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.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
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 5-9, 11 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.
Claim 5 recites each radial coolant outlet port is located in one of the flutes and directed toward a respective one of the peripheral cutting edges. Applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not teach the contoured channels that have outlets adjacent the peripheral cutting surfaces extending forward (as required by amended claim 1). The specification does not teach this, and it is not clear in the originally filed drawings if channels 150A-150C extend forward.
Claim 11 also requires some of the plurality of radial coolant channels extending forward (as required by claim 1) and outlets in the flutes. This is not taught by Applicant’s originally filed disclosure for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 5 above.
Claims 6-9 are rejected for depending from claim 5.
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 1, 5-10, 14, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPub No. 2018/0304381 (“Hayden”) in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0224760 (“Amaya”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayden teaches a rotary cutting tool (fig. 1A, ¶ [0034]) comprising: a shank portion (fig. 1A, i.e. cylindrical portion comprising end 32); a cutting portion extending from the shank portion along a longitudinal axis comprising at least one flute and at least one peripheral cutting edge (fig. 1A, ¶ [0036] & [0041], wherein flutes are formed that define grooves 40 and cutting edges on surfaces 24); a central coolant channel extending within the shank portion (fig. 2, i.e. channel formed by mold 320, ¶ [0038]-[0039]); and at least one contoured radial coolant channel in fluid communication with the central coolant channel extending radially outward from the central coolant channel to a radial coolant channel outlet port (22) adjacent the at least one front cutting edge or adjacent the at least one peripheral cutting edge (fig. 1A & 2, ¶ [0036] & [0040], wherein the contoured radial coolant channels are formed by molds 302 and have outlets adjacent to the peripheral cutting edges), wherein the at least one contoured radial coolant channel extends forward along the longitudinal axis from a radial coolant channel inlet port adjacent the central coolant channel to the radial coolant channel outlet port, and the at least one contoured radial coolant channel has a curved swept shape (fig. 2, ¶ [0040]).
Hayden fails to explicitly teach at least one front end cutting edge at a front of the cutting portion. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art for end mills and drill bits to have a plurality of front cutting edges to allow the drill/end mill to plunge into workpieces. Since Hayden teaches the rotary cutting tool can be an end mill or twist drill (¶ [0034]), it would be obvious for the twist drill or end mill to have a plurality of front cutting edges to allow the tool to plunge into workpieces.
Hayden fails to explicitly teach the radial coolant channel outlet port is circumferentially offset from the radial coolant channel inlet port of the contoured radial coolant channel. However, this would have been obvious in view of Amaya.
Amaya is also directed to a rotary cutting tool (fig. 3, ¶ [0001]). Amaya teaches a plurality of contoured radial coolant channels 31 extending from a central coolant channel 5, wherein the radial channels 31 have a curved swept shape so that the inlets and outlets of the radial channels 31 are offset (fig. 3a, ¶ [0024]). The swept shape being in a direction opposite the rotation direction of the tool allows the coolant to flow up raised surface 21 to cool a wide area of surface 21 and to flow to the leading end 20 (fig. 3b, ¶ [0026]).
In this case, each of Hayden and Amaya are directed to a rotary cutting tool having a plurality of contoured radial coolant channels extending from a central coolant channel. Amaya teaches one of skill in the art that curved channels can extend so that the outlets are offset from the inlets and that this can direct fluid to travel up the raised cutting surface to the cutting edge to cool a wide area. Thus, to cool a wide area of the cutting surfaces of Hayden, it would be obvious to curve the channels more so that the outlets are offset from the inlets (in a direction opposite from the rotation direction of tool) in order to direct fluid more sideways as taught by Amaya. It would be predictable to modify Hayden to form these channels since it is relatively simple to change the structure of the channel molds 302 of Hayden so that they curve more (see fig. 2 of Hayden; see also ¶ [0046] of Hayden explaining that the channel molds can be formed into different shapes based on desired shape of channels).
Regarding claim 5, Hayden further teaches a plurality of the flutes, peripheral cutting edges, contoured radial coolant channels and radial coolant channel outlet ports (figs. 1A & 2), and each radial coolant outlet port is located in one of the flutes and directed toward a respective one of the peripheral cutting edges (figs. 1A & 2, ¶ [0036], wherein each outlet port 22 will direct coolant at one of the adjacent peripheral cutting edges as detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above).
One of skill in the art would reasonably infer that each outlet in one grouping (i.e. the outlets at the same longitudinal position) directs coolant at a respective peripheral cutting edge. In the alternative, Amaya teaches that each channel/outlet directs coolant at a respective cutting edge (see fig. 3a). Thus, in order to cool each cutting edge it would be obvious for each channel/outlet in the same group (i.e. at the same longitudinal position) to direct coolant at a respective peripheral cutting edge.
Regarding claim 6, Hayden further teaches each of the contoured radial coolant channels is structured and arranged to deliver coolant fluid from its radial coolant channel outlet port toward the peripheral cutting edge (figs. 1A & 2, ¶ [0036], see also the modification in view of Amaya in the rejection to claim 1 above).
Claim 7 recites multiple sets of the contoured radial coolant channels located at different axial positions along the longitudinal axis of the cutting portion. As illustrated in fig. 2 of Hayden, a first set of channels are formed by molds 302 that extend from a distal end of the main channel (i.e. first set of contoured channels), and another set of channels are formed in axial positions proximal to the distal end (i.e. second set of contoured channels).
Claim 8 recites a first set of the contoured radial coolant channels located along the longitudinal axis structured and arranged to deliver coolant fluid toward the peripheral cutting edges; and a second set of the contoured radial coolant channels located axially forward of the first set of the radial coolant channels along the longitudinal axis structured and arranged to deliver coolant fluid toward the peripheral cutting edges. This is taught as illustrated in figure 2 of Hayden, which illustrates four distinct pluralities of radial coolant channels at different longitudinal positions. Further, as detailed in the modification in view of Amaya in the rejection to claim 1 above, the channels deliver coolant toward adjacent peripheral cutting edges.
Claim 9 recites a third set of the contoured radial coolant channels located axially forward of the second set of the radial coolant channels along the longitudinal axis. This is taught as illustrated in figure 2 of Hayden, which illustrates four distinct pluralities of radial coolant channels at different longitudinal positions. Further, as detailed in the modification in view of Amaya in the rejection to claim 1 above, the channels deliver coolant toward adjacent peripheral cutting edges.
Regarding claim 10, Hayden further teaches the at least one flute is helical (fig. 1A & 2, ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Hayden further teaches the curved swept shape of the at least one contoured radial coolant channel extends along the entire length of the contoured radial coolant channel (fig. 2).
Claim 18 recites the radial coolant channel outlet port is circumferentially offset from the radial coolant channel inlet port in a direction opposite to a rotational cutting direction of the rotary cutting tool. This is taught in view of Amaya for the reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above. Specifically, offsetting the outlet ports from the inlets in a direction opposite to the rotational cutting direction allows the coolant to flow up raised cutting surface to cool a wide area of the surface and flow to the cutting edge.
Regarding claim 23, Hayden further teaches the rotary cutting tool is an end mill (¶ [0034]).
Claims 2-3, 11, 15-16, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2021/0114123 (“Fang”).
Regarding claim 2, Hayden further teaches a plurality of the front end cutting edges (see rejection to claim 1), contoured radial coolant channels and radial coolant channel outlet ports (figs. 1A & 2). Hayden fails to explicitly teach each radial coolant channel outlet port is directed toward a respective one of the front end cutting edges. However, this would have been obvious in view of Fang.
Fang is also directed to a rotary cutting tool having a central channel with a plurality of radial channels extending therefrom (figs. 1-3, ¶ [0001] & [0015]). Fang teaches a plurality of the radial channels at different longitudinal positions; wherein front radial channels are directed to respective front cutting edges and other radial channels are directed towards peripheral cutting edges (figs. 1-6, ¶ [0015]-[0017]).
In this case, each of Hayden and Fang to rotary cutting tool with front and peripheral cutting edges, and having a central channel with a plurality of radial channels extending therefrom to supply coolant to the cutting edges. Fang teaches one of skill in the art that it is known for a first plurality of the radial coolant channels to extend to a front of the tool to direct coolant toward the front cutting edges. Thus, to better cool and extend the life of the front cutting edges, it would be obvious to modify Hayden so that the frontmost radial coolant passages extend to the front of the tool to direct coolant toward respective front cutting edges.
Claim 3 recites each of the front end cutting edges intersects an undercut rake face, and each of the contoured radial coolant channels is structured and arranged to deliver coolant fluid toward one of the front end cutting edges. Fang teaches the front coolant outlets to be right above an undercut rake face (see fig. 1 of Fang), and wherein the front coolant outlets deliver coolant toward respective front cutting edges (figs. 3 & 4A, ¶ [0015]).
In this case, Hayden is directed to a rotary cutting tool that can be an end mill (¶ [0034]). Fang teaches a known structure of an end mill with a coolant delivery system as detailed above. Thus, it would be predictable and obvious to modify Hayden to be an end mill wherein the front coolant outlets are above an undercut rake face that intersects the front cutting edges, and wherein the front coolant outlets direct coolant to respective front cutting edges.
Claim 11 recites a plurality of the front end cutting edges, and a first plurality of the contoured radial coolant channels and radial coolant channel outlet ports, wherein each radial coolant outlet port of the first plurality radial coolant outlet ports is directed toward a respective one of the front end cutting edges. This is taught in view of Fang for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 2 above.
As further detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above, Hayden or Hayden in view of Amaya teach a plurality of the flutes and peripheral cutting edges, and a second plurality of the contoured radial coolant channels and radial coolant channel outlet ports, wherein each radial coolant outlet port of the second plurality of radial coolant outlet ports is located in one of the flutes and directed toward a respective one of the peripheral cutting edges. Fang provides further teaching that this limitation is obvious (see channels 16a/17a in figs. 1-3, ¶ [0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Hayden fails to explicitly teach the at least one contoured radial coolant channel comprises a non-uniform cross-section along the length of the contoured radial coolant channel. However, this would have been obvious in view of Fang.
Fang teaches that a coolant channel can have a non-uniform cross-section—in this case a decreasing cross-sectional area to increase coolant discharge pressure (fig. 2, ¶ [0019]).
In this case, each of Hayden and Fang teach radial coolant channels to provide coolant to cutting edges. Fang teaches that changing the cross- sectional area of a coolant channel along its length can change the coolant discharge pressure. Thus, it would be obvious to change the coolant discharge pressure from the outlets of Hayden by changing at least a portion of the cross-sectional area of the radial coolant channels along its length. It would be predictable to modify Hayden to achieve this since the structure of channel molds 302 can be predictably changed based on the desired dimensions of the channels (see ¶ [0046] of Hayden).
Regarding claim 20, Hayden fails to explicitly teach the at least one radial coolant channel outlet port comprises a cross-sectional exit length that is greater than a cross-sectional exit width. However, this would also be obvious in view of Hayden.
Hayden teaches that the outlets 304 of the channels can be formed into any shape including oval (¶ [0046]). Thus, it would be obvious and predictable to modify the outlets of Hayden so that they are oval shaped. Since ovals have a length (i.e. dimension along its major axis) greater than a width (i.e. dimension along its minor axis), the limitation of claim 20 is taught.
Regarding claim 22, Hayden fails to explicitly teach the radial coolant channel inlet port of the at least one contoured radial coolant channel has an inlet cross sectional area greater than an exit cross sectional area of the radial coolant channel outlet port. However, this would have been obvious in view of Fang.
Fang is also directed to an end mill comprising a central coolant channel having radial coolant channels 15a extending therefrom and configured to dispense coolant toward front cutting edges (figs. 1-3; 1 [0002]-[0003], [0015] & [0026]). Fang teaches that a coolant channel 15a can have a non-uniform cross-section—in this case a decreasing cross-sectional area in order to increase coolant discharge pressure (fig. 2, 1 [0019]).
In this case, Hayen and Fang each teach an end mill comprising a central coolant channel having radial coolant channels extending therefrom and configured to dispense coolant toward front cutting edges. Fang teaches that changing the cross-sectional area of the coolant channel along its length can change the coolant discharge pressure. Thus, to increase coolant discharge pressure, it would be obvious to decrease the cross-sectional area of the channels of Hayden so that the cross-sectional area of the outlets are smaller than the cross-sectional areas of the inlets. It would be predictable to modify Hayden to achieve this since the structure of channel molds 302 can be predictably changed based on the desired dimensions of the channels (see ¶ [0046] of Hayden).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden et al. as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2011/0229277 (“Hoffer”).
Regarding claim 19, Hayden fails to explicitly teach the at least one contoured radial coolant channel comprises a first cross-sectional area aspect ratio adjacent the radial coolant channel inlet port of the contoured radial cooling channel that transitions to a second cross- sectional area aspect ratio adjacent the radial coolant channel outlet port, and the second cross-sectional area aspect ratio is greater than the first cross-sectional area aspect ratio. However, this would have been obvious in view of Hoffer.
Hoffer is directed to a cutting tool have a coolant delivery channel (¶ [0002]). Hoffer teaches the coolant channel has a cross sectional area geometry that changes along the length of the channel to achieve a specific desired flow configuration or spray (¶ [0100] & [0123]). The cross-sectional length of the channel increases while the width of the channels remains constant or decreases (figs. 14-18, ¶ [0103]-[0105]).
In this case, each of Hayden and Hoffer are directed to a cutting tool having a coolant channel, wherein an outlet of the channel can have an elongated shape (see ¶ [0046] of Hayden). Hoffer teaches one of skill in the art that it is predictable to achieve a specific desired flow/spray by changing the geometry of the channel along the length of the channel, wherein Hoffer teaches a specific embodiment wherein the cross-sectional length of the channel increases while the width remains constant or decreases. Thus, to achieve a different desired coolant flow/spray, it would be obvious to modify the channels of Hayden so that the cross-sectional length of the channels increase along the length of the channel while the width remains constant or decreases. It would be predictable to modify Hayden to achieve this since the structure of channel molds 302 can be predictably changed based on the desired dimensions of the channels (see ¶ [0046] of Hayden).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP-3791982-A1 (“Gimpel”).
Regarding claim 21, Hayden fails to explicitly teach the at least one radial coolant channel outlet port has a tear drop shape. However, this would have been obvious in view of Gimpel.
Gimpel is directed to an end mill having a central coolant channel and two sets of radial channels 12 & 14 that supply coolant to the peripheral cutting edge and front cutting edge, respectively (figs. 1-5, ¶ [0001] & [0040]-[0044], wherein all references to the Gimpel specification refer to the machine translation submitted with the Office action mailed on March 18, 2026). Gimpel teaches that the channels 12 & 14 may comprise a variety of shapes including a tear drop shape (figs. 6a-6h, ¶ [0045]).
In this case, each of Hayden and Gimpel are directed to an end mill having a central coolant channel and multiple sets of radial channels extending therefrom. Hayden teaches the outlet ports can be formed into any shape, and lists a few shapes (¶ [0046]). Gimpel teaches one of skill in the art that it is known for the channels to comprise a variety of shapes, including a teardrop shape, and such channels satisfactorily supply coolant to a cutting edge. Thus, it would be obvious to modify the contoured channels of Hayden to be a teardrop shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the limitation of claim 4 in combination with the other limitations of claims 1-3. Fang teaches the frontmost outlets located in a flute—not on a leading edge. USPGPub No. 2020/0338649, US Patent No. 10,335,870, and USPGPub No. 2016/0214187 teach contoured cooling channels that have outlets in a leading face of the cool. USPGPub No. 2020/0338649 and US Patent No. 10,335,870 do not teach a cooling channel outlet structured and arranged to deliver coolant toward a front end cutting edge. USPGPub No. 2016/0214187 fails to teach a cooling channel outlet structured and arranged to deliver coolant toward the adjacent front end cutting edge (see figs. 1 & 2, ¶ [0056], wherein the outlets are configured to supply coolant toward the second gash 7B , i.e. towards the farther/non-adjacent cutting edge).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 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 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 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.”
