DETAILED ACTION
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-12 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimer et al US20090003947 (embodiment on figure 18) and Haimer et al US20090003947 (embodiment on figure 1).
Regarding claim 1, Haimer discloses a tool-clamping chuck (Haimer; 10r; fig 18) for clamping tools for performing work, the tools each having a tool shank, the tool clamping chuck comprising: a sleeve portion (Haimer; 20r; fig 18) having an open free end, said sleeve portion forming a tool-holding (Haimer; 78r “frictionally locking fixing” can also describe a threaded method; fig 18) fixture for frictionally locking fixing of the tool shank of the tool for performing work in a press fit by shrink-fitting; and said sleeve portion including an inner sleeve (Haimer; Sleeve with opening VA; fig 18) and an outer sleeve (Haimer; 20r; fig 18), said inner sleeve and said outer sleeve extending over an entire axial length of said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; 20r extends to cover the entire length of tool holding fixture 78r; fig 18), said outer sleeve receiving said inner sleeve in an operationally ready state (Haimer; 20r ; fig 18, sections [0098]-[0101]), said inner sleeve having a conical outer circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; conical surface on outside of fixture 78r; fig 18), and said outer sleeve having a complementary, conical inner circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; 20r conical surface along entire length; fig 18), and said outer sleeve being joined to said inner sleeve without play (Haimer; 20r; fig 18; section [0100]).
The embodiment of Haimer above does not disclose fixing of the tool shank in a press fit by shrink-fitting.
Haimer teaches fixing of the tool shank in a press fit by shrink-fitting in figure 1 (Haimer; 16; fig 1; section [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified one embodiment of Haimer to include features of another embodiment. As stated by Haimer, “The features of the tool holders which have been illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner…” meaning one skilled in the art would see that they could replace the threaded section of the tool-holder from figure 18 with the shrink-fit section of figure 1 with expected results.
The embodiments of Haimer above do not explicitly disclose said outer sleeve being joined to said inner sleeve by a press fit extending entirely along said axial length of said tool-holding fixture.
However, said inner sleeve having a conical outer circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; conical surface on outside of fixture 78r; fig 18), and said outer sleeve having a complementary, conical inner circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; 20r conical surface along entire length; fig 18), and said outer sleeve being joined to said inner sleeve without play (Haimer; 20r; fig 18; section [0100]) in combination with section [0021] which states that the sleeves can be joined by press-fit, section [0059] that states that “features of the tool holders … can be combined with one another in any desired manner”; further section [0130] which states that the features illustrated in figs. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner, it stands to reason that one skilled in the art would see the features listed above as well as the embodiment of figure 22 which does have a substantial conical section that is joined by press fit and come to the conclusion that joining the sleeves of figure 17 and 18 by press fit is possible and likely to produce expected results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the embodiments of Haimer listed above to include a press-fit between the conical sleeves. See sections [0021], [0059], [0130] for motivations and recitations of said press fit as an alternative to other means of securing the sleeves.
Regarding claim 2, Haimer discloses the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, wherein said sleeve portion is composed of an electrically conductive material, and said inner sleeve is composed of an electrically conductive material (Haimer; section [0032]; claim 48).
Regarding claim 3, Haimer discloses the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, wherein said outer sleeve is also connected to said inner sleeve by a press fit whenever the tool- clamping chuck is at room temperature and not clamping any tool shank (Haimer; 20r; fig 18; section [0100]).
The recitation “said outer sleeve is also connected to said inner sleeve by a press fit” is considered to be a product by process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by different processes.” In this instance, the product taught by Haimer is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious (Haimer; e.g. in the embodiments in figures 22-28 and sections [0107]-[123] detail numerous “friction fit” sections that are analogous to press-fitting and though the sleeve of figure 18 is silent as to the exact fit of sleeve 20r onto the tool holding sleeve at VA, sections [0100]-[0101] detail conditions that are also analogous to press or friction fitting) meeting the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1.
Figure 18 of Haimer and associated sections do not explicitly disclose said outer sleeve being configured, after thermal expansion of said outer sleeve and insertion of the tool shank to be clamped as intended into said inner sleeve, to be prevented from shrinking as said outer sleeve cools again and thereby substantially contributes to producing the press fit holding the tool shank.
Figure 1 of Haimer teaches a tool clamping chuck that does use a press fit for tool holding purposes (Haimer; 16; Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified one embodiment of Haimer to have features of another, in this case, the shrink fit section of figure 1 (16) to replace the threaded section of figure 18 (78r) in which the sleeve of 18 (20r) would then “substantially contributes[sic] to producing the press fit holding the tool shank” in the same way as applicant’s outer sleeve. As stated in Haimer “The features of the tool holders which have been illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner.”
Regarding claim 5, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, wherein said inner sleeve is configured to be under tension in a cold state and to open by deformation during thermal expansion of said outer sleeve (Haimer; 20p when modified to include the tool holding section 16 of fig 1 as stated above; fig 18; section [0050]).
Haimer in the embodiment present in figure 18 does not explicitly disclose a tool holding fixture in the inner sleeve that opens through thermal expansion.
Haimer in the embodiment in figure 1 teaches a tool-holding fixture that opens through thermal expansion (Haimer; 14 expands when 16 expands; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment of Haimer present in figure 18 with the tool-holding fixture embodiment in figure 1 in which case the outer sleeve (20r) when made of one of the suitable materials listed in claim 48 would be under tension in a cold state and thermally expand which in turn would allow the inner sleeve to thermally expand. One skilled in the art would know that this could be accomplished with expected results given Haimer’s declaration “The features of the tool holders which have been illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner.”
Regarding claim 6, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, wherein said inner sleeve and said outer sleeve are composed of different materials or different types of steel or a hardened or use-hardened and wear-insensitive steel for said inner sleeve and a hot-working steel for said outer sleeve (Haimer; section [0032] goes over different materials that can be used for the outer sleeves and further details that it is advantageous that the sleeves be made of different components).
Regarding claim 7, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, which further comprises a clamping chuck basic body forming a coupling or an SK or HSK coupling to a machine tool, said inner sleeve being a non-releasable or integral part of said clamping chuck basic body (Haimer; section [0008] details the different types of chucks that can be used successfully with these embodiments, e.g., HSK coupling.).
Regarding claim 9, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1, wherein: said sleeve portion forms a centering region at said inner sleeve having an enlarged outside diameter; said outer sleeve has a complementary inside diameter forming a guide region when said inner sleeve and said outer sleeve are pressed together in an axial direction; and said inner sleeve and said outer sleeve initially contact each other and are guided onto each other and then enter into a pressing action outside said guide region over a course of further pushing together with a pressing action being greater than any pressing action occurring during the initial contact (Haimer; sections [0034]-[0035] detail centering of the inner and outer sleeves not specific to any particular embodiment but is suitable when applied to the embodiment of figure 18).
Regarding claim 10, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 9, wherein said sleeve portion forms said centering region partially or completely in a region outside an axial extent of said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; sections [0034]-[0035] detail centering of the inner and outer sleeves not specific to any particular embodiment but is suitable when applied to the embodiment of figure 18; when applied the centering regions are the circumferential surfaces of the inner sleeve when in contact with the inner surface of the outer sleeve).
Regarding claim 11, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 9, wherein said guide region or centering region merges through a conical or non-conical transition section into a section of said sleeve portion associated with said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; sections [0034]-[0035] detail centering of the inner and outer sleeves not specific to any particular embodiment but is suitable when applied to the embodiment of figure 18; the conical surfaces of both sleeves continue from the tool-holding fixture through to the full length of both sleeves).
Regarding claim 12, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) the tool-clamping chuck according to claim 9, which further comprises:
a clamping chuck basic body (Haimer; 12r; fig 18);
The embodiment of Haimer figure 18 does not explicitly disclose said outer sleeve forming a flange with through-holes in a pushing-on direction said guide region; said flange being faced by a complementary flange or a complementary annular shoulder with internal threaded holes or freely protruding stud bolts; said flange or said annular shoulder being formed by said clamping chuck basic body, permitting said outer sleeve to be pressed onto said inner sleeve by screwing to said clamping chuck basic body; and press-off devices for pressing off said outer sleeve again by using pressure screws.
Figure 1 of Haimer teaches said outer sleeve forming a flange (Haimer; 34; fig 1) with through-holes (Haimer; 36; fig 1) in a pushing-on direction said guide region; said flange being faced by a complementary flange (Haimer; 43; fig 1) or a complementary annular shoulder with internal threaded holes (Haimer; 40; fig 1) or freely protruding stud bolts; said flange or said annular shoulder being formed by said clamping chuck basic body (Haimer; 12; fig 1), permitting said outer sleeve to be pressed onto said inner sleeve by screwing to said clamping chuck basic body; and press-off devices for pressing off said outer sleeve again by using pressure screws (Haimer; 38; fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified one embodiment of Haimer to include the features of another, in this case incorporating the radial flange of the outer sleeve from figure 1 into the outer sleeve of figure 18. One skilled in the art would see that this is an obvious modification to make as stated by Haimer “The features of the tool holders which have been illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner.” Described further in sections [0007]-[0008].
Regarding claim 21, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) a tool-clamping chuck for clamping tools having a tool shank, the tool-clamping chuck comprising: a sleeve portion forming a tool-holding fixture for clamping (Haimer; 78r; fig 18) or shrink-fitting a tool shank, said sleeve portion including an inner sleeve (Haimer; inner sleeve closest to and centered around VA; fig 18) and an outer sleeve (Haimer; 20r; fig 18), said inner sleeve and said outer sleeve extending over an entire axial length of said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; 78r is the tool holding fixture and the inner and outer sleeves clearly cover the entire length; fig 18), said outer sleeve receiving said inner sleeve in an operationally ready state without play, said inner sleeve having a conical outer circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture, said outer sleeve having a complementary, conical inner circumferential surface at said tool-holding fixture (Haimer; 20r and 12r having said conical circumferential surfaces; fig 18), and said outer sleeve being joined to said inner sleeve by a press fit extending entirely along said inner and outer sleeves during clamping or unclamping (Haimer; 20r covering the entire shank section of 12r; fig 18; sections [0014] and [0034]);
Figure 18 of Haimer doesn’t explicitly disclose said inner and outer sleeves both being actively and substantially involved in producing said press fit holding the tool shank.
Figure 1 of Haimer teaches a shrink-fit chuck that holds the tool shank by press fit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiment present in figure 18 with the embodiment present in figure 1 to include the shrink fit section of figure 1 given section [0130] of Haimer “The features of the tool holders which have been illustrated in FIGS. 1 to 33 can be combined with one another in any desired manner.”
Regarding claim 22, Haimer discloses (specifically in the combination of embodiments present in figures 18 and 1) a tool-clamping system, comprising: at least one tool-clamping chuck according to claim 1; and a shank tool coordinated with said at least one tool-clamping chuck with regard to a shank nominal diameter of said shank tool (Haimer; sections [0001]-[0002]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haimer, as evidenced by Schulz “History of High Speed Machining”
Regarding claim 20, Haimer as combined above discloses the chuck apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose a method for “carrying out high-speed cutting or milling at a cutting speed of more than 800 m/min or at a cutting speed of more than 1100 m/min.”
PNG
media_image1.png
477
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination device to have a cutting speed between 800 m/min and infinity because adjustment of cutting speed is recognized in the art to impact cutting quality, heat transfer within the system, and equipment life span with a reasonable expectation of success. Such modifications involve the mere optimization of a variable within a working range to yield predictable results which fail to distinguish the invention over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04). As evidenced by Schulz (“History of High Speed Machining”), numerous cutting methods are performed with different materials of cutting tools having a cutting speed of 800 m/min or more (figure below) and resulting in improved surface qualities and minimal heat transfer (pg. 12). Further, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality on the specified dimension (on page 2 of disclosure, the cutting speed may be more than 800m/min or even more than 1100m/min).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that tool holding fixture 80r is not equivalent to their device and this is not contested and no attempts were made to make such an equivalence. As stated again above, the tool holding space of 78r (referred to as 16r by applicant) when modified as required above does constitute a shrink fit feature and is equivalent to the features required by the above claims. 80r is not at issue and it is unclear why that feature was argued against as it’s not cited in any of the rejections above. Replacing a threaded feature with the shrink fit feature of a different embodiment is maintained to be a change that one of ordinary skill in the art would contemplate given the above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DUSTIN J TRUJILLO whose telephone number is (703)756-4705. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 M-Th.
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, Sunil 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 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.
/D.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3722 /SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights