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 § 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 1-11 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 distal end surface orthogonal to an axis when visually observed” in line 2. However, the metes and bounds of something that is “visually observed” are not clearly set forth. Furthermore, the term “when” is a conditional term which also renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what will happen when the condition is not met. Further clarification is needed. Is the distal end surface, not orthogonal to the axis when it is not visually observed? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of the notches at equal angular intervals” in line 2. However, it is unclear in relation to what are the plurality of notches at equal angular intervals. Intervals of what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 10 recites that “the distal end surface has a shape that tapers” in line 2. However, since in claim 1, from which claim 10 directly depends on, sets forth that the distal end surface is orthogonal to an axis, it is unclear how such distal end surface can be both orthogonal and have a shape that tapers. Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2015/188940 (hereafter—WO’940--).
In regards to claim 1, WO’940 discloses a deburring tool (Figures 1-11) comprising a shaft (51), the shaft comprising a distal end surface (55) (in the same way as presented by Applicant) orthogonal to an axis when visually observed (as best understood, in view of the 112 2nd issues identified above, see Figure 4), an annular connecting surface (30) extending to a proximal end side from an outer peripheral end of the distal end surface toward an outer peripheral side, an annular outer peripheral surface (17) extending parallel to the axis from an end on the proximal end side of the connecting surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant), and a notch (29) disposed at a portion of the shaft (51) in a circumferential direction around the axis and opening to the distal end surface (55), the connecting surface (30), and the outer peripheral surface (17) (see Figure 6), the notch having an inner wall surface comprising a pair of opposed surface portions opposed to each other in the circumferential direction (see Figure 4, and refer to the two opposed portions of 29), each of the opposed surface portions extending in a radial direction, each of the opposed surface portions having an outer peripheral edge (21) having a distal end edge portion (25) continuous to the distal end surface (55) in the circumferential direction, an outer peripheral end edge portion (21) continuous to the outer peripheral surface in the circumferential direction, and a connecting end edge portion (27) continuous to the connecting surface (30) in the circumferential direction and connecting the distal end edge portion (25) and the outer peripheral end edge portion (21), the distal end edge portion, the outer peripheral end edge portion, and the connecting end edge portion forming a cutting edge (7 and 23).
In regards to claim 3, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, WO’940 also discloses that the inner wall surface of the notch (29) has a connecting surface portion extending in the circumferential direction and in an axial direction along the axis and connecting end edges on an inner peripheral side of a pair of the opposed surface portions (see Figure 5), and the distal end surface (55) is continuous on the inner peripheral side of a distal end edge of the connecting surface portion (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 4, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, WO’940 also discloses that the shaft has a plurality of the notches (29) at equal angular intervals (see Figure 5).
In regards to claim 7, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 3, WO’940 also discloses that the shaft has a through hole (53) passing through a center of the shaft in the axial direction and opening to1 the distal end surface (55).
In regards to claim 8, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, WO’940 also discloses that the distal end surface (55) is orthogonal (see Figures 3-4) to the axis.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/188940 (hereafter—WO’940--) as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claim 2, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, WO’940 also discloses the connecting end edge portion is sharp to the proximal end side from an end on the outer peripheral side of the distal end edge portion toward the outer peripheral side and continuous to an end on a distal end side of the outer peripheral end edge portion.
However, WO’940 fails to disclose that the connecting edge portion is curved.
Nevertheless, the Examiner takes Official Notice on the fact that it is well known in the art, to have a connection edge portion be curved or honed in order to reduce cutting edge chipping by reducing stress concentration when machining, depending on the type of material being machined. To change the shape of the connecting cutting edge to be curved would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art depending on the type of machining being performed and type of material being machined to reduce cutting edge breakage or chipping.
Therefore, the examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the Applicant's invention was filed; to modify Scott's connecting end edge portion’s shape to be curved depending on the type of machining being performed and type of material being machined in order to prevent cutting edge damage.
In regards to claim 5, WO’940 discloses the deburring tool according to claim 4, WO’940 also discloses that the plurality of notches (29) of the shaft comprises four notches (refer to any four notches 29), a width dimension in the circumferential direction of a blade section located between two of the notches adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction (in the same way as presented by Applicant); a radius of the shaft, and an opening width in the circumferential direction of an outer peripheral-side opening in which each of the notches opens to the outer peripheral surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
However, WO’940 fails to explicitly disclose that the width dimension is 1/3 or more of a radius of the shaft, and that the opening width is 2/3 or more of the radius of the shaft.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the width dimension be as desired, such as 1/3 or more of a radius of the shaft, and to have the opening width be as desired, such as 2/3 or more of the radius of the shaft, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott US 6,276,881 in view Miyazaki et al. US 2020/0230708 (hereafter—Miyazaki--).
In regards to claim 1, Scott discloses a deburring tool (Figures 1-8) comprising a shaft (32), the shaft comprising a distal end surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant) orthogonal to an axis when visually observed (as best understood, in view of the 112 2nd issues identified above, see Figure 4), an annular connecting surface (as presented by Applicant) extending to a proximal end side from an outer peripheral end of the distal end surface toward an outer peripheral side, an annular outer peripheral surface (see annular surface at 38 portion of shank 32) extending parallel to the axis from an end on the proximal end side of the connecting surface (in the same way as presented by Applicant), and a notch (34) disposed at a portion of the shaft (32) in a circumferential direction around the axis and opening to the distal end surface (see Figure 3), the connecting surface, and the outer peripheral surface (see Figure 3), the notch having an inner wall surface comprising a pair of opposed surface portions opposed to each other in the circumferential direction (see Figures 4 and 5a, and refer to the two opposed portions of 34), each of the opposed surface portions extending in a radial direction, each of the opposed surface portions having an outer peripheral edge (35/36) having a distal end edge portion (see Figure 3) continuous to the distal end surface in the circumferential direction, an outer peripheral end edge portion (35/36) continuous to the outer peripheral surface in the circumferential direction, and a connecting end edge portion (as presented by Applicant, see Figure 3) continuous to the connecting surface in the circumferential direction and connecting the distal end edge portion and the outer peripheral end edge portion (see Figure 3), the outer peripheral end edge portion, and the connecting end edge portion forming a cutting edge.
Although there is a suggestion in Scott that the distal end edge portion, the outer peripheral end edge portion, and the connecting end edge portion forming a cutting edge, this is not explicitly disclosed.
However, Miyazaki teaches that it is well known in the art to have a rotary tool where a distal end edge portion (21), an outer peripheral end edge portion (23) and a connecting end edge portion (22) form a cutting edge. This geometry, allows the tool to have, side cutting, hole enlarging and front cutting properties within the same cutting tool and thus, increase machining efficiency by using a same tool to perform different types of machining.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to have Scott’s distal end portion, outer peripheral end edge portion and connecting end edge portion form a cutting edge, based on the teachings of Miyazaki, to increase machining efficiency by using a same tool to perform different types of machining.
In regards to claim 3, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, Scott as modified also discloses that the inner wall surface of the notch (34) has a connecting surface portion extending in the circumferential direction and in an axial direction along the axis and connecting end edges on an inner peripheral side of a pair of the opposed surface portions (see Figure 5a), and the distal end surface (Figure 3) is continuous on the inner peripheral side of a distal end edge of the connecting surface portion (in the same way as presented by Applicant).
In regards to claim 4, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, Scott as modified also discloses that the shaft has a plurality of the notches (34) at equal angular intervals (see Figure 4).
In regards to claim 6, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, Scott as modified discloses a length dimension in the axial direction of the notch (34 of Scott) is larger than a radius of the shaft (see Figure 3).
In regards to claim 8, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, Scott as modified also discloses that the distal end surface is orthogonal (see Figures 3, 7 and 8) to the axis.
In regards to claim 11, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claim 1, Scott as modified also discloses a deburring method comprising: attaching the deburring tool to a machine tool via a floating holder; and while rotating the deburring tool around the axis, bringing the distal end surface into contact with a surface to be deburred of a workpiece and moving the distal end surface along the surface to be deburred to remove a burr on the surface to be deburred (see Figures 1, 3, 5a-c).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott US 6,276,881, in view Miyazaki et al. US 2020/0230708 (hereafter—Miyazaki--) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and in further view of Ching US 5,626,446.
In regards to claims 9 and 10, Scott as modified discloses the deburring tool according to claims 8 and 1 respectively, Scott as modified also discloses that the distal end surface has a center portion.
However, Scott as modified fails to disclose that the center portion has a protrusion having a shape (claim 9) or shape (claim 10) that tapers toward a distal end side, and a distance in the axial direction between a distal end point located on a most distal end side in the protrusion and the outer peripheral end of the distal end surface.
Nevertheless, Ching teaches that it is well known in the art of rotary tools to have the distal end surface with a center portion having a protrusion (82) having a shape that tapers toward a distal end side, and a distance in the axial direction between a distal end point located on a most distal end side in the protrusion and the outer peripheral end of the distal end surface. Protrusion 82 is shaped and sized to provide alignment guidance for the tool relative to a workpiece during a machining operation.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to provide Scott’s tool with a protrusion in the center portion of the distal end surface, as taught by Ching, to provide alignment guidance of the tool relative to the workpiece during a machining operation.
Scott as modified fails to disclose that the distance is 50 µm or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the distance be as desired, such 50 µm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 To:
—used as a function word to suggest actual or figurative movement toward a place, person, or thing to be reached; used as a function word to indicate direction TO Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights