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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-3 and 7-11 have solid shading throughout which reduces legibility and reduces reproduction characteristics in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(l) & (m). Spaced lines are preferred for shading. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 22 each recite a plurality of radially spaced teeth. It is unclear what the teeth are meant to be radially spaced from? Or is this intending to claim the teeth being circumferentially spaced?
Claims 20 and 21 each recite about a temperature. The term “about” is indefinite. The term “about” 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. For purposes of examination, “about” will be interpreted as plus or minus 15%.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected for depending from one of claims 1, 9, 16, or 22.
Rejections under 35 USC 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2010094748-A (“Takiguchi”).
Regarding claim 9, Takiguchi teaches a face mill (10) (fig. 1, ¶ [0002]-[0007], wherein all references to the Takiguchi specification refer to the machine translation submitted herewith), comprising: a cylindrical body (1) comprising a central bore (2) (fig. 1, ¶ [0016]), a plurality of face mill coolant passages (6) fluidly coupled to the central bore (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0017]), and a cutting face (figs. 1-2, i.e. distal face having mounting seats 7 for cutting inserts 8), the cutting face, comprising: a plurality of radially spaced teeth (8) (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0022]-[0024], wherein the teeth are each circumferentially spaced and are spaced radially from a longitudinal axis of the face mill); and gaps (5) between the teeth (fig. 2, ¶ [0017]), wherein each face mill coolant passage (6) comprises an opening at a corresponding gap (fig. 2, ¶ [0017]).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2019/0247926 (“the ‘926 reference”).
Regarding claim 10, Takiguchi further teaches the face mill comprises a longitudinal axis (fig. 1). Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach each of the face mill coolant passages comprise a first portion and a second portion, the first portions extend radially from the central bore, and the second portions extend substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis. However, this would be obvious in view of the ‘926 reference.
The ‘926 reference teaches coolant channels in a cutting element wherein the channels have first and second portions, the second portion 211/221/231/241 extending parallel to the longitudinal axis of the element, and the first portion 212/222/232/242 extending at a relatively steep angle therefrom (fig. 5C, ¶ [0068]).
In this case, Takiguchi et al. teaches dispensing coolant from an angled coolant channel in the face mill. One of skill in the art appreciates that the angle of the coolant channel can vary based on the preferences of a designer. The ‘926 reference teaches that if a steeper angle is wanted, it is known and predictable to provide a portion of the channel extending parallel to the longitudinal direction, and another portion extending at an angle therefrom. This will predictably allow the channel of Takiguchi et al. dispense coolant at a steeper angle while keeping the exit opening around the same location. Thus, in order to dispense coolant at a steeper angle while keeping the exit opening of the face mill coolant channel near the same location, it would be obvious to provide the face mill coolant channel with a second portion that extends parallel to the longitudinal axis and a first portion that extends at an angle therefrom. Given this modification, since the first portion extends at an angle with respect to the longitudinal axis, it extends both radially and axially.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2009/0214305 (“Waggle”).
Claim 13 recites nozzles, one of the nozzles coupled at each opening of the face mill coolant passages. However, this would have been obvious in view of Waggle.
Waggle is also directed to a milling cutter with a cooling system (¶ [0001]). Waggle teaches that correct sizing of the ducts is challenging and drilling long ducts with small drill bits is difficult while larger ducts cause poor coolant delivery (¶ [0002]). Thus, Waggle teaches inserting nozzles 50 at ends of the duct that allows a narrower stream of coolant to be directed at its intended location (figs. 1-9, ¶ [0018]).
In this case, each of Takiguchi et al. and Waggle are directed to milling cutters with cooling channels therein. Waggle teaches that adding nozzles to the end of the channels allows for more efficient manufacturing of the channels and/or better coolant delivery. For this reason, it would be obvious to modify Takiguchi so that the distal opening of channels 6 have nozzles coupled thereto.
