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:
(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.
Claim 1 recites a coolant fluid reservoir chamber within the base portion extending radially rearward from the clamp screw hole surrounding at least a portion of the clamp screw and in fluid communication with the internal axial coolant fluid passage of the clamp screw. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear if the coolant fluid reservoir chamber or the clamp screw hole is intended surround at least a portion of the clamp screw and be in fluid communication with the internal axial coolant fluid passage of the clamp screw. It is also unclear if the coolant fluid reservoir chamber or base portion extends rearward from the clamp screw hole. It appears it should be the coolant fluid reservoir chamber in each instance. If this is correct, the examiner recommends amending this limitation to recite: a coolant fluid reservoir chamber within the base portion and extending radially rearward from the clamp screw hole, 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.
Claims 5 and 15 recite smooth conical shape. The term “smooth” is unclear because how is a smooth conical shape is different than a conical shape. Do all conical shapes read on a smooth conical shape? This also appears to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “smooth” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 8 recites an internal coolant axial passage. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear if this is referring to the internal axial coolant fluid passage introduced in claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the longitudinal axis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claims 1 and 11 also recite a nozzle coolant channel axis. In light of Applicant’s disclosure, it is unclear if this axis is the same as the previously recited “nozzle axis”. If not, how are they different?
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are rejected for depending from one of claims 1 and 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.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2007/0283794 (“Giannetti”).
Regarding claim 21, Giannetti discloses a clamp screw (42) for a through coolant tool holder clamp assembly (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0003] & [0068]), the clamp screw comprising: a threaded lower portion (40); a head at an end of the clamp screw opposite the threaded lower portion (figs. 2-5, ¶ [0068]); an upper portion (i.e. reduced diameter portion between portion 40 and the head) between the threaded lower portion and the head (figs. 2-5); an internal coolant axial passage (46) having an inlet opening adjacent the threaded lower portion and extending to the upper portion (fig. 4, ¶ [0068]); and at least one coolant radial channel (48) in fluid communication with the coolant axial passage and having a radial outlet opening through an outer surface of the upper portion (fig. 4, ¶ [0068]).
Regarding claim 22, Giannetti further discloses at least two of the coolant radial channels structured and arranged to discharge the coolant radially outward from the upper portion (fig. 4-5, wherein two radial channels extend from axial channel 46 that are 180 degrees from each other and form respective radial outlets).
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2018/0369923 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a tool holder assembly (¶ [0001]) comprising: a tool holder body (12/13); a cutting insert (22) mounted on the tool holder body (fig. 1, ¶ [0025]-[0026]); a through coolant clamp (60) 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 (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0031]-[0033]) and comprising a clamp screw hole (65) having a longitudinal axis (67) (figs. 1-4 & 16); and a clamp screw (40) extending through the clamp screw hole fastening the coolant clamp to the tool holder body (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0027]-[0028] & [0031]) and comprising an internal axial coolant fluid passage (52) (fig. 9, ¶ [0029]), wherein the through coolant clamp comprises: a base portion (62) (fig. 13); a coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) within the base portion extending radially rearward from the clamp screw hole surrounding at least a portion of the clamp screw and in fluid communication with the internal axial coolant fluid passage of the clamp screw (figs. 16, ¶ [0032] & [0038]); a nose portion (64) extending radially forward from the base portion (fig. 13); and at least one nozzle (70b) within the nose portion extending along a nozzle axis (fig. 16, wherein nozzle 70b extends along an axis), wherein the at least one nozzle comprises: a nozzle inlet in fluid communication with the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (fig. 16, i.e. inlet of nozzle section 70b which is in fluid communication with chamber 68 via channel 70a); a nozzle outlet (70c) opposite the nozzle inlet (fig. 16, ¶ [0033]); and a nozzle coolant channel extending between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet along a nozzle coolant channel axis (fig. 16, ¶ [0033]).
Chen further teaches a transition outer surface (i.e. surface of transition passage 70a) in fluid communication between the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) and the nozzle inlet of the at least one nozzle (70b). Claim 1 also recites the transition outer surface forming a smooth transition between 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 coolant channel 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 from 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. 16 of Chen, which is a cross-section along a plane extending perpendicular to the longitudinal axis with respect to one direction (i.e. the horizontal direction of fig. 16), the angle between a portion of the outer surface of transition passage 70a and the axis of nozzle 70b is less than sixty degrees.
