Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/486,193

Cutting tool

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Oct 13, 2023
Examiner
WALTERS, RYAN J
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Gühring Kg
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
585 granted / 789 resolved
+4.1% vs TC avg
Strong +29% interview lift
Without
With
+29.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
819
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
§112
31.6%
-8.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (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 3 is/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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation “at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed to the tool axis”. It is unclear what it means to place to an axis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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(s) 1, 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Kachler (PGPub 2018/0065196). Re Claim 1, Kachler discloses a machining tool 20, comprising: a tool body 24, which extends along a central tool axis A and which has at least one cutting web, which carries a cutting insert 22, which protrudes radially beyond a circumferential jacket surface 68 of the cutting web and which cuts at least circumferentially, and an integrated coolant channel system, which has a main channel (para. 75) guided along the tool axis and, for each cutting web, at least one branch channel 60a, 60b, 44, which branches off the main channel and which is guided through the cutting web, wherein the at least one branch channel has a mouth opening 46, which lies in the jacket surface of the cutting web (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 5, Kachler discloses the main channel and/or the at least one branch channel are/is embodied in a straight line (Fig. 1-8; para. 75). Re Claim 6, Kachler discloses the mouth opening of the branch channel lies in a region of a length extension of the cutting insert, viewed in the axial direction of the tool body (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 7, Kachler discloses the main channel is guided centrally through the tool body along the tool axis (Fig. 1-8; para. 75). Re Claim 8, Kachler discloses the main channel ends at a defined distance upstream of a tool front side (Fig. 1-8; para. 75). Re Claim 9, Kachler discloses the branch channel lies in a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 10, Kachler discloses at least in a region of the mouth opening, a cross sectional surface of the at least one branch channel is designed so that a flow pressure of a coolant jet escaping at the mouth opening is higher than a flow pressure of a coolant jet flowing through the main channel (implicit; Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 11, Kachler discloses the tool body has four cutting webs with even distribution around the tool axis, which each carry a cutting insert (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 12, Kachler discloses the tool body has a shaft for clamping into a tool holder and a cutting part having the at least one cutting web, whereby the main channel is guided through the shaft into the cutting part (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 13, Kachler discloses the at least one cutting web has a support surface, which carries the cutting insert and which runs parallel to the tool axis and which lies downstream from a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (Fig. 3). Re Claim 14, Kachler discloses a circumferential cutting edge formed on the cutting insert lies upstream of a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (Fig. 1-8; para. 64-80). Re Claim 15, Kachler discloses the machining tool is a milling, reaming, or drilling tool (para. 65). Claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bergman (EP4094868, from IDS). Re Claim 1, Bergman discloses a machining tool 1, comprising: a tool body, which extends along a central tool axis C and which has at least one cutting web, which carries a cutting insert 2, which protrudes radially beyond a circumferential jacket surface 7 of the cutting web and which cuts at least circumferentially, and an integrated coolant channel system, which has a main channel 8 guided along the tool axis and, for each cutting web, at least one branch channel 9/10, which branches off the main channel and which is guided through the cutting web, wherein the at least one branch channel has a mouth opening, which lies in the jacket surface of the cutting web (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 2, Bergman discloses the at least one branch channel is placed at a defined angle to the tool axis at least in a length section forming the mouth opening (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20). Re Claim 3, Bergman discloses at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed to the tool axis so that it is oriented in the direction of a tool front side (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20). Re Claim 4, Bergman discloses at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed at an angle in the range of 50˚ to 60˚ to the tool axis (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 5, Bergman discloses the main channel and/or the at least one branch channel are/is embodied in a straight line (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 6, Bergman discloses the mouth opening of the branch channel lies in a region of a length extension of the cutting insert, viewed in the axial direction of the tool body (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 7, Bergman discloses the main channel is guided centrally through the tool body along the tool axis (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 9, Bergman discloses the branch channel lies in a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 10, Bergman discloses at least in a region of the mouth opening, a cross sectional surface of the at least one branch channel is designed so that a flow pressure of a coolant jet escaping at the mouth opening is higher than a flow pressure of a coolant jet flowing through the main channel (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). Re Claim 11, Bergman discloses the tool body has four cutting webs with even distribution around the tool axis, which each carry a cutting insert (Fig. 1-7; para. 31-35). Re Claim 12, Bergman discloses the tool body has a shaft for clamping into a tool holder and a cutting part having the at least one cutting web, whereby the main channel is guided through the shaft into the cutting part (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 31-35). Re Claim 13, Bergman discloses the at least one cutting web has a support surface, which carries the cutting insert and which runs parallel to the tool axis and which lies downstream from a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 31-35). Re Claim 14, Bergman discloses a circumferential cutting edge formed on the cutting insert lies upstream of a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (Fig. 1-7; para. 31-35). Re Claim 15, Bergman discloses the machining tool is a milling, reaming, or drilling tool (title; Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 31-35). Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Zeman (CZ 303363, machine translation relied on). Re Claim 1, Zeman discloses a machining tool, comprising: a tool body, which extends along a central tool axis and which has at least one cutting web, which carries a cutting insert 2, which protrudes radially beyond a circumferential jacket surface of the cutting web and which cuts at least circumferentially, and an integrated coolant channel system, which has a main channel 3 guided along the tool axis and, for each cutting web, at least one branch channel 4, which branches off the main channel and which is guided through the cutting web, wherein the at least one branch channel has a mouth opening, which lies in the jacket surface of the cutting web (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 2, Zeman discloses the at least one branch channel is placed at a defined angle to the tool axis at least in a length section forming the mouth opening (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 3, Zeman discloses at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed to the tool axis so that it is oriented in the direction of a tool front side (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 5, Zeman discloses the main channel and/or the at least one branch channel are/is embodied in a straight line (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 6, Zeman discloses the mouth opening of the branch channel lies in a region of a length extension of the cutting insert, viewed in the axial direction of the tool body (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 7, Zeman discloses the main channel is guided centrally through the tool body along the tool axis (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 8, Zeman discloses the main channel ends at a defined distance upstream of a tool front side (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 9, Zeman discloses the branch channel lies in a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 10, Zeman discloses at least in a region of the mouth opening, a cross sectional surface of the at least one branch channel is designed so that a flow pressure of a coolant jet escaping at the mouth opening is higher than a flow pressure of a coolant jet flowing through the main channel (implicit; fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 12, Zeman discloses the tool body has a shaft for clamping into a tool holder and a cutting part having the at least one cutting web, whereby the main channel is guided through the shaft into the cutting part (fig. 2f; page 3). Re Claim 13, Zeman discloses the at least one cutting web has a support surface, which carries the cutting insert and which runs parallel to the tool axis and which lies downstream from a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (fig. 2e-f; page 3). Re Claim 14, Zeman discloses a circumferential cutting edge formed on the cutting insert lies upstream of a longitudinal sectional plane containing the tool axis in the direction of rotation of the tool (fig. 2e-f; page 3). Re Claim 15, Zeman discloses the machining tool is a milling, reaming, or drilling tool (fig. 2f; page 1). 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. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeman in view of Bergman. Re Claim 4, Zeman discloses at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed at an angle to the tool axis (fig. 2f; page 3) but is silent to specifically an angle in the range of 50˚ to 60˚ However, it appears that the angle is possibly in this range. Further, Bergman teaches at least the length section forming the mouth opening is placed at an angle in the range of 50˚ to 60˚ to the tool axis (Fig. 1-7; para. 17-20, 33). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an angle in this range, as taught by Bergman, for the purpose of obtaining a desired configuration to optimize cooling and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J WALTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-5429. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Ryan J. Walters/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 13, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599996
MULTI-SPINDLE MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589457
SPINDLE UNIT AND PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586670
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR FAST MONTE CARLO DOSE CALCULATION USING A VIRTUAL SOURCE MODEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582539
CLAMSHELL IRIS-STYLE CRIMPER FOR MEDICAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569950
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND MACHINE TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month