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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the numeral “5” in Line 2 should be replaced by the term “five.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “are” in Line 2 should be replaced by the term “is.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite to either a single cutting edge or a tooth that consists of two edges (e.g., claim 11), but it is unclear how the tooth flanks of the initial teeth enter the material and the illustrations suggest that the rear and flank edges in other teeth perform cutting. Otherwise, the tooth flanks would not be able to enter the work material. As such, it appears that Applicant did not possess the claimed invention at the time of filing. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-15 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 “[a] thread cutting drill tool” in Line 1. This limitation is recited throughout the claims and each is rejected on the same grounds. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “drill tool” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean “tap,” while the accepted meaning is “tool that performs a drilling operation.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each tooth of the plurality of teeth extends from the chip flute across the land, and includes 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” in Lines 10-14. It is unclear if the “at least one” applies to all of the features recited or only the flanks. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “the cutting edges of the plurality of cutting teeth includes a set of crest cutting edges” in Lines 14-15. Only “at least one cutting edge” has been previously set forth. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation is meant to encompass all cutting edges or cutting edges of each tooth. Furthermore, it is unclear if each edge includes a set of crest cutting edges or merely that a set of crest cutting edges is amongst all cutting edges of the tool. It is also worth noting that the term “includes” should be replaced with the term “include.” All of the above issues apply to the recitations of “the cutting edges . . . includes” in Lines 18-19 and 20-21, respectively. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a most forward tooth of the plurality of teeth includes a first single edge” in Lines 23-24. It is unclear how the edge is considered single if all edges are previously recited as including front and rear finishing edges. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 2 recites “a radial inward extension of the each crest cutting edge is at most the radial cutting depth.” The scope of the radial inward extension is unclear as to what the feature is and how it is determined. It is worth noting that the term “the” before “each” is unnecessary. However, the set of crest cutting edge is not recited here such that it is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to carve out a different subset or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a radial inward extension of the each crest cutting edge is at most the radial cutting depth.” It is worth noting that the term “the” before “each” is unnecessary. However, the set of crest cutting edge is not recited here such that it is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to carve out a different subset or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a second next most forward tooth of the plurality of teeth” in Line 2. It is unclear whether there is a first next most forward tooth or not. As such, the scope of the claim is unclear. It is also unclear what feature “next” references here. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “each rear finishing edge are configured for a maximal finishing cutting depth of 15-70% of the maximal radial cutting depth.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the maximal radial cutting depth.” Furthermore, it is unclear how the relative finishing depths are determined. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “at least one of the rear flank and the front flank connected by a first root surface includes one rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges or one front finishing edge of the set of front finishing edges, wherein both the rear flank and the front flank connected by a second root surface lack one rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges and one front finishing edge of the set of front finishing edge, the root radial distance of each first root surface being larger than the root radial distance of each second root surface.” It is unclear whether the first/second root surface is the previously recited root surface or a different root surface. It is also unclear whether there is a respective relationship between the rear and front flanks and the rear and front finishing edges. In addition, the recitations to “the rear flank” and “the front flank” lack proper antecedent basis. The claim previously recites “at least one” of each flank. The recitation “the radial distance” also 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 set of front finishing edges includes a single front finishing edge, and the set of rear finishing edges includes a single rear finishing edge.” It is unclear how a set includes only one. 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 1-13 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 a set of crest cutting edges (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 a set of front finishing edges (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 a set of rear finishing edges (within section 56; Col. 6, Lines 7-9). Each rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges 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 nest understood, a 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 crest cutting edges of the set of crest cutting edge (58; Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Claim 2) The thread cutting drill tool is, as best understood, configured for a radial cutting depth (Figs. 2-4). As best understood, a radial inward extension of the each crest cutting edge is at most the radial cutting depth (Figs. 2-4).
(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 axis of rotation (Z-Z) increases axially rearward along each crest cutting edge (Fig. 3).
(Claim 4) As best understood, a second next 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 of the set of 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 6) 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).
(Claim 7) The set of front finishing edges and the set of rear finishing edges are located axially rearward of the set 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 of the set of rear finishing edges or one front finishing edge of the set of front finishing edges (annotated Fig. 3). Both the rear flank and the front flank connected by a second root surface lack one rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges and one front finishing edge of the set of 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 set of front finishing edges includes a single front finishing edge, and the set of rear finishing edges includes a single rear finishing edge (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) of the set of crest cutting edges and one rear finishing edge of the set of rear finishing edges (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 of the set of rear finishing edges and at least one front finishing edge of the set of front finishing edges (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.
Conclusion
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. 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
Prosecution Insights