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 because the gray shading makes features difficult to see. 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.
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 sleeve in claim 1; and the grooves that do not overlap with cutting edge and chip discharge groove in claim 5 for 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 1-20 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 shank part serving as a portion that is attached to a sleeve mountable to a machine tool” in Lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the sleeve is a required part of the cutting tool or whether it is meant to be functional intended use. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of groove-like coolant flow paths” in Line 9. The metes and bounds of “groove-like” are not clearly delineated. That is, it is unclear at what point a feature is considered groove-like and not so considered. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion along a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the cutting tool” in Lines 11-13. It is unclear how the view is taken of the cutting tool from the leading end portion. That is, it is unclear whether the view id simply an end view of the tool or if the view is taken from the leading end portion (i.e., view starts at that point such that the end face of the tool is not visible). Furthermore, it is unclear as to what feature the central axis references. That is, the claim does not explicitly recite whether the central axis applies to the cutting tool or merely a feature thereof. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “an upper side relative to the cutting edge.” It is unclear what constitutes an upper side relative to the cutting edge. The claim lacks any frame of reference for determination of the direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion” in Lines 1-2. This limitation already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the earlier limitation or sets forth a new limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion” in Lines 1-2. This limitation already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the earlier limitation or sets forth a new limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “the first coolant flow path is located at a position that does not communicate with the chip discharge groove.” It is unclear whether the first coolant flow path does not communicate with the chip discharge groove or whether the chip discharge groove merely not communicate with the position as claimed. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion” in Lines 1-2. This limitation already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the earlier limitation or sets forth a new limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “each of the plurality of coolant flow paths . . . is provided at a position that does not overlap with either the cutting edge or the chip discharge groove.” It is unclear how the position is considered to not overlap either of the features. In the view of Figure 3 of the present application, both of grooves 42 and 43 appear to overlap both the cutting edge and the chip discharge groove. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion” in Lines 1-2. This limitation already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the earlier limitation or sets forth a new limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “a flow path of coolant that is supplied from the coolant flow paths” in Lines 2-3. It is unclear whether the recitation of “a flow path” is a new flow path or one of the previously recited flow paths. Furthermore, recitation of “the coolant flow paths” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the recitation refers back the plurality of coolant flow paths or certain ones amongst the first to third flow paths. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion” in Lines 1-2. This limitation already has antecedent basis. As such, it is unclear whether this recitation refers back to the earlier limitation or sets forth a new limitation. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 15 recites “the coolant flow paths are configured with a groove in a circular arc shape.” The recitation of “the coolant flow paths” lacks proper antecedent basis. It is unclear whether the recitation refers back the plurality of coolant flow paths or certain ones amongst the first to third flow paths. Furthermore, the recitation of the flow paths being configured with a groove in a circular arc shape creates confusion because the plurality is previously recited as being groove-like. As such, it is unclear how the flow paths are configured with a groove. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 20 recites “which is a brazed tool in which a cutting insert is brazed at the leading end portion of the tool.” It is unclear whether the tool is a brazed tool due to the brazed cutting insert or if the brazed tool requires something more. Appropriate correction required.
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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hecht (US Patent No. 8,813,617 B2).
(Claim 1) Hecht discloses a cutting tool (14) that includes a shank part (32) that is substantially cylindrical in shape and provided at a base end portion of the cutting tool, the shank part serving as a portion that is attached to a sleeve (12) mountable to a machine tool (Fig. 1). A cutting edge (34) is located at a leading end portion of the cutting tool (30; Fig. 3). A chip discharge groove is formed from the cutting edge toward the base end portion of the cutting tool (Fig. 3), for guiding and discharging chips generated during cutting. A plurality of groove-like coolant flow paths (48, 50) is provided on a periphery of the cutting tool, for supplying coolant toward the leading end portion (Fig. 1-5; Col. 3, Lines 59-62). As best understood, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion along a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the cutting tool, a first of the plurality of coolant flow path is located at an upper side relative to the cutting edge (Figs. 1-5).
(Claim 2) The first coolant flow path is located on the periphery of the cutting tool on a side where a rake surface of the cutting edge is located (Figs. 1-5).
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.
Claims 1-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 102837017 A) in view of Morgan (US Patent No. 4,475,853).
(Claim 1) Zhu discloses a cutting tool (Fig. 1) that includes a shank part (3) that is substantially cylindrical in shape and provided at a base end portion of the cutting tool, the shank part serving as a portion that is attachable to a sleeve mountable to a machine tool. A cutting edge located at a leading end portion of the cutting tool (1; Fig. 1). A chip discharge groove is formed from the cutting edge toward the base end portion of the cutting tool (Fig. 1), for guiding and discharging chips generated during cutting. A groove-like coolant flow path (6) is provided on a periphery of the cutting tool, for supplying coolant toward the leading end portion (Fig. 1; Translation). As best understood, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion along a central axis extending in a longitudinal direction of the cutting tool, the coolant flow path is located at an upper side relative to the cutting edge (Fig. 1). Zhu does not explicitly disclose a plurality of groove-like coolant flow paths that include a first thereof located at an upper side relative to the cutting edge.
Morgan discloses a plurality of groove-like coolant flow paths (60) that include a first thereof located at an upper side relative to the cutting edge (Figs. 1, 2). While six equally-spaced grooves are disclosed, the reference explicitly discloses that less may be provided depending on cooling requirements (Col. 3, Lines 18-23). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting tool disclosed in Zhu with a plurality of groove-like coolant flow paths equally distributed about the shank with a first thereof located at an upper side relative to the cutting edge as suggested by Morgan in order to provide more coolant to the cutting area and from a plurality of directions. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
Furthermore, if the sleeve is required, this well known feature is also disclosed in Morgan as detail 70. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutting tool disclosed in Zhu with a sleeve as suggested by Morgan in order to connect the cutting tool to a machine tool.
(Claim 2) The first coolant flow path is located on the periphery of the cutting tool on a side where a rake surface of the cutting edge is located (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 3) In the modified tool, a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion, the first coolant flow path is located at a position through which a line that perpendicularly intersects the cutting edge passes (Morgan Fig. 2).
(Claim 4) In the modified tool, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion, the first coolant flow path is located, as best understood, at a position that does not communicate with the chip discharge groove (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Fig. 2).
(Claim 5) In the modified tool, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion, each of the plurality of coolant flow paths, other than the first coolant flow path, is provided at a position that does not overlap with either the cutting edge or the chip discharge groove (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Fig. 2). That is, because the grooves are distributed equally about the circumference, the coolant grooves would not overlap with the chip discharge groove.
(Claim 6) In the modified tool, the plurality of coolant flow paths includes second and third coolant flow paths as coolant flow paths other than the first coolant flow path (Morgan Fig. 2).
(Claim 7) In the modified tool, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion, each of the second and third coolant flow paths is provided at a different position from a position of the chip discharge groove in a circumferential direction (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Fig. 2).
(Claim 8) A cut portion is formed at the leading end portion of the cutting tool, for enlarging a flow path of coolant that is supplied from the coolant flow paths and flows up to the chip discharge groove (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 9) The cut portion is configured with an inclined surface that is not perpendicular to the central axis (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 10) In the modified tool of Zhu, in a leading end view where the cutting tool is viewed from the leading end portion, the cut portion is provided on a side where the second coolant flow path or the third coolant flow path is located (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Fig. 2).
(Claim 11) The shank part has an outer diameter which is larger than an outer diameter of the leading end portion (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 12) A stepped part (Zhu 4) is formed between the shank part and a portion extending from the shank part toward the leading end portion (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 13) Each of the plurality of coolant flow paths is provided only on the periphery of the shank part (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Figs. 1, 2).
(Claim 14) The shank part has a cut portion (Zhu 5) that is formed as a flat surface and acts as an anti-rotation stop against the sleeve of the machine tool, and the coolant flow paths are formed at positions that do not overlap with the cut portion (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Figs. 1, 2). This may be met by the plurality added by the modification are distributed about the rounded surface of the Zhu shank, or in that even the groove disclosed in Zhu does not overlap the flat part as the flat part flanks the groove.
(Claim 15) Morgan discloses that the coolant flow paths are configured with a groove in a circular arc shape (Fig. 2). If there was any question over the previous modification, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the grooves in the Zhu cutting tool with a circular arc shape as disclosed by Morgan as obvious to try - choosing from a finite number of solutions leading to the predictable result of providing a channel for coolant transmission and/or as mere design choice. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1966) (holding that change in shape was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant).
(Claim 16) The coolant flow paths are formed as straight flow paths parallel to the central axis of the cutting tool (Zhu Fig. 1; Morgan Fig. 1).
(Claim 18) The cutting edge is configured with an edge that is integral with the cutting tool (Zhu Fig. 1).
(Claim 19) The cutting tool disclosed in Zhu does not explicitly include an insert mounting seat and a cutting insert therein.
Morgan discloses an insert mounting seat provided at the leading end portion of the cutting tool, and a cutting insert (16, 17) mounted to the insert mounting seat (Figs. 1, 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting tool disclosed in Zhu with a replaceable cutting insert as suggested by Morgan in order to re-use the cutting tool after the cutting edges become worn as is well known in the art, the fact of which the examiner takes official notice thereof and/or in order to reduce costs of the tool by forming the cutting portion of harder material while using a softer more inexpensive material for the tool body as is well known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 102837017 A) in view of Morgan (US Patent No. 4,475,853) further in view of Choi et al. (US Pub. No. 2012/0141215 A1).
The modified Zhu reference does not explicitly disclose a nhelical chip discharge groove.
Choi et al. discloses a cutting tool with a chip discharge groove is formed in a helical shape (¶ 0020). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting tool disclosed in Zhu with a helical chip discharge flute as suggested Choi et al. in order to increase chip discharge relative to straight flutes as is well known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 102837017 A) in view of Morgan (US Patent No. 4,475,853) further in view of Pilkington (US Patent No. 1,192,110).
Zhu does not explicitly disclose a brazed insert at the leading end of the tool.
Pilkington discloses a brazed tool in which a cutting insert is brazed at the leading end portion of the tool (clm 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting tool disclosed in Zhu with a brazed insert as taught by Pilkington in order to reduce cost by making only the cutting portion from a relatively harder, more costly material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights