DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently presented for examination.
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 1-14 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 pronoun “its” at line 17. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
Claims 2-13 each depend from or include the device of claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the pronoun “its” at line 2. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 5 recites the pronoun “its” at lines 8 and 9. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the cutting insert" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 11 depends from claim 1, however claims 10 and 12 each depend from claim 9.
Claim 12 recites the pronoun “its” at lines 8 and 9. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 13 recites the pronoun “its” at lines 3 and 7. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
Claim 14 recites the pronoun “its” at lines 29 and 33. It is difficult to determine to which previously recited claim limitation the pronoun refers. Applicant could overcome this rejection by reciting the claimed element each time they are to be referenced.
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, and 9
Claims 1-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0325364 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an insert holder (100) rotatable about a central axis (see Annotated Figure) defining a radial direction (radially toward outer perimeter of tool; see Fig. 3) perpendicular to the central axis (Annotated Figure) and opposing forward and rearward directions (upward with respect to Fig. 3 and downward with respect to Fig. 3, respectively), the insert holder (100) comprising: a coupling portion (portions 220; see Figs. 3-6) and a cutting portion (portion at 210, including cutting insert 10) located forwardly of the coupling portion (see Fig. 6), the cutting portion (at 210) comprising: a forward end surface (uppermost surface of tool; see Fig. 4) facing, and delimiting the insert holder (10), in the forward direction (upward direction of Fig. 3); a holder peripheral surface (radially outermost surface of tool 110; see Fig. 3) extending between the forward end surface (uppermost surface of tool; see Fig. 3) and the coupling portion (portions 220); a plurality of insert seats (inserts 10 held in recesses at 210; detail shown in Fig. 6, plurality of seats shown in Fig. 3), each comprising a seating surface (see second Annotated Figure and Figs. 6-7; cutting insert 10 moves toward seating surface) and opening out to at least one of the forward end surface (uppermost surface of tool; see Fig. 7) and the holder peripheral surface (radially outward surface of the holder device); a plurality of insert wedges (10), each located at least partially in a respective insert seat (see Figs. 6 and 7); and a plurality of fasteners (240), each located rearwardly of, and coupled to, a respective insert wedge (230; see paragraph [0041]); wherein: each fastener (240 includes screw 242; see Fig. 7, arrow extends upward parallel to direction of fastening axis) is centered about a corresponding fastening axis (axis extending through longitudinal center of screw 242; parallel to arrow in Fig. 7) and its respective insert wedge (230) extends along the corresponding fastening axis (see Fig. 7); and each fastener (240) is configured to be actuated from a radial fastening direction (along rotation arrow also shown in Fig. 7; see paragraph [0048]) perpendicular to the corresponding fastening axis (member 245a rotates about an axis understood to be perpendicular to fastener axis extending through screw portion 242).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
542
633
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Lee discloses that each fastener (240) comprises a key recess (see Fig. 5; unnumbered recess) recessed therein, the key recess facing in the radial direction (see Fig. 7; recess understood to be perpendicular to axial direction and thus extend in radial direction).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Lee discloses that: each insert wedge (230) is in a threaded engagement with its respective fastener (240; see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0044]); and each fastener (240) is actuated by rotation about the fastening axis (screw 242 is thread engaged in screw hole 241 which extends along the fastening axis; see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses a rotary cutting tool (see Fig. 1) comprising an insert holder according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and a cutting insert (10) releasably fastened to said insert holder, the cutting insert (10) comprising opposing top and bottom insert surfaces (see Fig. 4; unnumbered upper surface and lower surface of insert 10), with an insert peripheral surface (unnumbered side surface, see Fig. 4) located therebetween.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 6-8
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Lee discloses further comprising a plurality of fastener receptacles (see detail A in Fig. 3) recessed into the holder peripheral surface (see Fig. 3), each fastener receptacle comprising: a forward receptacle surface (unnumbered uppermost surface; see Fig. 4) delimited the fastener receptacle (detail A) in the forward direction (upward direction) and a rearward receptacle end (lower face of receptacle portion 220) delimiting the fastener receptacle in the rearward direction (downward direction in Figs. 3 and 4); wherein a clamping overhang Lc can be measured parallel to the central axis (see first Annotated Figure above) from the forward end surface (uppermost surface) to the rearward end. Lee does not explicitly disclose that Lc is between 15 mm and 30 mm.
The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited overhang distance would cause the device taught by Lee to behave differently in use than a larger or smaller distance. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the overhang to be within the recited range such that 15 mm ≤ Lc ≤ 30 mm, as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Lee.
Thus, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Lee discloses that a clamping angle aa can be measured between the fastening axis (axis along longitudinal direction of fastener 240; see Fig. 7) and the seating surface (see second Annotated Figure above) in an edge-on side view of the seating surface (see Figs. 6 and 7.
Lee does not explicitly disclose that 15˚ ≤ aa ≤ 45˚.
The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited clamping angle would cause the device taught by Lee to behave differently in use than another clamping angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the angular position of the seating surface and the fastener to be within the recited range such that 15˚ ≤ aa ≤ 45˚.
Thus, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Lee discloses that in a top view of the insert holder (10) along the central axis (see First Annotated Figure above), a breaching angle ba can be measured between the fastening axis (along longitudinal axis of fastener 240; see Fig. 7) and the seating surface (see second Annotated Figure above).
Lee does not explicitly disclose that 80˚ ≤ ba ≤ 10˚.
The MPEP teaches that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited clamping angle would cause the device taught by Lee to behave differently in use than another clamping angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the angular position of the seating surface and the fastener to be within the recited range such that 80˚ ≤ ba ≤ 100˚.
Thus, Lee teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Claims 10-11
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of United States Patent 5,967,706 to Hughes (hereinafter “Hughes”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 9, however Lee does not explicitly disclose that the insert (10) has a circular shape.
However, it is known in the art of attaching cutting inserts with wedge tools to provide circular inserts. For example, Hughes teaches an insert holder (10) having an insert recess (at 60) which receives a wedge shaped securing member (55) to secure a cutting insert (45). Hughes teaches a conventional cutting insert which has a circular shape (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert holder taught by Lee to secure a conventional cutting insert, such as a circular cutting insert, as taught by Hughes. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the wedge shaped securing device taught by Lee could be used to secure the cutting insert taught by Hughes because Hughes teaches the circular cutting insert can be successfully secured to the cutting insert holder via a wedge securing device. One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that a circular cutting insert could be secured in the tool holder of Lee as long as the engagement surface of its wedge can engage the securing surface of the cutting insert.
Thus, the combination of Lee and Hughes teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Examiner’s note: the examiner presumes that the recited dependency of claim 11 from claim 1 is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the limitations of claim 9, however Lee appears to be silent as to the material of its cutting insert (10).
However, it is known in the art of cutting tool insert holders to support a cutting tool insert which comprises a ceramic.
For example, Hughes teaches an insert holder (10) having an insert recess (at 60) which receives a wedge shaped securing member (55) to secure a cutting insert (45). Hughes teaches a conventional cutting insert which may be formed of a ceramic (see Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 2). Hughes teaches that the insert may be formed of any suitable material, but that where high speed applications are desired, an insert made of ceramic material is preferred (Col. 2, line 65 – Col. 3, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the insert holder taught by Lee to secure a conventional cutting insert, such as a ceramic cutting insert, as taught by Hughes. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). One having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the wedge shaped securing device taught by Lee could be used to secure the cutting insert taught by Hughes because Hughes teaches securing its cutting insert can be successfully secured to the cutting insert holder via a wedge securing device. The cutting insert tool taught by the combination would advantageously be desirable for use in high speed applications, as suggested by Hughes.
Thus, the combination of Lee and Hughes teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that “each insert wedge comprises a wedge head, a slanted clamping surface and a threaded pin extending rearwardly away from the wedge head along the fastening axis; and each fastener comprises: a top fastener surface, a bottom fastener surface located rearwardly of the top fastener surface and a peripheral fastener surface located therebetween; a threaded bore opening out of the top fastener surface and engaging the insert wedge’s threaded pin in a threaded connection; and at least one radially accessible key recess recessed into the peripheral fastener surface, the key recess facing in the radial fastening direction,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that “each fastener comprises a top fastener surface, a bottom fastener surface located rearwardly of the top fastener surface, a peripheral fastener surface located therebetween and at least one radially accessible key recess recessed into the peripheral fastener surface; each insert wedge comprises a wedge head, a slanted clamping surface and a threaded pin extending rearwardly from the wedge head; and the insert top surfaces of each cutting insert abuts against the slanted clamping surface of its respective insert wedge and each of the insert bottom surfaces abuts against the seating surface of its respective insert seat,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach all of the limitations of the claim. Lee, understood to be the closest prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach the structure and configuration of the cutting portion and plurality of fasteners as recited in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0092456 to Heinloth et al. teaches a cutting tool insert support with a radially accessible securing portion (see Fig. 1).
United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0118527 to Hecht teaches a cutting tool insert (see Fig. 2) with a wedge portion (22) engaging a cutting tool insert (76) and a fastener (26 and 104) for securing the wedge portion to the insert tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights