Detailed Action1
America Invents Act 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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 each recite a transition outer surface extending circumferentially around a portion of the clamp screw hole. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure teaches the transition outer surface 142 being a straight surface that extends at a predetermined angle with respect to the nozzle axis (see Applicant’s originally filed figures 6 & 8, ¶ [0050] of Applicant’s originally filed specification & original claim 3). Further, Applicant’s originally filed specification does not state the transition outer surface extending circumferentially around a portion of the clamp screw hole. Thus, Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not support this limitation.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 or 11.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 each recite a transition outer surface extending circumferentially around a portion of the clamp screw hole in fluid communication between the coolant fluid reservoir chamber and the nozzle inlet of the at least one nozzle structured and arranged to direct fluid flow from a rear portion of the coolant fluid reservoir chamber to the nozzle inlet forming a smooth transition between … . It is unclear if the fluid communication limitation is referring to the clamp screw hole or the transition outer surface. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is also unclear which element the “smooth transition” limitation is referring to, and also which element the “structured and arranged” limitation is referring to.
The rest of the claims are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 or 11.
Rejections under 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.
Claim 1, 4, 7, 11, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2019/0160549 (“Amstibovitsky’).
Regarding claim 1, Amstibovitsky teaches a tool holder assembly comprising: a tool holder body (18); a cutting insert (12) mounted on the tool holder body (figs. 14-16, ¶ [0102]); a through coolant clamp (16) mounted on the tool holder body structured and arranged to secure the cutting insert on the tool holder body and to provide coolant fluid to the cutting insert and comprising a clamp screw hole (77/88) having a longitudinal axis (figs. 14-19, ¶ [0132]-[0134]); and a clamp screw (20) extending through the clamp screw hole fastening the coolant clamp to the tool holder body and comprising an internal axial coolant fluid passage (56) (figs. 1-12, ¶ [0102] & [0140]), wherein the through coolant clamp comprises: a base portion (70); a coolant fluid reservoir chamber (77) within the base portion and extending radially rearward from the clamp screw hole (fig. 19, wherein surface 92 of chamber 77 is radially rearward of clamp screw hole 88), the coolant fluid reservoir chamber surrounding at least a portion of the clamp screw and in fluid communication with the internal axial coolant fluid passage of the clamp screw (fig. 16, ¶ [0137]-[0140]); a nose portion (68) extending radially forward from the base portion (figs. 16-19); and at least one nozzle (80/82/84) within the nose portion extending along a nozzle axis, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises: a nozzle inlet (84) in fluid communication with the coolant fluid reservoir chamber; a nozzle outlet (80) opposite the nozzle inlet; and a nozzle coolant channel (82) extending between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet along the nozzle axis (fig. 19, ¶ [0134]); and a transition outer surface (94) extending circumferentially around a portion of the clamp screw hole in fluid communication between the coolant fluid reservoir chamber and the nozzle inlet of the at least one nozzle structured and arranged to direct fluid flow from a rear portion of the coolant fluid reservoir chamber to the nozzle inlet (fig. 18-19, ¶ [0138]).
Claim 1 also recites the transition outer surface forming a smooth transition between the rear portion of the coolant fluid reservoir chamber and the nozzle inlet such that a transition angle measured in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the through coolant clamp between at least a portion of the transition surface and the nozzle axis is less than 60 degrees. In light of Applicant's originally filed disclosure, the plane in this limitation is interpreted as perpendicular to the longitudinal axis if it extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in at least one direction (see figs. 5 & 6 of Applicant's originally filed drawings which illustrate the nozzle coolant channel axes N1 & N2 forming an oblique angle with the longitudinal axis so that the nozzle axes, and thus transition angle, can only be seen in a plane that extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis in one of the two plane directions). As illustrated in fig. 19 of Amstibovitsky, the nozzle axis forms an angle with respect to tangents of the transition outer surface that is less than 60 degrees (wherein the tangents will be horizontal when viewing fig. 19 and the nozzle axis has relatively small angle with respect to the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites limitations found in claim 1, along with the clamp screw hole extending from a clamp top surface of the through coolant clamp to a clamp bottom surface of the through coolant clamp. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above, Amstibovitsky teaches the limitations found in claim 1. Furthermore, Amstibovitsky teaches the clamp screw hole (77/88) extending from a clamp top surface of the through coolant clamp to a clamp bottom surface of the through coolant clamp (fig. 19).
Regarding claim 4, Amstibovitsky further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir chamber surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw (fig. 16 & 19).
Claims 7 and 17 each recite the coolant clamp is structured and arranged to reduce turbulent flow of the coolant fluid at a volumetric flow rate of at least 1 L/min. The structure of the clamp of Amstibovitsky reduces the turbulent flow at the claimed flow rate with respect to other hypothetical structures that would have increased turbulent flows (e.g. coolant passages with larger diameters, rougher surfaces, and/or more bends/shoulders such as a zig-zag cooling passage).
Regarding claim 14, Amstibovitsky further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir partially surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw hole (fig. 16 & 19).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious3 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstibovitsky as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2024/0165712 ("Luik").
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach the nozzle coolant channel comprises a conical shape, and a cross-sectional area of the nozzle inlet taken perpendicular to the nozzle coolant channel axis is greater than a cross-sectional area of the nozzle outlet taken perpendicular to the nozzle coolant channel axis. However, this would have been obvious in view of Luik.
Luik is also directed to a cutting tool having cutting inserts (¶ [0002]). The tool has a clamp 12 to clamp the cutting insert to the holder 18 (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0057]), wherein the clamp 12 has a plurality of coolant channels 34 therein (fig. 2, ¶ [0066]). The channels 34 can taper from the first end thereof facing away from the cutting head 14 toward the second end thereof facing the cutting head 14 in order to accelerate coolant within the coolant channel 34 (¶ [0073]). Alternatively, the coolant channel 34 may also be recessed or stepped in the interior thereof so that, for example, a first portion which adjoins the first end has a larger diameter and a second portion which adjoins the second end has a smaller diameter (¶ [0073]).
In this case, each of Amstibovitsky and Luik are directed to a cutting tool having a clamp that clamps cutting inserts to a body/holder, and wherein the clamp has cooling passages therein. Luik teaches that tapered channels can accelerate coolant within the nozzle. Thus, in order to increase the velocity of the coolant flow, it would be obvious to taper the nozzle channel so that the diameter at the nozzle inlet is greater than the diameter at the nozzle outlet.
Claims 2, 6, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstibovitsky as applied to claims 1 or 11, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2018/0369923 ("Chen").
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach the transition angle is from 15 to 50 degrees. However, this would have been obvious in view of Chen.
Chen is also directed to a similar tool holder assembly comprising a through coolant clamp (figs. 1-2 & 4-5, ¶ [0025]-[0027] & [0038]). Chen teaches the angle between the nozzle axis and the horizontal direction being between 15 and 50 degrees as illustrated in annotated fig. 16, below.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this case, each of Amstibovitsky and Chen teach similar tool holder assemblies comprising a through coolant clamp. One of skill in the art appreciates that the angle of the nozzle axis can effect the cooling properties of the tool during a cutting operation. Chen teaches that the nozzle angle can be slightly above fifteen degrees with respect to the horizontal axis while predictably providing adequate cooling during cutting. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the nozzle axis of Amstibovitsky so that it is slightly above fifteen degrees.
In the alternative, it is not inventive to find the optimal or workable angles of the nozzle axis through routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05). In this case, Amstibovitsky teaches the nozzle axis having an angle with the horizontal direction. Chen teaches that the angle between the nozzle axis and horizontal direction can be larger. One of skill in the art also appreciates that the angle of the nozzle axis can affect cooling during cutting. Thus, it would be obvious to find workable nozzle angles (including angles between 15 and 50 degrees) through routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach the at least one nozzle comprises a first coolant nozzle and a second separate coolant nozzle. However, this would have been obvious in view of Chen.
Chen is also directed to a similar tool holder assembly comprising a through coolant clamp (figs. 1-2 & 4-5, ¶ [0025]-[0027] & [0038]). Chen teaches the clamp having a plurality of coolant passages/nozzles 70 (fig. 2, 12 & 14, ¶ [0033]).
In this case, each of Amstibovitsky and Chen teach similar tool holder assemblies comprising a through coolant clamp. While Amstibovitsky only explicitly teaches one nozzle, Chen teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to use a plurality of nozzles. Thus, in order to dispense fluid over a wider area it would be obvious to provide a plurality of nozzles within the nose portion.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstibovitsky as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2020/0108448 ("Bopp").
Regarding claim 10, Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach at least a portion of the through coolant clamp comprises cemented carbide. However, this would have been obvious in view of Bopp.
Bopp is also directed to a cutting tool having a cutting insert (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0002]-[0009]). Bopp teaches that the cutting head 22, which supports the blades, is usually made of solid carbide (¶ [0005] & [0058]).
In this case, each of Amstibovitsky and Bopp is directed to a cutting tool having cutting inserts supported thereon. Bopp teaches one of skill in the art that it is known to support cutting inserts with parts made out of solid carbide (which is another term for cemented carbide). Further, it would be predictable to form the coolant clamp of Amstibovitsky out of cemented carbine because it is known for cemented carbide products to be made via subtractive or additive manufacturing. It is also known by one of skill in the art that cemented carbides provide good hardness, wear resistance, strength, and maintaining properties at high temperatures. Thus, in order to provide a coolant clamp having good hardness, wear resistance, strength, and maintains properties at high temperatures, it would be obvious to form the coolant clamp of Amstibovitsky out of cemented carbide.
Regarding claim 18, Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach the through coolant clamp comprises a carbide. However, this is obvious in view of Bopp for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 10, above.
Claims 8-9 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amstibovitsky as applied to claims 1 or 11, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2007/0283794 ("Giannetti").
Regarding claim 8, Amstibovitsky further teaches the clamp screw comprises: a threaded lower portion (52) (figs. 2 & 4, ¶ [0127]); a head (22) at an end of the clamp screw opposite the threaded lower portion (fig. 2, ¶ [0103]); the internal coolant axial passage (56) having an inlet opening (50) adjacent the threaded lower portion and extending to the upper portion (fig. 4); and at least one coolant radial channel (34) in fluid communication with the coolant axial passage having a radial outlet opening (figs. 3-4, ¶ [0109]).
Amstibovitsky fails to explicitly teach an upper portion between the threaded lower portion and the head, and the radial outlet opening of the at least one coolant radial channel being through an outer surface of the upper portion. However, this would have been obvious in view of Giannetti.
Giannetti is also directed to a coolant clamp for a cutting tool (¶ [0003]). The clamp is fastened via a screw similar to that of Amstibovitsky wherein the screw has a larger diameter head 54 that rests against the top surface of the clamp and compresses a seal 58 (fig. 4, ¶ [0068]). The coolant radial channels 48 are located just below the head in an upper portion of the screw (fig. 4A & 5).
In this case, each of Amstibovitsky and Giannetti are directed to a coolant clamp for a cutting tool wherein the clamp is fastened via similar screws. One of skill in the art appreciates that there a variety of ways to design the clamp screw. Giannetti teaches a known and predictable structure as detailed above. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the screw of Amstibovitsky so that the portion of the screw comprising the coolant radial channels is not part of the head but in an upper portion of the screw immediately below the head. Since the coolant radial channels of Amstibovitsky are being maintained in the same axial location, this modification will still allow coolant to be ejected into the coolant fluid reservoir chamber. Further, adding a larger diameter head to rest on the top of the clamp as taught by Giannetti can still allow a sealing ring to be compressed between the head and the clamp, and can provide an assembler with visual confirmation that the screw is tightened to the optimal position within the clamp.
All the limitations of claim 19 are required by claims 1 and 8. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons detailed in the rejections to claim 1 and 8, above.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Amstibovitsky further teaches at least two of the coolant radial channels (34) structured and arranged to discharge the coolant fluid into the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 5, 2026 (“the remarks”) have been fully considered. The examiner agrees that the claim amendments overcome the previous prior art rejections. Thus, the previous prior art rejections are withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights