Detailed Action1
America Invents Act Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of an informality: reference characters in the claims should be in parentheses. Thus, “E”, “X” “A1”, “b”, “c”, etc. should be in parentheses. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-15 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the machining tool is held between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region in the tool extension exclusively by means of a force-fitting connection. It is unclear how the machining tool can be held between the conical shank region since the conical shank region is part of the machining tool. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: the machining tool is held in the tool extension exclusively by a force-fitting connection between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region.
Claim 1 recites a maximum second distance in the plane of the cutting edge region is less than or equal to 30% of the diameter of the cutting edge region. It is unclear what points the second distance is between.
Claim 6 recites hard metal. The term “hard” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 6,394,466 (“Matsumoto”) in view of US Patent No. 5,352,073 (“Kitaguchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches an arrangement for machining workpieces (col. 1 lines 5-8), comprising a machining tool (30) having a cutting edge region (30b) and a shank (30c) (figs. 12-13, col. 8 lines 23-56), the shank having a conical shank region (fig. 13, col. 8 lines 57-58), a tool extension (32) having a conical receiving region (34b) (fig. 12-13, col. 8 lines 31-42), the conical shank region and the conical receiving region being complementary to each other such that the machining tool is held between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region in the tool extension exclusively by means of a force-fitting connection (figs. 12-13, col. 8 lines 31-67), and a tool holding device (31) for receiving the tool extension (fig. 12), the tool holding device being adapted to be connected to a rotatable spindle of a machine tool (col. 9 lines 17-25), wherein the cutting edge region has a maximum diameter in a plane perpendicular to a center axis, the plane intersecting a bounding volume which is a mathematical extension of an outer cone of the tool extension (figs. 12 & 13), wherein the outer cone has a first cone angle a which is smaller than or equal to 10 degrees (figs. 12-13, col. 8 lines 34-37), and wherein a distance of a free end of the cutting edge region to an exposed end of the tool extension is smaller than five times the maximum diameter of the cutting edge region (figs. 12-13, wherein since the diameter of region 30b taken perpendicular to the longitudinal axis is similar to the axial length one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the axial distance from the exposed end of the tool extension is less than five times the maximum diameter).
Claim 1 further recites a maximum first distance of the bounding volume from the cutting edge region is at most 10% of the diameter of the cutting edge region or the cutting edge region touches the bounding volume or the bounding volume intersects the cutting edge region such that a maximum second distance in the plane of the cutting edge region is less than or equal to 30% of the diameter of the cutting edge region. As illustrated in figures 12 & 13, since the free end of the tool extension is about the same diameter as the cutting edge region, and the end of the tool extension is conical, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the bounding volume intersects the cutting edge region such that a maximum second distance in the plane of the cutting edge region is less than or equal to 30% of the diameter of the cutting edge region (i.e. distance between outer surface of cutting edge region and bounding volume in the plane).
Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach a holding region arranged adjacent to the shank region. However, this would be obvious in view of Kitaguchi.
Kitaguchi is also directed a rotary cutting machine tool that inserts a conical shank region 4 of a component into a conical receiving region 2 of another component (figs. 1-12, col. 1 lines 5-59). The component 3 having the conical shank region 4 comprises a groove 5a between two annular collars 5b & 5c that is adjacent the conical shank region (fig. 10, col. 1 lines 15-30). This region 5a/5b/5c is to allow an automatic tool exchanger to grasp hold this region when positioning the conical shank 4 into the conical receiver region 2 (fig. 10, col. 1 lines 15-20).
In this case, each of Matsumoto and Kitaguchi are directed to rotary cutting machines that are assembled by inserting a conical shank region of a component into a conical receiving region of another component. Kitaguchi teaches that it is known and predictable to have automatic tool changers/arms that automatically insert components by grasping a holding region (i.e. a groove sandwiched between two collars) that is adjacent the conical shank region. One of skill in the art appreciates that automatically assembling components with a machine can allow for greater accuracy and consistency, as well as better efficiency. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the machine tool of Matsumoto so that it has a holding region (i.e. a groove sandwiched between two collars) that is adjacent the conical shank region and configured to allow an automatic tool changing machine to grasp it when inserting the machine tool into the tool extension. Further, since the diameter of the cutting region of the machine tool of Matsumoto is larger than the conical shank region, it is predictable to provide the holding region without increasing a maximum diameter of the machine tool.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto further teaches the conical shank region is an outer cone having a second cone angle, and the conical receiving region is an inner cone having a third angle (figs. 12-13, col. 8 lines 40-42 & 57-58).
Regarding claim 3, Matsumoto further teaches an outer diameter of the exposed end of the tool extension is at most 20% larger than the diameter of the cutting edge region (figs. 12-14, wherein the figures suggest the maximum diameter of the cutting edge region is substantially the same as the outer diameter of the exposed end of the tool extension 32). Claim 3 further recites and/or wherein the tool extension has a wall strength in a range of 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm at the exposed end. Due to the word “or”, this limitation is not required since the preceding limitation is taught.
Claim 6 recites the tool extension is made of a hard metal material (col. 6 lines 9-12, col. 9 lines 1-5, col. 10 lines 1-10, i.e. steel).
Claim 7 recites the first cone angle a of the outer cone (8) is greater than or equal to a second cone angle b of the conical shank region (5) and is greater than or equal to a third cone angle c of the conical receiving region (21). Matsumoto teaches the taper of the conical shank region and conical receiving region being between 1/50 to 1/200 (col. 8 lines 31-58), which translates to a taper angle of between .2865 and 1.1458 degrees. Since Matsumoto teaches the outer cone having an angle of 3-5 degrees (col. 8 lines 34-37), this angle is greater than the angle of the conical shank region and conical receiving region.
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the taper of the conical shank region and conical receiving region being between 1/50 to 1/200 (col. 8 lines 31-58), which translates to a taper angle of between .2865 and 1.1458 degrees. Thus, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach second and third cone angles b, c of the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) are in a range of 1.5 degrees to 4 degrees. However, MPEP 2144.05(I) states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. In this case, 1.5 degrees is so close to 1.15 degrees that one of skill in the art would expect to be able to shrink fit two surfaces having a cone angle of 1.5 degrees.
In the alternative, MPEP 2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, Matsumoto teaches a conical shank and a conical receiving surface that have a cone angle of between .2865 and 1.1458 degrees. One of skill in the art appreciates that the cone angle of the shrink fit parts affects the holding force. In addition, the larger the cone angle the less axial length of the conical surfaces is needed since more interference will occur over a shorter axial length (since larger cone angles extend radially outwards quicker). Thus, it would be routine optimization to attempt to find workable cone angles above 1.15 degrees, e.g. 1.5 or 2 degrees, that provide adequate holding force and allowing the length of the conical surfaces to be reduced.
Claim 9 recites the conical shank region comprises a clamping region having a length which is 1.5 times the diameter of the cutting edge region. While Matsumoto does not give explicit relative dimensions between the clamping region length and the diameter of the cutting edge region, MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A) states where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is 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. In this case modifying the cutting edge region of Matsumoto so that it has a diameter that is 2/3 times the length of the clamping region would not create a device that performs differently since the cutting edge region will still be able to perform its function of being used as an end mill. Thus, this limitation does patentably distinguish the claimed device from the prior art device.
Claim 10 recites the machining tool (1) further comprises a circumferential collar (11) between the conical shank region (5) and the holding region (4), which projects radially outwards. This is taught by Kitaguchi as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, wherein collar 5b can be interpreted as the circumferential collar that is between the conical shank region and holding region 5a (see fig. 10 of Kitaguchi).
Claim 11 recites an axial press-fit path that is in a range between complete contact between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) and a force-fitting connection between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) is smaller than or equal to 8% of the diameter D1 of the cutting edge region (3). Since being press fit is an assembly step, the structure of Matsumoto et al. reads on this limitation if it is capable of being press fit. Given the interference fit between the two conical regions, the structure of Matsumoto allows the conical shank region to be press fit into the conical receiving region because, due to the conical structure of the regions, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the force fitting connection can be created when positioning the conical shank region and conical receiving region in complete contact, and then pushing the tool in the receiving region by a distance equal to 8% of D1 because after the conical regions are in contact any further pushing of the tool within the receiving region will create a force-fitting connection due to interference between the conical surfaces.
Assuming arguendo that this claim requires the final axial position of the tool with respect to the conical receiving region to be less than or equal to 8% of D1 after the conical surfaces would first contact, this can be achieved via routine optimization. One of skill in the art appreciates that the holding force is directly related to the angles of the conical portions and the distance the conical shank is inserted into the conical receiving region after the conical surfaces would contact each other. Thus, one of skill in the art can determine suitable/workable holding forces for the particular application of the machine tool, and then determine an axial distance/path the machine tool must be inserted into the receiving region given a specific taper angle of the conical surfaces. Thus, this limitation would be discoverable via routine optimization.
Assuming arguendo that a press-fit step is required to infringe the claim, this would be obvious as detailed below.
Kitaguchi suggests that it is known and predictable to connect conical portions of machining components via press fit (fig. 10, col. 1 lines 15-59). In this case, each of Matsumoto and Kitaguchi teach an interference fit between conical portions of machine components. The examiner is taking Official Notice that shrink fit and press fit are known substitutes when connecting parts via an interference fit. In addition, Kitaguchi suggests that it is known for a press fit to be suitable for rotary cutting machine tools. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Matsumoto so that the connection between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region is made via press-fit instead of shrink fit.
Claim 12 recites a control unit (13), which is set up to move a gripper (14), which grips the machining tool (1) at the holding region (4) in a path-controlled manner as a function of the press-fit path between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) to create the force-fitting connection between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21). As detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above, the holding region was created for an automatic gripping tool to hold during insertion of the machine tool into the receiving region to form the force-fitting connection. One of skill in the art will reasonably infer the automatic tool has a control unit that moves the gripper in a predetermined path since automatic machines operate by themselves without human interaction. Further, this path ultimately creates a force-fitting connection due to the shrink fitting of the tool extension around the machine tool.
Regarding claim 14, Matsumoto further teaches the tool extension comprises an outer sheath (34a) having the outer cone and a cylindrical portion (34) (figs. 12-13, col. 8 lines 31-42).
Regarding claim 15, Matsumoto further teaches a machine tool comprising an arrangement according to claim 1 (fig. 12, col. 8 lines 23-34 & col. 9 lines 18-21, wherein element 31 is attached to a spindle of a machine tool). Further, figure 12 of Matsumoto in view of Kitaguchi teach the arrangement of claim 1 as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0168312 (“Takagi”).
Regarding claim 4, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach the conical shank region (105) is an inner cone having a second cone angle b on the machining tool (1), and the conical receiving region (121) is an outer cone having a third cone angle c on the tool extension (2). However, this would have been obvious in view of Takagi.
Takagi is also directed to an end mill having a cutting head 40 secured to a holder/extension 20 (fig. 1, ¶ [0002]-[0003] & [0033]). Takagi teaches that it is known to form rigid end mills by providing the cutting head with a hollow sleeve 41 having an inner cone configured to be in interference contact with an outer cone 32 of a shank of the holder/extension 20 (fig. 1, ¶ [0006]-[0007], [0028], [0033]-[0036] & [0051]).
In this case, each of Matsumoto and Takagi are directed to an end mill having a cutting head secured to a holder/extension at least partially through interference contact of conical surfaces. While Matsumoto teaches the extension having the inner cone and the cutting head having the outer cone (see figs. 12-13), MPEP 2144.04(VI)(A) states that mere reversal of parts is an obvious modification. Further, as described above, Takagi teaches that it is known and predictable to form rigid end mills having the reverse structure of Matsumoto, i.e. the cutting head having a hollow sleeve with an inner cone configured to be in interference contact with an outer cone of a shank of the holder/extension. Thus, it would be obvious to reverse the inner and outer cones of Matsumoto so that the inner cone is within a hollow sleeve of the machine tool and the outer cone is on a shank of the tool extension.
Claim 5 recites an outer diameter D4 of an exposed end (107) of the machining tool is at most 20% larger than the diameter D1 of the cutting edge region (3). As illustrated in figs. 12-13 of Matsumoto, the exposed end of the sleeve having the inner cone has an outer diameter substantially similar to the maximum diameter of the cutting edge region. In addition, Takagi teaches that the cutting edge region can have a maximum diameter similar to or larger than the exposed end of the machining tool/head 40 (see fig. 1). Thus, in order to allow more cutting flexibility, it would be obvious for the exposed end of the machine tool of Matsumoto et al. to have a diameter substantially equal to the maximum diameter of the cutting edge region.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2018/0071833 (“Haimer”).
Regarding claim 8, Matsumoto teaches the taper of the conical shank region and conical receiving region being between 1/50 to 1/200 (col. 8 lines 31-58), which translates to a taper angle of between .2865 and 1.1458 degrees. Thus, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach second and third cone angles b, c of the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) are in a range of 1.5 degrees to 4 degrees. However, this would have been obvious in view of Haimer.
Haimer is also directed to connecting parts 2 & 3 of machine tools in a form-fitting way via conical surfaces (fig. 1, ¶ [0002], [0004] & [0090]). Haimer teaches the conical surfaces having a cone angle of between 0.1 and 4 degrees (¶ [0081]).
In this case, each of Matsumoto et al. and Haimer are directed to connecting parts of machine tools in a form-fitting way via conical surfaces. Since Haimer provides a cone angle range that encompasses the range of Matsumoto, it would be predictable that the interference fit connection of Matsumoto can be made with cone angles between 1.5 and 4 degrees.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al. as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2003/0079338 (“Juranitch”).
Regarding claim 13, Matsumoto fails to explicitly teach a control unit (13), which is adapted to move a gripper (14), which grips the machining tool (1) at the holding region (4), in a force-controlled manner as a function of a press-fit force between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21) for producing the force-fitting connection between the conical shank region (5) and the conical receiving region (21). The phrase “adapted to” is interpreted similarly to “configured to” (see MPEP 2111.04 & In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). This would have been obvious in view of Kitaguchi and Juranitch.
Kitaguchi suggests that it is known and predictable to connect conical portions of machining components via press fit (fig. 10, col. 1 lines 15-59).
In this case, each of Matsumoto and Kitaguchi teach an interference fit between conical portions of machine components. The examiner is taking Official Notice that shrink fit and press fit are known substitutes when connecting parts via an interference fit. In addition, Kitaguchi suggests that it is known for a press fit to be suitable for rotary cutting machine tools. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Matsumoto so that the connection between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region is made via press-fit instead of shrink fit.
Further when pressing parts together, it is known to monitor the force. Juranitch teaches that during a pressing operation it is known to monitor the press force until a predetermined amount of force is applied (¶ [0004]), and also to monitor the press force over a predetermined distance of insertion of the press-fit part to determine the quality of the interference fit between the press-fit part and the receiving portion (Abstract, ¶ [0015], [0027]-[0034] & [0042]).
In this case, Matsumoto et al. teaches to press fit the machine tool into the tool extension via an automated device. One of skill in the art appreciates that it is well known to monitor parameters of automatic assembly processes. Juranitch teaches that it is known and predictable to monitor the press force of a press fit process in order to determine when to end the pressing and/or to determine the quality of the interference fit. Thus, it would be obvious to modify Matsumoto et al. so that the press fit process is performed until a predetermined amount of force is applied, i.e. in a force-controlled manner as a function of a press-fit force between the conical shank region and the conical receiving region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights