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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 20 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Species I and Species IV should belong to the same species. This is not found persuasive because Species I discloses that the chamfered parts are formed continuously along the entire cutting edges, as seen in figure 7, while in Species IV the chamfered parts are formed dispersed in a plurality of cutting portions, as seen in figure 10. While these may have the same effect of preventing the cutting edges from being chipped, the structures of each species are unique and therefore do not belong to the same species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta (US 2016/0039024 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haruta discloses a tap 1 comprising: an incomplete thread 6 (tapered section, see figure 4) having a plurality of thread ridges 3a that threads a workpiece; a complete thread 2 (non-tapered section, see figure 4) including cutting edges 3a formed continuously from the incomplete thread; and a groove 5 that is disposed in each of the incomplete thread and the complete thread to discharge chips of the workpiece, wherein relationships respectively expressed by the following expressions (1) and (2) are simultaneously satisfied in a relationship among a nominal diameter D0 of the tap, a root diameter D1, a pitch P, and a thread ridge height h:
D1 ≥ D0 – P … (1), and h ≤ P/2 … (2). Since D0 = D1 + h, the first equation can be rewritten as D1 + P ≥ DO, or D1 + P ≥ D1 + h, such that this can be shortened to P ≥ h. The second equation can be rewritten as P ≥ 2h. Therefore, whenever the second equation is met, the first equation must also be met.
Haruta discloses that the tap is a large pitch tap for forming a large-lead internal thread, and as can be seen in figure 4 of Haruta, P ≥ 2h, as the pitch appears to be equal to approximately 4h. However, if it is to be argued that the pitch of Haruta is not distinctly disclosed to be ≥ 2h in the specification of Haruta, it is put forth that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have selected a pitch to be ≥ 2h for the purpose of creating a desired large pitch internal thread in a workpiece. It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
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 of this title, 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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haruta in view of Henderer et al. (US 9,011,050).
Regarding claims 2-5, Haruta discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Haruta does not disclose wherein the cutting edges in the complete thread are subjected to chamfering, or wherein the cutting edges at a second and subsequent thread ridges in the complete thread are subjected to the chamfering, or wherein the cutting edges in the whole or part of a portion excluding roots in the complete thread are subjected to the chamfering. Henderer et al. teaches the use of a thread tap 10 comprising an incomplete thread portion 24 and a complete thread portion 26, wherein the complete thread portion comprises full threads 28 with cutting edges 29 that are chamfered on a chamfer surface 48 of the cutting edge portion, excluding a root 34 of the thread, for the purpose of preventing chipping of the cutting edges. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cutting edges of Haruta with the chamfer surfaces as taught by Henderer et al. in order to provide a thread tap that is less susceptible to having the cutting edges chip, thereby increasing the operational life of the tap.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 2 June 2026
Prosecution Insights