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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/15/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
wherein the rotary union comprises a spring configured to prevent closure of the rotary joint when the rotary joint is pressurized by the supercritical machining fluid (claim 25)
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “wherein the rotary union is configured for use with the supercritical fluid at a temperature exceeding 31.10 C and a pressure exceeding 72.8 atm” has not been mentioned at all in the specification and appears arbitrary. Where do these number come from? Is this range described in the specification? What structure is being claimed?
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “wherein the rotary union comprises a spring configured to prevent closure of the rotary joint when the rotary joint is pressurized by the supercritical machining fluid” has not been mentioned at all in the specification. Note that these structural features have also not been shown in the drawing (see drawing objections). Where is this feature described in the specification? What structure is being claimed?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant, US PGPub 2009/0320655 in view of Dionne et al., US PGPub 2012/0237311.
PNG
media_image1.png
268
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Grant discloses a machining system (5) configured to be lubricated by a supercritical machining fluid (see [0016]), the machining system (5) comprising: a first inlet (24) configured to be fluidly coupled to a supply of the supercritical machining fluid (14); and a coupling (20) fluidly coupled to the first inlet (24), and wherein the coupling (20) is configured to receive and be lubricated by the supercritical machining fluid (from 14), and wherein the coupling (20) is configured to be coupled to a machining tool (12). Grant does not specify that the coupling (20) is a rotary union.
PNG
media_image2.png
526
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Dionne et al., teaches a similar cutting tool lubrication system (see fig 5) wherein the coupling to the machine tool (34) comprises a rotary union (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the rotary union coupling described by Dionne et al. in the system disclosed by Grant in order to more evenly guide the lubricant to the cutting interface and enhance lubrication efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, further comprising the supply (from 14) of the supercritical machining fluid, wherein the supply of the supercritical machining fluid (14) is configured to deliver the supercritical machining fluid to the first inlet (24).
Regarding claim 3, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, further comprising a second machining fluid supply (18) configured to deliver a second machining fluid (lubricant) to the rotary union (20 - Dionne et al.).
Regarding claim 4, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 3, further comprising: a valve (26), wherein the valve (26) is configured to deliver the supercritical machining fluid to the rotary union in a first configuration (i.e. flow restricting position – see [0021]), and wherein the valve (26) is configured to deliver the second machining fluid (from 18) to the rotary union (20- Dionne et al.) in a second configuration (i.e. flow passing position – see [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, further comprising the machining tool (12), wherein the machining tool is coupled to the rotary union (20- Dionne et al.).
Regarding claim 6, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 5, wherein the machining tool (12) comprises a cutting tool (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 5, wherein the machining tool (12) comprises a drill (see [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 7, wherein the drill is a robotic drill (see [0019] Dionne et al.).
Regarding claim 9, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 5, wherein the machining tool comprises a spindle (30 - Dionne et al.) coupled to the rotary union (20- Dionne et al.).
Regarding claim 10, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 9, further comprising a sensor (40) configured to sense a pressure behind the spindle (see [0024]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, but does not specify the operating pressure range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to operate within the specified pressure ranges since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated operate in the specified pressure ranges in order to optimize the cooling for a specific cutting operation.
Regarding claim 12, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, wherein the supercritical machining fluid (from 14) comprises supercritical carbon dioxide (see [0019]).
Regarding claim 13, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 4, wherein the valve (26) is a first valve. Grant does not specify a second valve located in the specified location. Dionne et al. teaches a second valve (132), wherein the second valve (132) is movable to a purging position configured to release pressure between the machining tool and the second valve (132). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the second valve described by Dionne et al. to the system disclosed by Grant in order to allow for rapid pressure discharge during shutdown operations and enhance the lubrication efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, further comprising a orifice (i.e. 68) configured to deliver the supercritical fluid to a cutting interface (see fig 2)
Regarding claim 24, Grant in view of Dionne et al. discloses the machining system of claim 1, wherein the rotary union (20 - Dionne et al.) is configured for use with the supercritical fluid (see [0016]). Grant in view of Dionne et al. does not specify the fluid having a temperature exceeding 31.10 C and a pressure exceeding 72.8 atm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to employ the specified temperature and pressure range since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would be motivated to employ the specified temperature and pressure range in order to optimize the machine lubrication properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 24-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7956. The examiner can normally be reached 8-6 EST Monday - Friday.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at (571) 272-2097. 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 A. RIEGELMAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3654
/MICHAEL A RIEGELMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights