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 1-5 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 recitation of “ A method for producing an end mill” cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Specifically, the body of the claim recites only “performing setting” steps that establish dimensional relationships between features of the end mill and a workpiece to be processed, but does not positively recite any act that produces or manufactures the end mill. Consequently, it is unclear whether the claim is directed to a method of producing the end mill, a method of designing the end mill, or merely establishing design parameters for the end mill. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed method.
Additionally, dependent claims 2-5 recite limitations directed to the fillet-shaped portion being formed in one pass, which appear to describe the operation or use of the end mill during machining of a workpiece rather than acts performed in producing the end mill, further rendering the scope of the claimed method unclear.
Claim 1 recites “performing setting”. What exactly is “performing setting”? Setting a machine? Setting dimensions in CAD? Selecting a tool? Positioning the end mill? It is unclear.
Claim 1 recites “a radius of the arc portion of the radial edge coincides with a radius of an arc portion of a fillet-shaped portion of a concave shape to be processed in a workpiece.. a radius of the arc portion of the bottom edge is equal to or less than a minimum radius of an arc portion of a planar portion adjacent to the fillet-shaped portion of the concave shape to be processed in the workpiece”.. Please note: “a fillet-shaped portion of a shape to be processed” is vague and has no mets and bounds and similarly “arc portion of a planar portion adjacent to the fillet-shaped portion” is vague and confusing nor has mets and bounds. For example…how can a planar portion have an arc portion? Furthermore, what are the mets and bounds for the term “coincides with”? Does it mean: exactly equal? substantially equal? It is unclear.
Claim 2 recites “a diameter of a region, which is occupied by the bottom edge, in a direction perpendicular to an axial direction a direction of the rotation axis of the end mill is set such that the fillet-shaped portion is formed in a shape to be processed in one pass.”. A region is generally not described by a diameter unless its boundary is defined thus making it unclear how the region is defined? How is it determined? i.e. Where does it begin and end? Furthermore, “one pass of what?”. One spindle revolution? One feed stroke? One machining cycle? One tool path? It is unclear.
Claim 3 recites “the fillet-shaped portion formed in one pass is a range determined by an uncut amount in a thickness direction in a portion formed in one pass by cutting by an edge of a boundary between the bottom edge and the radial edge”. It is unclear how the range is determined. Also, “one pass of what?”. One spindle revolution? One feed stroke? One machining cycle? One tool path?
Claim 4 recites “the fillet-shaped portion formed in one pass is a range determined by a position of an uppermost portion of the fillet-shaped portion, which formed in one pass by cutting by the radial edge”. “One pass of what?”. One spindle revolution? One feed stroke? One machining cycle? One tool path? Also, “uppermost” relative to what reference orientation? It is unclear.
Claim 5 recites “a corner portion is formed in the fillet-shaped portion in a plan view, the diameter of the region, which is occupied by the bottom edge, in the direction perpendicular to the direction of rotation axial of the end mill is smaller than a diameter of the corner portion. Also, what is a “rotation axial”? Furthermore, as shown in figure 7, 2A is larger than 2B which is opposite of the claim. Furthermore, given the fillet-shaped portion is the workpiece, “Which corner?” How is the corner identified?
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US Pub. No. 2016/0256940).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an end mill for rotating around a rotation axis comprising: a bottom edge (216) formed in a curved convex shape having a center on the axis and including an arch portion formed in an arc shape; and a radial edge (218) provided at an outer peripheral side corner of the bottom edge relative to the rotation axis and including an arc portion formed in an arc shape in a cross section taken along the rotation axis of the end mill (figure 2). Regarding the claim language “wherein a radius of the arc portion of the radial edge coincides with a radius of an arc portion of a fillet-shaped portion of a shape to be processed, and a radius of the arc portion of the bottom edge is equal to or less than a minimum radius of an arc portion of a planar portion adjacent to the fillet-shaped portion”, Examiner emphasizes that there is no structural limitation claimed but rather discloses the workpiece-tool relationship and method (please note this is not a method claim). Therefore, Wu’s tool is capable of machining any desired shape on a workpiece.
In claim 2, regarding the claim language “wherein the target range of the fillet-shaped portion formed in one pass is a range determined by an uncut amount in a thickness direction in a portion formed in one pass by cutting by an edge of a boundary between the bottom edge and the radial edge”, Examiner emphasizes that there is no structural limitation claimed but rather discloses the workpiece-tool relationship and method (please note this is not a method claim). Therefore, Wu’s tool is capable of machining any desired shape on a workpiece,
Regarding claim 3, regarding the claim language “wherein the fillet-shaped portion formed in one pass is a range determined by an uncut amount in a thickness direction in a portion formed in one pass by cutting by an edge of a boundary between the bottom edge and the radial edge”, Examiner emphasizes that there is no structural limitation claimed but rather discloses the workpiece-tool relationship and method (please note this is not a method claim). Therefore, Wu’s tool is capable of machining any desired shape on a workpiece.
In claim 4, regarding the claim language “the target range of the fillet-shaped portion formed in one pass is a range determined by a position of an uppermost portion of the fillet-shaped portion, which formed in one pass by cutting by the radial edge”, Examiner emphasizes that there is no structural limitation claimed but rather discloses the workpiece-tool relationship and method (please note this is not a method claim). Therefore, Wu’s tool is capable of machining any desired shape on a workpiece as well as from any tool position.
In claim 5, regarding the claim language “a corner portion is formed in the fillet-shaped portion in a plan view, the diameter of the region, which is occupied by the bottom edge, in the direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the end mill is smaller than a diameter of the corner portion”, Examiner emphasizes that there is no structural limitation claimed but rather discloses the workpiece-tool relationship and method (please note this is not a method claim). Therefore, Wu’s tool is capable of machining any desired shape on a workpiece as well as from any tool position.
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 7/18/26
Prosecution Insights