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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: On each of lines 4 and 7 of the claim, “mirror” should be changed to “mirrored”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 3 of the claim, “mirror” should be changed to “mirrored”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 15 of the claim, “the chamfering is performed by means of a milling tool according to claim 1” should be changed to “the chamfering is performed by the milling tool according to claim 1”. 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 1-19 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.
Line 13 of claim 1 states, “the cutting part being provided with at least one pair of cutting edges.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “at least one pair of cutting edges” of line 13 of the claim are the same cutting edges or are different cutting edges than those previously set forth in lines 5-6 of claim 1 in which it was set forth that, “a cutting part provided with cutting edges.”
Lines 14-15 of claim 1 state, “a second cutting edge facing the rear part and located closer to the rear part than the first cutting edge.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the first cutting edge and the second cutting edge to the rear part and the second cutting edge is located closer to the rear part than the first cutting edge is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the second cutting edge is located closer to the rear part than it is to the first cutting edge.
Lines 18-19 of claim 1 state, “the rear end of the first cutting edge being located closer to the rear part of the tool body than the front end of the first cutting edge.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the rear end and the front end of the first cutting edge to the rear part of the tool body and the rear end is located closer to the rear part than the front end is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the rear end of the first cutting edge is closer to the rear part than it is to the front end.
Lines 19-21 of claim 1 state, “wherein the front end of the first cutting edge is located closer to the axis of rotation than the rear end.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the front end and the rear end of the first cutting edge to the axis of rotation and the front end is located closer to the axis of rotation than the rear end is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the front end is located closer to the axis of rotation than it is to the rear end.
Lines 26-27 of claim 1 state, “the rear end of the second cutting edge being located closer to the rear part of the tool body than the front end of the second cutting edge.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the rear end and the front end of the second cutting edge to the rear part of the tool body and the rear end is located closer to the rear part than the front end is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the rear end of the second cutting edge is closer to the rear part than it is to the front end.
Lines 27-30 of claim 1 state, “wherein the rear end of the second cutting edge is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the rear end and the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface to the axis of rotation and rear end is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than the radially outermost part is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the rear end of the second cutting edge is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than it is to the radially outermost part.
Lines 30-32 of claim 1 state, “wherein the rear end of the second cutting edge is located closer to the axis of rotation than the front end.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the rear end and the front end of the second cutting edge to the axis of rotation and the rear end is located closer to the axis of rotation than the front end is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the rear end is located closer to the axis of rotation than it is to the front end.
Lines 42-44 of claim 1 state, “wherein the front end of the first cutting edge is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost part of this front part.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is comparing the respective location of each of the front end and the radially outermost part of the front part to the axis of rotation and the front end is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than the radially outermost part is, or if instead Applicant is setting forth that the front end of the first cutting edge is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than it is to the radially outermost part of the front part.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the speed of rotation of the milling tool" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the speed of rotation of the workpiece" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 5, 7, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakada (Japan Publication No. JP 2022120943 A).
Please note that Nakada was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 5/6/2025.
Please be advised that a Machine Translation of Nakada is relied upon below, and this Machine Translation was provided by Applicant on 5/6/2025.
Claim 1: Figures 1-4 of Nakada shows a milling tool (10) having a cutting part (20) for processing internal teeth (91) of a cylindrical toothed workpiece (90). Please be advised that the milling tool (10) is considered inherently capable of performing the claimed intended use of “chamfering flank edges of internal or external teeth on a cylindrical toothed workpiece at opposite end faces of the workpiece,” simply by supplying such a cylindrical toothed workpiece (like that shown in Figure 1 of Nakada corresponding to reference character 90), and placing the cutting part (20) of said milling tool (10) of Nakada in operative contact with the flank edges of the internal or external teeth of the provided cylindrical tooth workpiece at the opposite end faces thereof. Please note that claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “chamfering flank edges of internal or external teeth on a cylindrical toothed workpiece at opposite end faces of the workpiece,” and the milling tool (10) taught by Nakada is blind as to the workpiece that it processes, i.e. the milling tool (10) will process (such as by chamfering) whatever workpiece which the milling tool (10) is brought into operative contact by virtue of the cutting part (20) of said milling tool (10).
Next, Figure 1 of Nakada shows the milling tool (10) as comprising an elongated tool body (11+11F), which at a rear end thereof has a rear part (11F) configured for attachment to a machine (96) [Machine Translation, paragraph 0011] and at distance from the rear part (11F) having the cutting part (20) provided with cutting edges (31, 31). Please be advised that the cutting part (20) comprises a first cutting edge (31) of the cutting edges (31, 31) and further comprises a second cutting edge (31) of the cutting edges (31, 31).
The tool body (11+11F) further comprises an elongated shank part (11) (please see Figure 1) which carries the cutting part (20) and extends from the cutting part (20) towards the rear part (11F). As can be seen below (next page) in annotated Figure 1, the elongated shank part (11) comprises a front end, a rear end, a peripheral surface, and a longitudinal central axis. The cutting part (20) is also shown below in annotated Figure 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
881
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the front end of the elongated shank part (11), it is the distal half of the elongated shank part (11). Noting this, at least at the first horizontal hole (13) of said front end is the front end “facing” the cutting part (20). This can best be seen within Figure 4 in which the wall of the front ends’ first horizontal hole (13) faces the cutting part (20). As to the rear end of the elongated shank part (11), it is the proximal half of the elongated shank part (11). Regarding the peripheral surface, it extends around the shank part (11) between the rear and front ends.
As to the central longitudinal axis, it coincides with an axis of rotation of the tool body (11+11F). Please be advised that the milling tool (10) is mounted on the machine (96) which is a position-controllable robot [Machine Translation, paragraph 0055]. It is through this machine/ robot (96) that the tool body (11+11F) can be indexed/rotated about the central longitudinal axis/ axis of rotation, for example, into the correct orientation for the chamfering of the flank edges at opposite end faces of the workpiece.
With respect to the cutting part (20), it is reiterated that it comprises the first (31) and the second cutting edges (31). For Applicant’s reference, the cutting part’s (20) first cutting edge (31) and second cutting edge (31) of have been pointed to below in annotated Figure 5 of Nakada. Note that Examiner has inverted Figure 5, because this orientation matches better with Figure 4 which will be discussed momentarily.
PNG
media_image2.png
649
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 4, the first cutting edge (31) has a rear end and an opposite front end, the rear end of the first cutting edge (31) being located closer to the rear part (11F) of the tool body (11+11F) than the front end of the first cutting edge (31). As can also be seen below, the front end of the first cutting edge (31) is located closer to the axis of rotation than is the rear end of the first cutting edge (31). Moreover, the distance between the first cutting edge (31) and the axis of rotation is gradually increasing as seen in a direction along the first cutting edge (31) from the front end thereof to the rear end thereof.
PNG
media_image3.png
756
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 4, the second cutting edge (31) has a front end and an opposite rear end, the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) being located closer to the rear part (11F) of the tool body (11+11F) than the front end of the second cutting edge (31). As can also be seen below, the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost part of the perpheral surface of the shank part (11). Also, the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) is located closer to the axis of rotation than is the front end of the second cutting edge (31), the distance between the second cutting edge (31) and the axis of rotation is gradually increasing as seen in a direction along the second cutting edge (31) from the rear end thereof to the front end thereof.
PNG
media_image4.png
751
919
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 4 of Nakada, the cutting part (20) has “an extension in the axial direction of the tool body.” Be advised that as a 3D object, said extension extends in three dimensions, including in the axial direction of the tool body (11+11F). Noting this, said extension is limited (in said axial direction) between a first plane (P1) that extends perpendicularly to the axis of rotation and intersects the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) and a second plane (P2) that extends perpendicularly to the axis of rotation and intersects the front end of the first cutting edge (31).
PNG
media_image5.png
736
841
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Lastly, as can be seen above, the tool body (11+11F) includes a front part that projects from the cutting part (20) on the side thereof facing away from the rear part (11F), and the front end of the first cutting edge (31) is located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than a radially outermost part of this front part.
