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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, c1, ll. 64 bridging c2, ll. 2 and c2, ll. 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, c2, ll. 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, c2, ll. 20-22 and c2, ll. 37-43); and,
wherein the at least one coolant channel is structured and arranged to deliver coolant to a cutting portion (local area adjacent flutes (77) and cutting edges (78)) of the rotary cutting tool into a cutting region (fluted portion of the tool enclosed by bushing (64)) of the rotary cutting tool (figs. 1-2, c3, ll.28-31).
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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 4-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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, c3, ll. 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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest an open delivery system. Applicant’s arguments regarding an alleged distinction between an “open delivery system” and the coolant flow path of Georgiou are not persuasive because such arguments are not commensurate in scope with the amended claims. While Applicant characterizes the disclosed invention as requiring an open delivery system that discharges coolant into the cutting region, claim 1 does not recite an open coolant system, coolant discharge from the tool, coolant impingement upon a workpiece or the absence of a return path.
Rather claim 1, merely requires that the coolant channel be “structured and arranged to deliver coolant to a cutting portion of the rotary cutting tool into a cutting region of the rotary cutting tool.” Georgiou discloses passageways 59 positioned adjacent flutes 77 and cutting edges 78 of the cutting portion of the tool, thereby delivering coolant to the cutting portion and cutting region as claimed. The claim contains no limitations excluding recirculating flow paths, return passages, enclosed coolant channels or other coolant management structures disclosed by Georgiou.
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights