface, and a fixture 3 inserted into the through hole and fixed to the body. However, Opelt teaches a cutting part 2 comprises a front surface located on a front side in the rotation direction, a through hole opening 30 in the front surface and the rear surface, and a fixture inserted into the through hole and fixed to the body (Fig. 8-10). It would be obvious to utilize surfaces in this configuration, as taught by Opelt, for the purpose of providing a desired geometry and reduced weight with optimal connection and also since it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the surface of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799