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 1-11 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 “wherein in a case that a virtual axis that passes through the center of the upper surface and center of the lower surface is set as an insert central axis”. What are the bets and bounds for the term “in a case”. The wording makes it unclear whether the following geometry is an actual limitation of the insert or merely hypothetical/conditional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiman et al. (USP 5,897,272) in view of Katbi et al. (USP 4,963,061).
Regarding claim 1, Wiman discloses a cutting insert comprising: an upper surface; a lower surface located on an opposite side of the upper surface; a lateral surface located between the upper surface and the lower surface (figure 4A); and a cutting edge (5, 6) located at an intersection of the upper surface and the lateral surface (figure 1B), wherein a virtual axis that passes through the center of the upper surface and center of the lower surface is set as an insert central axis, and a virtual flat surface that is located between the upper surface and the lower surface and orthogonal to the insert central axis is set as a reference plane, the upper surface comprises an outer edge comprising a corner portion (4) having a protrusively curved shape and a side portion (3) having a linear shape and extending from the corner portion (figure 1A), a land surface (7) located along the outer edge, and a main rake surface (8) located along the land surface and having a linear shape (figures 1B and 2), in a first cross section orthogonal to the outer edge, that is closer to the reference plane (P: see below) as farther away from the land surface (see arrow A below), the land surface comprises a first land surface (7) located along the corner portion (4), and a second land surface (7) located along the side portion, the first land surface comprises a first linear portion (see figure 7) having a linear shape in a second cross section orthogonal to the corner portion (figure 2). Wiman fails to disclose and the second land surface having a protrusively curved shape as a whole in a cross section orthogonal to the side portion . Additionally regarding claims 2 and 3, Wiman fails to disclose wherein, in the second cross section, the first linear portion being closer to approaches the reference plane as farther away with increasing distance from the corner portion nor in the second cross section orthogonal to the corner portion, an inclination angle of the first linear portion with respect to a virtual flat surface orthogonal to the insert central axis is smaller than an inclination angle of the main rake surface. Katbi discloses a cutting insert with a land surface (31). Katbi also discloses a variety of configurations for the land (31) (figures 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape/profile of WIman’s land surface, as taught by Katbi, in order to adjust the cutting characteristics of the insert, i.e. cutting edge strength, cutting resistance, chip flow etc., according to the workpiece material and machining conditions.
[AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox ()][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
297
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (P)][AltContent: connector]
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Wiman discloses wherein the land surface further comprises a third land surface located along the side portion (3), between the first land surface and the second land surface (See below for Examiners definition of the first, second and third land surface), and the third land surface comprises a second linear portion having a linear shape in the third cross section orthogonal to the side portion (the land is the same in the 2nd and land portion, hence width is constant and so the linear portion of figure 2 also applies here).
[AltContent: textbox (2nd)][AltContent: textbox (3rd)][AltContent: textbox (1st)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
638
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Wiman discloses wherein the insert is a for turning (col. 1, lines 4-6) therefore will have a cutting tool comprising: a holder having a rod shape extending from a first end to a second end, and a pocket to sit the insert on and the turning tool will cut a rotating a workpiece; by bringing the cutting tool into contact with the rotating workpiece; and separating the cutting tool from the workpiece.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiman et al. (USP 5,897,272) in view of Katbi et al. (USP 4,963,061) and Nagarajan et al. (USP 9,796,024).
The modified claim Wiman discloses all aspects of the invention as set forth in the rejection above. The modified claim Wiman does not disclose wherein
a width of the second land surface in a second direction orthogonal to the side portion
increases with increasing distance from the corner portion. Nagarajan, discloses a cutting insert having a land surface (26) with a width in a second direction orthogonal to the side portion increases with increasing distance from the corner portion (figure 4 and Col. 3, lines 13-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiman’s land such
a width of its second land surface in a second direction orthogonal to the side portion
increases with increasing distance from the corner portion, as taught by Nagarajan for the purpose of providing resistance to the depth of cut and to enabling the cutting insert to perform metal cutting operations at higher depths of cut (DOC) and high feed rates, particularly in machining hard metal workpieces (Col. 3, lines 21-27).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 8/4/26
Prosecution Insights