Claim 5: As can be seen below, the first cutting edge (31) and the second cutting edge (31) are mirrored symmetrical to each other with respect to a plane of symmetry (PS) that extends halfway between the first and second cutting edges (31, 31) perpendicularly to the axis of rotation.
PNG
media_image6.png
735
716
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: The cutting part (20) in and of itself is holder arm that projects in a radial distance in relation to the axis of rotation beyond the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part (11F), wherein the holder arm has an inner end facing the axis of rotation and an opposite outer end, and wherein the first and second cutting edges (31, 31) are arranged on the holder arm at the outer end thereof. Please be advised that from the perspective of Figure 4 the inner end is disposed below the flange (23) and the outer end is disposed above the flange (23).
PNG
media_image7.png
728
716
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the cutting part (20) includes a holder arm (40) that projects in a radial distance in relation to the axis of rotation beyond the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part (11F), e.g. beyond the portion of the radially outermost part disposed on an opposing side of the shank part (11F). As can be seen below in annotated Figure 4, the holder arm (40) has an inner end facing the axis of rotation and an opposite outer end, and wherein the first and second cutting edges (31, 31) are arranged on the holder arm (40) at the outer end thereof.
PNG
media_image8.png
827
724
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Please note that claim 8 is rejected with respect to the interpretation of claim 7 in which element 40 is considered to be the “holder arm (40).”
The cutting part (20) in and of itself is a cutting insert of which the first cutting edge (31) and the second cutting edge (31) each form a part. Noting this, the cutting part/insert (20) is releasably mounted to an insert seat (42A) provided at the outer end of the holder arm (40).
Claim 10: Figure 1 of Nakada shows the shank part (11) as being rod-shaped.
Claim 12: The cutting part (20) is detachably mounted to the shank part (11F) at the front end thereof. Please be advised that by releasing the corresponding bolt (51) (see Figure 4) then the cutting part (20) can be detached, for example.
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 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada (Japan Publication No. JP 2022120943 A).
Claim 6: As can be seen below there is a radial distance between the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) and the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part (11).
PNG
media_image9.png
721
1001
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Nakada though, does not provide disclosure on this radial distance being 2-40mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the radial distance between the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) of Nakada and the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part (11) of Nakada to be between 2mm and 40mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the milling tool (10) of Nakada would not operate differently with the claimed radial distance, because such radial distance would still provide the necessary clearance between the rear end of the second cutting edge (31) and the radially outermost part of the peripheral surface of the shank part (11) such that the cutting part (20) would be able to function, i.e. machine/process, within the interior of a given workpiece, for example. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed indicating on page 17, lines 34-37 of the specification that the radial distance is “more preferably 6-30 mm”.
Claim 11: Figure 1 of Nakada shows the shank part (11) as extending axially. Nakada though, does not provide disclosure on the length being 25-500mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the length of the shank part (11) of Nakada
to be between 25mm and 500mm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the milling tool (10) of Nakada would not operate differently with the claimed length of the shank part (11), because such length would still provide sufficient length to the shank part (11) such that the milling tool (10) is able to penetrate within the interior of a given workpiece for machining/processing, for example. Furthermore, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating on page 17, lines 5-9 of the specification that the length is “preferably 50-200 mm, more preferably 100-150mm”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9, and 13-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Figure 2 of Tsukimura (U.S. Patent No. 4,966,500 A) shows, for example, a milling tool comprising an elongated tool body (10) and further comprising a cutting part (20) having a first cutting edge (30a) and a second cutting edge (30c). The first cutting edge (30a) has a rear end and an opposite front end, wherein the front end is located closer to an axis of rotation of the milling tool than the rear end is. Also, as can be seen in Figure 2, the distance between the first cutting edge (30a) and the axis of rotation gradually increases as seen in a direction along the first cutting edge (30a) from the front end thereof to the rear end thereof. With respect to the second cutting edge (30c), it has a corresponding front end and an opposing rear end. The rear end of the second cutting edge (30c) being located at a longer distance from the axis of rotation than the front end of the second cutting edge (30c) is, and the distance between the second cutting edge (30c) and the axis of rotation gradually increasing as seen in a direction along the second cutting edge (30a) from the rear end thereof to the front end thereof.
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
