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 1-4 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “wherein the coolant channel characteristic is selected from…a number of internal coolant channels when the at least one internal coolant channel comprises a plurality of internal coolant channels” is unclear. It is unclear how the characteristic of at least one channel is more channels. If there are additional channels, these additional channels would further define a characteristic of the existing at least one coolant channel. It is unclear how there being more channels can be a coolant channel characteristic. Dictionary.com defines characteristic as: a distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait. There being more of something is not distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait of that item. The other options claimed can be distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait.
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 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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berglow (7,374,374) in view of Sweetman et al. (10,265,813) further in view of Frejd (12,036,613) [with evidence reference Korte et al. (2020/0011136)].
With regards to claims 1-3, Berglow discloses the invention including a method for manufacturing a cutting tool body (10 was manufactured by a method) manufacturing a first member (11), a second member (13), and a transition member (12), the first member having at least one internal coolant channel having a cross-sectional area coolant channel characteristic with a first magnitude (14F, Fig. 1C), the second member having at least one internal coolant channel having a cross-sectional area coolant channel characteristic with a second magnitude (14C, Fig. 1C), the transition member having at least one internal coolant channel having a coolant channel characteristic (14D and 14E, Fig. 1C), the first and second members both have a substantially cylindrical shape (11, 13, Figs. 1A, 1B), the second magnitude is different from the first magnitude (cross-sectional area of 14C is different than cross-sectional area of 14F in Fig. 1C), the coolant channel characteristic in the transition member is of the first magnitude at a first end (diameter of 14E) and of the second magnitude at a second end (diameter of 14D), the transition member includes a transition region (Fig. 1C) between the first and second ends in which the coolant channel characteristic transforms from the first magnitude to the second magnitude (14C, 14D, 14E, 14F, Fig. 1C), a cutting tool body having a tool body central axis that coincides with a central axis of the first and second members (CL), forming at least one flute (17) and/or one or more cutting edges (15, 16), and the members are made of cemented carbide (column 1 lines 59-60).
However, with regards to claims 1 and 4, Berglow fails to disclose the first member, the second member, and the transition member are first individual members, the first and second members are not made by an additive manufacturing method, and the first end of the transition member is connected to the first member and the second end of the transition member is connected to the first member using sinter fusing.
Sweetman et al. teach it is known in the art of cutter body manufacturing to provide (12) and machine parts (16) and then assembly the parts (18) to form the unitary body (20) using sinter fusing (column 3 line 40 – column 4 line 21) where the first and second members are not made by an additive manufacturing method (abstract). It would have been obvious to machine the members (11, 12, 13 in Berglow) individually and then connect the first member 11 to an end of the transition member 12 and connect the second member 13 to another end of transition member 12 (column 3 line 40 – column 4 line 21 in Sweetman et al.). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any known method of cutter manufacturing as long as the end result is maintained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Berglow with the connecting method steps, as taught by Sweetman et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
With regards to claim 1, Berglow in view of Sweetman et al. fail to disclose the transition member is made by an additive manufacturing method.
Frejd teaches it is known in the art of cutter body manufacturing to utilize an additive manufacturing method to make parts (column 3 lines 33-34 and 65-66). [Korte et al. provide evidence it is known in the art of cutter body manufacturing to incorporate one part made with additive manufacturing combined with other parts that are made by conventional production methods such as machining (paragraph [0040])]. There are a limited number of choices available with regards to how the members are made (all the members are made via additive manufacturing, none of the members of made via additive manufacturing, or a combination of members that are made via additive manufacturing and not made via additive manufacturing). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have used any one of these choices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Berglow in view of Sweetman et al. with the additive manufacturing method to one of the members, as taught by Frejd, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-6-26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112 rejection has not been overcome. It is not clear how a number of a particular item can represent a distinguishing quality, attribute, or trait of that item.
The Examiner’s position remains the same. Berglow teaches a final product with members defining the coolant channel and the coolant channel characteristics. The Examiner disagrees that Berglow teaches away from separately manufactured parts because Berglow does not discuss the production method as Applicant has pointed out. While Berglow does disclose a “one-piece unit”, this disclosure is referencing the final product and it is noted that Applicant’s final product is a one-piece unit. Applicant makes assumptions based on the drawings of Berglow which shows the final product. There is no disclosure that Berglow discloses that separate pieces cannot be an option during manufacturing. Sweetman et al. teach that it is known to have the members as individual pieces first and then combine the pieces to form the tool. Sweetman et al. is not used to teach any of the structures that are already disclosed by Berglow as argued. Frejd teaches it is known to form the pieces via additive manufacturing. It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made each of the pieces in any known manner (including with and without additive manufacturing) and then be combined the pieces to form the cutting tool body. Korte et al. provide evidence it is known in the art of cutter body manufacturing to incorporate one part made with additive manufacturing combined with other parts that are made by conventional production methods such as machining (paragraph [0040]). In light of Korte et al., it would have been well within one’s technical skill to have made any reasonable part from additive manufacturing and any reasonable part from conventional production methods such as machining and combine them in a single unit.
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 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 JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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, Boyer D Ashley can be reached on (571)272-4502. 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.
01 June 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights