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.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 18, and 19 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 5 of Stoll et al. shows a machining system (200) comprising a coolant tube assembly. The coolant tube assembly in turn comprises a tubular body (238), a shoulder, a restrictor (256+258), and a sleeve (240).
As can be seen in Figure 5, the tubular body (238) is disposed about a central axis (228) and is shown as defining a central bore disposed about the central axis (228) and extending in a first axial direction from a proximal end toward a distal end of the tubular body (238).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 and provided it below. As can be seen therein, the shoulder extends radially outward from a perimeter surface of the tubular body (238). It is noted that the perimeter surface is formed on a radially outer part of the tubular body (238), while the central bore is formed in a radially inner part of the tubular body (238).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
1000
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 (256+258) is coupled to the tubular body (238), specifically coupled to the small diameter portion thereof.
Next, with regards to the sleeve (240), it is disposed rotatably about the distal end of the tubular body (238) and it defines a male threadform. As can also be seen above in the annotated figure, the sleeve (240) includes a mating shoulder that extends radially inward of the shoulder of the tubular body (238).
Regarding the restrictor (256+258), it is coupled to the tubular body (238), and it defines an aperture (which can be seen above within annotated Figure 1) extending through the restrictor (256+258) such that said restrictor (256+258) restricts flow from the central bore through the distal end of the tubular body (238).
Next, please be advised that the restrictor (256+258) includes each of a first end (256) and a second end (258). Noting this, with regards to the aperture of the restrictor (256+258), it includes an outlet that opens through “an end,” i.e. the second end (258), of the restrictor (256+258) that is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238). Be advised that claim 1 as currently presented sets forth the “end of the restrictor” (not the “outlet,” for example) as being “flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.” Noting this, as can be seen below in a second annotated version of Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the outlet of the aperture opens through the second end (258) of the restrictor (256+258), and this second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238).
PNG
media_image2.png
599
1019
media_image2.png
Greyscale
More specifically, a proximal face of the second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body’s (238) radially inner part, and it is in this second end (258) that the outlet of the aperture opens. Based on the foregoing, Stoll et al. reads on, “wherein the at least one aperture of the restrictor includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.”
Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the aperture restricting the 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 (256+258) 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 (256+258) 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 (200) of Stoll et al. with the advantage of being able to atomize the fluid that enters/flows into the restrictor (256+258) of said machining system (200). Thus, the modified aperture of the restrictor (256+258) restricts flow from the central bore through the distal end of the tubular body (236) to a flow area of 0.0706 mm2, which is less than 0.126 mm2.
Claim 2: The restrictor (256+258) of Stoll et al. is coupled to the tubular body (238). More specifically, the first end (256) of the restrictor (256+258) is coupled to the small diameter portion of the central bore of the tubular body (238). This can be seen in Figure 5 of Stoll et al. Stoll et al. though, does not disclose the restrictor (256+258) of the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. being coupled to the tubular body (238) by “at least one of a press-fit into the central bore, a threaded connection, a brazed connection, and a welding connection.”
Figure 1 of Stoll et al. though, shows a machining system (10) in which a restrictor (56) is coupled to the small diameter portion of a central bore of a tubular body (38) by at least a threaded connection. This is known, because the restrictor (56) is disclosed as having a threaded portion on its exterior surface [Stoll et al., paragraph 0031].
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 a threaded connection between the tubular body (238) and first end (256) of the restrictor (256+258) of the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. in accordance with disclosure of the machining system (10) of Figure 1 of Stoll et al. comprising a threaded connection between the tubular body (38) and restrictor (56), so as to provide the restrictor (256+258) of the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. with advantage of being able to be removably coupled to corresponding tubular body (238) as is required. As a result of this modification, the restrictor (256+258) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. is coupled to the tubular body (238) by a threaded connection. Specifically, the first end (256) of the restrictor (256+258) is coupled to the small diameter portion of the central bore of the tubular body (238) by the threaded connection.
Claim 3: As can be seen in Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (256+258) is disposed closer to the distal end of the of tubular body (238) than to the proximal end of the tubular body (238).
Claim 7: Stoll et al. does not disclose the restrictor (256+258) being “formed of 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 restrictor (256+258) be 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 restrictor (256+258) being made of stainless steel offers the benefits of corrosion resistance and temperature tolerance, and thus, the restrictor (256+258) 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 (256+258) of Stoll et al. has a diameter of 0.3 mm. This single aperture of the restrictor (256+258) 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 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 (256+258). 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 5 of Stoll et al., the coolant tube assembly further comprises a first seal in contact with the sleeve (240), the tubular body (238), and a side of the shoulder that faces in the first axial direction. For Applicant’s reference, Figure 5 of Stoll et al. has been annotated and provided below so as to point to the first seal.
PNG
media_image3.png
585
864
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: As can be seen in Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the coolant tube assembly further comprises a second seal in contact with the sleeve (240), the tubular body (238), 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 5 of Stoll et al. has been annotated and provided above so as to point to the second seal.
Claim 12: The machining system (200) of Stoll et al. further comprises a tool holder body (214) including a driven portion and a tool receiving portion, each of which has been pointed to below in annotated Figure 5 of Stoll et al. Moreover, the tool holder body (214) defines a first female threadform configured to mate with the male threadform of the sleeve (240).
PNG
media_image4.png
708
793
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 18: Figure 5 of Stoll et al. shows a machining system (200) comprising a coolant tube assembly. The coolant tube assembly in turn comprises a tubular body (238), a shoulder, a restrictor (256+258), and a sleeve (240).
As can be seen in Figure 5, the tubular body (238) is disposed about a central axis (228) and is shown as defining a central bore disposed about the central axis (228) and extending in a first axial direction from a proximal end toward a distal end of the tubular body (238).
Next, Examiner has annotated Figure 1 and provided it below. As can be seen therein, the shoulder extends radially outward from a perimeter surface of the tubular body (238). It is noted that the perimeter surface is formed on a radially outer part of the tubular body (238), while the central bore is formed in a radially inner part of the tubular body (238).
PNG
media_image5.png
659
1000
media_image5.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. Next, please be advised that the restrictor (256+258) includes each of a first end (256) and a second end (258). Via the first end (256) thereof, the restrictor (256+258) is disposed within the central bore, specifically disposed within the small diameter portion of said central bore.
Next, with regards to the sleeve (240), it is disposed rotatably about the distal end of the tubular body (238) and it defines a male threadform. As can also be seen above in the annotated figure, the sleeve (240) includes a mating shoulder that extends radially inward of the shoulder of the tubular body (238).
Regarding the restrictor (256+258), it defines a single aperture (which can be seen on the preceding page in annotated Figure 1) extending through the restrictor (256+258) such that said restrictor (256+258) restricts flow from the central bore. This aperture is a “single” aperture in that it has a single diameter, for example. Additionally/Alternatively, this aperture is a “single” aperture in that it formed from a single bore, for example.
Noting this, with regards to the single aperture of the restrictor (256+258), it includes an outlet that opens through “an end,” i.e. the second end (258), of the restrictor (256+258) that is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238). Be advised that claim 18 as currently presented sets forth the “end of the restrictor” (not the “outlet,” for example) as being “flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.” Noting this, as can be seen below in a second annotated version of Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the outlet of the single aperture opens through the second end (258) of the restrictor (256+258), and this second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238).
PNG
media_image2.png
599
1019
media_image2.png
Greyscale
More specifically, a proximal face of the second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body’s (238) radially inner part, and it is in this second end (258) that the outlet of the single aperture opens. Based on the foregoing, Stoll et al. reads on, “wherein the single aperture of the restrictor includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.”
Stoll et al. though, does not provide disclosure on the single aperture “having a diameter between 0.250 mm and 0.400 mm.” Please note that the single aperture has a diameter that is smaller than, for example, a diameter of the central bore’s small diameter portion. Thus, the single aperture of the restrictor (256+258) 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 single aperture of the restrictor (256+258) 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 (200) of Stoll et al. with the advantage of being able to atomize the fluid that enters/flows into the restrictor (256+258) of said machining system (200). Thus, the modified single aperture of the restrictor (256+258) has a diameter of 0.3 mm, which is between 0.250 mm and 0.400 mm.
Claim 19: As can be seen in Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the restrictor (256+258) is disposed closer to the distal end of the of tubular body (238) than to the proximal end of the tubular body (238), and “an end of the restrictor,” i.e. the first end (256) of the restrictor (256+258), is recessed from the distal end of the tubular body (238).
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: 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 (238) and the restrictor (256+258) 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 (238) and the restrictor (256+258) 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 (238) and the restrictor (256+258) of Stoll et al. are formed of the same material, the same material being the modified polyimide of Wang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Stoll et al./Lehman, Applicant argues the following:
Applicant notes that Claim 1 and 18 have been amended to recite in part the at least one aperture of the restrictor includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body. Applicant notes that the cited references fail to disclose this feature.
Stoll discloses a tool holder assembly 10 that includes a cutting tool 12, a tool holder 14, and an adapter 16. The adapter 16 includes a body portion 50 and a tool receiving portion 52. The body portion 50 and the tool receiving portion 52 cooperate to define an internal fluid passage 54. The body portion 50 includes a first section 56 disposed proximate the pipe 38 and a second section 58 disposed proximate the narrow portion 36.
Lehman discloses a lubrication system 3 for cooling and/or lubricating a chip- removing machining process. The system 3 includes a nozzle 22 having a nozzle opening 23. The nozzle opening 23 may include a width between 0.2mm and 0.5mm.
The Office Action alleges that the pipe 38 of Stoll is the claimed tubular body and the first section 56 of the body portion 50 of Stoll is the claimed restrictor. However, unlike amended Claim 1 above, the first section 56 does not include an outlet of the aperture opening through an end of the first section 56 that is flush with or recessed from a distal end of the pipe. Instead, as shown in FIG. 1 of Stoll below, the outlet of the aperture opens through the tool receiving portion 52 of the adapter 16 that extends past the end of the pipe 38. Examiner Vitale agreed that Stoll fails to disclose these features of Claims 1 and 18.
PNG
media_image6.png
422
671
media_image6.png
Greyscale
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Claims 1 and 18 are in condition for allowance. Claims 2-5 and 7-15 depend from Claim 1 and Claims 19 and 20 depend from Claim 18, and therefore, are also in condition for allowance for at least the same reasons.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the machining system (10) of Figure 1 of Stoll et al. as modified by Lehman does not read on either amended independent claim 1 or amended independent claim 18. In particular, as it pertains to this combination, Examiner agrees with Applicant that, “unlike amended Claim 1 above, the first section 56 does not include an outlet of the aperture opening through an end of the first section 56 that is flush with or recessed from a distal end of the pipe.” Noting this, be advised that in Figure 1 of Stoll et al., it can be seen that the outlet of the aperture actually opens in a tool receiving portion (52) instead of in the restrictor (56). Furthermore, this tool receiving portion (52) isn’t flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body (38). Instead, the tool receiving portion (52) is axially separated from the distal end of the tubular body (38). As such, as it pertains to amended independent claims 1 and 18 and the machining system (10) of Figure 1 of Stoll et al., the (single) aperture of the restrictor (56) does not include “an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.”
Having said, as was indicated during the interview with Applicant’s representative on 4/13/2026 and as was stated in the Examiner Interview Summary Record mailed on 4/17/2026, Stoll et al. discloses five further embodiments in Figures 2-6. Upon review of these five further embodiments, it was determined by Examiner that the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. as modified by Lehman reads on each of amended independent claim 1 and amended independent claim 18. To be clear, the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. is a different machining system embodiment of Stoll et al. that Examiner previously relied upon. In the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 1/27/2026, Examiner relied upon the machining system (10) of Figure 1 of Stoll et al. Noting this, Examiner will now explain why the (single) aperture of the restrictor (256+258) of the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al. “includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.”
With regards to the restrictor (256+258) of the machining system (200) of Figure 5 of Stoll et al., it defines an aperture extending through the restrictor (256+258). Next, please be advised that the restrictor (256+258) includes each of a first end (256) and a second end (258). Noting this, with regards to the aperture of the restrictor (256+258), it includes an outlet that opens through “an end,” i.e. the second end (258), of the restrictor (256+258) that is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238). Please be advised that independent claims 1 and 18 as currently presented each set forth the “end of the restrictor” (not the “outlet,” for example) as being “flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body.”
PNG
media_image7.png
663
1019
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above within annotated Figure 5 of Stoll et al., the outlet of the aperture opens through the second end (258) of the restrictor (256+258), and this second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body (238). More specifically, a proximal face of the second end (258) is flush with the distal end of the tubular body’s (238) radially inner part, and it is in this second end (258) that the outlet of the aperture opens.
Based on the foregoing, Stoll et al. reads on, “wherein the at least one aperture of the restrictor includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body” of clam 1, and further reads on, “wherein the single aperture of the restrictor includes an outlet that opens through an end of the restrictor that is flush with or recessed from the distal end of the tubular body” of clam 18. While Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/27/2026 served to overcome one interpretation of Stoll et al./Lehman, Applicant’s amendments filed on 4/27/2026 did overcome Stoll et al./Lehman as a whole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 13-17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights