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 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 1-20 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 the limitation “said at least one first point thinning having a angle of 30° to 45°, and said at least one second point thinning having a angle of 35° to 50°; and said at least one first point thinning having an opening angle of 30° to 50°, and said at least one second point thinning having an opening angle of 40° to 60°.” It is unclear if this is reciting the same angles multiple times. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “terminate substantially”. The term “substantially” in is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. It is unclear what is meant by terminate substantially. The scope is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Haimer (PGPub 2017/0087646).
Re Claim 1, Haimer discloses an end mill, comprising: a fastening portion 2 and a cutting region 3; said cutting region having an end side and said cutting region being formed by a core 8 and at least two cutting edges 4-7, said at least two cutting edges being disposed about said core and extending helically about a rotation axis of the end mill (Fig. 1); each of said cutting edges having one respective circumferential primary cutting edge 10 and one respective secondary cutting edge 11 on said end side of said cutting region; said end side of said cutting region having at least one first point thinning 13 (Fig. 1-4; para. 44) of said core between a mutually adjacent two of said cutting edges, and at least one second point thinning 16 (Fig. 1-4; para. 45) between a mutually adjacent two of said cutting edges; said at least one first point thinning being configured differently from said at least one second point thinning, said at least one first point thinning having a angle of 30° to 45°, and said at least one second point thinning having a angle of 35° to 50°; and said at least one first point thinning having an opening angle of 30° to 50°, and said at least one second point thinning having an opening angle of 40° to 60° (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 2, Haimer discloses said angle of said at least one first point thinning is 32° to 38°, and said angle of said at least one second point thinning is 39° to 46° (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 3, Haimer discloses said angle of said at least one first point thinning is approximately 35°, and said angle of said at least one second point thinning is approximately 42.5° (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 4, Haimer discloses said opening angle of said at least one first point thinning is 35° to 45°, and said opening angle of said at least one second point thinning is 41° to 50° (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 5, Haimer discloses said opening angle of said at least one first point thinning is approximately 40°, and said opening angle of said at least one second point thinning is approximately 42.5° (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 6, Haimer discloses said at least one first point thinning includes a plurality of first point thinnings, said at least one second point thinning includes a plurality of second point thinnings, and said first and second point thinnings mutually alternate in a circumferential direction on said end side (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 7, Haimer discloses said cutting edges include a first cutting edge of a first tooth having said end side-proximal secondary cutting edge and a second cutting edge of a second tooth having said end side-proximal secondary cutting edge; said end side-proximal secondary cutting edge of said first cutting edge of said first tooth is longer than said end side-proximal secondary cutting edge of said second cutting edge of said second tooth; and said at least one first point thinning conjointly forms a chip space of said first cutting edge, or of said first tooth, and said at least one second point thinning conjointly forms a chip space of said second cutting edge, or of said second tooth (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 8, Haimer discloses a plurality of said first teeth, or of said first cutting edges having said longer end side-proximal secondary cutting edges, and said chip spaces with said at least one first point thinnings, as well as a plurality of said second teeth, or of said second cutting edges having said shorter end side-proximal secondary cutting edges, and said chip spaces with said at least one second point thinnings; said longer end side-proximal secondary cutting edges, by way of their respective first point thinnings, and said shorter end side-proximal secondary cutting edges, by way of their respective second point thinnings, mutually alternating in a circumferential direction of said cutting portion on said end side (Fig. 1-6; para. 44-45).
Re Claim 9, as best understood, Haimer discloses said at least one first and said at least one second point thinnings, proceeding from said end side, terminate substantially at an equal axial height in said cutting region (Fig. 1-6).
Re Claim 10, Haimer discloses said cutting edges in said cutting region include a total of first, second, third and fourth cutting edges, said first cutting edge and said third cutting edge, as well as said second cutting edge and said fourth cutting edge, lying substantially opposite one another, or approximately diametrically opposite one another; said at least one first point thinning is disposed between said first cutting edge and said second cutting edge, as well as between said third cutting edge and said fourth cutting edge; and said at least one second point thinning is disposed between said second cutting edge and said third cutting edge, as well as between said fourth cutting edge and said first cutting edge (Fig. 1-6; para. 35-45).
Re Claim 11, Haimer discloses said cutting edges are non-uniformly distributed in a circumferential direction of said cutting region (para. 11, 41).
Re Claim 12, Haimer discloses said cutting edges in said cutting region include first, second, third and fourth cutting edges; in a circumferential direction of said cutting region, and at a predefinable axial height in said cutting region, at least one of: an angle between said first cutting edge and said second cutting edge, and between said third cutting edge and said fourth cutting edge, is in each case more than 90°, or an angle between said second cutting edge and said third cutting edge, and between said fourth cutting edge and said first cutting edge, is in each case less than 90°; and said predefinable axial height is at said end face corresponding to a height of 0 mm, or is approximately 0.5 * D, where D is a diameter of said cutting region, axially below said end face (Fig. 1; para. 41).
Re Claim 14, Haimer discloses said circumferential primary cutting edges of said cutting edges have different helix angles, said circumferential primary cutting edges of said cutting edges in a circumferential direction of said cutting region have a first helix angle alternating with a second helix angle, and said first and second helix angles are different (para. 46).
Re Claim 15, Haimer discloses said secondary cutting edges of said cutting edges have end faces with a relief angle between 5° and 7° relative to a plane perpendicular to said rotation axis of the end mill (para. 15, 39).
Re Claim 16, Haimer discloses said secondary cutting edges have chip space-proximal faces with a rake angle of between 2° and 4° relative to a plane parallel to said rotation axis of the end mill (para. 56).
Re Claim 18, Haimer discloses said core has a cylindrical shape (Fig. 1).
Re Claim 20, Haimer discloses the end mill is a solid carbide end mill (Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimer.
Re Claim 13, Haimer discloses said cutting edges in said cutting region include first, second, third and fourth cutting edges; in a circumferential direction of said cutting region, and at a predefinable axial height in said cutting region, at least one of: an angle between said first cutting edge and said second cutting edge, and between said third cutting edge and said fourth cutting edge, is in each case more than 90°, or an angle between said second cutting edge and said third cutting edge, and between said fourth cutting edge and said first cutting edge, is in each case less than 90°; and said predefinable axial height is at said end face corresponding to a height of 0 mm, or is approximately 0.5 * D, where D is a diameter of said cutting region, axially below said end face (Fig. 1; para. 41), Haimer does not specifically disclose at least one of: an angle between said first cutting edge and said second cutting edge, and between said third cutting edge and said fourth cutting edge, is in each case approximately 97.5° and an angle between said second cutting edge and said third cutting edge, and between said fourth cutting edge and said first cutting edge, is in each case approximately 82.5°. However, this value lies in the ranges disclosed by Haimer. It would be obvious to have these specific values in order to obtain desired configuration of the end mill for optimal cutting and further it would have been obvious to adjust the angle since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Re Claim 17, Haimer discloses said end side-proximal secondary cutting edge and said circumferential primary cutting edge of a cutting edge transition into one another by way of a corner bevel (para. 52) but does not specifically disclose having a corner bevel angle of 45°. However, it would be obvious to have these specific values in order to obtain desired configuration of the end mill for optimal cutting and further it would have been obvious to adjust the angle since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimer in view of Moskvitin (RU 2691483 C1, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 19, Haimer does not disclose at least said cutting region is coated with a coating having a layer thickness of between 0.0010 mm and 0.006 mm. However, Moskvitin teaches “For end mills with a multi-layer wear-resistant coating, most preferably the coating thickness should be in the range of 1.5-5 microns. Such a multi-layer wear-resistant coating may contain layers of NbN or TiB2, having residual compressive stresses.” (page 6). It would be obvious to utilize a coating layer with thickness in this range, as taught by Moskvitin, for the purpose of obtaining desired strength properties and lengthening the life of the tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights