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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 07 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 07 January 2026.
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 12 and 13 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 12:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a second coolant channel of the rotary cutting tool”, and the claim also recites “the second coolant channel is formed in a portion axially opposite a shaft-side portion of the rotary cutting tool,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13:
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “a second coolant channel of the rotary cutting tool”, and the claim also recites “the second coolant channel is formed in a portion axially opposite a shaft-side portion of the rotary cutting tool,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Georgiou (US 10,086,446 B2).
Claim 1:
Georgiou discloses a rotary cutting tool having an axis of rotation and a tool body (54) extending along the axis of rotation and having at least one coolant channel (59) (fig. 1, col. 1, line 64 bridging col. 2, line 2 and col. 2, lines 7-12),
characterized in that at least a portion of the at least one coolant channel (59) is formed by a groove in a circumferential face of the tool body (54) (fig. 1, col. 2, lines 2-12),
wherein the at least one coolant channel (59) is closed in the portion of the groove in the radial direction by an add-on (64) part of the rotary cutting tool, which is attached to the tool body (54) (figs. 1-2, col. 2, lines 20-22 and col. 2, lines 37-43).
Claim 2:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, characterized in that the at least one coolant channel (59) is arranged in a fluted portion of the tool body having at least one flute (77) (fig. 4, col. 3, lines 22-41).
Claim 3:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 2, characterized in that the at least one coolant channel (59) and the at least one flute extend helically in the axial direction (fig. 4, col. 3, lines 22-41).
Claim 4.
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, characterized in that the groove (59) has a cross-section with at least one straight segment (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 4-8).
Claim 5:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 2, characterized in that the groove has a cross-section with at least one straight segment (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 4-8).
Claim 6:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 3, characterized in that the groove has a cross-section with at least one straight segment (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 4-8).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maghon (DE 37 06 260 A1) as provided by (DE 37 06 260 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 7:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1; and, Georgiou fails to disclose the add-on part is formed by a tube that is attached in the at least one coolant channel. Instead, Georgiou discloses forming coolant channels by machining external grooves in a tool body and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component to convey coolant.
Maghon also discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses that such surface grooves (31) may alternatively be provided with metallic tubes (38) inserted into the grooves (31), which themselves define the coolant channel (37), and further teaches these tubes (38) may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 3, [0006], [0013], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the groove-closing element of Georgiou with the tube-in-groove configuration of Maghon since it was known that groove-closing elements and tube-in-groove elements are analogues for add-on parts for forming coolant channels. See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claim 11:
Georgiou in view of Maghon renders obvious the rotary cutting tool according to claim 7, characterized in that the tube (Maghon, 38) radially abuts the circumferential face of the tool body (Maghon, fig. 3, [0015]).
Claim 14:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1; and, Georgiou fails to discloses the add-on part is formed by a weld seam. Instead, George discloses the add-on part is formed by brazing (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 11-21).
Maghon discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses the add-on part may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 4, [0006], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the brazing technique of Georgiou with the welding technique of Maghon since it was known that brazing and welding are analogues for forming add-on parts for forming coolant channels (Maghon, [0016]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Maghon (DE 37 06 260 A1) as provided by (DE 37 06 260 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 8:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 2; and, Georgiou fails to disclose the add-on part is formed by a tube that is attached in the at least one coolant channel. Instead, Georgiou discloses forming coolant channels by machining external grooves in a tool body and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component to convey coolant.
Maghon also discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses that such surface grooves (31) may alternatively be provided with metallic tubes (38) inserted into the grooves (31), which themselves define the coolant channel (37), and further teaches these tubes (38) may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 3, [0006], [0013], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the groove-closing element of Georgiou with the tube-in-groove configuration of Maghon since it was known that groove-closing elements and tube-in-groove elements are analogues for add-on parts for forming coolant channels. See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claim 15:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 2; and, Georgiou fails to discloses the add-on part is formed by a weld seam. Instead, George discloses the add-on part is formed by brazing (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 11-21).
Maghon discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses the add-on part may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 4, [0006], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the brazing technique of Georgiou with the welding technique of Maghon since it was known that brazing and welding are analogues for forming add-on parts for forming coolant channels (Maghon, [0016]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Maghon (DE 37 06 260 A1) as provided by (DE 37 06 260 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 9:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 3; and, Georgiou fails to disclose the add-on part is formed by a tube that is attached in the at least one coolant channel. Instead, Georgiou discloses forming coolant channels by machining external grooves in a tool body and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component to convey coolant.
Maghon also discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses that such surface grooves (31) may alternatively be provided with metallic tubes (38) inserted into the grooves (31), which themselves define the coolant channel (37), and further teaches these tubes (38) may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 3, [0006], [0013], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the groove-closing element of Georgiou with the tube-in-groove configuration of Maghon since it was known that groove-closing elements and tube-in-groove elements are analogues for add-on parts for forming coolant channels. See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claim 16:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 3; and, Georgiou fails to discloses the add-on part is formed by a weld seam. Instead, George discloses the add-on part is formed by brazing (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 11-21).
Maghon discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses the add-on part may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 4, [0006], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the brazing technique of Georgiou with the welding technique of Maghon since it was known that brazing and welding are analogues for forming add-on parts for forming coolant channels (Maghon, [0016]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maghon (DE 37 06 260 A1) as provided by (DE 37 06 260 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 10:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 4; and, Georgiou fails to disclose the add-on part is formed by a tube that is attached in the at least one coolant channel. Instead, Georgiou discloses forming coolant channels by machining external grooves in a tool body and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component to convey coolant.
Maghon also discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses that such surface grooves (31) may alternatively be provided with metallic tubes (38) inserted into the grooves (31), which themselves define the coolant channel (37), and further teaches these tubes (38) may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 3, [0006], [0013], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the groove-closing element of Georgiou with the tube-in-groove configuration of Maghon since it was known that groove-closing elements and tube-in-groove elements are analogues for add-on parts for forming coolant channels. See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Claim 17:
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 4, characterized in that the add-on part is formed by a weld seam.
Georgiou discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 3, and Georgiou fails to discloses the add-on part is formed by a weld seam. Instead, George discloses the add-on part is formed by brazing (figs. 1-4, col. 3, lines 11-21).
Maghon discloses forming coolant channels (47) by machining external grooves (41) in a component body (1) and subsequently closing the grooves with an add-on component (48) to convey coolant (fig. 4, [0016]). Maghon further discloses the add-on part may be fixed to the body (1) by brazing, welding, or equivalent joining techniques (fig. 4, [0006], [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the brazing technique of Georgiou with the welding technique of Maghon since it was known that brazing and welding are analogues for forming add-on parts for forming coolant channels (Maghon, [0016]). See MPEP §2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The results would have been predictable because both references address the same technical problem of forming near-surface coolant channels while maintaining tool strength and manufacturability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 12:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the rotary cutting tool according to claim 7, characterized in that the tube comprises a tube wall with an opening that fluidly connects the interior of the tube laterally to a second coolant channel of the rotary cutting tool, in particular wherein the second coolant channel is formed in a portion axially opposite a shaft-side portion of the rotary cutting tool.
Claim 13:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the rotary cutting tool according to claim 11, characterized in that the tube comprises a tube wall with an opening that fluidly connects the interior of the tube laterally to a second coolant channel of the rotary cutting tool, in particular wherein the second coolant channel is formed in a portion axially opposite a shaft-side portion of the rotary cutting tool.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mirchandani et al. (US 8,637,127 B2) discloses a rotary cutting tool with coolant channels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726