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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-6 and 8-12 in the reply filed on 6/9/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 7 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a first corner grove extending inwardly from the first corner land surface” (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-6 and 8-12 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 “a first corner grove extending inwardly from the first corner land surface”. Applicant elected figures 1-9. Even though “74” is recited as “a first corner groove”, figures 1-9 shows it as not extending from the corner making the claim and correlating figures unclear when read together.
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 1-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagerberg (USP 6,447,218) in view of (WO 2013/146211).
Regarding claim 1, Lagerberg discloses a cutting insert, comprising: an upper surface comprising a first corner (C1: see below), a second corner (C2), and a first side connected to the first corner and the second corner; a front side surface (F) connected to the first side; a first corner side surface (CS1) connected to the first corner; a front cutting edge (5) located on the first side; and a first corner cutting edge (5’) located at the first corner (figures 1 and 10), a front groove (FG), and a first corner groove (CG1), and a length of the first corner groove is shorter than a length of the front groove (see below). Lagerberg fails to disclose a land. ‘211 discloses a cutting insert having a land (9) around the periphery of the insert adjacent the cutting edge and before reaching the chip breakers (figures 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to include a land to Lagerberg’s insert, as taught by ‘211 for the purpose of increasing the thickness of a blade edge portion hence the cutting edge is reinforced as well as increasing the sharpness of cutting edge (see heading “advantage” of ‘211). The modified device of Lagerberg will therefore have a front land surface located at an outer edge of the upper surface and extending along the front cutting edge, a first corner land surface located at an outer edge of the upper surface and extending along the first corner cutting edge, the front groove (FG) will be extending inwardly from with respect to the front land surface and similarly the first corner groove (CG1) will be extending inwardly from with respect to the first corner land surface.
[AltContent: textbox (LC)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CG2)][AltContent: textbox (CG1)][AltContent: textbox (CS1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (CS2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (C2)][AltContent: textbox (C1)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (FG)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (FG1)][AltContent: textbox (FG2)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
511
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses wherein the first corner groove (CG) extends inwardly from with respect to a boundary between the front land surface and the first corner land surface.
Regarding claim 3, Examiner takes Official Notice that is is old and well known in the machining art to place grooves in any location depending on how fluid is desired to be directed and delivered.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses the claimed invention (i.e. a front groove and a first corner groove), except for a width of the first corner groove being smaller than a width of the front groove and a depth of the first corner groove being the same as a depth of the front groove. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to choose a desired width and depth for each groove depending on the amount of coolant desired to be delivered to that particular area, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to choose a desired width and depth for each groove depending on the amount of coolant desired to be delivered to that particular area.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses wherein the front groove (FG) comprises a first front groove (FG1) and a second front groove (FG2) located closer to the first corner (CG) than the first front groove, and a length of the first front groove (FG1) is the same as a length of the second front groove (FG2) (see figure above).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses a second corner side surface (CS2) connected to the second corner (C2); and a second corner cutting edge (5’) located at the second corner, wherein the upper surface further comprises a second corner land surface located at an outer edge of the upper surface and extending along the second corner cutting edge; and a second corner groove (CG2) extending inwardly from with respect to the second corner land surface, and a length of the second corner groove is (CG2) shorter than a length of the front groove (FG) (see figure above).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses wherein the upper surface further comprises a second side (bottom surface) connected to the first corner (C1); and a lateral land surface located at an outer edge of the upper surface and extending along the second side; and a lateral groove (LG) extending inwardly from with respect to the lateral land surface, and a length of the lateral groove (LG) is longer than a length of the first corner groove (CG1) (see figure above).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses wherein the front groove (FG) is separated from the front cutting edge (5) and the first corner groove (C1) is separated from the first corner cutting edge (5’) (see alternate embodiment of claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses a cutting tool comprising: a holder having a rod shape extending from a first end to a second end, and comprising a pocket located at the first end; and the cutting insert being located in the pocket (figure 9).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Lagerberg discloses a method for manufacturing a machined product, the method comprising: rotating a workpiece (14); bringing the cutting tool described in claim 11 into contact with the workpiece being rotated; and separating the cutting tool from the workpiece (figure 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. 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.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 6/25/26
Prosecution Insights