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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 18-21, drawn to either a “milling tool” or a “tool assembly” (including the milling tool), depending on the claim, in the reply filed on 11/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 14, 2025.
Internet Communications
It is noted that in the Response (to the Restriction Requirement) that was filed on 11/14/2025, Applicant provided a statement that “[T]he Applicant hereby authorizes permission for Internet Communications” and “[R]ecognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.33 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application via video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail”. However, it is noted that this statement is not sufficient to actually authorize internet communications in this application. For example, note that the statement does not include a statement regarding understanding that a copy of the (internet) communications will be made of record in the application file. See MPEP § 502.03.
Additionally, as required by 37 CFR 1.4(c), the internet authorization must be submitted on a separate paper to be entitled to acceptance in accordance with 37 CFR 1.4(c) (see MPEP § 502.03).
Should Applicant wish to authorize internet communications in the future, Applicant may wish to consider filing Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/PatentForms.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 20, line 3, it appears that –a—should be inserted between “by” and “separation distance SD”. 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.
Claims 1-15 and 18-21 are 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.
In claim 1, lines 25-26, the claim recites “a plurality of alternating flutes and cutting portions; each cutting portion comprises a cutting element recess”. However, it is unclear as claimed how many cutting element recesses are being recited, i.e., one cutting element recess (total) that is shared by each of the cutting portions, or one cutting element recess per cutting portion (and thus plural cutting element recesses). In the event that the latter is intended, Applicant may wish to consider adding the term –respective—between “a” and “cutting element recess” in the limitation “each cutting portion comprises a cutting element recess”.
In claim 8, the limitation “the cutting element recess” lacks sufficient clear antecedent basis in the claim, as it is unclear as previously set forth in claim 1 (lines 25-26) whether plural cutting element recesses were intended to be recited. It is noted that in the event that plural cutting element recesses are recited, then it is be unclear which specific one of the cutting element recesses constitutes “the cutting element recess” set forth in claim 8. The same situation exists in claim 12, lines 1-2, re the limitation “the cutting element recess”.
In claim 8, the claim recites “the linear portion defining a passageway plane extending parallel adjacent to the head coolant outlet”. However, it is unclear as claimed to what the passageway plane extends parallel, i.e., a passageway plane extending parallel to what (and being located adjacent to the head coolant outlet)?
In claim 8, in the limitation “wherein the passageway plane is directed more in the forward direction than towards the central plane such that it forms an off-center angle β therewith”, it is unclear as claimed to what “therewith” is intended to refer, i.e., the central plane or the forward direction. It is also unclear as claimed to what “it” is intended to refer, i.e., the passageway plane, or the central plane.
In claim 8, the claim recites “wherein the passageway plane is directed more in the forward direction than towards the central plane”. However, it is unclear how or in what regard a given (passageway) plane is to be considered to be “directed more in the forward direction than towards the central plane”. It is also unclear from where the plane from where the passageway plane is so directed, i.e., directed from what/where more in the forward direction?
In claim 11, the claim recites “the head coolant outlet is elongated in an elongation direction, a head coolant outlet height HO is measured parallel to an elongation direction, and the milling tool further comprises a cutting element directly adjacent to the head coolant outlet, the cutting element having a cutting element height HC, measured parallel to an elongation direction, fulfilling the condition: 0.1 HC<HO<HC”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether “an elongation direction” in lines 2-3 of the claim is intended to be the same “elongation direction” previously set forth in lines 1-2 of the claim (i.e., the elongation direction in which the head coolant outlet is elongated), or whether “an elongation direction” in lines 2-3 of the claim is instead intended to be a different/additional elongation direction. Likewise, it is unclear as set forth in the claim whether “an elongation direction” in the last line of the claim is intended to be the same “elongation direction” previously set forth in lines 1-2 of the claim (i.e., the elongation direction in which the head coolant outlet is elongated), is instead intended to be the same “elongation direction” previously set forth in lines 2-3 of the claim, or whether “an elongation direction” in the last line of the claim is instead intended to be a different/additional elongation direction (additional to/different than either of the two elongation directions set forth in lines 1-2 and 2-3, respectively, of the claim). In the event that the “elongation direction” set forth in lines 2-3 of the claim is intended to be different/additional to the elongation direction (set forth in lines 1-2 of the claim) in which the head coolant outlet is elongated, then it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the “elongation direction” of lines 2-3 of the claim is an elongation direction of, i.e., “an elongation direction” of what? In the event that the “elongation direction” set forth in the last line of the claim is intended to be different/additional to the two elongation directions (set forth in lines 1-2 and 2-3, respectively, of the claim) previously recited, then it is unclear as set forth in the claim what the “elongation direction” of the last line of the claim is an elongation direction of, i.e., “the cutting element having a cutting element height HC, measured parallel to an elongation direction” of what?
In claim 12, the limitation “the cutting portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, noting that plural cutting portions were previously recited. (Thus, it is unclear which specific one of the previously recited cutting portions is intended to be referenced via the recitation of “the cutting portion”.)
In claim 12, the claim recites “the head coolant outlet is closer to the cutting element recess than any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion”. However, it is unclear as claimed whether such is intended to mean that “the head coolant outlet is closer to the cutting element recess” (than to) “any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion”, vs. whether such is instead intended to mean that “the head coolant outlet is closer to the cutting element recess than any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion” (is)? Additionally, it is unclear as claimed to what the “any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion” is “adjacent”, i.e., adjacent to the head coolant outlet, adjacent to the cutting element recess, etc.
In claim 14, the claim depends from claim 1, and further recites “wherein there are at least eight cutting portions”. However, noting that claim 1 already previously recited “a plurality of alternating flutes and cutting portions”, it is unclear as set forth in claim 14 whether the “at least eight cutting portions” are intended to be additional to the previously recited “plurality of…cutting portions”, or whether the “at least eight cutting portions” of claim 14 are intended to be part of the previously recited plurality of cutting portions.
The term “superhard” (in the limitation “superhard material”) in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “superhard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is unclear how hard a given material must be in order to be considered to be a “superhard” material, and it is unclear how soft a given material must be in order to be excluded by the term. It is noted that paragraph [004] of the specification as filed provides examples of PCD or CBN materials as being “superhard material”, and teaches that “[G]enerally speaking, the name ‘superhard materials’ is intended to exclude common materials used for cutting inserts such as ‘cemented carbide’ and the like” and goes on to say “[H]owever, the present invention may indeed use cemented carbide material…”. It is noted that these teachings do not serve to provide clarity on the full scope of what is included and what is excluded by the term “superhard material”, as they do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of what is meant by “superhard”. Note that the term “common materials” is itself a relative term or term of degree for which the specification provides no standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (i.e., it is unclear what constitutes a “common” material vs. what materials are excluded by the term “common”, it is unclear how hard or soft a given “common” material must be in order to be included vs. excluded by the term “superhard material”, etc.). Note also that terms such as “and the like” and “for example” do not provide clarity on the metes and bounds of what materials and/or hardnesses are intended to be included vs. excluded by the term “superhard material”.
The term “basic” (in the limitation “basic cylindrical shape”) in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “basic” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how “basic” a given cylindrical shape must be, or what shape and/or characteristics a given cylindrical shape must have, in order to be considered to be a “basic” cylindrical shape, and it is unclear how complicated/non-basic a given cylindrical shape must be, or what shape and/or characteristics a given cylindrical shape must have, in order to be excluded by the term.
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 18-21 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.
It is noted that claim 18 recites “[A] tool assembly comprising: a milling tool according to claim 1; a coolant sleeve having a basic cylindrical shape secured to the milling tool; and at least one cutting element secured to the milling tool”. However, the specification as originally filed does not appear to teach the features of claim 18 in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof.
It is noted that the milling tool (having all of the features of claim 1) is disclosed as element 100, and the coolant sleeve is disclosed as element 200. See, for example, at least Figure 1C and paragraph 0033-0034 of the specification as originally filed, for example. In particular, it is noted that the specification as filed does not appear to disclose (in a manner so as to demonstrate possession thereof) that the coolant sleeve 200 is “secured to” the milling tool 100, as set forth in claim 18.
