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 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 1, 3-5 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 206474764) in view of Hamatake et al. (US 20080199265, hereinafter ‘Hamatake’).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Jiang discloses a thread milling cutting tool capable of metal cutting comprising an elongated main body 1. The main body has a front end 2, a rear end and a central longitudinal axis extending from the front end to the rear end. The main body is configured to rotate in a direction of rotation around the central longitudinal axis and comprises a cutting section 3 extending axially rearward from the front end. The cutting section includes a plurality of teeth 4, wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth includes a rake surface, a clearance surface and a cutting edge at an intersection of the rake surface and the clearance surface (see e.g. Fig. 2). The plurality of teeth comprises at least one first set of circumferentially spaced teeth (see e.g. Fig. 1, the first tooth of each set in the axial direction). Each tooth of the at least one first set has a same first axial distance to the front end. The clearance surface of each tooth has a radial clearance angle (see e.g. Fig. 2), and the clearance surface of each tooth of the at least one first set of teeth includes a rotationally leading portion and a rotationally trailing portion (see e.g. Fig. 2). The leading portion extends from and rotationally behind the cutting edge. A radial clearance angle of the leading portion β is smaller than a radial clearance angle of the trailing portion α. Jiang discloses only a single exemplary embodiment of the cutting tool, wherein the radial clearance angle of the leading portion is 12˚. Jiang discloses that the values given in the example can be varied/modified (Final Paragraph of the English translation provided with this action), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range(s) of radial clearance angle.
Hamatake discloses similar milling cutter geometry, wherein the clearance surface of the cutting teeth is provided with a leading portion 7a and a trailing portion (unlabeled, but see Fig. 3). The radial clearance angle α1 of the leading portion is at least 2˚ and at most 3˚ (Paragraphs [0046-0047]) in order to suppress vibrations caused during cutting operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the radial clearance angle of Jiang to be at least 2˚ and at most 3˚ as taught by Hamatake, in order to reduce cutting vibrations during machining, which can have a negative impact on workpiece surface finish.
Regarding claim 4, Jiang discloses the leading portion having a circumferential extension b1 of 0.8 mm with an overall tool diameter D3 of 40 mm. The formula for arc length (in degrees) is
L
=
r
×
π
180
×
∅
. Substituting 0.8 and 20 for L and r (radius) respectively, the circumferential extension (arc length) in degrees is 2.3˚.
Regarding claim 5, Jiang does not explicitly disclose the claimed circumferential extension of the leading portion, but as discussed above, the exemplary values given are free to be modified as needed.
Hamatake discloses a similar geometry in a milling cutter, wherein the leading portion 7a has an extension width t1 (see e.g. Fig. 3) that can be appropriately changed according to cutting conditions (Paragraph [0045]).
As shown in Figure 3, it can be seen that the length of the leading portion 7a, which extends at a very small clearance angle α1, has a direct correlation to the strength of the cutting edge 4a. If 7a extends for a larger distance, more material is present behind the cutting edge, resulting in an increased strength of said cutting edge. If 7a is reduced in length, the larger clearance angle of the trailing portion gets closer to the cutting edge, resulting in a slimmer, more delicate cutting edge which is susceptible to chipping during use.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the circumferential extension of the leading portion of the tool of Jiang as suggested by Hamatake, to be within a range of at least 5˚ and at most 10˚ in a circumferential extension, in order to optimize the strength of the cutting edge when machining harder workpieces (i.e. depending on cutting conditions as taught by Hamatake). See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Regarding claim 8, Jiang discloses the radial clearance angle of both the leading portion and the trailing portion being constant.
Regarding claim 9, Jiang discloses the clearance surface consisting of the leading portion and the trailing portion.
Regarding claim 10, Jiang discloses the plurality of teeth comprising several sets of circumferentially spaced teeth (see e.g. Fig. 1, 6 sets of teeth being illustrated). Each tooth of each set has the same axial distance to the front end as all other teeth of the same set and a different axial distance to the front end as all the teeth of the other sets.
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses the radial clearance angle of the clearance surface being the same for all teeth of the sets of circumferentially spaced teeth.
Regarding claim 12, Jiang discloses the thread milling cutting tool being configured for cutting a thread with a nominal thread diameter at a maximal depth. The maximal depth, i.e. an overall length of the cutting portion 3 (as seen in Fig. 1) is greater than the nominal thread diameter. Jiang does not explicitly disclose the ratio of nominal thread diameter to maximal depth.
However, as the shank 1 of the tool and cutting portion 3 diameters are less than the nominal thread diameter (i.e. the diameter of the threads cut into the workpiece), the tool can conceivably be fed into a hole in the workpiece as deep as desired (while still maintaining clamping on the shank).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to cut a thread with a depth to thread diameter ratio of at least 2.5 and at most 5, depending on the depth of the hole(s) in the workpiece that the threads are desired to be cut into.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 206474764) in view of Hamatake et al. (US 20080199265) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Fouquer (US 20040109733).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Jiang discloses only a single exemplary embodiment of the cutting tool, wherein the radial clearance angle of the trailing portion is 25˚. Jiang discloses that the values given in the example can be varied/modified (Final Paragraph of the English translation provided with this action), but does not explicitly disclose the claimed range(s) of radial clearance angle. Hamatake does not cure this deficiency.
Fouquer discloses a similar thread milling cutter, having similar geometry. The leading portion 33 and trailing portion 36 are provided with very small relief/clearance angles D and E respectively. Particularly, the radial clearance angle E of the trailing portion is disclosed as “about 10 degrees” (Paragraph [0044]) to avoid heel rub.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the radial clearance angle of the trailing portion to be at least 5˚ and at most 10˚ (i.e. about 10 degrees) as taught by Foquer, in order to provide adequate strength to the cutting edge while still avoiding heel drag. Additionally, modifying the radial clearance angle of the trailing portion to be at least 6˚ and at most 7˚, such as what is suggested in Paragraph [0046] of Foquer, would have also been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, to optimize the strength of the cutting edge and the clearance required to avoid heel drag. See MPEP 2144.05, II, A.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues there is no motivation to modify Jiang in view of Hamatake to obviate the claimed radial clearance angle of the leading portion in the range of 1-5 (and later 2-3) degrees, and any such combination utilizes impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the instant invention. This argument is respectfully traversed.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Jiang, as discussed in the Non-Final Rejection of 04/06/2026 and again above, discusses an exemplary embodiment wherein an example of radial clearance angle is 12 degrees. The final paragraph discusses variations to the values given can be possible. Hamatake discloses a similar tool, wherein a radial clearance angle of 2 to 3 degrees is not only taught, but is preferable, to suppress vibrations during cutting operations (Paragraphs [0046-0047]). Therefore Hamatake provides an explicit motivation for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the radial clearance angle of Jiang by less than 10 degrees to arrive at the claimed range in order to increase cutting efficiency and reduce vibrations during cutting. Hindsight reconstruction has not been relied upon, and the rejection(s) are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
