DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-11 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0212229 to Diepold (hereinafter “Diepold”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0240740 to Sakai (hereinafter “Sakai”).
Regarding claim 1, Diepold discloses a cutting insert (1), comprising: an upper surface (2); a lower surface (4) located on an opposite side of the upper surface (2); a side surface (6) connected to the upper surface (2) and the lower surface (2); and a cutting edge (8) located at an intersection of the upper surface (2) and the side surface (6), wherein the upper surface comprises a corner portion (select a corner of insert at 14; see Fig. 2), a side portion (at 16) connected to the corner portion (see Fig. 3) and coming close to the lower surface (4) with distance from the corner portion (at 14), an outer inclined surface (portion of surface at 12 adjacent to portion 16; best seen in Figs. 5 and 6) extending along the side portion (at 16) and coming close to the lower surface (4) with distance from the side portion (at 16), a middle inclined surface (middlemost portion of surface 12 near lead line 12 in Fig. 6) extending along the outer inclined surface and coming close to the lower surface (4) with distance from the outer inclined surface (at 12 nearest portion 16), an inner inclined surface (portion of surface 12 adjacent surface 18; see Fig. 6) extending along the middle inclined surface and coming close to the lower surface (4) with distance from the middle inclined surface (near lead line 12), and a flat bottom surface (5; see Fig. 1) connected to the inner inclined surface (portion of surface 12 adjacent surface 18), in a cross-section taken along a parallel direction to an insert central axis (axis S; see Fig. 1) passing through a center of the upper surface (2) and a center of the lower surface (4), the outer inclined surface has a linear shape (at 12 nearest portion 16; see Fig. 2), and the middle inclined surface (at 12 nearest lead line 12 in Fig. 6) has a protruding curved shape protruding in an upward direction (see Fig. 5; surface at 12 appears to curve or arc toward both surfaces at 16 and 18), the side portion (at 16) comprises a first portion (at portion 30; see Fig. 8A) connected to the corner portion (at corner of insert at 14) and a second portion (at 26) connected to the first portion (see Fig. 8A), the outer inclined surface (portion of surface at 12 adjacent to portion 16) comprises a first outer region extending along the first portion.
Diepold does not explicitly disclose that the outer inclined surface comprises a first outer region extending along the first portion and having a width in a direction orthogonal to the first portion decreasing with distance from the corner portion and the middle inclined surface comprises a first middle region extending along the first outer region and having a width in the direction orthogonal to the first portion increasing with distance from the corner portion and second middle region extending along the second outer region and having a width in the direction orthogonal to the second portion decreasing with distance from the corner portion. Diepold teaches that known configurations of cutting inserts may create problems with cutting forces and chip formation (see paragraph [0005]).
However, it is known in the art of cutting inserts to provide inclined surfaces which have the claimed geometry.
For example, Sakai teaches a known cutting insert.
Sakai teaches a cutting insert (1) having a top surface (see Fig. 1) having an upper portion (2) with include and outermost inclined surface (72) an intermediate surface (74) and an innermost surface (see lead line 2 in Fig. 1). The width of the intermediate inclined surface (74) is inclined to be located further from the lower surface (3) of the cutting insert away from an insert cutting edge (51). As illustrated, the intermediate inclined surface has portions with a width in the orthogonal direction relative to the central axis of the cutting insert (see Fig. 2) which decreases with distance from the corner of the insert (appears to narrow from corner at 5 towards section adjacent to portion 72), and the inclined surface having a second region which has an increasing direction (increasing width nearer center of the side surface). Sakai teaches that the surface (74) advantageously reduces friction on cut materials during use, reducing load (see paragraph [0087]) and helping produce a smooth chip discharge during a cutting operation (see paragraph [088]).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting insert taught by Diepold to include an inclined surface configuration which improves chip discharge, such as the surface taught by Sakai. (See MPEP 2143(1)(C)). The resulting apparatus would advantageously be capable of removing chips during a cutting operation in a smooth manner while reducing friction or load on the cutting insert.
Thus, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Sakai teaches that the middle inclined surface (at 74) has an arc shape in the cross-section taken along the parallel direction (see Fig. 2) and the first middle region (see section A-A) has a radius of curvature in the cross-section taken along the parallel direction increasing with distance from the corner portion (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further Sakai teaches that the second middle region (see sections C-C, D-D, E-E) has a radius of curvature in the cross-section taken along the parallel direction decreasing with distance from the corner portion (see Figs. 10, 11, and 12, radius of curvature appears to get smaller towards section E-E).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Diepold teaches that the outer inclined surface (surface at 12 adjacent surface 16) has an inclination angle (see Fig. 6) with respect to a direction orthogonal to the parallel direction decreasing with distance from the corner portion (configurations 8A, 8B, 8C appear to show a decreasing slope of inclined surface away from corners). Sakai appears to similarly show a flattening of inclined surface radially toward interior of the insert away from the corners; see Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Sakai teaches that a length of the second portion (portion at increasing width, adjacent center portion of side at 22; see Fig. 2) is greater than a length of the first portion (portion of surface adjacent surface 73; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Sakai teaches that the inner inclined surface (at 74) comprises a first inner region () extending along the first middle region and having a width (in the radial direction with respect to Fig. 2) in a direction orthogonal to the first portion decreasing (portion of 74 adjacent to lead line 73 toward lead line 72 in Fig. 2) with distance from the corner portion (at corner 5) and a second inner region extending along the second middle region and having a width in a direction orthogonal to the second portion increasing (portion of 74 adjacent to lead line 73 toward lead line 74 in Fig. 2) the distance from the corner portion (at 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Sakai teaches that the side portion further comprises a third portion (radially inner surface more inward than 74; see Fig. 2) connected to the second portion (portion at increasing width, adjacent center portion of side at 22; see Fig. 2), the outer inclined surface (radially outer surface including 71) further comprises a third outer region (surface adjacent lead line 22 extending from surface at 72) extending along the third portion (see Fig. 2) and having a width in a direction orthogonal to the third portion decreasing with distance from the corner portion (at 5), and the middle inclined surface (surface at 74) further comprises a third middle region (portion of surface 74 corresponding to sections at 71, 72, 73 in Fig. 2) extending along the third outer region and having a width in the direction orthogonal to the third portion increasing (portion from surface 71 toward surface 21) with distance from the corner portion (5).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Sakai teaches that the middle inclined surface (surface at 74) has an arc shape in the cross-section taken along the parallel direction (see Fig. 8), and the third middle region (portion of surface 74 corresponding to sections at 71, 72, 73 in Fig. 2) has a radius of curvature in the cross-section taken along the parallel direction increasing with distance from the corner portion (at 5; appears to have different cross sectional radii, see compare Figs. 8, 9, 10, and 11).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 7, and Sakai teaches that a length of the third portion (radially inner surface more inward than 74; see Fig. 2) is greater than a length of the first portion (portion of 74 adjacent to lead line 73 toward lead line 72 in Fig. 2) and a length of the second portion (portion at increasing width, adjacent center portion of side at 22; see Fig. 2).
Claims 10-11
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent 5,232,319 to Satran et al. (hereinafter “Satran”), and in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0212229 to Diepold (hereinafter “Diepold”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0240740 to Sakai (hereinafter “Sakai”) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Satran discloses a cutting tool (see Fig. 4) comprising: a holder (26) having a cylindrical shape (see Col. 4, lines 5-10) extending from a first end (left end with respect to Fig. 4 along axis 27) to a second end (right end with respect to Fig. 4) along the rotation axis (27) and comprising a pocket (not numbered; see Col. 4, lines 5-10) located at a side of the first end and a cutting insert (cutting insert of Figs. 1, 2, 3; shown positioned relative to holder in Fig. 4).
Satran does not explicitly disclose that the cutting insert is the cutting insert of claim 1. Satran teaches that its insert may be used for milling operations (Col. 4, lines 31-38) and that it may be desirable to reduce forces on the cutting insert during operation.
The combination of Diepold and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 1 suitable for milling (see paragraph [0004] of Diepold) which may be designed for reducing active cutting forces applied to the insert (see Diepold paragraph [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the cutting tool taught by Satran with a milling tool insert as taught by the combination of Diepold and Sakai. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A) and 2143(1)(C)). The resulting apparatus would advantageously be designed to reduce forces on the cutting apparatus during use. As best understood, the cutting tool would be reasonably be expected to support another and conventional cutting tool insert without modification of the principles of operation of the cutting tool of Satran.
Thus, the combination of Satran, Diepold, and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Satran, Diepold, and Sakai teaches the limitations of claim 10. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use such a rotating cutting tool to rotate the tool (Col. 7, lines 10-15); bringing the cutting tool into contact with a workpiece (Col. 7, lines 7, lines 20-25); and separating the cutting tool from the workpiece (Col. 7, lines 20-25; tool enters and leaves workpiece).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0069798 to Spitzenberger (hereinafter “Spitzenberger”) teaches a cutting insert (14).
United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0398353 to Oh et al. teaches a cutting tool insert (100) having a plurality of inclined surfaces (110) on its upper face.
United States Patent Application Publication 201/0187634 to Yamamoto teaches a cutting tool insert (1) having a surface with a plurality of inclined surfaces (see Fig. 2). The insert is shown configured with a mounting opening (51) which does not pass through the inclined surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights