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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20180257189, hereinafter ‘Johnson’) in view of Young (US 20150174669).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses a guide capable of reaming an enlarged portion into a cooling bore of a rotor comprising a cutter guide 120 and a guide lock capable of insertion into an adjacent cooling bore (Paragraph [0028]) and a mounting plate 106 for mounting the cutter guide and guide lock thereon, the guide lock being capable of being spaced apart from the cutter guide by a distance corresponding to a spacing between the cooling bore and an adjacent cooling bore (see Paragraph [0028] of Johnson, describing placing the guide lock through the guide plate 106 into a hole or holes in the rotor, such as an adjacent cooling bore). Johnson discloses the cutter guide serving to offset the cutter 122 with relation to the existing hole 8, but does not explicitly disclose the cutter guide being inserted into the cooling bore.
Young discloses a similar device, wherein a tool 500 comprises a cutter guide 504 that is inserted into an existing bore and serves to offset the cutter a predetermined amount.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an extension to the cutter guide of Johnson, as taught by Young, which is inserted into the existing bore, to ensure the cutter is offset with respect to the existing bore and machines an accurate amount of material from the workpiece.
Regarding claim 3, Johnson discloses the cutter guide comprising an elongated sleeve.
Regarding claims 4-6, Johnson, as modified by Young discloses the elongated sleeve comprising a semicircular trough-like shape having an open end and a groove therein (see e.g. Figs. 2 and 5 of Young, the open end being the end opposite the head 502 and the groove being the concave surface 105).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson discloses the cutter guide comprising a sleeve base (the enlarged diameter portion abutting plate 106 as seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson discloses the sleeve base comprising a sleeve bearing therein (said sleeve bearing being the smooth inner side of the bore through the sleeve base).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson discloses a reaming tool being positioned within the cutter guide (Paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson as modified by Young discloses the enlarged portion comprising a half-moon shape (see e.g. Figs. 2-3 of Young).
Regarding claim 14, neither Johnson nor Young explicitly disclose the percent of a diameter of the bore that is enlarged.
However, modifying the apparatus of Johnson in view of Young to enlarge the bore by 5 to 20 percent would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, depending on the overall dimensions of the finished hole that are desired. Additionally, Young discloses a range of thicknesses T of the cutter guide(s) (Fig. 4) which serve to allow an operator to cut various sizes of enlarged portions as desired.
Regarding claim 16, Johnson discloses a guide capable of reaming an enlarged portion into a cooling bore of a rotor comprising a cutter guide 120 and a guide lock capable of insertion into an adjacent cooling bore (Paragraph [0028]). A mounting plate 106 serves to mount the cutter guide and guide lock thereon, the guide lock being capable of being spaced apart from the cutter guide by a distance corresponding to a spacing between the cooling bore and an adjacent cooling bore (see Paragraph [0028] of Johnson, describing placing the guide lock through the guide plate 106 into a hole or holes in the rotor, such as an adjacent cooling bore). Johnson discloses the cutter guide serving to offset the cutter 122 with relation to the existing hole 8, but does not explicitly disclose the cutter guide being inserted into the cooling bore.
Young discloses a similar device, wherein a tool 500 comprises a cutter guide 504 comprising a semicircular shape that is inserted into an existing bore and serves to offset the cutter a predetermined amount.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an extension to the cutter guide of Johnson, as taught by Young, which is inserted into the existing bore, to ensure the cutter is offset with respect to the existing bore and machines an accurate amount of material from the workpiece.
Regarding claim 17, Johnson discloses the cutter guide comprising an elongated sleeve with an open top end.
Regarding claim 18, Johnson as modified by Young discloses the elongated sleeve comprising a groove thereon (see e.g. Fig. 2 of Young, the groove being the concave surface 105).
Regarding claim 20, Johnson discloses a reaming tool being positioned within the cutter guide (Paragraph [0017]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20180257189) in view of Young (US 20150174669) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tsui et al. (US 4804300, hereinafter ‘Tsui’).
Regarding claim 8, neither Johnson nor Young disclose the claimed fitting.
Tsui discloses a similar cutting guide, wherein the sleeve base 42 is provided with a fitting (threads into opening 52) which is capable of fitting in communication with an air hose.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filling to modify the apparatus of Johnson in view of Young by adding a fitting as taught by Tsui in order to allow air/coolant to be introduced to the cutter guide to cool the workpiece/tool and to remove chips from the bore as they are formed by the cutting tool.
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20180257189) in view of Young (US 20150174669) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, further in view of Wang et al. (WO 2015123387, hereinafter ‘Wang’).
Regarding claims 10-11 and 19, neither Johnson nor Young explicitly disclose the structure of the guide lock beyond the ‘pin’ described in Johnson.
Wang discloses a similar drill guide with a guide lock 13 to secure the guide to the workpiece. The guide lock comprises a guide locking sleeve 70 and a guide lock screw 60 positioned within the guide locking sleeve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute the ‘pin’ of Johnson in view of Young with the guide lock of Wang, to provide a more secure and stable means of locking the guide to the workpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Johnson does not disclose a second guide component inserted into a second, separate hole. Additionally, Applicant argues that Johnson does not disclose the guide lock and cutter guide being separated by a distance corresponding to spacing between two different, adjacent holes, that the “feed bushing” disclosed by Johnson does not equate to the claimed “cutter guide”, then generally against elements of Johnson not equating to claimed elements of the claim and finally that Johnson does not disclose a mounting plate as claimed. Arguments are then made against the combination of Johnson and Young and Johnson in view of Young and Tsui. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
Johnson explicitly discloses “placing at least one alignment pin (not shown)” through guide plate 106 into an existing hole in the workpiece to align the apparatus in Paragraph [0028] as cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 05/28/2026 and again above. This alignment pin serves as the claimed guide lock, as the only structure of said ‘guide lock’ is that it is inserted into an adjacent cooling bore (i.e. an existing hole in the workpiece). This spacing, between cutter location and unspecified guide lock location, is capable of being the space between a cooling bore and adjacent cooling bore (see MPEP 2173.05(g), describing functional limitations and their attempt to limit an invention by what it does, rather than what it is, which in this case is a plate with two spaced-apart holes). Regarding the cutter guide 120, Applicant attempts to dismiss such a teaching as different to the claimed “cutter guide”, as Johnson calls it something different. A bushing is well known in the art and serves as a guide sleeve for a cutting tool to pass through, or in other words, a cutter guide. Turning to Figure 2 of Johnson, it is unquestionable that cutter 124 passes through the cutter guide 120, guiding/restraining the cutter in the radial direction to ensure it is advanced/fed in the desired location. The argument that Johnson does not disclose a mounting plate because “Johnson’s drill plate 106 is part of a mount that couples to a first side of the rotor (emphasis added)” (Applicant’s arguments filed 07/21/2026 at Page 2, Final Paragraph)” is unclear. A plate that mounts to the workpiece, containing the cutter guide 120 (see Fig. 2) and guide lock (Paragraph [0028]) reads directly on the claimed mounting plate.
Applicant alleges that Examiner treats Johnson’s element 114 as the claimed guide lock at Page 3 of Arguments filed 07/21/2026. This is unclear, as element 114 is not relied upon in the Non-Final Rejection of 05/28/2026. The guide lock is the non-illustrated alignment pin that passes through guide plate 106 into an existing hole in the workpiece as cited in the Non-Final Rejection of 05/28/2026 and again above. The following argument then alleges that Johnson never discloses or depicts the alignment bushing as being mounted on, secured to or extending from drill plate 106. This argument is also unclear, as there is no alignment bushing claimed, and as described above, the claimed cutter guide 120 is most certainly mounted on the guide plate (Fig. 2).
Next, regarding the combination of Johnson and Young, Applicant argues the references individually, when they were relied upon as a combination. Young’s cutter guide extends into the hole being machined. Providing this extension taught by Young to the cutter guide 120 of Johnson would have been an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made, in order to ensure the cutter is positioned properly.
Finally, regarding the combination of Johnson, Young and Tsui, the disclosed fitting to deliver coolant/lubricant through the apparatus of Tsui is capable of being in communication with an air hose, as pressurized air/oil combination lubricants are well known and common in the art. See e.g. Tamura (JP 2005342829), provided with this action simply as a teaching reference, showing the prevalence of air/oil mixtures as cutting lubricants.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights