DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s Response, dated 5 June 2026, which papers have been made of record.
Claims 1-8 and 10-15 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 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.
Claim 15 is 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. Newly presented claim 15 recites in part “wherein the flutes (30) are helical flutes that extend uninterrupted along the cutting head from the shaft-side cutting step, through the transition section, to the end face-side cutting step” at lines 17-19. The MPEP instructs that “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure.” (MPEP 2173.05(i)). “The mere absence a positive recitation is not basis of ran exclusion.” A review of the Specification as filed does not appear to use the word “uninterrupted” or an obvious variant thereof. Paragraphs [0015] and [0045], identified at page 9 of the Response, do not appear to indicate that the flutes are, in fact, uninterrupted. Paragraph [0045] teaches “the flutes 30 as well as the divider grooves 40 each extend over the entire axial length of the cutting head 20, i.e., over the end face-side cutting step 24, the transition section 23 and the shaft-side cutting step 22.” It is not understood to be inherent or necessary that a structure which extends over an entire length of an object is “uninterrupted.”
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites in part “wherein the flutes (30) are helical flutes that extend uninterrupted along the cutting head from the shaft-side cutting step, through the transition section, to the end face-side cutting step” at lines 17-19. The MPEP instructs that “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure.” (MPEP 2173.05(i)). “The mere absence a positive recitation is not basis of ran exclusion.” A review of the Specification as filed does not appear to use the word “uninterrupted” or an obvious variant thereof. Paragraphs [0015] and [0045], identified at page 9 of the Response, do not appear to indicate that the flutes are, in fact, uninterrupted. Paragraph [0045] teaches “the flutes 30 as well as the divider grooves 40 each extend over the entire axial length of the cutting head 20, i.e., over the end face-side cutting step 24, the transition section 23 and the shaft-side cutting step 22.” It is not understood to be inherent or necessary that a structure which extends over an entire length of an object is “uninterrupted.” Applicant points to the aforementioned paragraphs [0015] and [0045]= and Figures 1 and 2 as allegedly supporting this newly presented limitation. However, because the newly presented negative limitation does not find literal support in the text of the Specification, it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret the phrase “uninterrupted.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Document CN 114918467 assigned to Yancheng Institute of Technology (hereinafter “CN ‘467”).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘467 discloses an end mill cutter (see Fig. 1), comprising: a shaft (7); and a cutting head (cutting portion defined by D1 and D2; see Fig. 1) with a number of helically running cutting webs (see Annotated Figure below; cutting portions running upward toward the left in Fig. 1), wherein the helically running cutting webs are spaced apart from one another by flutes (see Annotated Figure; absence of projected cutting material at 3), wherein the cutting webs are divided into cutting web segments (see Fig. 1; cutting portions at 3 shown divided) at least over a portion of a length of the cutting webs (division visible in both sections defined by D1 and D2) by a number of divider grooves (absence of material running in lines downward to toward the left; see Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure) running helically in a direction opposite the cutting webs, and wherein the cutting head (length of cutting tool at D1 and D2) is divided into a shaft-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2; see Fig. 1) and an end face-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D1) adjoining the shaft-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2) via a transition section (section shown at 4; see Fig. 1) wherein a cutting diameter (see Fig. 1) of the end face-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2), which is smaller than a cutting diameter (see Fig. 1; cutting portion diameters from left to right/toward shaft shown increasing) of the shaft-side cutting step, wherein each cutting web segment (cutting portions at 3) have clearance surfaces (radially outermost surfaces can be selected as clearance surfaces; right/lowermost surface of cutting web segments of each cutting segment in Fig. 1), and wherein each cutting web segment has a circumferentially cutting main cutting edge (circumferential side surface; best seen cutting material CFRP in Fig. 8), which extends from an end face-side cutting web segment corner all the way to a shaft-side cutting web segment corner (left/lowermost angled surface in Fig. 1 understood to include circumferential cutting edge), wherein the circumferentially cutting main edge of each cutting web segment corresponds to a cutting line between a cutting surface (left/uppermost angled surface in Fig. 1 of each segment) and a clearance surface (right/lowermost surface of cutting web segments). The examiner notes that the phrase “corresponds to” does not necessarily mean “positioned at,” “parallel to,” or “colinear with” and that many other functions or descriptors can be understood such that a structure “corresponds to” another structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the divider grooves (see Annotated Figure) taper off in a region of the end face-side cutting step (region at length D1) or at the transition section (4; grooves reduce in quantity present in transition section).
Regarding claim 3, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the divider grooves (see Annotated Figure) taper off in a region of the shaft-side cutting step (region at length D2; grooves reduce in quantity approaching transition section 4 from shaft side).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that a groove base of the divider grooves (see Annotated Figures; groove base of divider grooves can be interpreted as initiating from the righthand/shaftmost side of tool) lies on a larger diameter (see Fig. 1) than a groove base of the flutes (groove base of flutes can be interpreted as initiating from leftmost/tipmost side of tool at D1).
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the cutting webs (cutting segments at 3) have cutting surfaces with negative cutting angles (as best shown in Fig. 1, each cutting segment has a diamond-like profile such that at least one of the four side surfaces thereof extends at an angle that can be characterized as negative relative to either a vertical or horizontal axis with respect to the figure).
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the cutting head (cutting portion defined at D1 and D2) is formed so as to cut on an end face (see Fig. 1; section defined by D1 includes terminal end face of cutting tool).
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the number of flutes (see Annotated Figure; 11 flutes appear to be shown not including transition section 4) is smaller than the number of divider grooves (see Annotated Figure; approximately four divider grooves appear to be shown per quarter round, such that one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect at least 12 divider grooves are present around the circumference of the tool body at region D2).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the clearance surfaces are angled (see Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure; clearance surfaces understood to extend approximately 45 degrees from horizontal central axis of tool).
Regarding claim 11, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that the divider grooves (See Annotated Figure) are narrower than the flutes (See Fig. 1; divider grooves at least in region D1 appear to be smaller/narrower than the width of the flutes).
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 9, and further CN ‘467 discloses that each cutting web segment (see Annotated Figures; cutting portions 3) has a main cutting edge (side surface of each cutting web segment extending along body at approximately 135 degrees from horizontal in Fig. 1), which extends from an end face-side cutting web segment corner (leftmost end of tool towards tip 1) all the way to a shaft-side cutting web segment corner (uppermost corner of each cutting web segment with respect to Fig. 1), whereby a length of the main cutting edge (side surface extending in direction approximately along 135 degrees from horizontal) measured in the direction of the flute (see Annotated Figure) is shorter than a length of the clearance surface measured in the direction of the divider groove (see Fig. 1; appears that the clearance surfaces are longer than the main cutting edge).
Regarding claim 14, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further CN ‘467 discloses that an end face-side divider groove surface (see Annotated Figure, an uppermost divider groove surface can be selected) forming the cutting web segment (cutting surface segments 3) has a negative flank angle (side angle can be interpreted as being approximately 45 degrees above horizontal or as a -135 degree angle).
Regarding claim 15, CN ‘467 discloses an end mill cutter (see Fig. 1), comprising: a shaft (7); and a cutting head (cutting portion defined by D1 and D2; see Fig. 1) with a number of helically running cutting webs (see Annotated Figure below; cutting portions running upward toward the left in Fig. 1), wherein the helically running cutting webs are spaced apart from one another by flutes (see Annotated Figure; absence of projected cutting material at 3), wherein the cutting webs are divided into cutting web segments (see Fig. 1; cutting portions at 3 shown divided) at least over a portion of a length of the cutting webs (division visible in both sections defined by D1 and D2) by a number of divider grooves (absence of material running in lines downward to toward the left; see Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure) running helically in a direction opposite the cutting webs, and wherein the cutting head (length of cutting tool at D1 and D2) is divided into a shaft-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2; see Fig. 1) and an end face-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D1) adjoining the shaft-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2) via a transition section (section shown at 4; see Fig. 1) wherein a cutting diameter (see Fig. 1) of the end face-side cutting step (cutting portion defined by D2), which is smaller than a cutting diameter (see Fig. 1; cutting portion diameters from left to right/toward shaft shown increasing) of the shaft-side cutting step, and wherein the flutes (absence of projected cutting material at 3; see Annotated Figure above) that extend uninterrupted along the cutting head (see Fig. 1) from a shaft-side cutting step, through the transition section, to the end face-side cutting step (see Fig. 1 and Annotated Figure; the flutes are understood to be uninterrupted in that there is no obstructing material preventing continuous travel through the flutes from an end of the cutting sections at right side having the largest diameter of section D2 in Fig. 1 to the terminal end of the tool adjacent tip 1).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘467 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘467 discloses the limitations of claim 1, however CN ‘467 does not disclose that the transition section (4) has an angle between 55 and 65 degrees to an axis of rotation of the end mill cutter. CN ‘467 teaches that the transition section has an angle of 50 degrees.
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 not patentably distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited angular position would cause the device taught by CN ‘497 to behave differently in use with an angle other than 50 degrees as shown in Figure 1. Accordingly, it would have been with the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the transition section to be within the recited range, as a matter of design choice, without expecting modification of the principles of operation of CN ‘497.
Thus, CN ‘497 teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s arguments, see Response, filed 5 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Rejection of 1 April 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14 were previously rejected as anticipated by CN ‘467.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the cutting webs (50) have clearance surfaces” and “each cutting web segment (60) has a circumferentially cutting main cutting edge (62), which extends from an end face-side cutting web segment corner (64) all the way to a shaft-side cutting web segment corner (66). Applicant asserts that CN ‘467 does not disclose the cutting web segment configuration of amended claim 1. Applicant asserts that CN ‘467 defines a plurality of radially outwardly projecting diamond-shaped milling cutters, and that such as “not the same as the claimed cutting web segments.” Applicant states that “the diamond-shaped milling cutters 32 of CN ‘467, which are radially projecting pyramid-like structures having four cutting edges converging in a tip, do not provide this claimed relationship between a cutting surface, a clearance surface, and the circumferentially cutting main cutting edge of each cutting web segment.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not preclude interpreting the alleged pyramid like cutting segments as reading on claimed cutting web segments. To the best of the examiner’s understanding with respect to Figure 1 of CN ‘467, each pyramid cutting segment has a main cutting edge, and the other three edges, which Applicant considers to be cutting edges (see Response at page 8) can be interpreted as defining the cutting surface, the clearance surface and circumferentially cutting main cutting edge of the cutting web segment. The examiner further notes that the phrase “corresponds to” is understood to be a broad limitation which does not necessarily limit the correspondence to a direct geometric relationship such as colinear, coplanar, or parallel to other claimed structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 5 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 13 was previously rejected over CN ‘467.
Applicant has presented no Specific arguments with respect to claim 13.
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 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.
/D.C.F/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights