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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to purported merits (e.g. in the first sentence) and exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 1-8 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 “in the vicinity” in lines 3 and 4. The scope of “vicinity” is unclear as it only ambiguously suggests closeness without a defined degree.
Claim 1 recites “substantially a same shape”. The term “shape” can involve a variety of factors like size, number of sides, angles, curvature, etc., and “substantially” suggests a degree of non-sameness, and so it is unclear how similar shapes must be to be “substantially a same shape”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "both ends of the comer cutting edge" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as --two ends of the comer cutting edge--.
Claim 5, which includes substantially the same limitations as in claim 1 above, is rejected for the same reasons.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nada et al. (JP2010184307, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: A cutting insert (1) extending in a longitudinal direction from a first end (e.g. left end in Fig. 2) to a second end (right end in Fig. 2) on an opposite side to the first end, wherein a first end portion that includes the first end and a portion in the vicinity thereof and a second end portion that includes the second end and a portion in the vicinity thereof are formed in substantially a same shape (the ends are symmetric - paragraph 16), wherein the first end portion has a rake surface (2, upper side) and a bottom surface (2, lower side) disposed on opposite sides to each other in a height (thickness) direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (vertical direction in Fig. 3), a side surface (3) connecting the rake surface and the bottom surface, and a cutting edge (4) formed on an edge at which the rake surface and the side surface intersect, wherein the cutting edge includes a curved corner cutting edge (4A) and a pair of lateral cutting edges (4B/4C) disposed such that [two] ends of the corner cutting edge are sandwiched therebetween (Figs. 1-2), wherein the pair of lateral cutting edges are formed linearly (“straight portion”/“straight line” - paragraph 17) and form an acute angle (Id.), and wherein the side surface has, at a portion abutting on the corner cutting edge, a corner flank continuous with the corner cutting edge (the portion immediately below 4A) and a flat surface (various triangular inclined surfaces 11A) disposed further toward the bottom surface than the corner flank in the height direction (the triangular inclined surfaces 11A are each presumed to be flat, i.e. planes defined within the three vertices of each triangle).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa (U.S. PGPub 2017/0209935) in view of Tagtstrom et al. (U.S. Patent 6,715,968, cited in IDS).
Claim 1: Furusawa discloses a cutting insert (1) extending in a longitudinal direction (vertical in Fig. 2) from a first end (at 13, e.g. bottom of Fig. 2) to a second end (at 13, e.g. top of Fig. 2) on an opposite side to the first end, wherein a first end portion that includes the first end and a portion in the vicinity thereof and a second end portion that includes the second end and a portion in the vicinity thereof are formed in substantially a same shape (evident in figures and identical reference numerals), wherein the first end portion has a rake surface (17, 19) and a bottom surface (5) disposed on opposite sides to each other in a height (thickness) direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (vertically in Fig. 3), a side surface (7) connecting the rake surface and the bottom surface, and a cutting edge (9) formed on an edge at which the rake surface and the side surface intersect (paragraph 39), wherein the cutting edge includes a curved corner cutting edge (13 - paragraph 40) and a pair of lateral cutting edges (15) disposed such that both ends of the corner cutting edge are sandwiched therebetween (e.g. Fig. 5), wherein the pair of lateral cutting edges are formed linearly (paragraph 40) and form an acute angle (paragraph 31 and evident in Fig. 5), and wherein the side surface has, at a portion abutting on the corner cutting edge, a corner flank continuous with the corner cutting edge (the portion immediately below 13).
Furusawa does not disclose a flat surface disposed further toward the bottom surface than the corner flank in the height direction. However, Tagtstrom teaches a similar double-ended turning cutting insert having a flat surface (20) disposed further toward the bottom surface (2) than a corner flank (18) in the height direction (column 3, lines 15-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such a flat surface on the cutting insert of Furusawa in order to have provided it with an axial stop surface with the cutting insert clamped into its holder (Id.).
Claim 2: Further referring to Tagtstrom regarding the flat surface, in a side view in a width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the height direction (i.e. the view in Figs. 2 and 5), an angle formed by a virtual plane parallel to both the height direction and the width direction (i.e. a vertical plane), and the flat surface is greater than or equal to 0° and less than or equal to 10° (the surface 20 is perpendicular to the horizontal plane, meaning is at 0 to the vertical plane - column 3, lines 27-30).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa and Tagtstrom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. (JP2012254509, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Furusawa and Tagtstrom et al. teach a cutting insert substantially as claimed except for wherein an angle formed by the pair of lateral cutting edges is greater than or equal to 10° and less than or equal to 35° (Furusawa in particular is silent regarding the measurement of the acute angle) . However, Yamazaki teaches a similar rhombus cutting insert wherein an angle formed by the pair of lateral cutting edges is greater than or equal to 10° and less than or equal to 35° (20°-35° - paragraph 40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used such an angle depending on the desired geometry of the cut to be made in the workpiece.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa and Tagtstrom et al. as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Delaney et al. (U.S. PGPub 2018/0281076).
Furusawa and Tagtstrom teach a cutting insert substantially as claimed except for wherein, in a side view in a width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the height direction (i.e. the view in Figs. 7-8 of Furusawa), a rake angle (θ1 and θ2) of the corner cutting edge formed by a virtual plane (S1) parallel to both the longitudinal direction and the width direction, and the rake surface is greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 20° (Furusawa is silent to the specific rake angle). However, Delaney teaches forming the rake angle at 10° to 20°, or, preferably, from 8° to 16° (paragraph 41). Delaney also notes that the rake angle can be tailored to optimize the performance the cutting tool, and that a larger rake angle provides a sharper cutting tip and reduced stress input into the material to be grooved but also decreases the overall strength of the tooth, and increases the rate of wear or dulling of the tooth (paragraph 42). Thus, the rake angle is also a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cutting insert of Furusawa by making the rake angle greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 20° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa, Tagtstrom et al. and Yamazaki et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Delaney et al.
Furusawa, Tagtstrom, and Yamazaki teach a cutting insert substantially as claimed except for wherein, in a side view in a width direction orthogonal to both the longitudinal direction and the height direction (i.e. the view in Figs. 7-8 of Furusawa), a rake angle (θ1 and θ2) of the corner cutting edge formed by a virtual plane (S1) parallel to both the longitudinal direction and the width direction, and the rake surface is greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 20° (Furusawa is silent to the specific rake angle). However, Delaney teaches forming the rake angle at 10° to 20°, or, preferably, from 8° to 16° (paragraph 41). Delaney also notes that the rake angle can be tailored to optimize the performance the cutting tool, and that a larger rake angle provides a sharper cutting tip and reduced stress input into the material to be grooved but also decreases the overall strength of the tooth, and increases the rate of wear or dulling of the tooth (paragraph 42). Thus, the rake angle is also a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cutting insert of Furusawa by making the rake angle greater than or equal to 5° and less than or equal to 20° as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furusawa in view of Tagtstrom et al. and Hansson et al. (U.S. Patent 6,086,291, incorporated by reference in Tagtstrom).
Claim 5: Furusawa discloses a turning tool (101 - implied in paragraph 2 and Fig. 17, though this alone does not necessarily limit the structure of the tool) comprising a tool body (105) and a cutting insert (1) mounted on the tool body (paragraph 76 and Fig. 13), wherein the tool body has a plurality of restraining portions that come into contact with the cutting insert to restrain movement of the cutting insert (e.g. a seating face and a constraint side face defined by pocket 103 - paragraph 77), wherein the cutting insert (1) extends in a longitudinal direction (vertical in Fig. 2) from a first end (at 13, e.g. bottom of Fig. 2) to a second end (at 13, e.g. top of Fig. 2) on an opposite side to the first end, wherein a first end portion that includes the first end and a portion in the vicinity thereof and a second end portion that includes the second end and a portion in the vicinity thereof are formed in substantially a same shape (evident in figures and identical reference numerals), wherein the first end portion has a rake surface (17, 19) and a bottom surface (5) disposed on opposite sides to each other in a height (thickness) direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (vertically in Fig. 3), a side surface (7) connecting the rake surface and the bottom surface, and a cutting edge (9) formed on an edge at which the rake surface and the side surface intersect (paragraph 39), wherein the cutting edge includes a curved corner cutting edge (13 - paragraph 40) and a pair of lateral cutting edges (15) disposed such that both ends of the corner cutting edge are sandwiched therebetween (e.g. Fig. 5), wherein the pair of lateral cutting edges are formed linearly (paragraph 40) and form an acute angle (paragraph 31 and evident in Fig. 5), and wherein the side surface has, at a portion abutting on the corner cutting edge, a corner flank continuous with the corner cutting edge (the portion immediately below 13).
Furusawa does not necessarily disclose a first restrained portion that is disposed further toward the bottom surface than the corner flank in the height direction and comes into contact with a first restraining portion of the plurality of restraining portions of the tool body, and wherein the first restraining portion and the first restrained portion are formed as flat surfaces parallel to each other or uneven surfaces that fit into each other. However, Tagtstrom teaches a similar double-ended turning cutting insert having a flat surface (20) disposed further toward the bottom surface (2) than a corner flank (18) in the height direction which is intended to come into contact with the holder (column 3, lines 15-44). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided such a flat surface on the cutting insert of Furusawa in order to have provided it with an axial stop (retrained) surface with the cutting insert clamped into its holder (Id.). Tagtstrom per se does not show the interface of the face 20 with the holder, but incorporates Hansson by reference (column 2, lines 36-44), where a flat surface 6 is shown in the holder in alignment with a corresponding (unlabeled) flat surface of the insert (Fig. 1; column 4, lines 35-37). The examiner submits that in implementing the retrained surfaced of Tagtstrom, one of ordinary skill would have understood its intent to contact a corresponding flat surface in the holder.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights