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 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 1-7 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 in lines 8-9 “a direction orthogonal to the bisector in the plan view is set as a left-right direction” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this direction is being defined. Is the direction in the plan view? Or is the bisector, in the plan view? How is it being defined as a “left-right” direction? In relation to what is this considered “left-right” Proper clarification is needed.
Claim 1 recites in lines 9-10 “a direction orthogonal to the front-rear direction and the left-right direction is set us as an up-down direction” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear how exactly this direction is being defined. In relation to what is this direction considered as “up-down”?
Claim 1 recites in line 15 “separated from the bisector in the left-right direction”. The way these limitations have been set forth is unclear as it is unclear how is this second protruded portion “separated from the bisector in the left-right direction”. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 1 recites in lines 20-21 “the height of the third protruded portion” and “the height of the first protruded portion” which have insufficient antecedent basis, as no “height” for the third or first protruded portion has been previously introduced in the claim. From where to where is this height defined? In relation to what? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recites in lines 4-5 “the third protruded portion is located on a lower side of at least the corner edge in the cutting edge”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear where exactly this “lower side” is located at. In relation to what is this considered a “lower side”? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recites in lines 2-3 “the third protruded portion is located on a front side of a center of a curvature radius of the corner edge in the plan view”, which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear where exactly this “front side” is located at. In relation to what is this considered a “front side”? Furthermore, it is unclear how “a center of a curvature radius”, has a front side. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 6 recites in line 2 “the first protruded portion overlaps the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge”. First, it is unclear how exactly the first protruded portion is “overlapping” the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the center” of “the curvature radius”, since no “center” or “curvature radius” has been previously introduced on either claim 6 or claim 4 from which claim 6 directly depends on.
Claim 7 recites in line 2 “an angle formed between a ridgeline of the second protruded portion and the bisector”. It is unclear where exactly this “angle” is being defined at. From where to where is this angle taken from? Is it along an extension of the ridgeline? Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katbi et al. US 5,449,255 (hereafter—Katbi--).
In a first interpretation:
In regards to claim 1, Katbi discloses a cutting tool (11) comprising: a rake face; a flank face; a cutting edge (13/15) disposed in a ridgeline portion where the rake face and the flank face are connected and having a V-shape in a plan view of which the rake face is viewed from a front surface (see Figure 1); and a chip breaker disposed on the rake face, wherein an extending direction of a bisector (4-4) of the cutting edge (13/15) in the plan view is set as a front-rear direction (see Figure 1), a direction orthogonal to the bisector in the plan view is set as a left-right direction, and a direction orthogonal to the front-rear direction and the left-right direction is set as an up-down direction, the chip breaker includes, a first protruded portion (53) configured to protrude to an upper side from the rake face, a second protruded portion (inclined portion between 47 and 19) configured to protrude to the upper side from the rake face, disposed on a rear side of the first protruded portion (see Figure 4), and extending toward a front side as the second protruded portion is separated from the bisector in the left-right direction, and a third protruded portion (51) configured to protrude to the upper side from the rake face and disposed on a front side of the first protruded portion, the first protruded portion and the second protruded portion further protrude to the upper side than the cutting edge, and the height of the third protruded portion (51) is lower than the height of the first protruded portion (53) in the up-down direction (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses that the second protruded portion (inclined portion between 47 and 19) further protrudes to the upper side than the first protruded portion (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 4, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses that the cutting edge includes a corner edge (13) having a protruded curved shape, and a pair of straight edges (15/15) connected to both ends of the corner edge and each extending linearly, and the third protruded portion (51) is located on a lower side of at least the corner edge in the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 5, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 4, Katbi also discloses that the third protruded portion (51) is located on a front side of a center of a curvature radius of the corner edge in the plan view.
Regarding claim 6, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 4, Katbi also discloses that the first protruded portion overlaps the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge in the plan view (in the same way Applicant’s first protruded portion is overlapping the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge).
In a second interpretation:
In regards to claim 1, Katbi discloses a cutting tool (11) comprising: a rake face; a flank face; a cutting edge (13/15) disposed in a ridgeline portion where the rake face and the flank face are connected and having a V-shape in a plan view of which the rake face is viewed from a front surface (see Figure 1); and a chip breaker disposed on the rake face, wherein an extending direction of a bisector (4-4) of the cutting edge (13/15) in the plan view is set as a front-rear direction (see Figure 1), a direction orthogonal to the bisector in the plan view is set as a left-right direction, and a direction orthogonal to the front-rear direction and the left-right direction is set as an up-down direction, the chip breaker includes, a first protruded portion1 (see annotated Figure 4 below) configured to protrude to an upper side from the rake face, a second protruded portion (see annotated Figure 4 below) configured to protrude to the upper side from the rake face, disposed on a rear side of the first protruded portion (see annotated Figure 4 below), and extending toward a front side as the second protruded portion is separated from the bisector in the left-right direction, and a third protruded portion (see annotated Figure 4 below) configured to protrude to the upper side from the rake face and disposed on a front side of the first protruded portion, the first protruded portion and the second protruded portion further protrude to the upper side than the cutting edge, and the height of the third protruded portion (51) is lower than the height of the first protruded portion (53) in the up-down direction (see Figure 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
970
1762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses that the second protruded portion (see annotated Figure 4 above) further protrudes to the upper side than the first protruded portion (see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses that the chip breaker includes a breaker wall disposed on a rear side of the second protruding portion and further protruding to the upper side than the second protruded portion (see annotated Figure 4 above).
Regarding claim 4, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses that the cutting edge includes a corner edge (13) having a protruded curved shape, and a pair of straight edges (15/15) connected to both ends of the corner edge and each extending linearly, and the third protruded portion is located on a lower side of at least the corner edge in the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 5, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 4, Katbi also discloses that the third protruded portion is located on a front side of a center of a curvature radius of the corner edge in the plan view (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 4, Katbi also discloses that the first protruded portion overlaps the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge in the plan view (in the same way Applicant’s first protruded portion overlaps the center of the curvature radius of the corner edge in Figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katbi et al. US 5,449,255 (hereafter—Katbi--) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Katbi discloses the cutting tool according to claim 1, Katbi also discloses an angle formed between a ridgeline of the second protruded portion and the bisector in the plan view.
PNG
media_image2.png
660
755
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Katbi fails to disclose that the angle is 30° or larger and 60° or smaller.
Nevertheless, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been recognized that the angle will depend on size and shape of the cutting insert and type of workpiece being machined. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to try and modify the shape of the cutting insert (e.g. diamond shape) and thus have the angle formed between a ridgeline of the second protruded portion and the bisector in the plan view is 30° or larger and 60° or smaller, depending on the type of machining and material of the workpiece being machined.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the applicant’s invention was filed to have the angle be 30° or larger and 60° or smaller, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routing skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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) 272-3460. 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 “an often limited part of a whole” PORTION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
