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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, the word “second)” includes an errant parenthesis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 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.
The term “substantially the same as” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially the same as” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” by itself is not necessarily indefinite, however, in this case, the claim already recites “the same as,” which indicates that “substantially the same as” should be to some degree different from “the same as.” It is unclear how similar to “the same as” the term “substantially the same as” is intended to be, or what a person having ordinary skill would understand as the metes and bounds of the claim.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ribich (US 3,133,339).
As to claim 1, Ribich teaches a milling tool (“end mill” see Col 1 lines 11-12) comprising a first cutting portion (cutting end portion 13) including a first and a second) cutting edge (as shown in Figs 1-3, the end mill has three flutes including cutting edges 20, 21, 22) extending at a periphery of the first cutting portion (as indicated at Figs 2 and 3) along, or following a helical path around, a longitudinal axis of the milling tool (as shown in Fig 1), wherein, when the milling tool is rotated around the longitudinal axis, the first and the second cutting edges form respective first and second lines of intersection in a central plane containing the longitudinal axis (see Fig 3 which shows a side elevational view illustrating each flute. The edges 20 and 21 form lines of intersection in a central plane containing the longitudinal axis), wherein the first and the second lines of intersection are arcuate (as shown in Figs 3 and 4, the edges 20 and 21 are sinusoidal), wherein an extension of the first cutting edge is different from an extension of the second cutting edge (the sinusoidal edges 20, 21 are offset from each other as shown in Fig 4) such that the first line of intersection is different from the second line of intersection (Ribich teaches that the sinusoidal edges 20, 21, 22 are offset 1/3 of the period of the wave in order to approximate a flat line, as shown for example in Fig 4. This offset makes the lines of intersection different from one another.).
As to claim 2, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second lines of intersection are convex curves (the edges 20, 21 include convex curves.).
As to claim 3, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein all parts of each of the first and the second lines of intersection have a radius of curvature that is greater than, or the same as, or substantially the same as, a maximum radial distance from the longitudinal axis to the respective first and second cutting edge in the first cutting portion (The minimum radius of curvature (Rmin) is calculated as ((pitch squared) divided by (four times pi squared times amplitude)). Rmin=P2/(4π2A). Using the values for Diameter =1inch from the table in Column 3: Rmin = (1/2)2 /(4pi2*.004)=1.5 inches. As the minimum radius of curvature is 1.5 inches, the radius of curvature must always be greater than a maximum radial distance from the longitudinal axis to the cutting portion (1 inch)).
As to claim 4, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein, at each point along the first line of intersection, a shortest distance to the second line of intersection is less than 2% of a maximum cutting diameter of the first cutting portion (reference numeral 39 represents the amplitude of the curves and is equal to the largest distance between curves 20 and 21. See the table in Column 3 which shows example Diameters, Loads, Pitches, and Amplitudes. If a given tool’s diameter is 1 inch, the corresponding amplitude will be from .004 to .016 inches, thus the amplitude (the largest possible distance between the first and second lines of intersection) will always be less than 2% of the maximum cutting diameter.).
As to claim 5, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second lines of intersection cross or meet each other at one or more points along each respective extension (as illustrated in Fig 4, the lines of intersection cross at more than one point along each respective extension).
As to claim 6, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein a shortest distance from the first line of intersection to the second line of intersection has a maximum value at one or more points along the first line of intersection (any point where the amplitude 39 is the largest between edges 20 and 21 meets this limitation. Since the curves are sinusoidal, there are many points of maximum value.).
As to claim 7, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 6, wherein the maximum value is at least 0.1% of the maximum cutting diameter of the first cutting portion (see the rejection of claim 4 above. Taking a tool of diameter 1 inch, the amplitude value 39 will be from .004 to .016 inches. Thus, the claimed maximum value is .4% to 1.6% of the maximum cutting diameter when the diameter is 1 inch.).
As to claim 8, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 6, wherein, along the first line of intersection, the shortest distance to the second line of intersection varies between zero and the maximum value (the amplitude value 39 represents the maximum value. As the edges follow sinusoidal curves, the curves intersect providing a minimum distance value of 0 inches.).
As to claim 11, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first cutting portion includes one or more additional cutting edges (cutting edge 22), wherein at least one of the additional cutting edges has an extension that is different from the extension of the first and the second cutting edges (see Fig 3 which shows edge 22 having an offset different from edges 20, 21), such that, when the milling tool is rotated around its longitudinal axis, the at least one of the additional cutting edges forms a line of intersection in the central plane that is different from the first and second lines of intersection (as shown in Fig 4).
As to claim 12, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 11, wherein the at least one of the additional cutting edges is arcuate (cutting edge 22 is sinusoidal, which is arcuate), and wherein the first (edge 20), the second (edge 21) and the at least one of the additional cutting edges (edge 22) are arranged such that rotational trajectories thereof around the longitudinal axis jointly form an approximation of a cylindrical surface (as shown in Fig 4).
As to claim 13, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first and the second cutting edges are arranged such that rotational trajectories thereof around the longitudinal axis jointly form an approximation of a cylindrical surface (as shown in Fig 4).
As to claim 14, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, wherein the first cutting portion includes a nominal cutting edge (edge 22) that, when the milling tool is rotated around its longitudinal axis, forms a nominal line of intersection in the central plane (edge 22 forms a line of intersection in the central plane which is deemed here to be nominal.).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribich (US 3,133,339) in view of Flynn (US 8047747 B2)
As to claim 9, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, but does not teach a curvature of the first line of intersection is different from a curvature of the second line of intersection.
Rather, Ribich teaches that each of the edges 20, 21 are sinusoidal waves, and thus does not teach the curvature of the edges are different. However, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed for edges of end mills to have offset cutting surfaces having different curvatures. See Flynn which teaches a rotary cutting tool having offset edges for approximating a cylindrical outer surface. As shown in Fig. 6, Flynn teaches the cutting edges of the various flutes have “non-periodic” geometry. Flynn teaches at Col 4 lines 61-65: “The cutting edge 34 geometries sufficiently differ between teeth 26 so that the load experienced by each successive helical tooth 26 is not substantially the same as that experienced by the previous tooth 26.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the non-periodic cutting edges of Flynn on the cutter of Ribich. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefit of reduced tooth load as described by Flynn.
As to claim 10, Ribich teaches the milling tool according to claim 1, but does not teach the first cutting portion further includes a first supplementary cutting edge and a second supplementary cutting edge, wherein, when the milling tool is rotated around its longitudinal axis, the first supplementary cutting edge forms a line of intersection in the central plane that is the same as the first line of intersection, and the second supplementary cutting edge forms a line of intersection in the central plane that is the same as the second line of intersection.
Rather, Ribich teaches the edges 20, 21, 22 are each different and there are no supplemental cutting edges. Here “supplemental” is interpreted to mean according to the claim that the supplemental cutting edge has the same geometry and therefore the same line of intersection as one of the other cutting edges.
However, in the field of end mills having offset cutting edges, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for cutting edges that are both offset from each other (offset arcuate edges approximating a flat surface) as well as overlapping edges. See Davis which teaches an end mill having six cutting edges 28. The cutting edges are shown for example in Fig 8 to each be offset with regards to each other (similar to Ribich’s design), and are shown in Fig 7 to be offset by either distance d1 or d2. Davis teaches at [0021]: “As a result of this unique wave pattern, the end mill 10 receives the benefit of the wave-shaped blade on all blades in different axial depths of cuts, rather than just the first two or three blades of the conventional end mill shown in FIG. 8.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the supplemental blades of Davis in the end mill of Ribich. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the benefit of Davis as described in paragraph 0021. See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the following references uses overlapping periodic, non-periodic, sinusoidal or otherwise shaped outer cutting edges on several flutes to approximate a cylindrical or ball mill outer surface:
Marx (US 20250050434 A1): Ball
Hosokawa (US 20180071839 A1): Cylindrical
Archambault (US 10118236 B2): Cylindrical, non-periodic
LE BRIS (FR 2951398 A1): Not an end mill, but many cutters approximate a curved surface.
Song (US 7563059 B2): cylindrical, periodic
Malinchak (US 3875631 A): not an end mill, but many cutter approximate flat surface
SCHOTTHOEFER (US 1840852 A): cutting tool, cylindrical, periodic
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 11 July 2026
Prosecution Insights