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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is in claim format. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glimpel et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0286691) in view of Davis (US Pub. No. 2014/0356081).
Regarding claim 1, Glimpel discloses an end mill comprising: a cutting edge portion and a shank, which are rotated about a central axis, wherein the end mill includes a bottom cutting edge (10) located on a tip surface of the cutting edge portion, and a peripheral cutting edge (11) located on an outer peripheral surface of the cutting edge portion (figures 1-4), a flank angle (β1) of a bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion primary flank face (20) adjacent to the bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion (7-15 degrees: paragraph 56) larger than a flank angle (α1) of a peripheral cutting edge primary flank face (12) adjacent to the peripheral cutting edge (11) (0.8-1.2 degrees: paragraph 48, last two lines), and a width of the bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion primary flank face (20) is larger than a width of the peripheral cutting edge primary flank face (12)(shown in figures 3 and 4). Glimpel fails to disclose the bottom cutting edge (10) having a bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion that
extends from an outer peripheral end of the bottom cutting edge to the shank side toward an inner side in a radial direction at an inclination angle of 3° or less with respect to a plane orthogonal to the central axis. Davis discloses an end mill comprising: a cutting edge portion and a shank, which are rotated about a central axis, wherein the end mill includes a bottom cutting edge located on a tip surface of the cutting edge portion, and a peripheral cutting edge (28) located on an outer peripheral surface of the cutting edge portion (figures 1-4). Davis also discloses the bottom cutting edge having a bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion (38) that extends from an outer peripheral end of the bottom cutting edge to the shank side toward an inner side in a radial direction at an inclination angle (39) of 1-8 degree with respect to a plane orthogonal to the central axis (figure 4 and paragraph 35) thus meets the claimed range of 3° or less. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Glimpel’s end cutting edge to have a bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion that extends from an outer peripheral end of the bottom cutting edge to the shank side toward an inner side in a radial direction at an inclination angle of 3° or less with respect to a plane orthogonal to the central axis as taught by Davis for the purpose of enabling the rotary cutting tool to perform a ramp operation and a plunge operation at an extremely high ramp angle, unlike conventional non-center cutting tools. (paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Glimpel is silent about the material composition of the cutting edge portion. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the machining art to have the cutting portion of end mills to be made of a CBN sintered body for its strength and longevity.
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Glimpel discloses wherein a ratio of the width of the bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion primary flank face (20) to the width of the peripheral cutting edge primary flank face (12) is within a range of 3 or more and 20 or less (see below for comparison of width of 20 vs width of 12).
[AltContent: textbox (Width of 12)][AltContent: textbox (Width of 20)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
581
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Glimpel discloses wherein a difference between the flank angle of the bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion primary flank face and the flank angle of the peripheral cutting edge primary flank face is 4° or more (i.e. flank angle β1/ 7-15 degrees: paragraph 56) minus flank angle α1/0.8-1.2 degrees: paragraph 48, last two lines) is 4° or more.
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Glimpel discloses wherein the flank angle (β1) of the bottom cutting edge outer peripheral portion primary flank face 7-15 degrees thus meets the claimed limitation of being 15° or less, and the flank angle (α1) of the peripheral cutting edge primary flank face is 0.8-1.2 degrees, thus meets the claimed limitation of being 5° or less.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA ADDISU at (571) 272-6082. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (Mondays and Wednesday-Friday).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil K. Singh can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARA ADDISU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 7/25/26
Prosecution Insights