DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 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 § 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 1-7 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 seating surface facing the rake face” at line 3. The Specification identifies the rake face as element 2 in Figure 1 and the seating surface as element 3. While the Specification provides literal support for the claimed limitation at paragraph [0009], it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would review Figure 1 and determine that the apparently upwardly facing top rake face surface 2 faces the apparently downward facing seating surface 3. The examiner presumes that this limitation is the result of a mistranslation.
Claims 2-4 each depend from claim 1 and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “a perfect arc shape” in line 2. It is unclear what the phrase “perfect act shape” would convey to one having ordinary skill in the art. Though the Specification as filed provides literal support for the phrase, the meaning of the phrase is not explained.
Claim 6 similarly recites a perfect arc shape” and is rejected for the same reasons presented above with respect to claim 2.
Claim 5 recites “a seating surface facing the rake face” at line 2. The Specification identifies the rake face as element 2 in Figure 1 and the seating surface as element 3. While the Specification provides literal support for the claimed limitation at paragraph [0009], it is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art would review Figure 1 and determine that the apparently upwardly facing top rake face surface 2 faces the apparently downward facing seating surface 3. The examiner presumes that this limitation is the result of a mistranslation.
Claims 6-7 each depend from claim 5 and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 5.
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.
Claims 1-7
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0339350 to Mura et al. (hereinafter “Mura”) in view of United States Patent 6,543,970to Qvarth et al. (hereinafter ”Qvarth”).
Regarding claim 1, Mura discloses a cutting insert (1) comprising: a rake face (upper surface 2; see Fig. 3), a seating surface (lower 3; see Fig. 3) facing the rake face (upper and lower surfaces of cutting insert understood to “face” each other in the same manner faces 2 and 3 face each other in Fig. 3 of Instant Application); a flank face (5) configured to connect the rake face (2) and the seating surface (3; see Figs. 3 and 4); and a cutting edge (perimeter of cutting insert; best seen in Fig. 2) formed in an intersecting ridgeline between the rake face (2) and the flank face (5), wherein the cutting edge (see Annotated Figure) includes a linear main cutting edge (vertical side surfaces; unnumbered in Fig. 2), a corner edge (9c), and a wiper edge (13; see paragraph [0145]) in this order; a recess portion (cutouts at 21; see Fig. 1) is provided in an end portion of the main cutting edge (long side surfaces; see Fig. 1) on a side opposite to an end portion (see Fig. 1; cutouts 21 are shown on both opposite long sides of cutting insert) connected to the corner edge (see Annotated Figure), the wiper edge (13) is formed in an arc shape (see Fig. 5; wiper edge has a radius defining its arc), and is connected to the corner edge by a tangent line (line D, see Fig. 5, appears to fairly show a tangent line).
PNG
media_image1.png
664
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mura does not explicitly disclose that when viewed from a side facing the rake face, and when an extension line of the main cutting edge is defined as L1, a tangent line of the wiper edge which is perpendicular to the13 extension line L1 is defined as L2, and a tangent line of the wiper edge which passes through an end point P of the wiper edge on a corner edge side is defined as L3, an angle ϴ formed by the tangent line L2 and the tangent line L3 is within a range of 0.010˚ ≤ ϴ ≤3.0˚. Mura appears to be silent as to the dimensions or angles of related to the wiper edge.
Qvarth teaches a cutting insert (1) having a wiper edges (16). Qvarth teaches that there may be a clearance angle (see Fig. 10) which is between 0.5 and 5 degrees between a tangent line related to the wiper edge (16’) and an adjacent cutting surface of the insert (at surfaces 9 or 12). Qvarth teaches that its wiper edge may be suitable for producing a desired workpiece smoothness in use (see Col. 4, lines 61-64 and Col. 7, lines 22-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting insert taught by Mura to include conventional angular configurations, such as the angles taught by Qvarth. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting apparatus would predictably be expected to operate to produce a desired workpiece smoothness in operation, without modification of the principles of operation of Mura.
Thus, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Mura teaches that the wiper edge (13) has a perfect arc shape when viewed from the side facing the rake face (2; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination appears to be silent as to the dimensions of the arc radius (R; see paragraph [0154]) of the wiper edge (13). Thus, Mura does not explicitly disclose that an arc radius R of the wiper edge (13) is within a range of 50 mm ≤ R ≤ 200 mm.
However, the MPEP instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of arc radiuses of the wiper edge would cause the device taught by the combination to behave differently in use than any other arc radius. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions, including the arc radius of the wiper edge, of the cutting insert as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Mura or Qvarth.
Thus, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further Mura teaches that the cutting edge (periphery of cutting insert; see Fig. 2) includes the main cutting edge (see Annotated Figure), the corner edge (corner edge at 9c), a linear inner cutting edge (14 or 12), and a second corner edge (corner edge at 9d), the inner cutting edge being connected to an end portion (left end of wiper edge at Q; see Fig. 5) of the wiper edge (13) on a side opposite to an end portion (right end of wiper edge at S2) connected to the corner edge (9c), the second corner edge (9d) being connected to an end portion of the inner cutting edge (14 or 12) on a side opposite to an end portion connected to the wiper edge (13), and there is an angle α formed by the main cutting edge (vertically oriented side face of insert; see Fig. 2) and the inner cutting edge (14 or 12)
Mura does not appear to disclose that the angle α is within a range of 80 ˚ ≤ α ≤ 90˚.
However, the MPEP instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of angles between the cutting edges of the insert would cause the device taught by the combination to behave differently in use than any other angle. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions, including the angle of inclination between the main cutting edge and the inner cutting edge of the cutting insert as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Mura or Qvarth.
Thus, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Mura discloses an indexable rotary cutting tool (30) comprising: a cutting insert (1) including a rake face (upper surface 2; see Fig. 3), a seating surface (lower 3; see Fig. 3) facing the rake face (upper and lower surfaces of cutting insert understood to “face” each other in the same manner faces 2 and 3 face each other in Fig. 3 of Instant Application); a flank face (5) configured to connect the rake face (2) and the seating surface (3; see Figs. 3 and 4); and a cutting edge (perimeter of cutting insert; best seen in Fig. 2) formed in an intersecting ridgeline between the rake face (2) and the flank face (5), and a tool main body (30) rotatable around an axis of a rotational axis (O; se Fig. 9), wherein the cutting edge (see Annotated Figure) includes a linear main cutting edge (vertical side surfaces; unnumbered in Fig. 2), a corner edge (9c), and a wiper edge (13; see paragraph [0145]) in this order; a recess portion (cutouts at 21; see Fig. 1) is provided in an end portion of the main cutting edge (long side surfaces; see Fig. 1) on a side opposite to an end portion (see Fig. 1; cutouts 21 are shown on both opposite long sides of cutting insert) connected to the corner edge (see Annotated Figure above), the wiper edge (13) is formed in an arc shape (see Fig. 5; wiper edge has a radius defining its arc), and is connected to the corner edge by a tangent line (line D, see Fig. 5, appears to fairly show a tangent line), the cutting insert (1) is mounted on the tool main body (30; see Fig. 9), and a lowest point of the cutting insert (1) in a direction along the rotational axis (O) is located on the wiper edge (13; see Figs. 9 and 10).
Mura does not explicitly disclose that when viewed from a side facing the rake face, and when an extension line of the main cutting edge is defined as L1, a tangent line of the wiper edge which is perpendicular to the13 extension line L1 is defined as L2, and a tangent line of the wiper edge which passes through an end point P of the wiper edge on a corner edge side is defined as L3, an angle ϴ formed by the tangent line L2 and the tangent line L3 is within a range of 0.010˚ ≤ ϴ ≤3.0˚. Mura appears to be silent as to the dimensions or angles of related to the wiper edge.
Qvarth teaches a cutting insert (1) having a wiper edges (16). Qvarth teaches that there may be a clearance angle (see Fig. 10) which is between 0.5 and 5 degrees between a tangent line related to the wiper edge (16’) and an adjacent cutting surface of the insert (at surfaces 9 or 12). Qvarth teaches that its wiper edge may be suitable for producing a desired workpiece smoothness in use (see Col. 4, lines 61-64 and Col. 7, lines 22-33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting insert taught by Mura to include conventional angular configurations, such as the angles taught by Qvarth. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). The resulting apparatus would predictably be expected to operate to produce a desired workpiece smoothness in operation, without modification of the principles of operation of Mura.
Thus, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 5, and further Mura teaches that the wiper edge (13) has a perfect arc shape when viewed from the side facing the rake face (2; see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 5. The combination appears to be silent as to the dimensions of the arc radius (R; see paragraph [0154]) of the wiper edge (13). Thus, Mura does not explicitly disclose that an arc radius R of the wiper edge (13) is within a range of 50 mm ≤ R ≤ 200 mm.
However, the MPEP instructs that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 no patentability distinct from the prior art device. (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). There is nothing of record that suggests that the recited range of arc radiuses of the wiper edge would cause the device taught by the combination to behave differently in use than any other arc radius. Accordingly, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions, including the arc radius of the wiper edge, of the cutting insert as a matter of design choice, without expecting any modification of the principles of operation of Mura or Qvarth.
Thus, the combination of Mura and Qvarth teaches the limitations of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 6,942,433 to Schleinkofer et al. teaches a cutting tool insert having a main cutting edge (3) and a wiper edge (see Fig. 5).
United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0206823 to Kotarac teaches a cutting tool insert (1) having a main cutting edge (see Fig. 5) and a wiper edge (15, 16). Kotarac does not appear to illustrate a recess in the main cutting edge.
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