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 .
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 “shim support element” and the “body support element” (claim 15) 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “wherein the length l2 diverges along the direction of the major axis [B]”. It is unclear how the length l2, which is understood from claim 3 as being perpendicular to the major axis [B], can diverge along a direction of that axis. Diverging would suggest not following that direction, while “along” would suggest following that direction or being parallel thereto.
Claim 5 also recites “l2, has its maximum”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “its maximum” in the claim. Second, it is unclear how a length, which is typically understood as a fixed dimension, would have a maximum, which would suggest a variable or multiple values thereof.
For examination purposes, claim 5 will be interpreted as best understood from the disclosure, for example Fig. 3d.
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 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekden (U.S. PGPub 2017/0297115) in view of Hecht (U.S. PGPub 2010/0150670) or alternatively Hecht et al. (U.S. Patent 9,120,154).
Claim 1: Ekden discloses a cutting tool (20) comprising: a toolholder (22) including a toolholder body (Fig. 6A-6C) and at least one insert pocket (defined by walls 30, 32 - paragraph 35); and at least one cutting insert (21), wherein the at least one cutting insert is mounted within the at least one insert pocket (Id.), wherein said at least one cutting insert comprises: a first square shaped main surface (23 - paragraph 17); a second square shaped main surface (27 - Id.); and a peripheral side surface (31) connecting the first main surface and the second main surface, wherein the at least one cutting insert includes a central plane extending midway between the first main surface and the second main surface (a plane that would be parallel to and midway between P1 and P2 in Fig. 2), wherein the at least one cutting insert includes a central axis extending between the first main surface and the second main surface perpendicular to the central plane (e.g. the central axis of hole 59), wherein the second main surface has an exactly two-fold rotational symmetry around the central axis (e.g. paragraph 26 and Fig. 3), and wherein the first main surface has an exactly two-fold rotational symmetry around the central axis (Id., paragraph 17), wherein the at least one cutting insert includes a first cutting edge (371, 372, 373, 374) at a first intersection between the first main surface and the peripheral side surface, and a second cutting edge (391, 392, 393, 394) at a second intersection between the first main surface and the peripheral side surface (paragraph 20), wherein the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge are separated from each other (Fig. 1), wherein the insert pocket includes a bottom support surface (top surface of shim 24 or the portion on which the shim rests) and at least one side support surface (30, 32), wherein the bottom support surface is in contact with the second main surface (implied at paragraph 35 and Figs. 6A-6C), and wherein the at least one side support surface is in contact with the peripheral side surface (Id.). Ekden is silent regarding at least one insert support element and at least one pocket support element as claimed.
However, Hecht (‘670) teaches a square insert (20 - Fig. 5 and paragraph 43) wherein the at least one cutting insert includes at least one insert support element, the insert support element being any of: an indention extending from the second main surface towards the central plane; or a protrusion extending from the second main surface away from the central plane (e.g. protrusions as shown), wherein the insert pocket includes at least one pocket support element, the pocket support element being any of: a protrusion engaging with the indention in the second main surface, or an indention engaging with the protrusion at the second main surface (a complementary surface as shown in Fig. 8 and described in paragraph 36), wherein the insert support element includes an insert support surface (e.g. 80, 82, 88), and wherein the pocket support element includes a pocket support surface (e.g. 44, 46 - paragraph 49), wherein the insert support surface is in contact with the pocket support surface (Id.), and wherein the insert support surface contacts the pocket support surface in a plurality of contact regions (as shown in Fig. 5), wherein each contact region is separated from the other contact regions (Id.). In this case, the insert pocket also includes a bottom support surface (50, 52), wherein the bottom support surface is in contact with the second main surface (at 72, 74 - paragraph 46). 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 Ekden with the support elements as taught by Hecht to achieve a force-withstanding, secure engagement between the surfaces (Hecht, paragraph 8).
