Patent Application 15317873 - THREAD MILLING CUTTER

Title: THREAD MILLING CUTTER

Application Information

Invention Title: THREAD MILLING CUTTER
Application Number: 15317873
Submission Date: 2025-05-22T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2016-12-09T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2016-12-09T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 407
National Sub-Class: 030000
Examiner Employee Number: 89657
Art Unit: 3722
Tech Center: 3700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 6

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPONED
A Technology Center Director has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below.

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 Interpretation
Recitation to “each insert,” “insert” or “inserts” is interpreted as being of the plurality of triangular inserts.
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 21, 22, 18, 2, 3, 6, 8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1).
(Claims 21, 22 and 18) Haneuma et al. (“Haneuma”) discloses a thread milling cutter that includes a main body having a shank (1), a cutting portion arranged for cutting threads (Fig. 4), the cutting portion having a cylindrical shape (Fig. 4), an axis of rotation (solid axial line in annotated Fig. 4 below), a plurality of seats (seating inserts 3); a plurality of triangular cutting inserts (3; Figs. 4, 5), and a plurality of cutting teeth. Each of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts includes cutting corners (8). Each of the plurality of cutting teeth is formed by a respective cutting corner (8). Each cutting corner is defined by a cutting edge (Figs. 4, 5; Translation ¶¶ 0020-0022). Each of the triangular cutting inserts are mounted in a respective one of the plurality of seats and includes a rake face (face facing direction of rotation), in a plan view of the rake face, each of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts have a shape of an equilateral triangle (Fig. 4).
The plurality of triangular cutting inserts are spaced in a circumferential direction and arranged on the cutting portion in at least two different radial planes (radial planes represented as dashed lines in annotated Fig. 4 below) such that each cutting edge of each of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts is axially spaced from a corresponding cutting edge of any of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts of a different of the at least two radial planes (annotated Fig. 4 shows that the cutting edges of inserts of one radial plane are axially spaced from cutting edges of the inserts of the other radial plane). The at least two different radial planes extend perpendicularly to the axis of rotation (annotated Fig. 4 below).
In front of the respective rake faces of each of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts, chip spaces (5; Fig. 4) are formed by cavities in each the respective seat. The chip spaces are set back radially with respect to a cylindrical envelope of the cutting portion (Fig. 4(b)). The triangular cutting inserts in each of the at least two radial planes form a row of inserts in each plane (Fig. 4). Haneuma does not explicitly disclose an offset in the circumferential direction of mutually closest triangular cutting inserts of adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes corresponds to a twist angle, which is selected so that the chip spaces of the mutually closest triangular cutting inserts arranged in adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes overlap in the helical direction. While one insert in each of the radial planes is spaced approximately 180 degrees circumferentially from another insert in a different plane, the Haneuma reference does not explicitly disclose each of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts being circumferentially offset with respect to any other of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts.

PNG
media_image1.png
501
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale

Staedt et al. (“Staedt”) discloses a plurality of triangular cutting teeth being circumferentially offset with respect to any other of the plurality of triangular cutting inserts (Figs. 1, 2). The offset in the circumferential direction of mutually closest triangular cutting teeth of adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes corresponds to a twist angle, which is selected so that chip spaces of the mutually closest triangular cutting teeth arranged in adjacent planes of the at least two radial planes overlap in the helical direction (Figs. 1, 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutter disclosed in Haneuma with the circumferential offset between axially spaced cutting teeth and a twist angle of the columns as suggested by Staedt in order to improve chip evacuation while cutting hard materials and/or reduce vibration/resonance during cutting by staggering the cutting edges circumferentially (i.e., not all cutting inserts of a given column hitting the workpiece at the same location at the same time). See (Staedt ¶ 0002) (disclosing “[h]elical thread mills provide for improved chip control and chip evacuation”).
(Claim 2) Hanuema discloses two triangular cutting inserts respectively arranged on a same rotational circle in one of the at least two radial planes (Fig. 4), but does not explicitly disclose at least three triangular cutting inserts on the same circle in one of the at least two radial planes. Yet, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the thread milling cutter disclosed in Hanuema as a mere duplication of working parts with no new and unexpected result produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
(Claim 3) The at least two different radial planes include at least three different radial planes, each of the triangular cutting inserts being arranged in a respective one of the at least three different radial planes (Haneuma annotated Fig. 4 above).
(Claim 6) The spacing of the at least two radial planes is an integral multiple of one or more standard thread pitches. Again, there is no requirement for the location of the planes relative to certain portions of the inserts. Thus, the imaginary planes are arbitrary and a standard pitch is known (Applicant Admitted Prior Art). In the event that Applicant traverses this interpretation, it is worth noting that the spacing between the at least two radial planes (really the cutting inserts within those respective planes) is a result-effective variable because it impacts the shape transferred to the workpiece1 and the forces acting on the tool. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutter disclosed in Haneuma with axial spacing between the at least two radial planes as claimed in order to optimize the spacing in order to obtain a specific shape on the workpiece and/or in order to optimize forces acting on the cutter. See Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.").
(Claim 8) The tips of the cutting corners are rounded (Haneuma Figs. 4, 5).
(Claim 12) The cutting corners each form a tip (Haneuma 8). In the plan view of the rake face, the tips of the cutting corners of the triangular cutting inserts are rounded or trimmed back (Haneuma Figs. 4, 5) so that the corners correspond to the shape of a thread.
(Claim 16) The milling cutter further includes a peripherally extending web provided in a region between a pair of insert seats and chip spaces on the outside of the cutting portion (Haneuma Fig. 4). That is, the web has no other claimed structure than being the strip of material between the inserts and chip spaces (presumably of each respective column).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1) further in view of either Craig (US Pub. No. 2003/0223828 A1) or Stashko (US Patent No. 4,648,755), in either case, as evidenced by Fang et al. (US Patent No. 6,345,941 B1).
Hanuema discloses two triangular cutting inserts respectively arranged on a same rotational circle in one of the at least two radial planes (Fig. 4), but does not explicitly disclose at least three triangular cutting inserts on the same circle in one of the at least two radial planes.
Craig discloses a milling cutter (10) having three helical columns (Figs. 1, 3; ¶ 0027) of cutting inserts (14) such that at least three triangular cutting inserts on the same circle in one of at least two radial planes. At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the thread milling cutter disclosed in Hanuema with three cutting columns as suggested by Craig as a function of the tool diameter and its intended application. See Fang et al. (Col. 5, Lines 44-49) (disclosing that the number of flutes may be any number, preferably two to six, but the number of flutes “will depend largely on the diameter of the thread milling tool and its intended application”); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
In the alternative, Stashko discloses a milling cutter (10) having three helical columns (Figs. 1, 2) of cutting inserts (16a-e, 17a-e, 18a-e) such that at least three triangular cutting inserts on the same circle in one of at least two radial planes. At a time prior to effective filing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the thread milling cutter disclosed in Hanuema with three cutting columns as suggested by Stashko as a function of the tool diameter and its intended application. See Fang et al. (Col. 5, Lines 44-49) (disclosing that the number of flutes may be any number, preferably two to six, but the number of flutes “will depend largely on the diameter of the thread milling tool and its intended application”); In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960) (holding that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1) further in view of Schmitt (US Patent No. 6,565,297 B2).
Hanuema does not explicitly disclose the axial spacing of the at least two different radial planes being an integral multiple of one or more standard thread pitches. While this limitation does not specifically reference the position of the cutting teeth being arranged in a corresponding manner with the planes, it is worth noting that a standard pitch is known (Applicant Admitted Prior Art).
Schmitt discloses that “thread milling teeth are arranged at a distance of pitch P of the to-be-formed thread.” (Col. 1, Lines 27-29). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutter disclosed in Haneuma with axial spacing between the at least two radial planes as suggested by Schmitt in order to form a thread at a known pitch.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1) further in view of Nada et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0226404 A1).
Haneuma discloses an indexable cutting insert (Figs. 4, 5). While the reference discloses the inserts in Figures 2 and 3 are indexable and double-sided, the inserts illustrated in Figures 4 and 5 are not explicitly disclosed as being double-sided cutting inserts.
Nada et al. (“Nada”) discloses thread cutting inserts that are both indexable and reversible (i.e., double-sided). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the cutting inserts disclosed in Haneuma to be double-sided as suggested by Nada in order to increase the number of cutting portions on the cutting inserts (¶¶ 0021, 0063, 0080, 0092).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1) further in view of Morgulis (EP 2213399 A1).
The insert seat has a seat face arranged to accommodate a contact face of the cutting insert that is opposite to a respective rake face (Fig. 4). Yet, Haneuma does not explicitly disclose the seat face having a seat face portion extending radially outward from the cutting portion or the seat face portion being formed by an end face of a ridge, which extends circumferentially in the radial plane and which is interrupted only in a region of the seats and the chip spaces.
Morgulis discloses an insert seat having a seat face for a contact face of the cutting insert that is opposite to the rake face, wherein the seat face has a seat face portion extending radially outward from the cutting portion (Fig. 2). The seat face portion is formed by an end face of a ridge (224; Figs. 1, 2), which extends circumferentially in a respective radial plane and which is interrupted only in a region of the seats and the chip spaces. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the seats and body of the milling cutter disclosed in Haneuma with projecting seat portions and ridges as taught by Morgulis in order to provide additional support for the insert and increase the strength of the milling cutter body (¶ 0028).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haneuma et al. (JP 07-266121 A) in view of Staedt et al. (US Pub. No. 2007/0243030 A1) further in view of Otsuka (US Pub. No. 2017/0189974 A1).
Hanuema does not explicitly disclose coolant holes.
Otsuka discloses coolant ports (29) opening into a rear side of the web extending between the inserts and chip spaces, the port arranged to discharge coolant. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to modify the seats and body of the milling cutter disclosed in Haneuma with coolant ports as suggested by Otsuka in order to provide coolant to the cutting areas (¶ 0024).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil 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.

/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722

/EDWARD LEFKOWITZ/Director, Art Unit 3700

1 Schmitt (US Patent No. 6,565,297 B2) (Col. 1, Lines 27-29) (disclosing that “thread milling teeth are arranged at a distance of pitch P of the to-be-formed thread”).