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 “distance” on line 12 of claim 1; “the height of the inside diameter finishing blade” on line 12 of claim 1; “the height on the chamfer portion side” on line 13 of claim 1; the entirety of claim 2; the entirety of claim 3; and the entirety of claim 4 which pertains to the details of the “back taper” 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.
Claims 1-4 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:
Line 6 “an axis”, however it is unclear to what this axis pertains to.
Lines 12-13 “a distance from an axis of the thread forming tap is the height of the inside diameter finishing blade”. However, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as:
it is unclear where exactly this “distance” is being defined. A distance from an axis to where?
Additionally, it is unclear if this “axis” is the same “axis” of line 6 or not.
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the height” of the inside diameter finishing blade, as no “height” of the finishing blade has been previously set forth.
Similarly, it is unclear how this “height” is being defined. From where to where? Further clarification is needed.
Lines 13-15 “the height of the chamfer portion side of the inside diameter finishing blade is lower than the height of a portion corresponding to the thread on a tip-most end of the complete thread portion”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the height of the chamfer portion side”, since no “height” of the chamfer portion side and no “chamfer portion side” has been previously introduced in the claims.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the height” of a portion corresponding to the thread on a tip-most end of the complete thread portion; since no “height” of a portion corresponding to the thread on a tip-most end of the complete thread portion.
It is unclear where exactly this “tip-most end” of the complete thread portion is defined. In relation to what is this end, considered as “tip-most”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 2 recites in lines 2-4 “on the inside diameter finishing blade, a step portion where the height on the chamfer portion side is lower than the height on the complete thread portion side is provided between the chamfer portion and the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion”.
The entirety of the claim is unclear and confusing, thus the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined.
It is unclear where exactly this step portion is being defined. Is the step portion considered as a step because a difference in height?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the complete thread portion side” since no complete thread “portion side” has been previously introduced.
Is it that the inside diameter finishing blade has a step portion between the chamfer portion and the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion?
Is it that the inside diameter finishing blade has a step portion where the height on the chamfer portion side is lower than the height on the complete thread portion side?
Claim 3 recites in lines 2-4 “a first step finishing blade where the height decreases from the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward the tip end side of the chamfer portion is provided on the inside diameter finishing blade”.
The entirety of the claim is unclear and confusing, thus the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined.
It is unclear where exactly this first step finishing blade is being defined. Is the first step finishing blade considered as a step because a difference in height?
There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the tip end side of the chamfer portion” since no “tip end side” of the chamfer portion has been previously introduced. Where is this “tip end side” defined? How is this end side, considered as a “tip end” side.
What exactly is being provided on the inside diameter finishing blade?
Is it that a first step finishing blade provided on the inside diameter finishing blade?
Is it that a first step finishing blade provided where the height decreases from the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward the tip end side of the chamfer portion?
Claim 4 recites in lines 2-4 “at least a back taper where the height decreases from a portion corresponding to the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward a rear end side is provided on the inside diameter finishing blade”.
The entirety of the claim is unclear and confusing, thus the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined.
It is unclear what is meant by “at least a back taper”. At least in comparison to what? Is this a hone/chamfer in the edge? Ot is this considered a “back taper” because of a height difference, so as to taper?
Where exactly this “at least back taper” is being defined.
Where is this “rear end side” defined? How is this end side, considered as a “rear end” side. Rear end side, of what?
What exactly is being provided on the inside diameter finishing blade?
Is it that a back taper provided on the inside diameter finishing blade?
Is it that a back taper is being provided where the height decreases from a portion corresponding to the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward a rear end side?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugano et al. US 6,217,267.
In regards to claim 1, Sugano discloses a thread forming tap (10; 64) for forming a female thread by plastic deforming a pilot hole in a workpiece, comprising: a male thread portion (14) having a complete thread portion (18), and a chamfer portion (16) that is provided continuous with the complete thread portion and decreases in diameter toward a tip end (see Figures 1 and 11); a groove (26) provided parallel to a shaft center an axis (O) and spanning the complete thread portion (18) and the chamfer portion (16) so as to divide a thread of the male thread portion (see Figures 1 and 11); and an inside diameter finishing blade (24) which is provided on the chamfer portion (16) and the complete thread portion (18), along an open edge of the groove (26) on a side opposite a rotational direction of the thread forming tap (in the same way as presented by Applicant), and which cuts and removes a crest portion of the female thread, wherein when a distance from an axis (O) of the thread forming tap (10; 64) is the height of the inside diameter finishing blade (24), the height (Hc) on the chamfer portion (16) side of the inside diameter finishing blade (24) is lower than the height (Hct) of a portion corresponding to the thread on a tip-most end of the complete thread portion (as best understood, see Figures 1 and 11, since the chamfer portion is tapering, then the height on the chamfer portion 16 is lower than the height of the complete thread portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
1456
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Sugano discloses the thread forming tap according to claim 1, Sugano discloses that on the inside diameter finishing blade, a step portion (A) where the height on the chamfer portion (16) side is lower than the height on the complete thread portion side (18) is provided between the chamfer portion (16) and the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion (as best understood in view of the 112 2nd above, see Figures 1 and 11, since 1) the finishing blade intersects with both the chamfer and complete thread portions; and 2) the chamfer portion is tapering, so that the height on the chamfer portion 16 is lower than the height of the complete thread portion; then where the height changes is considered as a step).
In regards to claim 3, Sugano discloses the thread forming tap according to claim 1, Sugano discloses that an inclined portion a first step finishing blade where the height decreases from the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward the tip end side of the chamfer portion is provided on the inside diameter finishing blade (as best understood in view of the 112 2nd above, see Figures 1 and 11 since 1) the finishing blade intersects with both the chamfer and complete thread portions; and 2) the chamfer portion is tapering, so that the height on the chamfer portion 16 is lower than the height of the complete thread portion; then where the height changes at a first thread of the chamfered portion is considered as a first step finishing blade).
In regards to claim 4, Sugano discloses the thread forming tap according to claim 1, Sugano discloses at least a back taper where the height decreases from a portion corresponding to the thread on the tip-most end of the complete thread portion toward a rear end side is provided on the inside diameter finishing blade (as best understood in view of the 112 2nd above, see Figures 1 and 11 since 1) the finishing blade intersects with both the chamfer and complete thread portions; and 2) the chamfer portion is tapering, so that the height on the chamfer portion 16 is lower than the height of the complete thread portion; then where the height changes is considered as a back taper).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights