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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-19, drawn to “A machining system”, classified in B23Q 11/10) in the reply filed on 1/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the following ground(s):
In accordance with their duty under 37 C.F.R. 1.143, Applicants hereby provisionally elect Invention I, which encompass Claims 1-19 with traverse.
Applicant notes that Claim 20 has been amended to recite a machining system that depends from Claim 1. Applicant respectfully submits that examination without restriction between Inventions I and II would not present an undue search burden as Invention II, Claim 20 is sufficiently related to Invention I. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the restriction between Inventions I and Il are respectfully requested.
In light of the amendment to claim 20 such that it is now directed to, “The machining system of Claim 1” rather than to “A coolant tube for a tool holder of machining system,” please be advised that Invention II as previously identified no longer exists. Based on the foregoing, the Requirement for Restriction between combination and subcombination is hereby withdrawn. Each of claims 1-20 will therefore be examined by Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: On lines 1-2 of the claim, “is a diameter” should be changed to “[[is]] has a diameter”. 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Lines 1-2 of claim 11 state, “wherein the coolant tube assembly further includes a second seal.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because by setting forth “a second seal” without having previously set forth “a first seal” in claim 11, or in claim 1 on which claim 11 directly depends, it is unclear if the unclaimed “first seal” is implicitly required.
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 1-5, 7-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2006/0029482 A1) in view of Lehman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0239267 A1).
Claim 1: Figure 1 of Stoll et al. shows a machining system (10) comprising a coolant tube assembly, which in turn comprises a tubular body (38), a sleeve (40), and a restrictor (56).
As can be seen within Figure 1, the tubular body (38) is disposed about a central axis (28) and defining a central bore disposed about the central axis (28) and extending in a first axial direction from a proximal end toward a distal end of the tubular body (38).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 and provided it below. As can be seen therein, a shoulder extends radially outward from a perimeter surface of the tubular body (38).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to the aforesaid central bore, as can be seen above, it comprises each of a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion. Noting this, the restrictor (56) is coupled to the tubular body (38), specifically to the small diameter portion thereof.
Next, with regards to the sleeve (40), it is disposed rotatably about the distal end of the tubular body (38) and it defines a male threadform. As can also be seen above in the annotated figure, the sleeve (40) includes a mating shoulder that extends radially inward of the shoulder of the tubular body (38).
Regarding the restrictor (56) coupled to the tubular body (38), it defines an aperture (which can be seen above within annotated Figure 1) extending through the restrictor (56) such that said restrictor (56) restricts flow from the central bore through the distal end of the tubular body (38). Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the aperture restricting flow “to a flow area of less than 0.126 mm2.” Please note that the aperture has a diameter and a flow area that is smaller than, for example, a diameter and a flow area of the central bore’s small diameter portion. Thus, the aperture of the restrictor (56) causes a pressure increase.
Figure 3 of Lehman et al. though, shows a restrictor (22) having an aperture (23) that is substantially round and having a width/diameter of 0.3 mm [paragraph 0044]. As such, the area (that is to say the flow area) of the aperture having the width/diameter of 0.3 mm is 0.0706 mm2, which is less than 0.126 mm2. Please note that the diameter and the flow area of the aperture (23) is smaller than that of the opening through which a fluid/coolant flows prior to entering the aperture (23). As such, the aperture of the restrictor (22) causes a pressure increase, and causes the entering fluid/coolant to be atomized [paragraph 0044].
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 formed the aperture of the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. to have a diameter of 0.3 mm and a flow area of 0.0706 mm2 in accordance with the disclosure of Lehman et al., so as to provide the machining system (100) of Stoll et al. with the advantage of being able to atomize the fluid that enters/flows into the restrictor (56) of said machining system (100).
Claim 2: The restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. is coupled to the tubular body (38) by at least a threaded connection [paragraph 0031].
Claim 3: As can be seen in Figure 4 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (56) is disposed closer to the distal end of the of tubular body (38) than to the proximal end of the tubular body (38).
Claim 4: As can be seen in Figure 4 of Stoll et al., a proximal end of the restrictor (56) (which corresponds to the left (proximal) end of the restrictor (56) from the perspective of Figure 4) is recessed from the distal end of the tubular body (38). As can also be seen in Figure 4 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (56) is disposed within the central bore, specifically the restrictor (56) is disposed within the small diameter portion of the central bore.
Furthermore, according to Stoll et al., a second section (58) of the body portion (50) of which the restrictor (56) is a part may be omitted and the restrictor/first section (56) may extend from a bottom surface of a tool receiving portion (52) (see Figure 1) [paragraph 0031]. In this setup, the restrictor (56) extends from the bottom surface of a tool receiving portion (52) to where the left (proximal) end of the restrictor (56) is shown in Figure 4. In this setup, it is noted that the restrictor (56) constitutes “a wafer” (as broadly claimed), because the restrictor (56) has a shape in its cross-section that resembles a thin disk/wafer.
Claim 5: An axial thickness of the restrictor (56) extends from the left (proximal) end of the restrictor (56) to the right (distal) end of the restrictor (56) (noting that the right (distal) end is located at the bottom surface of the tool receiving portion (52) when the second section (58) of the body portion (50) is omitted) [paragraph 0031] with respect to the axial direction extending left-to-right/right-to-left from the perspective of Figure 4. Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the axial thickness being “less than or equal to 5 mm.”
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 axial thickness of the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. to have an axial thickness that is less than or equal to 5 mm, 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 restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. would not operate differently with the claimed axial thickness, because said restrictor (56) would still serve to move fluid therethrough and into the space delimited by a chamfer (62) of the body portion (50) of which the restrictor (56) and chamfer (62) are a part. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, noting in paragraph [0033] of the specification that, “In one form, the restrictor 318 is 3 mm thick in the axial direction, though other thicknesses may be used.”
Claim 7: According to Stoll et al., the adapter (16) of which the restrictor (56) is a part is made of, for example, any suitable material such as a metal [paragraph 0029]. Stoll et al. though, does not disclose this metal as being “aluminum or stainless steel.” However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the adapter (16) including the restrictor (56) thereof be made of metal, in particular made of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance, the adapter (16) including the restrictor (56) being made of stainless steel offers the benefits of corrosion resistance and temperature tolerance, and thus, the stainless steel adapter (16) and restrictor (56) would be suitable for the intended use of delivering fluids therethrough for the purpose of cooling and lubrication.
Claim 8: As was stated above within the rejection of claim 1, the aperture of the (modified) restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. has a diameter of 0.3 mm. This single aperture of the restrictor (56) falls within the claimed diameter of “0.250 mm to 0.400 mm.”
Claim 9: As was stated above within the rejection of claim 1, the central bore comprises each of a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion. Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on “the central bore is a diameter between 7 mm and 8 mm.”
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 central bore of Stoll et al. to have a diameter between 7 mm and 8 mm, 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 central bore of Stoll et al. would not operate differently with the claimed diameter, because said central bore would still have diameter and a flow area that is larger than, for example, the diameter and flow area of the aperture of the restrictor (56). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, noting in paragraph [0027] of the specification it stated that, “In the example provided, the tube bore 326 is between 7 mm and 8 mm in diameter, though other configurations can be used” (emphasis added).
Claim 10: As can be seen in Figure 1 of Stoll et al., the coolant tube assembly further comprises a first seal in contact with the sleeve (40), the tubular body (38), and a side of the shoulder that faces in the first axial direction. For Applicant’s reference, Figure 1 of Stoll et al. has been annotated and provided below so as to point to the first seal.
PNG
media_image2.png
637
870
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: As can be seen in Figure 1 of Stoll et al., the coolant tube assembly further comprises a second seal in contact with the sleeve (40), the tubular body (38), and a side of the shoulder that faces in a second axial direction that is opposite the first axial direction. For Applicant’s reference, Figure 1 of Stoll et al. has been annotated and provided above so as to point to the second seal.
Claim 12: The machining system (10) of Stoll et al. further comprises a tool holder body (14) including a driven portion and a tool receiving portion, each of which has been pointed to below in annotated Figure 1 of Stoll et al. Moreover, the tool holder body (14) defines a first female threadform configured to mate with the male threadform of the sleeve (40).
PNG
media_image3.png
685
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 13: The machining system (10) of Stoll et al. further comprises an adjustment screw (58+52). The adjustment screw (58+52) constitutes such, because the second section (58) thereof is disclosed as being able to have a threaded portion on an exterior surface thereof [paragraph 0031]. That is to say that the second section (58) has a male threadform.
Noting the above, when the second section (58) of the adjustment screw (58+52) has the male threadform on the exterior surface thereof, it is inherent that the tool holder body (14) further defines a second female threadform for interfacing with said male threadform of the second section (58) of the adjustment screw (58+52). If the tool holder body (14) didn’t have said second female threadform, for example, then the adjustment screw (58+52) wouldn’t have anything to screw into.
Next, as can be seen in Figure 1, the tool receiving portion (52) of the adjustment screw (58+52) defines a seat surface to contact a mating surface of a tool (12) inserted within the tool receiving portion. Lastly, as can also be seen in Figure 1 of Stoll et al., the adjustment (58+52) defines a central passageway coaxial with the central axis (28).
Claim 14: A maximum distance between an outlet of the aperture of the restrictor (56) and an inlet of the central passageway of the adjustment screw (58+52) “is less than 100 mm.” This is because the aperture and the inlet of the central passageway (which inlet is located in the second section (58) of the adjustment screw (58+52)) are directly connected without a space in-between.
Claim 15: The machining system (10) of Stoll et al. further comprises a spindle [paragraph 0026] and a lubrication system having a fluid supply pipe [paragraph 0028]. As to the spindle, it is coupled to the tool holder body (14) and is configured to rotate the tool holder body (14) about the central axis (28) [paragraph 00226]. As to the lubrication system, it is configured to supply a lubricant to an interior of the tubular body (38) such that the lubricant flows from the interior of the tubular body (38) through the aperture of the restrictor (56) to the central passageway in the adjustment screw (58+52).
Claim 18: Figure 1 of Stoll et al. shows a machining system (10) comprising a coolant tube assembly, which in turn comprises a tubular body (38), a sleeve (40), and a restrictor (56).
As can be seen within Figure 1, the tubular body (38) is disposed about a central axis (28) and defining a central bore disposed about the central axis (28) and extending in a first axial direction from a proximal end toward a distal end of the tubular body (38).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 and provided it below. As can be seen therein, a shoulder extends radially outward from a perimeter surface of the tubular body (38).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to the aforesaid central bore, as can be seen above, it comprises each of a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion. Noting this, the restrictor (56) is disposed within the central bore of the tubular body (38), specifically disposed within the small diameter portion of said central bore.
Next, with regards to the sleeve (40), it is disposed rotatably about the distal end of the tubular body (38) and it defines a male threadform. As can also be seen above in the annotated figure, the sleeve (40) includes a mating shoulder that extends radially inward of the shoulder of the tubular body (38).
Regarding the restrictor (56) disposed within the central bore, it defines a single aperture (which can be seen above in annotated Figure 1) extending through the restrictor (56). Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the aperture “having a diameter between 0.250 mm and 0.400 mm.” Please note that the aperture has a diameter that is smaller than, for example, a diameter of the central bore’s small diameter portion. Thus, the aperture of the restrictor (56) causes a pressure increase.
Figure 3 of Lehman et al. though, shows a restrictor (22) having an aperture (23) that is substantially round and having a width/diameter of 0.3 mm [paragraph 0044]. Please note that the diameter of the aperture (23) is smaller than that of the opening through which a fluid/coolant flows prior to entering the aperture (23). As such, the aperture of the restrictor (22) causes a pressure increase, and causes the entering fluid/coolant to be atomized [paragraph 0044].
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 formed the aperture of the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. to have a diameter of 0.3 mm in accordance with the disclosure of Lehman et al., so as to provide the machining system (100) of Stoll et al. with the advantage of being able to atomize the fluid that enters/flows into the restrictor (56) of said machining system (100).
Claim 19: As can be seen in Figure 4 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (56) is disposed closer to the distal end of the of tubular body (38) than to the proximal end of the tubular body (38), and a proximal end of the restrictor (56) (which corresponds to the left end of the restrictor (56) from the perspective of Figure 1) is recessed from the distal end of the tubular body (38).
Claim 20: As was stated above within the rejection of claim 1, the aperture of the (modified) restrictor (56) has a diameter of 0.3 mm. Thus, the diameter of the aperture extending axially through the restrictor (56) falls within the claimed diameter of “0.250 mm to 0.400 mm.”
Next, as was stated above within the rejection of claim 1, the central bore comprises each of a large diameter portion and a small diameter portion. Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on “the central bore has a diameter between 7 mm and 8 mm.”
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 central bore of Stoll et al. to have a diameter between 7 mm and 8 mm, 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 central bore of Stoll et al. would not operate differently with the claimed diameter, because said central bore would still have diameter and a flow area that is larger than, for example, the diameter and flow area of the aperture of the restrictor (56). Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, noting in paragraph [0027] of the specification it stated that, “In the example provided, the tube bore 326 is between 7 mm and 8 mm in diameter, though other configurations can be used” (emphasis added).
Next, as can be seen in Figure 4 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (56) is fixed within the central bore of the tubular body (38).
Furthermore, according to Stoll et al., a second section (58) of the body portion (50) of which the restrictor (56) is a part may be omitted and the restrictor/first section (56) may extend from a bottom surface of a tool receiving portion (52) (see Figure 1) [paragraph 0031]. In this setup, the restrictor (56) extends from the bottom surface of a tool receiving portion (52) to where the left (proximal) end of the restrictor (56) is shown in Figure 4. In this setup, it is noted that the restrictor (56) constitutes “a wafer” (as broadly claimed), because the restrictor (56) has a shape in its cross-section that resembles a thin disk/wafer. Thus, the restrictor (56) comprises a wafer fixed within the central bore of the tubular body (38).
Lastly, an axial thickness of the restrictor (56) extends from the left (proximal) end of the restrictor (56) to the right (distal) end of the restrictor (56) (noting that the right (distal) end is located at the bottom surface of the tool receiving portion (52) when the second section (58) of the body portion (50) is omitted) [paragraph 0031] with respect to the axial direction extending left-to-right/right-to-left from the perspective of Figure 4. Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the axial thickness being “less than 5 mm.”
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 axial thickness of the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. to have an axial thickness that is less than 5 mm, 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 restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. would not operate differently with the claimed axial thickness, because said restrictor (56) would still serve to move fluid therethrough and into the space delimited by a chamfer (62) of the body portion (50) of which the restrictor (56) and chamfer (62) are a part. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, noting in paragraph [0033] of Appplicant’s specification that, “In one form, the restrictor 318 is 3 mm thick in the axial direction, though other thicknesses may be used.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2006/0029482 A1) in view of Lehman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0239267 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0178542 A1).
Claim 6: According to Stoll et al., the adapter (16) of which the restrictor (56) is a part is made of, for example, any suitable material, such as a polymeric material or a metal [paragraph 0029]. Stoll et al. though, does not disclose what material the tubular body (38) is made of. Thus, Stoll et al. does not disclose that “the tubular body and the restrictor are formed of the same material.”
Figure 2 of Wang et al. though, shows therein a tubular body (1.3) have an integral restrictor that extends axially between 1.g and 1.f. The tubular body (1.3) and the integral restrictor thereof are made of the same material, the material being a modified polyimide (which is a polymeric material) with a thermal conductivity less than 0.15 W/(m·K) [paragraph 0022]. Thus, the tubular body (1.3) and the restrictor thereof are configured for delivering therethrough a cryogenic coolant in the form of liquid nitrogen [paragraph 0022].
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 formed both the tubular body (38) and the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. from the modified polyimide having a thermal conductivity less than 0.15 W/(m·K) as disclosed by Wang et al., so as to provide the tubular body (38) and the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. with the advantage of being able to deliver therethrough a cryogenic coolant in the form of liquid nitrogen. In making this modification, both the tubular body (38) and the restrictor (56) of Stoll et al. are formed of the same material, the same material being the modified polyimide of Wang et al.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2006/0029482 A1) in view of Lehman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0239267 A1), and further in view of Haas (WIPO Publication No. WO 2019121818 A1).
Claim 16: The lubrication system of Stoll et al. further comprises a fluid supply tube that is disposed about the central axis (28). This is because the fluid supply tube is connected to a conduit (32) which is disposed concentrically with the central axis (28) [paragraph 0028]. Please be advised that the conduit (32) comprises the tubular body (38). Since the tubular body (38) is disposed closest to the proximal end/driven portion of the tool holder body (14) through which the fluid supply tube extends, it is to the tubular body (38) that the fluid supply tube is connected.
Stoll et al. though, does not disclose “a seal is formed between the supply tube and a radially outward surface of the tubular body.” Please be advised that in order for the seal to be formed between the fluid supply tube and a radially outward surface of the tubular body (38), the fluid supply tube would necessarily be required to surround the radially outward surface of the tubular body (38). Stoll et al. does not disclose such a configuration.
Figure 5 of Haas though, shows a machining system in which a fluid supply tube (110) surrounds a radially outer surface of a tubular body (120). With this setup, fluid is transferred (as is required) from the fluid supply tube (110) to the tubular body (120).
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 had the fluid supply tube of Stoll et al. surround the radially outer surface of the tubular body (38) of Stoll et al. in accordance with the disclosure of Haas, so as to ensure the transfer of fluid (as is required) from the fluid supply tube of Stoll et al. to the corresponding tubular body (38).
Disclosure; however, is not provided by Stoll et al./Lehman et al./Haas on “a seal is formed between the supply tube and a radially outward surface of the tubular body.”
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of a seal in two connected tubes/ tubular bodies through which fluid is transferred, wherein the seal is located between a first of the two tubes/tubular bodies and a radially outer surface of a second of the two tubes/tubular bodies is well-known and widely-used in the art, and such results in fluid not being leaked when being transferred from the first to the second of the two tubes/tubular bodies, and thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a seal between the fluid supply tube of Stoll et al. and the radially outward surface of the tubular body (38) of Stoll et al. as is well-known, for purpose of ensuring fluid isn’t leaked in transfer from the fluid supply tube to the tubular body (38).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stoll et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2006/0029482 A1) in view of Lehman et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0239267 A1), and further in view of Skerlos (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0246928 A1).
Claim 17: Stoll et al. doesn’t provide disclosure on the lubricant provided by the lubrication system being “a mixture of supercritical carbon dioxide and oil.”
Skerlos though, discloses mixing a lubricant (which can be one or more oils) with a supercritical fluid (which can be supercritical carbon dioxide) to form supercritical machining fluid [paragraphs 0003, 0024, 0028, 0041]. With this mixture, the supercritical machining fluid may be able to flow through the same spindle arrangements that are used for water-based machining fluids [paragraph 0028]. According to Skerlos, in machining applications, rapidly expanding supercritical machining fluids may provide better cooling and/or more efficient heat transfer, may provide for better mixing with lubricants or dissolution of lubricants, and/or allow for the use of smaller amounts of lubricants compared to conventional water-based machining fluids [paragraph 0015].
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 utilized the supercritical machining fluid of Skerlos in the lubrication system of Stoll et al., wherein the supercritical machining fluid of Skerlos is a mixture of one or more oils and supercritical carbon dioxide, so as to provide the advantage in machining applications of better cooling and/or more efficient heat transfer and the use of smaller amounts of lubricants compared to conventional water-based machining fluids.
Conclusion
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