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 § 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) 1, 4, 8, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner US 2,895,211 in view of Sweet US 3,187,611, in further view of Dudley US 3,971,114.
In regards to claim 1, Scribner discloses a machining tool (Figure 2) for machining a rotating workpiece (e.g. turning operation as set forth in col 1, line 20), the machining tool comprising a tool main body (1), with a machining head (3) which is provided on the tool main body (1) and having a holder (2), and receiving a cutting edge (4 or 5) which is oriented towards a working space for the workpiece to be machined, wherein a material feed (10) for a conditioning material (12) to be applied to the surface of the workpiece machined by the cutting edge aligned with an end face of the holder, wherein the material feed (10) is a bore which passes through the holder (see Figure 3), wherein a feed opening (refer to outlet opening between 4 and 5 as in Figure 3) of the material feed is provided in the end face of the holder (see Figures 1-3) and adjacently to a flank face of the –at least one-- cutting edge (one of 4 or 5), wherein the material feed (10) is provided on or in the holder (2) of the machining head (3) and wherein the conditioning material (12) is formed as a solid body (col 1, lines 46-48), and is applied by friction by the material feed to the surface to be machined; a dispensing device (24) is provided, by means of which the conditioning material (12) is guidable out through the material feed (10) towards the working space, said dispensing device (24) being positionable separately from the machining head (3) in the working space; wherein the dispensing device (24) has at least one plunger (feed screw 24) to which pressure (via the rotation actuation of the screw 24, the screw acts as a plunger so as to push conditional material out) is applicable and which the conditioning material is guidable out of the opening of the material feed (column 2, lines 43-50).
Although there is a suggestion in Scribner, that the machining head is provided on a tool main body of a machining tool (so as to machine a workpiece), this is not explicitly disclosed.
Nevertheless, Sweet teaches that it is well known in the art to have at least one machining head (2) provided on a tool main body of a machining tool (see Figures 1, 3 and 4). As in Figures 1, 3 and 4, there are a plurality of machining heads spaced apart by a gap to form a working space.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have Scribner’s machining head be provided on the tool main body of Sweet’s machining tool, in order to perform a turning operation, since Scribner has explicitly stated that the machining head is to be used in various metal cutting operations, such as turning operations. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate machining heads of Scribner’s and thus provide them on the tool main body of Sweet’s machining tool, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Scribner fails to disclose that the cutting edge is brazed with the holder.
Nevertheless, Dudley teaches that it is well known in the art to have a brazed cutting edge (21) in a holder of a machining head. As shown in Figures 1 and 3a, 3c and 4, a relief angle of an end face 53 of the holder is equal to a relief angle of the cutting edge. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by providing a brazed cutting edge in the holder will allow for regrinding of the cutting edge when worn out instead of disposing of the entire holder. Additionally, it allows permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Scribner’s machine head with a brazed cutting edge based on the teachings of Dudley, to allow for regrinding of the cutting edge when worn out instead of disposing of the entire holder and to allow permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder.
In regards to claim 4, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner as modified also discloses that the feed opening (of the material feed 10 of Scribner) is capable of being oriented pointing towards the working space and is capable of being oriented at an acute angle to the working space.
In regards to claim 8, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 7, Scribner as modified also discloses that the dispensing device (24 of Scribner) is detachably fastened to the holder (2 of Scribner).
In regards to claim 11, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner as modified also discloses that the feed opening of the material feed for the conditioning material is capable of being oriented pointing towards a working chamber at an angle of less than 90° or at an angle of 90° and wherein two mutually opposed machining heads (as taught by Sweet) are provided on the tool main body (Figure 3 and 4 of Sweet) and are spaced apart by a gap to form a working space (see Figures 3 and 4 of Sweet).
In regards to claim 12, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner as modified also discloses two mutually opposed machining heads (of Scribner now in Sweet) are provided on the tool main body (of Sweet) and are spaced apart by a gap to form a working space and at least one of the two machining heads is provided displaceably (via adjustment screws 6 and 7 of Sweet) on the tool main body (of Sweet) in order to adjust a width of the working space between the two machining heads and/or wherein at least one of the two machining heads (of Scribner now in Sweet) is adjustable (via adjustment screws 6 and 7) in a height of the –at least one--cutting edge of one machining head relative to the opposite –at least one--cutting edge of the other machining head.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner US 2,895,211 in view of Sweet US 3,187,611, in further view of Dudley US 3,971,114 as applied to claim 1, in view of Nelson US 4,065,223.
In regards to claim 15, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the cutting edge (4 or 5 of Scribner) on the machining head (of Scribner) are tilted with respect to the working space.
However, Scribner fails to disclose that the cutting edge is negatively tilted with respect to the working space.
Nevertheless, Nelson teaches that it is well known in the art to have a machining tool where cutting edges on a machining head are negatively tilted with respect to a working space, to improve surface finish (column 1 lines, 61-67 and column 2, lines 1-19). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that negative cutting angles will depend on the type of material being machined and prevent the cutting edge from breakage (when machining difficult to cut materials).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the cutting edge on the machine head of Scribner be negatively tilted with respect to the working space, based on the teachings of Nelson, depending on the type of material being machined, to improve surface finish and prevent the cutting edge from breakage when machining difficult to cut materials.
In regards to claim 16, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner as modified also discloses that the cutting edge (4 and 5 of Scribner) comprises a main cutting edge (one of 4 or 5 of Scribner) wherein the main cutting edge (of Scribner) is oriented at an angle to the working space.
However, Scribner fails to disclose that the angle is of 1° to 10°.
Nevertheless, Nelson teaches that it is well known in the art to have a machining tool where cutting edges on a machining head are negatively tilted with respect to a working space at an angle of 1½° ±½°, to improve surface finish (column 1 lines, 61-67 and column 2, lines 1-34). Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that negative cutting angles will depend on the type of material being machined and prevent the cutting edge from breakage (when machining difficult to cut materials).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the cutting edge on the machine head of Scribner be negatively tilted with respect to the working space at an angle of 1° to 10°, such as 1½° ±½°, based on the teachings of Nelson, depending on the type of material being machined, to improve surface finish and prevent the cutting edge from breakage when machining difficult to cut materials.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have the cutting edges on the machine head of Scribner to be negatively tilted with respect to the working space at an angle of 1° to 10°, such as 1½° ±½°, based on the teachings of Nelson, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (e.g. type of material being machined, surface finish, and cutting edge strength). In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Rejections based on Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 8, 11-12, 15 and 16 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC § 103 over of Scribner US 2,895,211 in view of Sweet US 3,187,611, in further view of Dudley US 3,971,114 have been incorporated as aforementioned.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/21/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4, 8, 11-12, 15 and 16 have been carefully and fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 19, regarding the rejection of claim 1 in view of Scribner, that Scribner does not disclose that the material feed is “a bore”, as best understood, because Scribner’s material feed is a “groove” with “an open top” and as such Scribner’s groove “is merely a surface depression, as opposed to being a bore, as claimed, which is a closed structure passing through the holder”. The Examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a bore, as claimed, which is a closed structure passing through the holder”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only recites “a bore which passes through the holder”. Absent any specific definition of the term “bore” in the specification as filed and giving broadest reasonable interpretation to the term “bore1” as being “a long hollow part of something”, Scribner’s groove or channel 10 (note that Scribner has the alternative of element 10 being a groove or a channel, so as to have the upper surfaces of the conditioning material be flushed with or slightly below the tool surfaces adjacent said channel or groove (column 2, lines 16-21)), passes through the holder as indicated on the rejection above. Thus, the Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
Applicant argues on pages 10-11, regarding the combination of Scribner and Dudley and now rejection of claim 1, that it would not have been obvious to “combine the teachings of Scribner with those of Dudley” because as best understood Dudley refers to “a machine tool, which is cooled by a cryogenic fluid…since the cryogenic coolant of Dudley is a liquid, it is possible that such liquid can be forwarded about an angle…by contrast, this is not possible with a conditioning material formed as a soling body as in Scribner”. The Examiner disagrees and points out that 1) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and 2) one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As indicated in the rejection above, base reference Scribner discloses all the recited claimed elements of claim 1 but fails to disclose that the cutting edge is brazed with the holder.
Accordingly, the examiner relied on the teachings of Dudley as Dudley teaches that it is well known in the art to have a brazed cutting edge (21) in a holder of a machining head, to allow for regrinding of the cutting edge when worn out instead of disposing of the entire holder and to allow permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder.
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Scribner’s machine head with a brazed cutting edge based on the teachings of Dudley, to allow for regrinding of the cutting edge when worn out instead of disposing of the entire holder and to allow permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder.
Accordingly, a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth.
Applicant argues on page 12, regarding the combination of Scribner and Sweet and now rejection of claim 1, that because “Sweet has a different approach than Scribner…Sweet is completely silent as to whether and how to provide a feeding material” it would not have been obvious to combine Scribner and Sweet.
The Examiner disagrees and points out that 1) the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and 2) one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As indicated in the rejection above, although there is a suggestion in Scribner, that the machining head is inherently provided on a tool main body of a machining tool (so as to machine a workpiece), this is not explicitly disclosed.
Accordingly, the Examiner relied on the teachings of Sweet, as Sweet teaches that it is well known in the art to have at least one machining head (2) provided on a tool main body of a machining tool (see Figures 1, 3 and 4). As in Figures 1, 3 and 4, there are a plurality of machining heads spaced apart by a gap to form a working space.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to have Scribner’s machining head be provided on the tool main body of Sweet’s machining tool, in order to perform a turning operation, since Scribner has explicitly stated that the machining head is to be used in various metal cutting operations, such as turning operations. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to duplicate machining heads of Scribner’s and thus provide them on the tool main body of Sweet’s machining tool, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Accordingly, a proper prima facie case of obviousness has been set forth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kraus US 2,414,231 discloses that it is well known in the art to have a cutting tip (6), having cutting edges (8 and 9) brazed with a holder (5).
Cline et al. US 3,800,380 discloses that it is well known in the art to have a cutting tip (16), having cutting edge (18) brazed with a holder (10).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 Bore: “the long usually cylindrical hollow part of something”. BORE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. Note, that the term “usually” means in most cases, but with occasional exceptions. Thus, the term bore, does not mean that the structure is always a closed cylindrical hollow part of something.