Claim 14 recites the nozzles are to dispense coolant toward the teeth at a non-perpendicular angle (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0017] & [0033], wherein the angle of nozzle in the drawings is not perpendicular to the teeth). Assuming arguendo that it is unclear what the dispensing angle is, one of skill in the art appreciates that the inclination angle of the coolant channel 6 of Takiguchi can vary depending on preferences and size of the face mill (see ¶ [0055] of Fang, i.e. “each coolant reservoir 68 is oriented at an angle, A, of between about 15 degrees and about 65 degrees, depending on the dimensions of the milling cutter 12.”). Thus, it would be obvious to change the dimensions of the cutting tool of Takiguchi et al. so that the inclination angle of the coolant channel 6 and coolant dispensing angle are not perpendicular to the teeth.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2016/0074948 (“Dudzinsky”).
Regarding claim 8, Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach a seal, wherein the face mill comprises a surface defining a seal groove within the central bore that receives the seal. However, this would have been obvious in view of Dudzinsky.
Dudzinsky is also directed to a cutting tool having coolant channels and pieces connected via a fastener (fig. 3, ¶ [0002]). Dudzinsky teaches a seal 34 in a seam between two components of the cutting tool in the vicinity of the fluid path to create a fluid-tight seal and prevent coolant from escaping, wherein the seal is located within a seal groove of one of the pieces (figs. 3, ¶ [0027]).
In this case, each of Takiguchi et al. and Dudzinsky are directed to a cutting tool having a cutting body attached to a tool holder via a fastener, and wherein coolant channels are provided in the tool holder and cutting body. Dudzinsky teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to provide seals in a seal groove between parts of the cutting tool to prevent leakage of the coolant fluid. Since the coolant of Takiguchi et al. can possibly escape via a seam between the outer surface of the sleeve and central bore of the face mill, it would be obvious to provide a seal groove in the central bore of the face mill to receive a seal that engages the outer surface of the sleeve.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi in view of USPGPub No. 2021/0220956 (“Fang”) and USPGPub No. 2012/0230781 (“Hoffer”).
Claim 1 recites a cutting tool assembly, comprising: the face mill limitations of claim 9. Takiguchi teaches these limitations as detailed in the 102 rejection of claim 9, above. Takiguchi also teaches a tool holder; wherein coolant is to flow through the face mill coolant passages and spray out of the openings at the corresponding gaps (¶ [0002]-[0007], [0016] & [0017]).
Since Takiguchi is silent as to the structure of the tool holder, Takiguchi fails to explicitly teach the tool holder comprising an elongate body comprising a flange and a sleeve extending from the flange, the elongate body comprises a central coolant passage and a plurality of sleeve coolant passages, the sleeve comprising a distal end, the sleeve coolant passages are fluidly coupled to the central coolant passage and each have a sleeve opening at the distal end of the sleeve, and wherein the coolant also flows through the central coolant passage. However, this would be obvious in view of Fang and Hoffer.
Fang is also directed to a milling cutter comprising a cutter body connected to a holder via a fastener, and having cooling channels (fig. 2). Fang teaches a known structure of the holder that allows for coolant to be supplied to the cutter body channels, i.e. an elongate body having a flange with a sleeve 22 extending therefrom, wherein the coolant flows from a central coolant passage 34 of the elongate body into a sleeve coolant passage 40 having an opening at the distal end of the sleeve (fig. 2, ¶ [0070]).
While Fang teaches the sleeve coolant passage 40 being annular, Hoffer teaches that the there can be a plurality of sleeve coolant passages 60 (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0025]-[0026]). Hoffer is directed to increasing the volume of coolant supplied (¶ [0005]-[0006] & [0042]). Hoffer teaches a cutting tool having a cutter body 22 attached to a tool holder 40 via a fastener 70 (fig. 1, ¶ [0021]), where a coolant travels from a central coolant passage of the tool holder 50, through a plurality of sleeve passages 60, and into cutter body coolant passages 32 (fig. 1, ¶ [0036]-[0038]).
