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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 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 “nozzle longitudinal axis being angularly offset from the holding center about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element” as set forth in amended claim 1; and the “nozzle longitudinal axis extends into the circumferential direction more than into the radial direction” as in amended claim 4, and the entirety of new claim 23, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-18, 22 and 23 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. Newly amended claim 1 recites in lines 10-13 that the “nozzle longitudinal axis being angularly offset from the holding center about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element”. However, the specification as filed is silent so as to any nozzle longitudinal axis being angularly offset from the holding center about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element. The drawings as filed, do not explicitly show this claimed subject matter, and as such, the subject matter 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.
Newly added claim 23 recites “wherein the first angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a first axis lying in the radial plane of the discharge element, and the second angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a second axis lying in the circumferential plane of the discharge element, the first and second axes being orthogonal to one another”. However, the specification is silent so as to any of the aforementioned limitations. The drawings as filed, do not explicitly show this claimed subject matter, and as such, the subject matter 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.
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 3-5, 13, 17, 19-20 and 22 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.
Claim 3 recite in lines 2-3 that “extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis in the radial direction and/or circumferential direction is between 6° and 15°”. First, it is unclear how this extension being between 6° and 15° is defined. From where to where is this extension or angle defined. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the radial direction” and “the circumferential direction” since no radial or circumferential “directions” have been previously introduced. From where to where these directions are being defined at? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 4 recite in line 2 “the circumferential direction” and “the radial direction”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the radial direction” and “the circumferential direction” since no radial or circumferential “directions” have been previously introduced. From where to where these directions are being defined at? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 5 recite in lines 2-3 that “extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis in the radial direction and/or circumferential direction is between 3° and 30°”. First, it is unclear how this extension being between 3° and 30° is defined. From where to where is this extension or angle defined. Second, there is insufficient antecedent basis for each of “the radial direction” and “the circumferential direction” since no radial or circumferential “directions” have been previously introduced. From where to where these directions are being defined at? Further clarification is needed.
Claim 13 recite in line 2 “the circumference”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the circumference” since no the circumference of the holding body has been previously introduced on either claim 13, 12 or 1, from which claim 13 directly depends on. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 17 recite in line 2 “the circumference”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the circumference” since no the circumference of the holding body has been previously introduced on either claim 17, 12 or 1, from which claim 17 directly depends on. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 19 recite in lines 8-10 that “at least one coolant supply channel is configured at least in one section as a groove that extends on an outer circumference of the holding body and in at least one other section as a slot”. However, since the terms “groove1” and “slot2” as per definition, are considered interchangeable terms, it is unclear what the specific differences between each of “groove” and “slot” are.
Claim 20 recites in lines 2-3 that the at least one coolant supply channel is configured “at least in two sections as grooves…the two grooves each extend into the slot”. However, it is unclear how exactly these “two sections as grooves” are being defined. The way these limitations have been set forth is unclear. Further clarification is needed.
Claim 22 recite in line 2 “the inlet”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the inlet” since no inlet has been previously introduced on either claim 22, 7 or 1, from which claim 22 directly depends on. Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boregowda et al. US 2018/03699313 (hereafter—Boregowda--).
In regards to claim 19, Boregowda discloses a tool holder (14), comprising a holding body (26) extending along a holding center axis (L), the holding body (26) has a first end (24) and a second end (23) opposite to the first end, and a plurality of coolant supply channels (32 and 40) each spaced apart from the holding center axis (L, see Figures 2d, 3a,b); and a discharge element (30) arranged at the second end (23) having a plurality of discharge units (refer to each unit that is made up of nozzle groups, in the same way as presented by Applicant) formed therein, each discharge unit includes a plurality of discharge nozzles (38), the plurality of discharge nozzles (38) of one discharge unit are fluidly connected to one coolant supply channel (32 and 40, see Figure 3b), such that a coolant is ejected through each discharge nozzle onto a tool held in the toolholder, at least one coolant supply channel (32 and 40) is configured at least in one section as a groove4 (one of 32 or 40) that extends on an outer circumference of the holding body (26) and in at least one other section as a slot5 (the other one of 32 or 40).
In regards to claim 20, Boregowda discloses the toolholder according to claim 19, Boregowda also discloses that the at least one coolant supply channel (32 and 40) is configured at least in two sections as grooves (refer to the two sections of 40 extending perpendicular to 32 as in Figure 3b) that each extend on an outer circumference of the holding body (26), the two grooves each extend into the slot (32) of the at least one other section.
In regards to claim 21, Boregowda discloses a tool holder (14), comprising a holding body (26) extending along a holding center axis (L), the holding body (26) has a first end (24) and a second end (23) opposite to the first end, and a plurality of coolant supply channels (32 and 40) each spaced apart from the holding center axis (L, see Figures 2d, 3a,b); and a discharge element (30) arranged at the second end (23) having a plurality of discharge units (refer to each unit that is made up of nozzle groups, in the same way as presented by Applicant) formed therein, each discharge unit includes a plurality of discharge nozzles (38), the plurality of discharge nozzles (38) of one discharge unit are fluidly connected to one coolant supply channel (32 and 40, see Figure 3b), such that a coolant is ejected through each discharge nozzle onto a tool held in the toolholder, at least one coolant supply channel (32 and 40; or 32 or 40) is configured at least in one section as a slot6 (either one of 32 or 40).
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, 3-7, 9-15, 17-18, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boregowda et al. US 2018/03699317 (hereafter—Boregowda--) in view of Morrison et al. US 9,434,011 (hereafter—Morrison--).
In regards to claim 1, Boregowda discloses a tool holder (14), comprising a holding body (26) extending along a holding center axis (L), the holding body (26) has a first end (24) and a second end (23) opposite to the first end, and a plurality of coolant supply channels (32) each spaced apart from the holding center axis (L, see Figures 2d, 3a,b); and a discharge element (30) arranged at the second end (23) having a plurality of discharge units (refer to each unit that is made up of nozzle groups, in the same way as presented by Applicant) formed therein, each discharge unit includes a plurality of discharge nozzles (38), the plurality of discharge nozzles (38) of one discharge unit are fluidly connected to one coolant supply channel (32, see Figure 3b), such that a coolant is ejected through each discharge nozzle onto a tool held in the toolholder, each discharge nozzle has a nozzle longitudinal axis extending centrally through the discharge nozzle.
However, Boregowda fails to disclose that the nozzle longitudinal axis is being angularly offset from the holding center axis about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element.
Nevertheless, Morrison teaches that it is well known in the art, to have a nozzle 60 disposed within a channel, said nozzle having an adjustable fan spray nipple 96 that is adjustable or movable within a spherical chamber 86 so as to selectively direct spray of coolant from the coolant spray nozzle 60. As represented by the three arrows E, F and G in FIG. 6, the adjustable fan spray nipple 156 can be adjusted 360 degrees to virtually any position to direct coolant to a desired location. This means that the adjustable fan spray nipple 156 is adjustable 360 degrees to a selected position relative to the coolant spray nozzle body 122 so that coolant discharges in a fan-shaped coolant spray so as to impinge the insert-chip interface along substantially the entire length of the insert-chip interface. The use of a coolant spray nozzle that provides for the adjustment of the direction of the coolant spray that impinges the insert-chip interface facilitates the ease of manufacturing the cutting body. As such, the nozzle’s longitudinal axis is being angularly offset from a holding center axis about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element; where the first angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a first axis lying in the radial plane of the discharge element, and the second angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a second axis lying in the circumferential plane of the discharge element, the first and second axes being orthogonal to one another. See Figure 3 of Morrison).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time Applicant’s invention was filed, to modify Boregowda’s nozzle to be an adjustable nozzle that can be adjusted 360 degrees to virtually any position, and thus have its longitudinal axis be angularly offset from the holding center about two non-parallel axes, the angular offset comprising a first angular component in a radial plane of the discharge element and a second angular component in a circumferential plane of the discharge element, as taught by Morrison to selected a desired position relative to the coolant spray nozzle body so that coolant discharges in a fan-shaped coolant spray so as to impinge the insert-chip interface along substantially the entire length of the insert-chip interface and facilitate the ease of manufacturing the cutting body.
In regards to claim 3, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim, Boregowda as modified also discloses that extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis (as modified by Morrison) in the radial direction is between 1° and 45°, in particular between 3° and 30°.
However, Boregowda fails to disclose that the extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis in the radial direction is between 6° and 15°.
Since Boregowda does, however, disclose that the extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis (A) in the radial direction is between 1° and 45°, in particular between 3° and 30°; the ranges of the extension of the nozzle constitute a defined range of the cutting tool. Therefore, the range of the angle to which the nozzle longitudinal axis is extending in the radial direction is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the angle will ensure that the coolant flowing out of the outlet nozzles is directed toward the cutting tool (see paragraph [0048]). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting tool is made up of a defined range of the angle to which the nozzle longitudinal axis is extending in the radial direction, were disclosed in the prior art by Boregowda, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Boregowda’s angle to which the nozzle longitudinal axis is extending in the radial direction to be within a desired range such as in between 6° and 15°. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claims 4 and 6, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the nozzle longitudinal axis extends into the circumferential direction and into the radial direction.
However, Boregowda as modified fails to disclose that the nozzle longitudinal axis extends into the circumferential direction more than into the radial direction (claim 4), so as they are extending in different directions (claim 6).
Nevertheless, since Boregowda as modified by Morrison teaches that the spray nipple can be adjusted 360 degrees to virtually any position to direct coolant to a desired location, so that coolant discharges in a fan-shaped coolant spray so as to impinge the insert-chip interface along substantially the entire length of the insert-chip interface and facilitate the ease of manufacturing the cutting body.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try having the nozzle longitudinal axis extend into the circumferential direction more than into the radial direction (claim 4), so as they are extending in different directions (claim 6), based on the teachings of Morrison in an attempt to provide and direct coolant to a desired location, so as to impinge the insert-chip interface along substantially the entire length of the insert-chip interface and facilitate the ease of manufacturing the cutting body, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp (i.e. other known options such as having the nozzle longitudinal axis extend into the circumferential direction less than into the radial direction or having the nozzle longitudinal axis extend into the circumferential direction equal to the radial direction ).
In regards to claim 5, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that extension of the nozzle longitudinal axis (A) in the radial direction is between 3° and 30° (see paragraph [0048]).
In regards to claim 7, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that at least one discharge nozzle tapers toward an outlet (see at least paragraph [0050] of Boregowda and see Morrison’s tapering nozzle in Figure 4).
In regards to claim 9, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the at least one coolant supply channel (32) extends at least in sections inside the holding body (Figures 3a, b).
In regards to claim 10, Boregowda discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the at least one coolant supply channel (32) is configured at least in sections as a groove that extends on an outer circumference of the holding body (Figures 3a, b).
In regards to claim 11, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the at least one coolant supply channel (32) is configured at least in sections as a slot (Figures 3a, b).
In regards to claim 12, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that each coolant supply channel (32) comprises a cooling manifold section (40), via which the coolant is distributed to the plurality of discharge nozzles (38) of one discharge unit (see Figure 3b).
In regards to claim 13, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 12, Boregowda as modified also discloses that each cooling manifold section (40) extends only over a partial region of the circumference of the holding body (as shown in Figure 3b).
In regards to claim 14, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses a cutting apparatus having the toolholder (see Figure 1); the cutting apparatus comprises an expansion chuck (12) having a holding section into which the toolholder is inserted (see at least Figure 1).
In regards to claim 15, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the toolholder (14) fastens a chipping tool (16) (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 17, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 12, Boregowda as modified also discloses that at least one cooling manifold section (40) extends only over a partial region of the circumference of the holding body (as shown in Figure 3b).
In regards to claim 18, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that each discharge unit is distributed circumferentially around the holding center axis (see at least Figures 2a, c).
In regards to claim 22, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 7, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the taper results in the outlet having a smaller cross-sectional area than the inlet (see at least paragraph [0050] of Boregowda and see Morrison’s tapering nozzle in Figure 4, where the outlet being at 106 and inlet being at 90).
In regards to claim 23, Boregowda as modified discloses the toolholder according to claim 1, Boregowda as modified also discloses that the first angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a first axis lying in the radial plane of the discharge element (modified Boregowda), and the second angular component is a rotation of the nozzle longitudinal axis about a second axis lying in the circumferential plane of the discharge element (modified Boregowda), the first and second axes being orthogonal to one another (see Figure 3 of Morrison, now in modified Boregowda).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/17/2025 with respect to claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-18 and new claims 19-23 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under:
35 USC § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-18, 22 and 23;
35 USC § 112(b) or 35 USC § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph for claims 3-5, 13, 17, 19-20 and 22;
35 USC § 102 over Boregowda et al. US 2018/0369931 (hereafter—Boregowda--), for claims 19-21;
35 USC § 103 over of Boregowda et al. US 2018/0369931 (hereafter—Boregowda--) in view of Morrison et al. US 9,434,011 (hereafter—Morrison--), for claims 1, 3-7, 9-15, 17-18, 22 and 23;
have been incorporated as aforementioned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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 on (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 Groove: a long narrow channel or depression GROOVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 Slot: a narrow opening or groove SLOT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
3 Boregowda reference was previously cited by the Examiner on PTO-892 form dated 04/15/2025
4 Groove: a long narrow channel or depression GROOVE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
5 Slot: a narrow opening or groove SLOT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
6 Slot: a narrow opening or groove SLOT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
7 Boregowda reference was previously cited by the Examiner on PTO-892 form dated 04/15/2025