The following paragraphs (0053-0055) of the specification teach that the connection arrangement 204 (which comprises plural screws 218) is configured to fasten the coolant sleeve 200 to a not-shown machine interface such that the coolant sleeve 200 (i.e., that is fastened to the not-shown machine interface) remains static relative to the rotating milling tool 100. In other words, the coolant sleeve 200 is not fastened to the milling tool 100 (as recited in claim 18), but rather, the coolant sleeve is (instead) fastened to a not-shown machine interface, and the milling tool 100 is rotated relative to the coolant sleeve 200.
[0053] Referring now to FIGS. 3A to 3F, the sleeve 200 has a basic cylindrical shape and comprises; a machine (upper) end 202 in turn comprising a connection arrangement 204; a lower end 206 opposite to the machine end 204; a sleeve external surface 208 connecting the machine end 204 and the lower end 206; a sleeve internal surface 210 connecting the machine end 202 and the lower end 206, and located closer than the sleeve external surface 208 to the shank portion 102; a sleeve coolant inlet 212 opening out to the sleeve external surface 208; a sleeve coolant outlet 214 opening out to the sleeve internal surface 210; a sleeve coolant passageway 216 (FIG. 3F) extending from the sleeve coolant inlet 212 to the sleeve coolant outlet 214.
[0054] The connection arrangement 204 comprises a circumferentially spaced plurality of screws 218 housed in recessed areas 220 and extending through screw holes 222 to fasten to a machine interface (not shown).
[0055] Due to the connection to the machine interface (not shown), the sleeve 200 remains static relative to the rotating milling tool 100.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10, 12-13, and 18, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406379 to Aso (hereinafter, “Aso”).
Aso teaches a milling tool (1; note that the cutting operation with a rotary cutting tool 1 utilizing the cutting edges 21 to perform the cutting process can be considered a “milling” operation; see Figures 1-2 and at least paragraphs 0030-0031 and 0033, for example) comprising:
a shank portion (such as, for example, 11; see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0032); and
a head portion (such as, for example, 12; see Figures 1-2 and paragraph 0032, for example) extending from the shank portion (11) (see Figures 1-2, for example);
a rotation axis (O; see at least paragraph 0031 and Figure 1) extends “along” the shank portion (11) (see Figure 1, for example) and defining:
a forward direction (towards the left along axis O in Figure 1) from the shank portion (11) towards the head portion (12);
a rearward direction (towards the right along axis O in Figure 1) opposite to the (aforedescribed) forward direction;
a radially-outward direction perpendicular to the forward and rearward directions and directed outwardly from the rotation axis (O) (see Figures 1-2 and 4-6, i.e., any direction that is perpendicular to O and that extends radially outward from O);
a radially-inward direction opposite to the (aforedescribed) radially outward-direction (i.e., any direction that extends perpendicular to O and radially inwardly towards O; see Figures 1-2 and 4-6);
a rotation direction (one of either of clockwise or counterclockwise re Figure 4 about O; see paragraph 0031); and
a counter-rotation direction (the other of either counterclockwise or clockwise re Figure 4 about axis O) opposite to the rotation direction (paragraph 0031);
the shank portion (11) comprising:
a shank rear end (the right end/half of shank 11 re Figure 1);
a shank forward end (the left end/half of shank 11 re Figure 1) located closer than the shank rear end to the head portion (12) (see Figure 1); and
a shank external surface (any external surface of shank 11; see Figures 1-2, for example);
the head portion (12) comprising:
a head external surface (such as 12c and/or 12a; see Figures 1-4 and paragraph 0039, for example);
a head “internal” (insofar as such is the case re present application head internal surface 130) surface (12b/G; see paragraph 0041 and Figures 2 and 6) located closer than the head external surface (12c and/or 12a) to the shank portion (11) (see Figures 2 and 6, for example); and
a head coolant inlet (Hb) opening out to the head “internal” surface (12b/G) (see Figures 2, 5, and 7, as well as at least paragraphs 0038-0039);
a head coolant outlet (Ha) opening out to the head external surface (12c and/or 12a; see Figures 7, 6, and 1, as well as paragraphs 0038, 0047, 0049-0050, noting that as broadly claimed, Ha opens out “to” 12c in that Ha opens adjacent the outer face 12c, and opens out “to” 12a in that Ha opens out towards 12a, for example);
a head coolant passageway (any of 31a, 31b, 31c, 31d; see Figures 6-8C) extending from the head coolant inlet (Hb) to the head coolant outlet (Ha) (see Figures 6-7 and paragraphs 0037-0039, for example);
the head external surface (12c and/or 12a) comprising:
a plurality of alternating flutes and cutting portions (see Figures 9-10 and 1-4 noting the fluted configuration of 12, and the plurality of cutting inserts 20 each provided to a respective mounting seat 120; see also paragraphs 0033-0034, for example);
each cutting portion comprises a cutting element recess (in which mounting seat 120 is formed; alternatively, recess/hole 125; see Figures 9-10 and paragraphs 033-0034, for example);
wherein:
the head “internal” surface (12b/G) is formed with a peripherally extending head coolant obstruction arrangement comprising a head ridge (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “HR”) which extends rearward (i.e., towards the right re Figure 6) of an adjacent head portion (such as the adjacent head portion labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “AHP”) of the head “internal” surface (12b/G), the adjacent head portion (AHP) being located radially inward (with respect to axis O) of the head ridge (HR) (see Figure 6 below) (note that HR is considered to be at least inherently capable of performing the function of obstructing coolant, given the ridge shape/configuration thereof).
[AltContent: textbox (HR)]
[AltContent: textbox (AHP)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
368
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the head ridge (HR) is shaped as an annular lip (see Figure 6 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, at the shank (11) rear (right re Figure 2) end (portion and/or half), the shank external surface is formed with a peripherally extending shank coolant obstruction arrangement comprising a shank ridge (such as the screw thread forming a “shank ridge”, which is labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 below as “SR1”; see also paragraph 0035, considered by virtue of its ridge configuration to be inherently capable of obstructing coolant in some fashion) which extends radially (with respect to axis O) outward of an adjacent shank portion (11a) of the shank (11) external surface, the adjacent shank portion (11a) located forward of the shank ridge (SR1). See Figure 2, for example, as well as paragraph 0035).
[AltContent: textbox (SR2)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (SR1)]
PNG
media_image2.png
416
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the (aforedescribed) shank ridge (SR1) is shaped as an annular lip. See Figure 2 and paragraph 0035.
Regarding claim 7, the shank coolant obstruction arrangement comprises an additional shank ridge (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 2 above as SR2) which extends radially outward (with respect to axis O) of the adjacent shank portion (11a) and is located forward of the adjacent shank portion (11a). See annotated Figure 2 above, as well as paragraph 0035.
Regarding claim 8¸ the cutting element recess (in which mounting seat 120 is formed; alternatively, recess/hole 125; see Figures 9-10 and paragraphs 0033-0034, for example) has a centerpoint and a central plane (such as the plane labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as P1 and which plane extends parallel to the mounting seat 120 on which the insert labeled below as 20A is located) containing the centerpoint; and the head coolant passageway (such as 31a) comprises a “linear portion” (such as 311; see Figure 6 and paragraphs 0047-0050, for example) extending to the head coolant outlet (Ha), the linear portion (311) “defining” (as broadly claimed) a passageway plane (such as, for example, the plane labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below as “PP”) extending “parallel” (such as to a plane that is parallel to PP) (and) adjacent to the head coolant outlet (Ha) (see Figure 6 below); wherein the passageway plane (PP) is “directed more in the forward direction (towards the left re Figure 6) than towards the central plane (P1 labeled below) such that it (PP) forms an off-center angle β (labeled below) therewith.
[AltContent: textbox (β)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (PP)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (20A)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (P1)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
384
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, the head coolant outlet (Ha) is “elongated” (as broadly claimed; see Figure 7, for example). Alternatively re claim 10, it is noted that Ha/311 can be considered the claimed “head coolant outlet” (with 312 being considered the claimed head coolant passageway) and (311) is “elongated” in the length direction of 311, for example. See Figure 6, for example.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, the head coolant outlet (Ha, or alternatively, Ha+311) is closer to the (aforedescribed) cutting element recess “than any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion” (cutting portion described above). See Figures 9 and 6-7, for example
Regarding claim 13, in a side view of a cutting element (such as 20), the head coolant outlet (such as Ha, or alternatively, such as Ha+311) is directly adjacent to the cutting element (20). See Figure 6, for example.
Regarding claim 18, Aso teaches a tool assembly comprising: a milling tool (1) according to claim 1 (as discussed above); a “coolant sleeve” (50) having a “basic” cylindrical shape (see Figures 3, 6, and 7) secured to the milling tool (1); and at least one cutting element (20) mounted to the milling tool (1) (see paragraphs 0031 and 0033-0040, as well as Figures 1, 3, 6, and 7).
Claims 1-4, 10, and 12-13, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0121344 to Schuffenhauer et al. (hereinafter, “Schuffenhauer”).
Schuffenhauer teaches a milling tool (see Figures 1-2, paragraphs 0037, and 0001, for example) comprising:
a shank portion (2) (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0037, for example); and
a head portion (1) extending from the shank portion (2) (see Figures 1-2 and 6-9, for example, as well as at least paragraph 0037, for example);
a rotation axis (i.e., the longitudinal center axis of the tool; see the dashed line extending in the horizontal left/right direction re Figure 8, for example; see also paragraph 0001) extends “along” the shank portion (2) and defining:
a forward direction (towards the left re Figure 8) from the shank portion (2) towards the head portion (1);
a rearward direction (towards the right re Figure 8) opposite to the (aforedescribed) forward direction;
a radially-outward direction perpendicular to the (aforedescribed) forward and (aforedescribed) rearward directions and directed outwardly from the (aforedescribed) rotation axis (see Figures 6-9, for example);
a radially-inward direction opposite to the (aforedescribed) radially outward-direction;
a rotation direction (i.e., either one of clockwise or counterclockwise re Figure 7); and
a counter-rotation direction (i.e., the other of counterclockwise or clockwise re Figure 7) opposite to the (aforedescribed) rotation direction;
the shank portion (2) comprising:
a shank rear end (left re Figures 6, 8, for example);
a shank forward end (right re Figures 6, 8, for example) located closer than the (aforedescribed) shank rear end (left re Figures 6, 8) to the head portion (1) (see Figures 6, 8, for example); and
a shank external surface (any external surface of shank 2);
the head portion (1) comprising:
a head external surface (such as surface 27 in combination with the outer surface of 1 in which the flutes and mounting surfaces for cutting inserts 14 are located; see Figure 1, Figure 7, paragraphs 0043 and 0038, for example);
a head “internal” (insofar as such is the case re present application head internal surface 130) surface (16+15+7, for example; see Figure 4 and paragraph 0039, for example) located closer than the (aforedescribed) head external surface to the shank portion (2) (see Figures 1, 2, 4, 6-9); and
a head coolant inlet (such as, for example, the inlet to bore 19) opening out to the head “internal” surface (16+15+7) (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 0039-0040, for example);
a head coolant outlet {such as either or both of 28 (Figure 7, paragraph 0043), or the outlet labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below as “HCO”; see paragraphs 0039-0040} opening out to the (aforedescribed) head external surface;
a head coolant passageway (19 and/or the passage leading to outlet 28) extending from the head coolant inlet (the inlet to 19) to the head coolant outlet (28 and/or HCO) (see Figures 4 and 7 as well as paragraphs 0040 and 0043);
the head external surface comprising:
a plurality of alternating flutes and cutting portions (cutting portions at which blades 14 are located, which are spaced by flutes; see at least Figures 1-2, 4, and 7, as well as paragraphs 0038, 0040, for example);
each cutting portion comprises a cutting element recess (for receiving cutting blade/element 14; see at least Figures 1-2, 4, and 7, as well as at least paragraphs 0038 and 0040, for example);
wherein:
the head internal surface (16+15+7) is formed with a peripherally extending head coolant obstruction arrangement (considered to be capable of performing the function of obstructing coolant simply by virtue of the shape of the ridge) comprising a head ridge (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below and in the annotated enlarged partial reproduction of Figure 8 below as HR1) and which extends rearward of an adjacent head portion (15) of the head internal surface (16+15+7) (see Figures 4 and 8, including the annotated versions thereof below, as well as paragraph 0039), the adjacent head portion (15) being located radially inward of the head ridge (HR1) {see Figures 4 and (partial Fig.) 8 below}.
[AltContent: textbox (HR1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (HCO)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
664
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (15)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image5.png
622
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (HR1)]
Regarding claim 2, the head ridge (HR1) is shaped as an annular lip (see Figures 4 and the partial enlarge reproduction of Figure 8 above).
Regarding claim 3, the head coolant obstruction arrangement comprises an additional head ridge (17) which extends rearward of the adjacent head portion (15) and is located radially inward of the adjacent head portion (15). See Figure 4.
Regarding claim 4, the additional head ridge (17) is shaped as an annular lip. See Figure 4 and paragraph 0039.
Regarding claim 10, the head coolant outlet (28 and/or HCO) is “elongated”, as broadly claimed; see Figures 4 and 7.
Regarding claim 12, the head coolant outlet (such as HCO, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 above) is closer to the cutting element recess than (to, for example) any other adjacent surface of the cutting portion. See Figure 4, noting that HCO is provided in the cutting element recess in the head.
Regarding claim 13, in a side view of a cutting element (14), the head coolant outlet (HCO) is “directly adjacent” to the cutting element (14). See Figure 4 and Figure 1, for example.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 9 and 11, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406379 to Aso (hereinafter, “Aso”) as applied to at least claims 1, 8, and 10 above.
Aso teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Regarding claim 9, it appears that the angle β is within the claimed range (between 5 and 40 degrees) as can be seen in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 above.
In the alternative, Aso is silent as to the value of the off-center angle β, and thus does not expressly teach that such angle fulfills the condition: 5°<β<40°.
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 claimed angle to be within the claimed range, 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 device of Aso would not operate differently with the claimed angle as compared to the angle shown above, particularly noting that the above-labeled angle β appears to be shown to be within the claimed range, and also noting that Aso expressly teaches that each element and its arrangement, shape, size, and the like, are not limited to those illustrated and may be changed (paragraph 0053; see also paragraph 0045). Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, merely indicating that the angle “can” be claimed range (see paragraph 0031 of the present specification).
Regarding claim 11, the head coolant outlet (such as 311+Ha) is elongated in an elongation direction (such as in the length direction of 311, shown in Figure 6), a head coolant outlet height HO (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below) is measured parallel to an elongation direction (of 311; see Fig. 6), and the milling tool further comprises a cutting element (20) directly adjacent to the head coolant outlet (311+Ha), the cutting element (20) having a cutting element height HC (labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below), measured parallel to an elongation direction (such as, for example, an elongation direction of 20 in the plane of Figure 6), fulfilling the condition: 0.1 HC<HO<HC, as can be seen in the annotated reproduction of Figure 6 below.
[AltContent: textbox (HO)][AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image6.png
370
596
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (HC)]
In the alternative, Aso does not expressly teach what the values of HO and HC are, and does not expressly indicate 0.1 HC<HO<HC.
However, Aso teaches that “the flow passages 31a, 31b, 31c, and 31d in this embodiment may take any shape, size, or the like that may allow good flow of the coolant therein”. Furthermore, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Aso reference to have the lengths HO and HC within the claimed range, particularly given that the lengths appear to already be in the claimed range, and given the teachings in Aso of altering the dimensions of 31a-d to whatever size is desired to achieve good flow of coolant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the dimensions HO and HC be within the claimed range as a matter of routine optimization, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 11, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0121344 to Schuffenhauer et al. (hereinafter, “Schuffenhauer”) as applied to at least claims 1 and 10 above.
Schuffenhauer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were discussed in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Regarding claim 11, the (aforedescribed) head coolant outlet (such as either or both of 28 or HCO labeled in the above annotated reproduction of Figure 4 of Schuffenhauer) is elongated in an elongation direction (such as in the direction HO1, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below), a head coolant outlet height HO (labeled as HO1 in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below) is measured parallel to an elongation direction (such as HO1, or such as in an elongation direction of 6, for example; see Fig. 4), and the milling tool further comprises a cutting element (14) directly adjacent to the head coolant outlet (HCO), the cutting element (14) having a cutting element height HC (labeled as HC1 in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below), measured parallel to an elongation direction (such as, for example, an elongation direction of 14 generally parallel to the surface of the head against which 14 rests), fulfilling the condition: 0.1 HC<HO<HC, as can be seen in the annotated reproduction of Figure 4 below.
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (HO1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (HR1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (HCO)][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image4.png
664
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (HC1)]
In the alternative, Schuffenhauer does not expressly teach what the values of HO (HO1) and HC (HC1) are, and does not expressly indicate 0.1 HC<HO<HC.
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 values of HO (HO1) and HC (HC1) to fulfill the relationship 0.1 HC<HO<HC, 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 device of Schuffenhauer would not operate differently with the claimed relative dimensions of HO and HC, noting that as shown in Figure 4, the claimed dimensions already appear to be shown to be within the claimed range, and furthermore, it appears that the coolant would still flow to the cutting blade 14 as desired by Schuffenhauer (paragraphs 0040, 0009, for example) with HO and HC within the claimed ranges. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating that the heights “can” be within the claimed range (paragraph 0031).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 14-15, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0406379 to Aso (hereinafter, “Aso”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Aso teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 14, it is noted that Aso teaches that in the shown embodiment, four cutting inserts 20 or “cutting portions” 20 and four insert mounting seats 120 are provided. See Figures 1, 4, 9, and 10, as well as paragraph 0034.
However, while Aso does teach that the number of cutting inserts/portions 20 and mounting seats 120 is not limited to the shown example, and may be changed “as appropriate” (see paragraph 0034), Aso does not expressly teach that there are at least eight cutting portions, as set forth in claim 14.
However, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Aso reference to have eight cutting inserts/portions and mounting seats, particularly given the teachings in Aso of the number of cutting inserts/portions and mounting seats (paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the cutting tool taught by Aso be provided with eight cutting inserts/portions and eight mounting seats therefor as a matter of routing optimization, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that Aso teaches that the milling tool comprises one or more cutting elements (20) (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0031 and 0033-0034, for example).
However, Aso is silent as to what material the cutting elements (20) are made of, and thus does not expressly teach that one or more of the cutting elements (20) are made of a “superhard” material.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of superhard materials such as cubic boron nitride (CBN) is very well known and widely used in machining in order to achieve the well-known benefits of high wear resistance and durability.
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 made the cutting elements/inserts (20) taught by Aso out of a well-known superhard material such as CBN, as such is well known, for the purpose of achieving the well-known benefits of high wear resistance and durability.
Claims 14-15, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0121344 to Schuffenhauer et al. (hereinafter, “Schuffenhauer”) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Schuffenhauer teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, regarding claim 14, it is noted that Schuffenhauer teaches that in the shown embodiment, six cutting inserts 14 or “cutting portions” 14 are provided. See Figures 1-2 and 7.
However, while Schuffenhauer does teach that the number of cutting blades/portions 14 can be “any desired number of blades” (see paragraph 0011), Schuffenhauer does not expressly teach that there are at least eight cutting portions, as set forth in claim 14.
However, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Schuffenhauer reference to have eight cutting blades/portions, particularly given the teachings in Schuffenhauer that the number of blades can be any desired number (paragraph 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the cutting tool taught by Schuffenhauer be provided with eight cutting blades/portions as a matter of routing optimization, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 15, it is noted that Schuffenhauer teaches that the milling tool comprises one or more cutting elements (14) (see Figures 1-2, 4, and 7 and paragraphs 0009-0012, 0038, 0040, for example).
However, Schuffenhauer is silent as to what material the cutting elements (14) are made of, and thus does not expressly teach that one or more of the cutting elements (14) are made of a “superhard” material.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of superhard materials such as cubic boron nitride (CBN) is very well known and widely used in machining in order to achieve the well-known benefits of high wear resistance and durability.
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 made the cutting elements/blades (14) taught by Schuffenhauer out of a well-known superhard material such as CBN, as such is well known, for the purpose of achieving the well-known benefits of high wear resistance and durability.
Comment Regarding Non-Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
A thorough search has been conducted re the elected invention/claims. That being said, though no art rejections are considered to presently apply to claims 19-21, no indication regarding the allowability of the subject matter of elected claims 19-21 with respect to the prior art is being made at this time due to the rejection(s) thereof based on 35 USC 112(a), set forth above, particularly given that is unclear what changes to the claims might be necessary to overcome the above-described issues with respect to 35 USC 112(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
January 23, 2026