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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 is in multiple dependent format and recites “characterized in that” which, while not necessarily problematic in this instance, is inconsistent with amendments to place other claims in a more standard US format. It appears that Applicant may have unintentionally overlooked claim 7 in these amendments.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 limitation "the edges" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “which free surface is designed as a cutting part” in lines 6-7. The disclosure explains that the free surface is recessed and clears the cutting edge (page 5, line 34 - page 6, line 1), so it not clear how it is "designed as a cutting part", rendering its scope indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “a torsion axis extends in an approximately orthogonal direction”. First, the term “approximately” renders the scope indefinite since it is unclear how far off of orthogonal the axis can be. Second, the claim does not define what the axis is orthogonal to, which would be required to define orthogonality.
Claim 4 recites “a second cutting edge”, “a non-cutting part”, and “a control surface”. It is unclear if these refer to the features of the same name in claim 1 or different ones. For examination purposes, they will be presumed to be the same.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the deburring or chamfering size" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the neutral point corresponds to the position of the deburring or chamfering size on the workpiece”. The claim is attempting to define the geometry of the tool in terms of a non-positively recited and undefined aspect of the workpiece such that the scope cannot be properly ascertained.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the basic shape" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the front (front side) lower corner" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation " the angular precision" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “whereby the angular precision of the chamfer is improved”. It is unclear how the angular position would be improved, or how this would necessarily limit the structure of the blade.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the edges" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “which free surface is designed as a cutting part” in lines 5-6. The disclosure explains that the free surface is recessed and clears the cutting edge (page 5, line 34 - page 6, line 1), so it not clear how it is "designed as a cutting part", rendering its scope indefinite.
Claim 8 recites “the cutting edge” in lines 7 and again in 8-9. This requires a singular edge, whereas “at least one” (i.e. including the option for plural) were previously established.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the second cutting edge" in lines 1 and 3 of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the first cutting edge" in lines 1-2 of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “A deburring tool for deburring the edges of holes on workpieces with a deburring blade according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is to a blade which “can be held in a tool holder”, while claim 8 is to “A deburring tool, with a deburring blade”. Thus, it appears that the blade per se is treated separately from the “tool” in the claims. In claim 10, it is unclear if the “deburring tool” necessarily includes the blade of claim 1, or if it is merely intended for use therewith. For examination purposes, it will be presumed that the tool of claim 1 is positively recited. Applicant should amend claim 10 to instead recite --A deburring tool with a deburring blade according to claim 1 for deburring the edges of holes on workpieces--, for example.
Any claims not explicitly discussed above are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heule (U.S. Patent 7,273,334, equivalent to EP1579937 cited in the IDS) in view of Heule (DE19712377, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Heule (‘334) discloses a deburring blade (1) for deburring the edges of holes on workpieces (e.g. title), wherein at least one cutting blade can be held in a tool holder (see claim 1), which can rotate around an axis of rotation (14) in at least one direction of rotation (Id.), wherein the cutting blade comprises at least one cutting portion having at least one first cutting edge (8) and at least one second cutting edge (9), wherein a free surface (4) is associated with the second cutting edge (column 4, lines 3-8), which free surface is designed as a cutting part (at least in that it is associated with a cutting edge and allows it to cut, Id.), and a control surface (5) is associated with the second cutting edge (column 4, lines 28-30), which control surface is designed as a non-cutting part (Id.), wherein the second cutting edge transitions (at 18 - column 4, lines 9-11 and 15-19) from the cutting part (4) to the non-cutting part (5), wherein the second cutting edge (9) directly adjoins at an angle the first cutting edge (8 - see column 3, lines 60-63 and Figs. 3-4) and in that the first cutting edge (8) has an associated free surface (3), which transitions into the surface which is associated with the second cutting edge (column 4, lines 2-5).
Heule (‘334) does not disclose wherein the second cutting edge transitions into a helically twisted surface which is forms a continuous transition from the cutting part to the non-cutting part. However, Heule (‘377) teaches a deburring tool wherein a cutting edge (4, 4’), analogous to the second cutting edge, transitions into a helically twisted surface (25, 25’) which is forms a continuous transition from a cutting part (8) to a non-cutting part (9 - see [0006]-[0008], [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a helically twisted surface which is forms a continuous transition from the cutting part to the non-cutting part as taught by Heule (‘377) since it allows for a defined chamfer diameter can to be attached to a defined bore, regardless of the displacement of the knife into the bore [0005]. Furthermore, such would have involved applying a known technique (a helical transition surface) to a known or similar device (a deburring cutter sharing otherwise similar geometry) to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. C. and D.).
Claim 2: Referring to ‘334, the cutting blade comprises two cutting portions for forward and backward deburring (column 3, lines 16-20), wherein both cutting portions are arranged mirror-symmetrically to each other with respect to a center line (column 3, lines 29-31).
Claim 3: Referring to ‘377, starting from the second cutting edge, a torsion axis extends in an approximately orthogonal direction (any direction since what it is orthogonal to is not defined in the claim), about which axis the twisted surface is rotated helically with a rotation (a twist would naturally have a torsion axis).
Claim 4: Referring to ‘377, the twisted surface forms a second cutting edge (4, 4’) due to its rotation, as well as a non-cutting part (9), which is analogous to the a control surface (5) of ‘334.
Claim 5: Referring to ‘377, the continuous transition of the twisted surface has a neutral point (16) which determines the transition from the cutting part to the non-cutting part (see [0007]-[0008], [0060]), wherein the neutral point corresponds to the position of the deburring or chamfering size on the workpiece (e.g. the extent of the cutting part would determine the maximum extent of the deburring/chamfering).
Claim 6: The shape of the twisted surface is not explicitly an angular shape, a cylindrical shape or a conical shape as the basic shape, which is superimposed by a rotation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any of the claimed shapes as the basic shape since it has been held that the configuration of a claimed product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed product is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in the instant application, page 8, lines 28-32, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the basic shape.
Claim 7: Referring to ‘334, the non-cutting portion of the twisted (as modified by ‘377) surface is delimited or cleared on the front (front side) lower corner of the cutting blade (noting that “front” and “lower” are relative terms which have little weight here) by an additional surface (17), whereby the angular precision of the chamfer is improved (as noted above, it is unclear how this would be limiting).
Claim 9: Referring to ‘334, the cutting edges are straight or arcuate (column 4, lines 9-14).
Claim 8: Heule (‘334) discloses a deburring tool (implied, e.g. claim 1) with a deburring blade (1) for deburring the edges of holes on workpieces (e.g. title), wherein at least one cutting blade can be held in a tool holder (see claim 1), which can rotate around an axis of rotation (14) in at least one direction of rotation (Id.), wherein the cutting blade comprises at least one cutting portion having at least one cutting edge (8, 9), to which a free surface (3, 4) is associated (column 4, lines 3-8), which free surface is designed as a cutting part (at least in that it is associated with a cutting edge and allows it to cut, Id.), wherein a control surface (5) is associated with the second cutting edge (column 4, lines 28-30), which control surface is designed as a non-cutting part (Id.), wherein the cutting edge transitions (at 18 - column 4, lines 9-11 and 15-19) from the cutting part (4) to the non-cutting part (5), wherein the second cutting edge (9) directly adjoins at an angle the first cutting edge (8 - see column 3, lines 60-63 and Figs. 3-4) and in that the first cutting edge (8) has an associated free surface (3), which transitions into the surface which is associated with the second cutting edge (column 4, lines 2-5).
Heule (‘334) does not disclose wherein the second cutting edge transitions into a helically twisted surface which is forms a continuous transition from the cutting part to the non-cutting part. However, Heule (‘377) teaches a deburring tool wherein a cutting edge (4, 4’), analogous to the second cutting edge, transitions into a helically twisted surface (25, 25’) which is forms a continuous transition from a cutting part (8) to a non-cutting part (9 - see [0006]-[0008], [0058]-[0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a helically twisted surface which is forms a continuous transition from the cutting part to the non-cutting part as taught by Heule (‘377) since it allows for a defined chamfer diameter can to be attached to a defined bore, regardless of the displacement of the knife into the bore [0005]. Furthermore, such would have involved applying a known technique (a helical transition surface) to a known or similar device (a deburring cutter sharing otherwise similar geometry) to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143 I. C. and D.).
Claim 10: A deburring tool for deburring the edges of holes on workpieces with a deburring blade according to claim 1 is implied as discussed for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DE3911995 discloses a deburring tool of a similar overall shape wherein the transition from the positive free angle 23 to the negative free angle 21 is formed by a transition line 26, which in practice is not a sharply defined line, but a spherically curved surface that completes the transition from the positive free angle 23 to the negative free angle 21 [0060].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights