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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/15/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on 4/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are distinct and there is a serious burden. Note that even though claim 13 is dependent on claim 1, it is a separate apparatus and does not require the elements of claim 1 and is just capable of being used with the tool body of claim 1.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:On page 1, line 21: REPLACE “US10201862 “ WITH – US Patent 10,201,862 --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:On line 17, DELETE “wherein” This change is necessary since flank face is part of the cutting insert and the word wherein makes the limitation not make sense. On line 4th to last line, DELETE “wherein”This change is necessary since the step of “coolant emerging from the outlet will pass..” is a result from the step preceding it, “when a cutting insert… is mounted..”. Addition of “wherein” disrupts and confuses the claimed steps.Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation “a cutting insert can be securely mounted formed in a transition”. It is unclear what “securely mounted formed” means.
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) 1-6, 8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and a2 as being anticipated by Prast (WO2021051145, machine translation relied on).
Re Claim 1, Prast discloses a tool body 20 for a milling tool having a central rotation axis around which the tool body is rotatable, the tool body comprising: a front end 22; a rear end 21; an envelope surface extending between the front end and the rear end (Fig. 4); a central recess extending from the rear end (Fig. 4) and [configured to receive coolant from a spindle of a machine]; at least one insert seat 23 [in which a cutting insert 1 can be securely mounted formed in a transition between the front end and the envelope surface; and at least one coolant passageway for passage of coolant from the central recess to an exterior of the tool body, wherein the coolant passageway includes a first portion extending from the central recess in an outward direction towards the envelope surface, and a second portion extending from the first portion to an outlet 26 in the exterior of the tool body (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7: “the various coolant outlets 26 are connected to an internal common coolant supply in the base body 20 in such a way that they are supplied with coolant via this.”), wherein the outlet is located in the insert seat and/or in the envelope surface behind the insert seat with respect to a rotation direction of the tool body (Fig. 4-5), and wherein the second portion of the coolant passageway is directed towards the insert seat such that, when a cutting insert having a cutting edge and a flank face is mounted in the insert seat such that the flank face faces outward with respect to the tool body, coolant emerging from the outlet will pass along the flank face towards the cutting edge, and wherein the second portion of the coolant passageway is a channel having a length that is greater than a width thereof (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7). The recitation in brackets [ ] is considered functional language. The reference discloses all the structural components of the apparatus, which read on those of the instant invention. Therefore, the device is capable of performing the same desired functions as the instant invention as claimed.
Re Claim 2, Prast discloses the outlet is located partly in the insert seat and partly in the envelope surface behind the insert seat with respect to a rotation direction of the tool body (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 3, Prast discloses the length of the channel is at least two times the width thereof (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 4, Prast appears to disclose the length of the channel is at most twelve times the width thereof (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7). Note that since the second portion constituting this channel can be chosen to be just a short portion of this channel, the reference implicitly discloses this limitation.
Re Claim 5, Prast discloses the channel is circular cylindrical and the width is a diameter of the channel (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 6, Prast discloses the channel is straight (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 8, Prast discloses the channel is directed in a forward direction (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 10, Prast discloses the first portion of the coolant passageway is directed in a rearward direction (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7).
Re Claim 11-12, Prast discloses the first portion of the coolant passageway is a blind hole having an end located at a distance from the envelope surface that is less than 10 mm, the channel extends from the end of the blind hole (Fig. 4-5; pg. 7). Note that since the second portion constituting this channel can be chosen to be just a short portion of this channel, the reference implicitly discloses this limitation.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prast in view of Kachler (US 10,201,862).
Re Claim 7, Prast does not disclose the channel extends at an angle of 80°-100° to a radial line of the tool body passing through a location from where the channel extends. However, Kachler teaches channel 56/46 extends at an angle of 80°-100° to a radial line of the tool body passing through a location from where the channel extends (Fig. 6; col. 7, lines 45-67). it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the channel at an angle of 80°-100° to a radial line, as taught by Kachler, in order to orient coolant against desired surfaces for improving temperature and thus service life of cutting inserts.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prast in view of Takiguchi (JP 2000 005924 A).
Re Claim 9, Prast does not explicitly disclose the channel extends at an angle of 20°-70° to a line parallel to the central rotation axis. However, Takiguchi teaches a channel 18 extends at an angle of 20°-70° to a line parallel to the central rotation axis (Fig. 1, 7). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the channel extending at an angle of 20°-70° to a line parallel to the central rotation axis, as taught by Takiguchi, in order to orient coolant against desired surfaces for improving temperature and thus service life of cutting inserts.
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
Prosecution Insights