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 1 and 3-15 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 “the cutting edges of the plurality of cutting teeth includes at least one of the at least one crest cutting edge” in Lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least one crest cutting edge.” It is also unclear whether the cutting edges of the plurality of teeth refer to the at least one cutting edge of each tooth or if the cutting edges recitation refers to all cutting edges of all teeth. It is also worth noting that recitation of “at least one of the at least one” is a bit confusing. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the set of crest cutting edges” in Line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting edges of the plurality of cutting teeth includes at least one front finishing edge” in Lines 20-21. It is unclear whether the cutting edges of the plurality of teeth refer to the at least one cutting edge of each tooth or if the cutting edges recitation refers to all cutting edges of all teeth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting edges of the plurality of cutting teeth including at least one front finishing edge” in Lines 23-24. It is unclear whether the cutting edges of the plurality of teeth refer to the at least one cutting edge of each tooth or if the cutting edges recitation refers to all cutting edges of all teeth. In addition, the term “including” here as opposed to “includes” as in the previous recitation begs the question on whether this recitation means to infer something different than the previous recitations of similar language. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “an axially most forward tooth of the plurality of teeth includes a first single edge” in Lines 27-28. Due to the lack of clarity concerning the scope of “the cutting edges of the plurality of teeth” previously recited in the claim, there is a lack of clarity here as to whether the axially most forward tooth has a single cutting edge (i.e., the at least one cutting edge is the only (singular) cutting edge on the tooth) or has only a single crest cutting edge. That is, it is unclear whether each tooth requires front and rear finishing edges. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each crest cutting edge has a radial inward extension from the crest toward the central longitudinal axis by at most a predetermined radial cutting depth” in Lines 30-31. The scope of the radial inward extension is unclear as to what the feature is and how it is determined. It is unclear how the recitation of “by at most a predetermined radial cutting depth” further limits the extension. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a radial distance from the crest cutting edge to the central longitudinal axis increases axially rearward along the each crest cutting edge.” It is unclear whether “increases axially rearward” simply means “increases in an axially rearward direction” or something else. Furthermore, it is odd to refer to “the each.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “an axially second most forward tooth of the plurality of teeth” in Line 2. It is unclear whether the second most forward tooth refers to another tooth that is at the same distance as the most forward tooth or if it is the most forward relative to all other teeth but for the most forward tooth. Also, the recitation to “a second” without recitation to “a first” creates a lack of clarity. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he thread cutting tap as claimed in claim 2 . . . of the at least one of the at least one cutting edge.” Claim 2 has been cancelled. As such, the scope of claim 6 is unclear. Furthermore, the recitation to the at least one of the at least one cutting edge creates a lack of clarity. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “the at least one of the front finishing edges and the at least one of the rear finishing edges are located axially rearward of the at least one of the crest cutting edges.” It is unclear whether this recitation refers to the edges of one tooth or if these edges may apply to edges of different teeth. It is unclear, if this limitation applies to a given tooth, how the front finishing edge is axially rearward of the crest cutting edge. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “each first root surface being larger than the root radial distance of each second root surface.” The recitation “the radial distance” lacks proper antecedent basis. Moreover, the phrase “each second root surface” creates a lack of clarity as only “a second root surface” has been previously established. The same applies to “each first root surface.” Overall, the claim is vague as to the relationship attempting to be set forth such that one of ordinary skill would not understand the scope of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction required.
The term “directly axially rearward” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “directly” 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. In this context, there metes and bounds of “directly” are unclear. That is, it is unclear whether it is merely the next tooth or if there is a spatial relationship requirement of proximity between the teeth. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “the at least one front finishing edge includes a single front finishing edge in at least one land, and the at least one rear finishing edge includes a single rear finishing edge in the land.” A land already has antecedent basis in claim 1. As such, it is unclear whether this land is one of the lands previously recited or a new land different from that defining each tooth. It is also odd to recite that the edge is in the land as opposed to the intersection between the land and the flute. Appropriate correction required.
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, 3-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderer et al. (US Patent No. 7,665,934 B2).
(Claim 1) Henderer et al. (“Henderer”) discloses, as best understood, a thread cutting drill tool (40; Fig. 2) for metal cutting. The tool includes an elongate main body (42), which has a front end (44), a rear end (46) and a central longitudinal axis (Z-Z) extending from the front end to the rear end (Fig. 2). The main body is capable of being rotated in a direction of rotation around the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 2 - inherent in tapping tools). A cutting section (50, 54, 56) extends axially rearward from the front end (44; Fig. 3). The cutting section includes an axially extending chip flute (Fig. 2; Col. 4, Lines 51-53), an axially extending land (Fig. 2 - column of cutting teeth), which, in the rotational direction connects to and is trailing the chip flute (Fig. 2), and a plurality of axially spaced teeth (Figs. 2-4; 58, 62, 66, 70). Each tooth of the plurality of teeth extends from the chip flute across the land (Fig. 2), and includes, as best understood, at least one of an axially forward facing front flank and an axially rearward facing rear flank, a radially outward facing crest, which crest connects to each of the at least one of the front flank and the rear flank, and at least one cutting edge (Figs. 2-4; 59, 63, 67). The cutting edges of the plurality of teeth includes at least one crest cutting edge (58, 63, 67). Each crest cutting edge of the set of crest cutting edges is formed by an intersection of the crest of one respective tooth of the plurality of teeth with the chip flute (58, 63, 67; Figs 2-4). The cutting edges of the plurality of teeth includes at least one front finishing edge (within section 56; Col. 6, Lines 7-9). Each front finishing edge is formed by an intersection of the front flank of one respective tooth of the plurality of teeth with the chip flute (annotated Fig. 3). The cutting edges of the plurality of teeth includes at least one rear finishing edge (within section 56; Col. 6, Lines 7-9). Each rear finishing edge is formed by an intersection of the rear flank of one respective tooth of the plurality of teeth with the chip flute (annotated Fig. 3). As best understood, an axially most forward tooth (it is worth noting here that the first forward tooth is not explicitly recited as the most axially forward) of the plurality of teeth comprises includes a first single cutting edge (58). The first single cutting edge is one of the at least one crest cutting edge (58; Fig. 3). The each crest cutting edge, as best understood, has a radial inward extension radial inward extension extending from the crest toward the central longitudinal axis by at most a predetermined radial cutting depth (Figs. 2-4). While it isn’t ultimately clear how the maximal finishing depth and a maximal radial cutting depth are determined, as best understood, given the breadth of the range, each front finishing edge and each rear finishing edge are at least capable of a maximal finishing cutting depth of 15-70% of the maximal radial cutting depth (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 3) Each crest cutting edge (14) is inclined such that a radial distance from the crest cutting edge (59, 63, 67) to the central longitudinal axis (Z-Z) increases axially rearward along each crest cutting edge (Fig. 3).
(Claim 4) As best understood, an axially second most forward tooth (52) of the plurality of teeth includes a second single cutting edge (63; Fig. 3). The second single cutting edge is another one of the crest cutting edges (Fig. 3).
(Claim 5) The set of crest cutting edges includes, at most, five crest cutting edges (58, 63, 67; Fig. 3).
(Claim 7) The set of front finishing edges and the at least one of rear finishing edges are located axially rearward of the at least one of crest cutting edges (annotated Fig. 3).
(Claim 8) As best understood, axially between each two axially consecutive teeth of the plurality of teeth, a root surface connects the rear flank of an axially forward tooth of the each two axially consecutive teeth with the front flank of an axially rearward tooth of the each two axially consecutive teeth, at least one of the rear flank and the front flank connected by a first root surface includes one rear finishing edge or one front finishing edge (annotated Fig. 3). Both the rear flank and the front flank connected by a second root surface lack one rear finishing edge and one front finishing edge (annotated Fig. 3). The root radial distance of each first root surface is larger than the root radial distance of each second root surface (Fig. 3 illustrates the difference in root radial distance between the initial teeth and the finishing teeth).
