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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 11 of the claim, “the axial shank end” should be amended to “the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “the end cutting edges” should be changed to “the plurality of end cutting edges”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 4 of the claim, “the gashes” should be changed to “the plurality of gashes”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “the end cutting edges” should be changed to “the plurality of end cutting edges”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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.
Lines 6-7 of claim 1 state, “the front end side of an outer circumference of the tool body.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the front end side” is the same element or is a different element than the “axial front end” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1. If the “the front end side” is a different element than the “axial front end,” then please be advised that there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 10-11 of claim 1 state, “a non-functional cutting edge portion.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to what is meant by “non-functional” in terms of “a non-functional cutting edge portion.” How or in what way is a cutting edge portion “non-functional”?
Lines 1-3 of claim 3 state, “a plurality of gashes that are recessed at the front end so as to respectively form rake faces of the plurality of end cutting edges.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if each respective gash forms a singular rake face or instead forms a plurality of rake faces.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the axis side" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gash faces" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that in line 6 of claim 3, Applicant set forth “a gash face” not “gash faces,” for example.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the two gashes" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that in lines 1-2 of claim 3, Applicant set forth “a plurality of gashes” not “two gashes,” for example.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the end cutting edge side" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 10-11 of claim 1 set forth the thread mill as comprising, “a non-functional cutting edge portion.” Claims 2 and 4 then recite, “each of the end cutting edges is entirely formed by either the functional cutting edge portion of the non-functional cutting edge portion.” Claim 5 then recites, “wherein the functional cutting edge portion and the non-functional cutting edge portion are disposed circumferentially alternately.” Each of these limitations fails to comply with the written description requirement.
With respect to the specification filed on 1/31/2025, it discloses the following:
[0049] Note that depending on the cutting condition when cutting a workpiece using the thread mill 10, and the degree of wear of the first end cutting edges 35, the second end cutting edges 36 may also function as end cutting edges (may cut a workpiece). However, unless otherwise specified, the following describes conditions under which the second end cutting edges 36 do not function as end cutting edges;
[0048] The second end cutting edges 36 are parts that basically do not function as an end cutting edge that cuts a workpiece. Hereinafter, a part that does not function as an end cutting edge is referred to as a non-functional cutting edge portion, and a part that functions as an end cutting edge is referred to as a functional cutting edge portion. This means that the second end cutting edges 36 are entirely constituted by non-functional cutting edge portions, and the first end cutting edges 35 are entirely constituted by functional cutting edge portions.
[0074] Depending on the cutting conditions (e.g., when the inner diameter of a drill hole for an internal thread to be cut is less than or equal to 1.5 times the minor diameter dl), the gash cutting edges 46, 47 connected with the first end cutting edge 35 and the second end cutting edge 36 may also cut the workpiece during a cutting operation using the thread mill 10. However, at portions other than flute bottoms 44, 45, the gash cutting edge 47 is relieved toward the shank end 13 and radially outward, relative to the gash cutting edge 46, as in the case of the second end cutting edge 36 relative to the first end cutting edge 35. Accordingly, the gash cutting edge 47 is less likely to cut the workpiece; and
As can be seen in the above excerpts of the specification filed on 1/31/2025, particularly in paragraphs [0049] and [0074] thereof, depending upon the cutting conditions present when cutting a workpiece using the thread mill (10), and the degree of wear of the first end cutting edges (35) of the thread mill (10), the second end cutting edges (36) function as end cutting edges (may cut a workpiece). In spite of functioning to cut the workpiece in at least certain conditions, it can be seen above within paragraph [0048] of the specification that the second end cutting edges (36) are referred to as non-functional cutting edge portions. Noting this, the second end cutting edges (36) correspond to the “non-functional cutting edge portion” of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5. However, noting the disclosure of the second end cutting edges (36)/non-functional cutting edge portion cutting in at least certain conditions, the second end cutting edges (36)/non-functional cutting edge portion are actually functional. Thus, there is a contradiction between what is claimed within claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 and what is disclosed in the specification filed on 1/31/2025. Due to this disclosure of the second end cutting edges (36)/non-functional cutting edge portion actually functioning as end cutting edges (and thus may cut a workpiece) in certain conditions, the specification is not in agreement with the “non-functional cutting edge portion” language of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Next, with respect to the drawings filed on 1/31/2025, there isn’t any indication therein that the second end cutting edges (36) of the thread mill (10) actually constitute a non-functional cutting edge portion. Depending upon the cutting conditions, the drawings (if anything) would seemingly indicate that the second end cutting edges (36) are functional. For example, if the thread mill (10) was mounted on a workpiece having a wavy top surface, and the second end cutting edges (36) were in operative contact with the wavy top surface while the thread mill (10) was rotated about its axis and linearly fed toward the workpiece, by all indications said second end cutting edges (36) would function to cut/process the workpiece. There isn’t any structure shown in the drawings filed on 1/31/2025 that would preclude the second end cutting edges (36) from cutting/processing in this scenario. Based on the foregoing, the drawings filed on 1/31/2025 do not provide support for the limitation of claim 1 corresponding to the thread mill comprising, “a non-functional cutting edge portion.” The drawings filed on 1/31/2025 also do not provide support for the “non-functional cutting edge portion” limitations of claims 2, 4, and 5.
Since neither the specification nor the drawings are in agreement with the claimed subject matter, it cannot be reasonably conveyed to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoda (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0358717 A1).
Please be advised that Yoda was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 1/31/2025.
Claim 1: Figures 1 and 4 of Yoda show a thread mill (1) that cuts an internal thread (4) in a workpiece (W) by moving relative to the workpiece (W) while rotating about an axis (C1), the thread mill (1) comprising a tool body (10) including an axial front end (12), and further comprising a shank end (11) located axially opposite to the front end. The thread mill (1) of Yoda also has a shaft shape centered about the axis (C1).
The thread mill (1) further comprises a plurality of thread cutting edges that are each formed by a plurality of axially arranged threads (20a, 24, 29), and that are circumferentially spaced apart on the front end side of an outer circumference of the tool body (10).
Furthermore, the thread mill (1) comprises a plurality of end cutting edges (33) formed at the axial front end of the tool body (12) so as to be respectively connected with the plurality of thread cutting edges on a front end side [paragraph 0034].
Please be advised that formed on the plurality of end cutting edges (33) is a functional cutting edge portion (34) that cuts the workpiece (W). Also, as is best understood in view of the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), formed on the plurality of end cutting edges (33) is a “non-functional cutting edge portion [35]” that is axially relieved toward the shank end (11) relative to a trajectory of the function cutting edge portion (34) when the tool body (10) is caused to make one rotation about the axis (C). This can best be seen in Figure 2. Please also note the disclosure in paragraph [0037] of the specification in which Yoda discloses that the second end cutting edges (35) (which correspond to the non-functional cutting edge portion) are angled more toward the rear end of the tool body (10) than the first end cutting edges (34) (which correspond to the functional cutting edge portion).
Claim 6: As can be seen in Figure 3, the plurality of end cutting edges (33) are formed rotationally symmetrical about the axis (C1) [paragraph 0034].
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, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiso (Japan Pub. No. JP H09225743 A) in view of Yada (U.S. Patent No. 4,300,862 A).
Please be advised that a Machine Translation of Ogiso is relied upon below. This Machine Translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 1: Figures 1, 2, and 5 of Ogiso show a thread mill (1) that cuts an internal thread (9) in a workpiece (W) by moving relative to the workpiece (W) while rotating about an axis, wherein the thread mill (1) comprises a tool body including an axial front end, and further comprises a shank end located axially opposite to the front end. The thread mill (1) of Ogiso also has a shaft shape centered about the axis.
The thread mill (1) further comprises a plurality of thread cutting edges (3) that are each formed by a plurality of axially arranged threads (3a, 3b, 3c), and that are circumferentially spaced apart on the front end side of an outer circumference of the tool body.
Furthermore, the thread mill (1) of Ogiso comprises a plurality of end cutting edges formed at the axial front end of the tool body so as to be respectively connected with the plurality of thread cutting edges (3) on a front end side. Please be advised that each end cutting edge of the plurality of end cutting edges of Ogiso is formed as a functional cutting edge portion (6) that cuts the workpiece (W).
Based on the foregoing, Ogiso does not teach, “a non-functional cutting edge portion that is axially relieved toward the axial shank end relative to a trajectory of the functional cutting edge portion when the tool body is caused to make one rotation about the axis” being formed on the plurality of end cutting edges.
Figures 1 and 2 of Yada though, show a milling tool having a plurality of end cutting edges, one of which is formed as a functional cutting edge portion (21) (referred to in the specification as “main cutting edge”) and the other of which is formed as a non-functional cutting edge portion (31) (referred to in the specification as “auxiliary cutting edge”). Per Yada, because the functional cutting edge portion (21) is projected axially by a distance (t) beyond the non-function cutting edge portion (31), said functional cutting edge portion (21) cuts a workpiece to a greater depth when fed at a specified rate than the non-functional cutting edge portion (31) which thereafter cuts the workpiece to a smaller depth as if by scraping. Thus, the non-functional cutting edge portion (31) encounters reduced cutting resistance and is thereby prevented from chipping or breaking. Also, when a backlash or jar occurs during the cutting operation owing to an error involved in mounting the tool or workpiece on the machine body, the distance (t) serves to absorb such a jar, thus eliminating excess load that otherwise would act on the non-functional cutting edge (31) [column 3, lines 5-18]. This distance (t) which is preferably ~0.05-0.08mm [column 1, lines 58-64] is representative of the non-functional cutting edge portion (31) being axially relieved toward a shank end of the milling tool relative to a trajectory of the functional cutting edge portion (21) when a tool body of the milling tool is caused to make one rotation about an axis of rotation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have axially relieved one of the two cutting edge portions (6) of Ogiso by a distance (t) of 0.05-0.08mm in accordance with the disclosure of Yada, so as to provide the thread mill (1) of Ogiso with the advantage of being able to absorb a jar owed to an error involved in mounting the thread tool (1) and to provide the advantage of the one of the two cutting edge portions (6) of Ogiso that is axially relieved encountering reduced cutting resistance and thereby be prevented from chipping or breaking.
In making the above modification, the modified thread mill (1) of Ogiso comprises the plurality of end cutting edges formed at the axial front end of the tool body so as to be respectively connected with the plurality of thread cutting edges (3) on a front end side. Please be advised that one cutting edge of the plurality of end cutting edges of the modified Ogiso is formed as the functional cutting edge portion (6) that cuts the workpiece (W), whereas the other one of the two cutting edges of the modified Ogiso is formed as the non-functional cutting edge portion (6) axially relieved by the distance (t) toward the shank end of the thread mill (1) relative to a trajectory of the functional cutting edge portion (6) when the tool body of the thread mill (1) is caused to make one rotation about the axis.
Claim 2: One one cutting edge of the modified thread mill (1) of Ogiso is formed entirely as the functional cutting edge portion (6) and the other cutting edge of the modified thread mill (1) of Ogiso is formed entirely as the non-functional cutting edge portion (6).
Claim 5: In the modified thread mill (1) of Ogiso, the functional cutting edge portion (6) and the non-functional cutting edge portion (6) are disposed circumferentially alternately.
Claim 6: Figure 3 of Ogiso shows the plurality of end cutting edges being formed rotationally symmetrically about the axis.
Examiner’s Comment
A thorough search has been conducted re: the invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 3 and 4, Examiner notes that no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of claims 3 and 4 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-ATA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, particularly given that it is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issue(s) with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights