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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
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, 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scribner US 2,895,211.
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 the machining head (3) 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 is aligned with an end face of the holder, wherein a feed opening (refer to outlet opening between 4 and 5 as in Figure 3) of the material feed is provided adjacently to a flank face of the 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).
In regards to claim 4, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the material feed (10) has a feed opening which 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 discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the dispensing device (24) is detachably fastened to the holder (2).
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.
In the alternative, 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 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 a feed opening (refer to outlet opening between 4 and 5 as in Figure 3) of the material feed is provided 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.).
In regards to claim 4, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner as modified also discloses that the material feed (10 of Scribner) has a feed opening which 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) 5 and 17 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 as applied to claim 4 and claim 1, respectively, and in further view of Dudley US 3,971,114.
In regards to claim 5, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 4, Scribner also discloses that the feed opening of the material feed (10 of Scribner) lies in an end face of the holder facing the working space (see Figures 1-3 of Scribner), and the end face of the holder is provided at a relief angle, and wherein the material feed (10 of Scribner) is formed as a bore in the holder (see Figure 3 of Scribner), said bore having an opening (at about 25 of Scribner) opposite the feed opening for loading the conditioning material (12 of Scribner).
Although there is a suggestion in Figures 1-3 of Scribner that the relief angle of the end face is equal to that of the cutting edge, since the cutting edge forms a single surface with the end surface, this is not explicitly disclosed.
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 for permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that relief angles will depend on the type of material being machined and to provide necessary clearance to prevent any rubbing between the holder/cutting edge and workpiece and thus damage the surface finish.
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 where the relief angle of the end face is equal to that of the cutting edge based on the teachings of Dudley, depending on the type of material being machined and to provide necessary clearance to prevent any rubbing between the holder/cutting edge and workpiece and thus damage the surface finish.
In regards to claim 17, Scribner as modified discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the holder (of Scribner) of the machining head (of Scribner) comprises a brazed cutting edge (as modified by Dudley).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner US 2,895,211 as applied to claim 4 and claim 1, respectively, and in further view of Dudley US 3,971,114.
In regards to claim 5, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 4, Scribner also discloses that the feed opening of the material feed (10) lies in an end face of the holder facing the working space (see Figures 1-3), and the end face of the holder is provided at a relief angle, and wherein the material feed (10) is formed as a bore in the holder (see Figure 3), said bore having an opening (at about 25) opposite the feed opening for loading the conditioning material (12).
Although there is a suggestion in Figures 1-3 of Scribner that the relief angle of the end face is equal to that of the cutting edge, since the cutting edge forms a single surface with the end surface, this is not explicitly disclosed.
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 for permanently fixing an insert to a holder where the insert is made of a harder (likely more expensive) material than the holder. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that relief angles will depend on the type of material being machined and to provide necessary clearance to prevent any rubbing between the holder/cutting edge and workpiece and thus damage the surface finish.
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 where the relief angle of the end face is equal to that of the cutting edge based on the teachings of Dudley, depending on the type of material being machined and to provide necessary clearance to prevent any rubbing between the holder/cutting edge and workpiece and thus damage the surface finish.
In regards to claim 17, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the holder (of Scribner) of the machining head (of Scribner) comprises a brazed cutting edge (as modified by Dudley).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner US 2,895,211 as applied to claim 1, in view of Sweet US 3,187,611.
In regards to claim 11, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 2, Scribner 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°.
However, Scribner fails to disclose that there are two mutually opposed machining heads are provided on the tool main body and are spaced apart by a gap to form a working space.
Nevertheless, Sweet teaches that it is well known in the art to have two opposed machining heads (2) provided on a tool main body (see Figures 1, 3 and 4) and are 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 two opposed spaced apart machining heads on the tool main body as taught by Sweet, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routing skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
In regards to claim 12, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 2, Scribner 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°.
However, Scribner fails to disclose that there are two mutually opposed machining heads are provided on the tool main body and are spaced apart by a gap to form a working space.
Nevertheless, Sweet teaches that it is well known in the art to have two opposed machining heads (2) provided on a tool main body (see Figures 1, 3 and 4) and are 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 two opposed spaced apart machining heads on the tool main body as taught by Sweet, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routing skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
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 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).
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scribner US 2,895,211 as applied to claim 1, in view of Nelson US 4,065,223.
In regards to claim 15, Scribner discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that the cutting edge on the machining head is 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 discloses the machining tool according to claim 1, Scribner also discloses that a main cutting edge of the cutting edge 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 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, 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 not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph of claim 2, has been withdrawn.
In view of Applicant’s amendments, the previous 35 USC § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/08/2026 with respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 15-16 and 17 have been carefully and fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 11, regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) over Scribner US 2,895,211, and claim 1, that Scribner does not disclose providing “a dispensing device which has at least one plunger, to which pressure is applicable and by which the conditioning material is guidable out of the feeding opening of the material”. The Examiner disagrees and notes that because when the dispensing device 24 of Scribner is actuated so as to rotate, it pushes out and guides out of the feeding opening of the material feed, a conditioning material, then Scribner’s dispensing device acts as a plunger. Therefore, Scribner does disclose that the dispensing device has at least one plunger 24 to which rotating pressure is applicable and by which (rotation) the conditioning material is guidable out of the feed opening of the material feed. Therefore, the Examiner interpretation is not precluded.
Applicant further argues on page 11, that Scribner fails to disclose “a material feed for conditioning material to be applied to a surface of the workpiece machined by the cutting edge is aligned with an end face of the holder” because, as best understood “Scribner only discloses a cutting edge having a channel for the conditioning material and not a holder having a cutting edge and that the feeding opening is in the holder and not in the cutting edge, but adjacent to the cutting edge. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points Applicant to the rejection above for details. Since the holder has a cutting edge, and the feeding opening opens to the cutting edge, then Scribner does disclose a material feed (10) for a conditioning material (12) to be applied to the surface of the workpiece machined by the cutting edge is aligned with an end face of the holder. The Examiner’s interpretation is not precluded.
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
Prosecution Insights