(Claim 9) The plurality of teeth includes a first tooth and a second tooth, which second tooth is located directly axially rearward of the first tooth (annotated Fig. 3). The first tooth includes one rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges, and the second tooth includes one front finishing edge of the set of front finishing edges (annotated Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
678
778
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Claim 10) The at least one of front finishing edges includes a single front finishing edg in at least one lande, and the at least one of rear finishing edges includes a single rear finishing edge in the land (annotated Fig. 3).
(Claim 11) At least one tooth of the plurality of teeth includes two cutting edges, which the two cutting edges consist of one crest cutting edge (67) and one rear finishing edge (annotated Fig. 3).
(Claim 12) Adjacent each crest cutting edge, the chip flute includes a crest rake surface (e.g., 72), and at least each crest rake surface has a crest rake angle (A1) that reads on the range of less than 12 (Col. 8, Lines 15-18).
(Claim 13) The chip flute is arranged parallel with the central longitudinal axis (Fig. 2).
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderer et al. (US Patent No. 7,665,934 B2) in view of Matsushita et al. (US Patent No. 5,733,078).
(Claim 14) Henderer does not disclose an embodiment where the cutting portion is comprised of a cutting insert.
Matsushita et al. (“Matsushita”) discloses a portion of the chip flute (presumably the rake face), a portion of the land, and a portion of at least two teeth of the plurality of teeth are located on a replaceable cutting insert, wherein the portion of the at least two teeth includes at least one crest cutting edge of the set crest cutting edges, at least one rear finishing edge and at least one front finishing edge (Figs. 1-4; Figs. 5-10 show a monolithic tool version). At a time prior to filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Henderer to have cutting inserts as suggested by Matsushita in order to replace the cutting portions when worn. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523 (CCPA 1961) (holding that separability for any desirable reason would be obvious).
(Claim 15) Henderer discloses at least two of the chip flutes and at least two of the lands (Fig. 3). While it is likely inherent, Henderer does not explicitly disclose the teeth on neighboring lands forming a helix as claimed. Yet, examiner takes official notice that such an arrangement is well-known in the art.
Furthermore, the plurality of teeth of all the at least two lands being aligned in the direction of rotation to form a helix interrupted by the chip flutes is shown in Figures 8 and 10 of Matsushita. Thus, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the tool disclosed in Henderer with the helical development as is well-known in the art or suggested by Matsushita in order to form a spiral thread during rotation and axial movement of the tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Henderer fails to disclose the following limitations: each crest cutting edge having a radial inward extension extending from the crest toward the central longitudinal axis by at most a predetermined radial cutting depth, and each front finishing edge and each rear finishing edge are configured to have a maximal finishing cutting depth of 15 - 70% of a maximal radial cutting depth of the at least one of crest cutting edge; each crest cutting edge has a radial inward extension extending from the crest toward the central longitudinal axis by at most a predetermined radial cutting depth; a non-finishing most forward tooth; controlled finishing depth relative to crest cutting depth; and flank-specific finishing edges trailing crest cutting edges. Examiner disagrees.
Due to the clarity issues surrounding the limitations at issue, it is reasonable to state that the crest cutting edge reads upon the radial extension and finishing edge depth. That is, it is unclear how the limitations are determined. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a non-finishing most forward tooth; controlled finishing depth relative to the crest cutting depth) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, the Henderer reference discloses a non-finishing edge as the tap incrementally cuts to its final thread depth. While it isn’t clear what is meant by “controlled finishing depth,” the finishing edges that reach the final cutting depth would provide for control of the cutting depth. Likewise, the flanks having finishing edges trailing the crest edge are included in the prior art of record. Thus, the prior art reads upon the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