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, Chen teaches the limitations found in claim 1. Furthermore, Chen teaches the clamp screw hole (65) extending from a clamp top surface of the through coolant clamp to a clamp bottom surface of the through coolant clamp (fig. 16 of Chen).
Claims 3 and 13 each recite the transition outer surface comprises a straight portion. As illustrated in fig. 16 of Chen, the outer surface is straight when viewed from the illustrated cross-section.
Regarding claim 4, Chen further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw (figs. 4 & 16).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chen further teaches the at least one nozzle comprises a first coolant nozzle and a second separate coolant nozzle (figs. 2, 14 & 16, ¶ [0033]).
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 Chen et al. 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 claims 8 and 19, Chen further teaches the clamp screw comprises: a threaded lower portion (44) (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0028]); a head at an end of the clamp screw opposite the threaded lower portion (figs. 8-9, i.e. top portion of screw having hexagonal recess since this portion is an end of the screw and provides a surface/recess for driving tools); an upper portion (42) between the threaded lower portion and the head (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0028]); an internal coolant axial passage (52) having an inlet opening adjacent the threaded lower portion and extending to the upper portion (fig. 9, ¶ [0029]); and at least one coolant radial channel (54) in fluid communication with the coolant axial passage having a radial outlet opening (56) through an outer surface of the upper portion (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0029]).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chen further teaches at least two of the coolant radial channels structured and arranged to discharge the coolant fluid into the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (figs. 6 & 9-10, ¶ [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) partially surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw (figs. 4 & 16, wherein the chamber 68 only surrounds a portion of the entire axial length of the upper portion of the clamp screw).
Claims 21 and 22 recite the limitations found in claims 8 and 9, respectively. As detailed in the rejections to claims 8 and 9, above, Chen teaches these limitations.
Claim 23 recites three of the coolant radial channels equally spaced around a circumference of the upper portion. Chen teaches an embodiment wherein three passages 54 are provide that are equally spaced around the circumference of the screw (¶ [0030]).
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 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to one of above claims 1 and 11.
Claims 2 and 12 each recite the transition angle is from 15 to 50 degrees. As illustrated in annotated fig. 16 of Chen, below, the transition angle appears to be between 15 and 50 degrees.
PNG
media_image1.png
742
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not infer the transition angle being between 15 and 50 degrees, the angle is close enough to the claimed range that a prima facie case of obviousness exists because merely changing the transition angle of Chen so that it is above 15 degrees would not change the operation of the device of Chen since the coolant channel will still eject coolant to the cutting insert (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3 and 13 each recite the transition outer surface comprises a straight portion. Chen teaches that it is obvious for the channels to have polygonal cross sections (¶ [0034]). Thus, when modified to be polygonal, the sides of the polygonal shape have straight sides.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to above claims 1 and 11, respectively, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2024/0165712 (“Luik”).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Chen fails to explicitly teach the nozzle coolant channel comprises a smooth 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 Chen 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. Chen teaches a first upstream passage 70a having a larger diameter, and a smaller nozzle 70b that are adjoined via a step (see fig. 16 of Chen). Luik teaches a known alternative to stepped/recessed portions within channels, i.e. a tapered channel. One of skill in the art also appreciates that tapered sections of channels are more efficient than stepped channels that result in a sudden change of diameter because more mechanical/kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy due to more fluid turbulence created by the sudden change in diameter. Thus, in order to provide a more efficient coolant flow, it would be obvious to replace the step between the channels 70a & 70b with a tapered nozzle channel 70b that gradually tapers from the end of channel 70a to the nozzle outlet 70c.
Claims 8-9 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Giannetti.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Chen teaches the limitations as detailed in the 102 rejections of claims 8 and 19, above. Assuming arguendo that the top of the screw of Chen is not a head, this would be 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 Chen 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]).
In this case, each of Chen and Giannetti are directed to a coolant clamp for a cutting tool wherein the clamp is fastened via similar screws. Adding a larger diameter head can allow a sealing ring to be compressed between the head and the clamp, and will ensure the screw is tightened to the optimal position within the clamp (i.e. the position in Chen where the radial passages in the screw are in the same plane as the chamber 68 and channels 70a). Thus, it would be obvious to modify the screw of Chen so that it comprises a larger diameter head that rests on top of the clamp when the screw is fully assembled/tightened.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chen further teaches at least two of the coolant radial channels structured and arranged to discharge the coolant fluid into the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (figs. 6 & 9-10, ¶ [0029]-[0030]).
Claims 21 and 22 recite all the limitations found in claims 8 and 9, respectively. As detailed in the rejection to claims 8 and 9, above, Chen in view of Giannetti teach these limitations.
Claim 23 recites three of the coolant radial channels equally spaced around a circumference of the upper portion. Chen teaches an embodiment wherein three passages 54 are provide that are equally spaced around the circumference of the screw (¶ [0030]).
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Luik.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a tool holder assembly (¶ [0001]) comprising: a tool holder body (12/13); a cutting insert (22) mounted on the tool holder body (fig. 1, ¶ [0025]-[0026]); a through coolant clamp (60) 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 (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0031]-[0033]) and comprising a clamp screw hole (65) having a longitudinal axis (67) (figs. 1-4 & 16); and a clamp screw (40) extending through the clamp screw hole fastening the coolant clamp to the tool holder body (figs. 1-4, ¶ [0027]-[0028] & [0031]) and comprising an internal axial coolant fluid passage (52) (fig. 9, ¶ [0029]), wherein the through coolant clamp comprises: a base portion (62) (fig. 13); a coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) within the base portion extending radially rearward from the clamp screw hole surrounding at least a portion of the clamp screw and in fluid communication with the internal axial coolant fluid passage of the clamp screw (figs. 16, ¶ [0032] & [0038]); a nose portion (64) extending radially forward from the base portion (fig. 13); and at least one nozzle (70b) within the nose portion extending along a nozzle axis (fig. 16, wherein nozzle 70b extends along an axis), wherein the at least one nozzle comprises: a nozzle inlet in fluid communication with the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (fig. 16, i.e. inlet of nozzle section 70b which is in fluid communication with chamber 68 via channel 70a); a nozzle outlet (70c) opposite the nozzle inlet (fig. 16, ¶ [0033]); and a nozzle coolant channel extending between the nozzle inlet and the nozzle outlet along a nozzle coolant channel axis (fig. 16, ¶ [0033]).
Chen further teaches a transition outer surface (i.e. surface of transition passage 70a) in fluid communication between the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) and the nozzle inlet of the at least one nozzle (70b). Assuming arguendo that Chen fails to explicitly teach the transition outer surface forming a smooth transition between 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 coolant channel axis is less than 60 degrees, this would be 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 Chen 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. Chen teaches a first upstream passage 70a having a larger diameter, and a smaller nozzle 70b that are adjoined via a step (see fig. 16 of Chen). Luik teaches a known alternative to stepped/recessed portions within channels, i.e. a tapered channel. One of skill in the art also appreciates that tapered sections of channels are more efficient than stepped channels that result in a sudden change of diameter because more mechanical/kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy due to more fluid turbulence created by the sudden change in diameter. Thus, in order to provide a more efficient coolant flow, it would be obvious to replace the step between the channels 70a & 70b with a transition channel between channels 70a & 70b that gradually tapers from the diameter of channel 70a to the smaller diameter of nozzle 70b.
Given the above modification, when viewing a cross-section of the clamp along a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal axis and extending along the nozzle axis, the cross-section will cut through the nozzle and at least a portion of the transition channel since the transition channel leads directly into the nozzle. Thus, the cross section will show the nozzle axis and a portion of the tapered outer wall of the transition channel. While the tapered outer wall of the transition channel will form an angle with the nozzle axis that is less than 90 degrees, Chen in view of Luik fail to explicitly teach the wall forming an angle with the nozzle axis that is less than sixty degrees.
However, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, Chen et al. teach the coolant channels of the clamp changing diameter via a tapered portion. One of skill in the art appreciates that a variety of tapered angles can be used and will result in different fluid properties such as different accelerations of the fluid. One of skill in the art is capable of determining how quickly to reduce the diameter to the nozzle diameter depending on the predictable changes in fluid properties. Thus, it would be routine optimization to discover taper angles that are less than sixty degrees with respect to the nozzle axis.
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, Chen in view of Luik teaches the limitations found in claim 1. Furthermore, Chen teaches the clamp screw hole (65) extending from a clamp top surface of the through coolant clamp to a clamp bottom surface of the through coolant clamp (fig. 16 of Chen).
Claims 2 and 12 each recite the transition angle is from 15 to 50 degrees. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In this case, Chen et al. teach the coolant channels of the clamp changing diameter via a tapered portion. One of skill in the art appreciates that a variety of tapered angles can be used and will result in different fluid properties such as velocity of the fluid. One of skill in the art is capable of determining how quickly to reduce the diameter to the nozzle diameter depending on the predictable changes in fluid properties. Thus, it would be routine optimization to discover taper angles that are between 15 and 50 degrees with respect to the nozzle axis when viewing the perpendicular plane described in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Claims 3 and 13 each recite the transition outer surface comprises a straight portion. As illustrated in fig. 16 of Chen, the outer surface is straight when viewed from the illustrated cross-section. In addition, Chen teaches that it is obvious for the channels to have polygonal cross sections (¶ [0034]). Thus, when modified to be polygonal, the sides of the polygonal shape have straight sides.
Regarding claim 4, Chen further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw (figs. 4 & 16).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Chen further teaches the at least one nozzle comprises a first coolant nozzle and a second separate coolant nozzle (figs. 2, 14 & 16, ¶ [0033]).
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 Chen et al. 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 claims 8 and 19, Chen further teaches the clamp screw comprises: a threaded lower portion (44) (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0028]); a head at an end of the clamp screw opposite the threaded lower portion (figs. 8-9, i.e. top portion of screw having hexagonal recess since this portion is an end of the screw and provides a surface/recess for driving tools); an upper portion (42) between the threaded lower portion and the head (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0028]); an internal coolant axial passage (52) having an inlet opening adjacent the threaded lower portion and extending to the upper portion (fig. 9, ¶ [0029]); and at least one coolant radial channel (54) in fluid communication with the coolant axial passage having a radial outlet opening (56) through an outer surface of the upper portion (figs. 8-9, ¶ [0029]).
Assuming arguendo that the top of the screw of Chen is not a head, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known for fasteners to comprise larger diameter heads that rest on a top surface of a part. Adding a larger diameter head can allow and sealing ring to be compressed between the head and the clamp, and will ensure the screw is tightened to the optimal position within the clamp (i.e. the position where the radial passages in the screw are in the same plane as the chamber 68 and channels 70a). Thus, it would be obvious to modify the screw of Chen so that it comprises a larger diameter head that rests on top of the clamp when the screw is fully assembled/tightened.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Chen further teaches at least two of the coolant radial channels structured and arranged to discharge the coolant fluid into the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (figs. 6 & 9-10, ¶ [0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further teaches the coolant fluid reservoir chamber (68) partially surrounds an upper portion of the clamp screw (figs. 4 & 16, wherein the chamber 68 only surrounds a portion of the entire axial length of the upper portion of the clamp screw).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen as applied to the 102 rejections of claims 1 and 11, or over Chen et al. as applied to the 103 rejections of claims 1 and 11, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2020/0108448 (“Bopp”).
Regarding claim 10, Chen 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 Chen 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 Chen out of cemented carbine because it is known for cemented carbides to be 3d printed and to have threads provided thereon. 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 Chen out of cemented carbide.
Regarding claim 18, Chen 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 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giannetti as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Chen.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Giannetti fail to explicitly teach at least two of the coolant radial channels structured and arranged to discharge the coolant radially outward from the upper portion, wherein three of the coolant radial channels equally spaced around a circumference of the upper portion. However, this would have been obvious in view of Chen.
Chen is also directed to a coolant clamp for a tool holder, wherein coolant travels from a screw having cooling passages therein and into passages of the clamp (figs. 4-16, ¶ [0001] & [0038]). Chen teaches the screw having an axial coolant passage 52 that leads to a plurality of radial coolant passages 54 (figs. 9-10, ¶ [0029]). Chen teaches that any number of radial passages can be used, and explicitly teaches an embodiment wherein three passages 54 are provide that are equally spaced around the circumference of the screw (¶ [0030]).
In this case, each of Giannetti and Chen are directed to a coolant clamp for a tool holder, wherein coolant travels from a screw having cooling passages therein and into passages of the clamp. While Giannetti teaches the radial passage in the screw having two outlets, Chen teaches one of skill in the art that it is known to provide any number of radial passages that lead to respective outlets, wherein one predictable embodiment is three radial channels equally spaced around the circumference of the screw. Thus, in order to provide different and/or better coolant flows, it would be obvious to modify Giannetti so that three radial channels equally spaced around the circumference of the screw extend from the axial coolant channel and lead to respective coolant outlets.
Conclusion
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.”