In this case, each of Takiguchi, Fang, and Hoffer are directed to a cutter body with cooling channels being connected to a holder via a fastener. While Takiguchi does not illustrate the structure of holder, Fang teaches a known tool holder to provide coolant to the face mill as described above. Further, Hoffer teaches that the sleeve channel can be a plurality of channels while still increasing the volume of coolant to be supplied, especially if the fastener has a central coolant channel as taught by Hoffer. Thus, depending on the volume of coolant desired to be supplied during a cutting operation, it would be obvious and predictable to attach the face mill of Takiguchi to a holder having the structure taught by Fang, and wherein the sleeve channel comprises a plurality of sleeve channels.
Regarding claim 6, Takiguchi et al. further teach a fastener (15 of Fang), wherein the sleeve of the tool holder comprises internal threads and wherein the face mill comprises a central opening, the fastener passing through the central opening of the face mill and threadably engages the internal threads of the sleeve of the tool holder to couple the face mill and the tool holder (fig. 2, ¶ [0025] of Fang).
Regarding claim 7, Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach a seal, wherein the face mill comprises a seal groove and the seal is disposed within the seal groove and is to sealingly engage the fastener. However, this would have been obvious in view of a separate teaching of Hoffer.
Hoffer is also directed to a cutting tool having coolant channels and pieces connected via a fastener (fig. 1, ¶ [0001]). Hoffer teaches a seal 118 between the fastener 70 and cutter body 22 to create a fluid-tight seal and prevent coolant from escaping, wherein the seal is located within a seal groove 116 (figs. 1 & 3, ¶ [0029]).
In this case, each of Takiguchi et al. and Hoffer are directed to a cutting tool having a cutting body attached to a tool holder via a fastener, and wherein coolant channels are provided in the tool holder and cutting body. Hoffer teaches one of skill in the art that it is known and predictable to provide seals in a seal groove between parts of the cutting tool (specifically between the fastener and cutting body) to prevent leakage of the coolant fluid. Since the coolant of Takiguchi et al. can possibly escape via a seam between the fastener and face mill, it would be obvious to provide a seal groove in the face mill to receive a seal that engages the fastener.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the ‘926 reference.
Regarding claim 2, Takiguchi further teaches the face mill comprises a longitudinal axis (fig. 1). Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach each of the face mill coolant passages comprise a first portion and a second portion, the first portions extend radially from the central bore, and the second portions extend substantially parallel relative to the longitudinal axis. However, this would be obvious in view of the ‘926 reference for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 10 above.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Waggle.
Regarding claim 5, Takiguchi fails to explicitly teach nozzles, one of the nozzles coupled at each opening of the face mill coolant passages. However, this would have been obvious in view of Waggle for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 13, above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dudzinsky.
Regarding claim 8, Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach a seal, wherein the face mill comprises a surface defining a seal groove within the central bore, the seal disposed within the seal groove and sealingly engaging the sleeve of the tool holder. However, this would have been obvious in view of Dudzinsky for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 15, above.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi, Fang, Hoffer, and Waggle.
Claim 16 recites structure of the cutting tool assembly found in claims 1 and 5. Takiguchi in view of Fang, Hoffer and Waggle teach these limitations as detailed in the above rejections to claims 1 and 5.
Takiguchi et al. further teaches rotating the cutting tool assembly to mill a workpiece (see ¶ [0016] of Takiguchi), flowing coolant into the central coolant passage, sleeve coolant passages, face mill coolant passages, and nozzles (see fig. 2, ¶ [0046] & [0070] of Fang).
Regarding claim 17, Takiguchi further teaches milling a work piece with the face mill (¶ [0001]-[0003], [0016] & [0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Takiguchi further teaches spraying the coolant out of nozzles at each opening of the face mill coolant passages comprises spraying the coolant onto a cutting surface of the workpiece (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0017] & [0033], wherein since the coolant is directed toward the rake face of the cutting inserts, the coolant will be sprayed onto the cutting surface of the workpiece being cut).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi et al. as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2022/0260972 (“Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 19, Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach enabling a temperature of the workpiece to be at or below a threshold temperature while milling the workpiece. However, this would be obvious in view of Matsuda.
Matsuda is directed to a control method for milling workpieces with coolant (¶ [0001], [0045] & [0050]). Matsuda teaches that a workpiece expands as its temperature increases, thereby reducing accuracy of the machining (¶ [0008] & [0089]). Matsuda teaches that when keeping the temperature of the workpiece within a small range, the milling process can be more precise (¶ [0106] & [0111]). Matsuda estimates a temperature of the workpiece by measuring a temperature of the coolant, wherein the coolant temperature must be within a range having an upper threshold value (¶ [0084]-[0086]). In an example of the invention, an estimated workpiece temperature was maintained between 21 and 25 degrees Celsius for at least a portion of the milling process (fig. 12).
In this case, Takiguchi et al. is directed to milling a workpiece. Matsuda teaches one of skill in the art that workpieces can be more accurately milled if the temperature of the workpiece deviates as little as possible, wherein Matsuda teaches that the coolant and workpiece temperature should be below an upper threshold (i.e. 40 degrees Celsius), and that it is predictable to keep the workpiece temperature between 21 and 25 degrees Celsius for at least a portion of the milling process. Thus, to improve machining accuracy, it would be obvious to provide a control method for the milling process of Takiguchi to monitor and maintain the temperature of the coolant (and thus the workpiece) below an upper threshold temperature of 40 degrees Celsius, and to preferably maintain the workpiece temperature between 21 and 25 degrees Celsius for at least a portion of the milling process.
Claim 20 recites the temperature is about 70 Fahrenheit. As detailed above, it is obvious in view of Matsuda to keep the temperature of a workpiece between 21 and 25 degrees Celsius (70-77 degrees F) for at least a portion of the milling process. This reads on about 70 F, which as detailed in the 112b rejection above, includes 70 +- 15%.
Claim 21 recites the temperature is about room temperature. The examiner is taking Official Notice that, depending upon the time of year, it is well known for a room to have a temperature around 70 degrees F. Thus, it would be obvious to perform a milling operation in a room having a temperature of 70 degrees C. Given this modification, the temperature of the workpiece illustrated in fig. 12 (i.e. 21-25 degrees C) is “about” room temperature.
Claims 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi in view of Fang, Hoffer, and USPGPub No. 2023/0130145 (“Noland”).
Claim 22 recites an apparatus comprising the cutting tool assembly of claim 1. As detailed in the rejection to claim 1 above, Takiguchi in view of Fang and Hoffer teach the cutting tool assembly of claim 1.
Takiguchi et al. fail to explicitly teach a computer numerical control machine comprising a chuck; and the cutting tool assembly to be carried by the chuck. However, using CNC machines to mill workpieces is well known since CNC machines are known to have high precision/accuracy among other advantages. Noland teaches that it is known to connect a milling tool to a chuck of a CNC machine (¶ [0001] & [0042]).
Thus, in order to mill workpieces with high precision it would be obvious to connect the tool holder of Takiguchi et al. to a chuck of a CNC machine.
Claim 23 recites a reservoir to be in fluid communication with the cutting tool assembly. One of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the supplied coolant is pumped into the cutting tool assembly from a source/reservoir and that it is not instantaneously created when it is needed. This is also suggested by Fang and Hoffer (see ¶ [0006] of Fang, i.e. coolant source; see also fig. 1, ¶ [0036] of Hoffer, i.e. coolant source 130).
In the alternative, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to supply coolant to cutting tools via a tank/reservoir. Thus, it would be obvious to supply coolant to the cutting tool assembly of Takiguchi et al. from a reservoir.
Claim 24 recites the reservoir containing the coolant. See the rejection to claim 23, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.”