Alternatively, Hecht et al. (‘154) teaches a square insert (30 - column 2, lines 53-54) wherein the at least one cutting insert includes at least one insert support element, the insert support element being any of: an indention extending from the second main surface towards the central plane; or a protrusion extending from the second main surface away from the central plane (e.g. protrusions 50 as shown), wherein the insert pocket includes at least one pocket support element, the pocket support element being any of: a protrusion engaging with the indention in the second main surface, or an indention engaging with the protrusion at the second main surface (indentations 64), wherein the insert support element includes an insert support surface (e.g. flank surfaces 54), and wherein the pocket support element includes a pocket support surface (e.g. flank surfaces 68), wherein the insert support surface is in contact with the pocket support surface (column 5, lines 5-8), and wherein the insert support surface contacts the pocket support surface in a plurality of contact regions (at least two surfaces 54 - Fig. 8), wherein each contact region is separated from the other contact regions (Id.). In this case, the insert pocket also includes a bottom support surface (70), wherein the bottom support surface is in contact with the second main surface (column 5, lines 9-12). 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 Ekden with the support elements as taught by Hecht et al. to achieve a high level of clamping stability (Hecht et al., column 5, lines 34-47).
Claim 2: Ekden further discloses wherein the first main surface includes four corners (251, 252, 253, 254) and wherein the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge (371, 373) are located at diagonally opposing corners of the first main surface (paragraph 21, Fig. 1).
Claim 13: Ekden further discloses the at least one cutting insert is a double sided cutting insert (paragraph 17), wherein the central plane includes a central axis extending perpendicular to the central axis of the at least one cutting insert (a hypothetical axis running parallel to D1 or D2 through the central plane), and wherein the at least one cutting insert has a symmetry defined by a rotation of 180° around the central axis of the central plane plus a 90° rotation around the central axis of the at least one cutting insert (paragraphs 17, 34).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekden and Hecht/Hecht et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (U.S. PGPub 2022/0371101).
Claim 14: Ekden further discloses the insert pocket includes a removable shim (24) arranged between the toolholder body and the cutting insert (Figs. 6A-6C; paragraph 35), wherein the shim includes a top surface and a bottom surface (evident, Id.), and a shim peripheral side surface connecting the top surface and the bottom surface (evident), wherein the shim includes a central plane extending midway between the top surface and the bottom surface (such a hypothetical plane may exist), wherein the shim includes a central axis extending between the top surface and the bottom surface perpendicular to the central plane of the shim (e.g. the central axis of the hole therethrough), wherein the central axis of the shim is arranged coaxially with the central axis of the at least one cutting insert (evident in Figs. 6A-6C). Ekden and Hecht or Hecht et al. do not teach wherein the top surface (of the shim) constitutes the bottom support surface, and wherein the pocket support element is arranged in the top surface.
However, Choi et al teaches a cutting insert arrangement wherein pocket support elements (660, 670) may be provided either directly in an insert pocket or in a shim (600) thereof (paragraph 79, 83, 86). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the assembly such that the top surface (of the shim) constitutes the bottom support surface, and wherein the pocket support element is arranged in the top surface, so that the benefits of the support elements could be used in embodiments using a shim.
Claim 15: Further referring to Choi, the bottom surface (of the shim) includes at least one shim support element (groove), wherein the shim support element is any of: an indention (groove) extending from the bottom surface towards the central plane of the shim; or a protrusion extending from the bottom surface away from the central plane of the shim (paragraph 80), and wherein the toolholder body includes at least one body support element (protrusion on 705), the at least one body support element being any of: a protrusion engaging with the indention in the bottom surface; or an indention engaging with the protrusion at the bottom surface (paragraph 80).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, because both Hecht and Hecht et al. teach 4-sided square inserts, the lengths of the support surfaces along perpendicular axes are equal.
Claims 4 and 6-7 depend from claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, in both Hecht and Hecht et al., the support surfaces are specifically angled and would not be parallel to the central plane.
Regarding claim 9, in both Hecht and Hecht et al. there are fewer than 4 operative support surfaces.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. PGPub 2006/0083594 discloses an insert and shim assembly with protrusions/recesses. However, Only three protrusions on the insert contact the upper surface of the shim at one time, while the recesses of the shim are intended to provide clearance for the other protrusions while they are in an “inactive” state or position, and thus none of the protrusions contact any of the recesses.
U.S. PGPub 2013/0236255 is similar to Hecht et al. but for a rhomboidal insert.
U.S. Patent 9,120,156 teaches a rhomboidal insert having projections which engage with grooves in the pocket seat.
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