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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 25s (See paragraph [0033]). 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. 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 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 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitagawa et al. (US 9,308,587).
As to claim 1, Kitagawa teaches a cutting tool (cutting tool 201, see Figs 8-11.), comprising: an upper surface (chip 701 has an upper surface 503), a flank (chip 701 has a front side 510), and a cutting edge formed on an edge between the upper surface and the flank (as illustrated), the cutting tool having a shape extending in a longitudinal direction (as shown in Figs 8 and 10) along a longitudinal reference axis (axis G as shown in Fig 10) from a base end part (the right end of Fig 10) to a leading end part (the left end of Fig 10), the cutting tool having the cutting edge at the leading end part (as shown in Figs 8 and 10, the edge between 510 and 503 is at the left side), wherein the cutting tool is provided with a chip discharge groove (chip pocket 30) that is constituted by a wall surface at least part of which is curved (chip pocket 30 is curved as shown in Figs 8-11) and at least part of which is located at a position higher than the cutting edge (as shown best in Fig 11, the entire of chip pocket 30 is above the surface 503 of chip 701), the chip discharge groove having a shape extending in a direction different from an axial direction of the longitudinal reference axis (as indicated in Examiner’s annotated Fig 10, below. The chip discharge groove direction is different from axis G.).
PNG
media_image1.png
415
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein a virtual center line passing through a center of the chip discharge groove is inclined with respect to the longitudinal reference axis in a plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from a side of the upper surface (see Examiner’s annotated Fig 10 above).
As to claim 3, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 2, wherein an intersection between the virtual center line passing through the center of the chip discharge groove and the longitudinal reference axis is located on a base end part side with respect to the cutting edge in the plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from the side of the upper surface (as illustrated in the annotated Fig 10 above, the intersection point is on the right side of the chip 701).
As to claim 4, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the chip discharge groove is bilaterally asymmetric with respect to the longitudinal reference axis in a plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from a side of the upper surface (as shown in Fig 10 above, the discharge groove 30 is bilaterally asymmetric with respect to axis G).
As to claim 5, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the chip discharge groove is formed so as to span a center in a width direction of the cutting tool in a plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from a side of the upper surface (as shown in the annotated Fig 10 below, the chip pocket 30 crosses the axis G at the top-most portion as indicated.).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the wall surface that forms the chip discharge groove is constituted only by a curved surface (as shown in Fig 11, chip pocket 30 has a curved surface. The chip pocket is not illustrated in the embodiment of Fig 11 as having any flat, faceted, or angled surfaces).
As to claim 7, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the wall surface that forms the chip discharge groove is constituted by a cylindrical surface (the chip pocket 30 as shown in Fig 11 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “cylindrical” as would have been understood by an artisan having ordinary skill in the art. That is, the curve of chip pocket 30 as shown in Fig 11 appears to follow a round shape along a single axis. It is not, for example, a paraboloid or hyperbolic paraboloid.).
As to claim 8, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the wall surface that forms the chip discharge groove is constituted by a cylindrical surface (as shown in Fig 11, chip pocket 30 has a curved surface. The chip pocket is not illustrated in the embodiment of Fig 11 as having any flat, faceted, or angled surfaces).
As to claim 9, Kitagawa teaches a cutting tool (cutting tool 201, see Figs 8-11.), comprising: a cutting edge member (chip 701) having a first end surface (top surface 503 of chip 701), a second end surface that opposes the first end surface (the bottom surface of chip 701 is unlabeled), a flank (surface 510 as annotated below. Note this is different from the surface identified in the rejection of claim 1, above), and a cutting edge formed on an edge between the first end surface and the flank (as illustrated in Fig 8); and a base member (holder 10) having a shape extending in a longitudinal direction along a longitudinal reference axis (axis G as shown in Figs 10 and 11) from a base end part (the right side of holder 10) to a leading end part (the left side of holder 10), wherein the cutting edge member is joined to the leading end part (chip 701 is screwed to holder 10 via screw 550), wherein the base member is provided with a chip discharge groove (holder 10 has chip pocket 30) that is constituted by a wall surface at least part of which is curved (as illustrated in Figs 8-11, chip pocket 30 is curved) and at least part of which is located at a position higher than the first end surface (as illustrated in Fig 11, the chip pocket 30 is entirely above the top 503 of the chip 701), the chip discharge groove having a shape extending in a direction different from an axial direction of the longitudinal reference axis of the base member (as shown in Examiner’s annotated Fig 10 above, the groove direction is annotated. The groove direction is different from axis G).
PNG
media_image3.png
363
498
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 10, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 9, wherein a starting end of the chip discharge groove is arranged on a base end-side portion of the cutting edge member (this is illustrated in Figs 10 and 11).
As to claim 11, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 9, wherein the chip discharge groove is bilaterally asymmetric with respect to the longitudinal reference axis of the base member in a plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from a side of the first end surface (as shown in Fig 10 above, the discharge groove 30 is bilaterally asymmetric with respect to axis G).
As to claim 12, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 11, wherein the chip discharge groove is formed so as to span a center in a width direction of the base member in the plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in the direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from the side of the first end surface (as shown in the annotated Fig 10 below, the chip pocket 30 crosses the axis G at the top-most portion as indicated.).
PNG
media_image2.png
346
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 13, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 9, wherein an intersection between a virtual center line passing through a center of the chip discharge groove and the longitudinal reference axis is located on a leading end part side with respect to a base end-side portion of the cutting edge member in a plan view where the chip discharge groove is viewed in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal reference axis from the side of the first end surface (as illustrated in the annotated Fig 10 below claim 1, the intersection point is on the right side of the chip 701).
As to claim 14, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 9, wherein the cutting edge member is joined to the base member such that the cutting edge member is inclined with a base end side thereof descended with respect to a leading end side thereof (as shown in Fig 12, the chip 701 is tilted toward the flank face 510 identified in the rejection of claim 9 above).
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 9,308,587) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Shimanuki et al. (US 2019/0143419 A1).
As to claim 15, Kitagawa teaches the cutting tool according to claim 9, but does not teach the cutting edge member is an ultrahigh-pressure sintered body. Kitagawa does not describe the material of chip 701. However, it was known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for chips/cutting inserts made of any reasonable material capable of cutting material to be worked upon (in this case, Kitagawa lists “steel SUS304”).
See Shimanuki which teaches a polycrystalline diamond insert 30. As would have been known to a person having ordinary skill in the art, PCD inserts are also capable of cutting steel SUS304. Shimanuki teaches that PCD inserts have the benefit of having increased strength in order to prevent or reduce the chipping of edge portion 2 (see Paragraph [0049]).
Thus 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 a polycrystalline insert as taught by Shimanuki in place of the chip 701 of Kitagawa. Such a person would have been motivated to do so to increase the strength of the insert’s edge, thus prolonging the life of the tool. See also MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In this case, swapping one cutting insert for another of a different material would have produces the predictable result of prolonging the tool life considering the material of the new insert itself is stronger.
Other Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Many references teach pockets directly adjacent to the insert which help guide chips/shavings in a preferred direction which is offset from the axis of the tool holder.
Inoue (US 20110097167 A1) teaches front wall surface 7.
Jansson (US 20070183856 A1) teaches pocket 7.
Tsujimura (US 5261767 A) teaches clearance recess 116 and second wall 142 (see Figs 12-13).
Okawa (US 6126365 A) teaches chip pocket 4, but which is not offset axially.
Conclusion
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 29 September 2026
