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
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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(s) 1-3, 5-10 and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOF et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0039173).
Regarding Claim 1, LOF teaches a cutting tool (Fig. 1, 1) having a structure in which a cutting insert (Fig. 1, 3) provided with a cutting edge (Fig. 1, 25) is removably mountable to an insert seat (Fig. 3, 4) on a leading end portion side (Fig. 2, 17) of a body (Fig. 1, 2), the cutting tool comprising:
a first flow path (see figure below) through which coolant is supplied from a base end portion side (Fig. 5, 16) of the body (Fig. 1, 2) toward the leading end portion side (Fig. 2, 17) (Although LOF does not explicitly disclose that a downstream-of-branch flow path in the figure below is a cooling channel and first jetting port in the figure below are the outlets of the cooling channel, LOF cites EP3153261A1 in [0003] which teaches cooling outlets located below the insert similar to the first jetting portion. Since the location of the first jetting port in LOF are in the same location as the cooling outlets of EP3153261A1 and the downstream-of-branch flow path in the figure below leads to the first jetting port, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the two holes below the insert as shown in LOF in order to jet a coolant against the cutting insert in addition to a cooling outlet (11) in the insert seat.);
a first jetting port (see figure below) provided in an end portion of the first flow path (see figure below);
a second flow path (see figure below) branching at a branch point (see figure below) partway along the first flow path (see figure below);
a second jetting port (Fig. 1, 11) provided in an end portion of the second flow path (see figure below); and
a guide member (Fig. 1, a portion of the cutting insert near and facing the second jetting portion (11)) having a guide surface (Fig. 1, 9) disposed away from the second jetting port (Fig. 1, 11) and at least forming a space (Fig. 11, 24) for the coolant to flow out to the cutting edge (Fig. 1, 25) from the second jetting port (Fig. 1, 11) ([0085]),
wherein, in the first flow path (see figure below), an upstream-of-branch flow path (see figure below), which is a flow path on further toward the base end portion side (Fig. 5, 16) than the branch point (see figure below), is a substantially straight flow path having a length greater than a length of a downstream-of-branch flow path (see figure below) from the first jetting port (see figure below) to the branch point (see figure below),
the second flow path (see figure below) is inclined at an angle (see figure below) to the substantially straight upstream-of-branch flow path, and
a length of the second flow path (see figure below) is approximately equal to the length of the downstream-of-branch flow path (see figure below) from the first jetting port to the branch point.
Although LOF does not explicitly teach the claimed relative lengths among the upstream-of-branch flow path, the downstream-of-branch flow path and the second flow path or the claimed angle between the second flow path and the upstream-of-branch flow path, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been privy to the fact that if a larger/longer cutting insert became necessary to handle a larger and/or deeper cut in a workpiece and/or to provide a greater stability for difficult machining jobs, a tapered nose portion of the tool body (2) of LOF having the cutting insert seat would need to be lengthened in order to accommodate the larger/longer cutting insert and the branch point would need to move forward accordingly. As a result, the upstream-of-branch flow path would also lengthen, which increases the ratio between the length of the upstream-of-branch flow path and the length of the downstream-of-branch flow path and a slope of the upstream-of-branch would become flatter, which increases the angle between the second flow path and the upstream-of-branch flow path. Furthermore, a larger/longer insert seat to accommodate a larger/longer cutting insert would require the downstream-of-branch flow path to lengthen in order to reach the forward cutting edge of the large/longer insert, which makes the second flow path shorter than the downstream-of-branch flow path. Therefore, the length of the upstream-of-branch flow path would be no less than twice the length of the downstream-of-branch flow and the second flow path would be inclined at angle of not less than 30° and not more than 85° to the upstream-of-branch flow path and a length of the second flow path would be shorter the length of the downstream-of-branch flow path. Furthermore, LOF does not dissuade from making these modifications as these modifications could be relatively easily made without effecting main functions of the cutting tool.
PNG
media_image1.png
312
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1,
wherein the upstream-of-branch flow path (see figure above) is a substantially straight flow path having a length not less than three times the length of the downstream-of-branch flow path (see figure above) from the first jetting port to the branch point.
The relative length between the upstream-of-branch flow path and the downstream-of-branch flow path is simply a result of the geometrical size and shape of the tool body and the location of the branch point driven by various design factors, one of which being the size of the cutting insert as exemplified in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 2,
wherein the guide member (Fig. 1, a portion of the cutting insert near and facing the second jetting portion (11)) is provided in a position at least partially blocking a direction in which the coolant is jetted from the second jetting port (see figure above) ([0088]: a coolant stream is directed … towards the side surface of the turning insert …).
Regarding Claim 5, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting insert is used as the guide member ([0088]: a coolant stream is directed … towards the side surface of the turning insert …).
Regarding Claim 6, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 5,
wherein the second jetting port is provided in the insert seat ([0083]: The coolant channel outlet 11 is formed in the first surface 13 (of the insert seat 4).).
Regarding Claim 7, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 6,
wherein a portion of a first surface (Fig. 11, 9) of the cutting insert (Fig. 1, 3) that faces the insert seat functions as the guide surface ([0088]: a coolant stream is directed … towards the side surface of the turning insert …).
Regarding Claim 8, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 7,
wherein a screw hole ([0091]: a hole for a clamping screw) through which a fastening screw for fastening the cutting insert to the body is passable is provided on further toward the base end portion side than the portion of the first surface (Fig. 11, 9) of the cutting insert (Fig. 1, 3) that functions as the guide surface. ([0085] & [0088]: a void 24 on the forward portion of the turning insert would guide the coolant to exit towards the cutting edge and the screw hole is located further toward the base end portion side than the forward portion of the turning insert.)
Regarding Claim 9, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 8,
wherein the portion (a forward portion of the turning insert) of the first surface (Fig. 11, 9) of the cutting insert that functions as the guide surface includes an inclined portion inclined toward the cutting edge (Fig. 13, a side surface near the cutting edge (25) is inclined towards the cutting edge.).
Regarding Claim 10, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 5,
wherein the guide member (Fig. 1, a portion of the cutting insert near and facing the second jetting portion (11)) is formed such that a portion of a space (Fig. 11, 24) between the guide member (Fig. 1, a portion of the cutting insert near and facing the second jetting portion (11)) and the insert seat (Fig. 3, 4) that faces a flank side of the cutting edge widens ([0081] & [0085]; as shown in Fig. 11, a void 24 widens in downwards direction from the contact surface 19 since the contact surface 19 is in contact with the cutting insert 3.).
Regarding Claim 12, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 2,
wherein the first flow path (see figure above) is a flow path having a constant cross-sectional area from the upstream-of-branch flow path to the first jetting port ([0084]: a circular cross section of a constant diameter) (Although a straight coolant channel section in [0084] refers to the second flow path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design all sections of the coolant channel of LOF with a similar design since it would be simplest to manufacture channels having a circular cross section of a constant diameter.)
Regarding Claim 13, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 12,
wherein the first flow path (see figure above) is a flow path having a circular cross-section from the upstream-of-branch flow path to the first jetting port ([0084]: a circular cross section of a constant diameter). (Although a straight coolant channel section in [0084] refers to the second flow path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design all sections of the coolant channel of LOF with a similar design since it would be simplest to manufacture channels having a circular cross section of a constant diameter.)
Regarding Claim 14, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 13,
wherein the first flow path (see figure above) is constituted by a substantially straight flow path from the upstream-of-branch flow path to the first jetting port ([0084]: straight coolant channel) (Fig. 5 shows a plurality of straight channel sections). (Although a straight coolant channel section in [0084] refers to the second flow path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design all sections of the coolant channel of LOF with a similar design since it would be simplest to manufacture straight channels vs. curved channels.)
Regarding Claim 15, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 2,
wherein the second flow path (see figure above) is a flow path having a constant cross-sectional area from the branch point to the second jetting port ([0084]: a circular cross section of a constant diameter).
Regarding Claim 16, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 15,
wherein the second flow path (see figure above) is a flow path having a circular cross-section from the branch point to the second jetting port ([0084]: a circular cross section of a constant diameter).
Regarding Claim 17, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 16,
wherein the second flow path (see figure above) is constituted by a substantially straight flow path from the branch point to the second jetting port ([0084]: straight coolant channel) (Fig. 5 shows a plurality of straight channel sections).
Regarding Claim 18, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 1,
wherein the second flow path is a perfectly straight flow path ([0084]: straight coolant channel) (Fig. 5 shows a plurality of straight channel sections).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LOF et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0039173), as applied Claim 1 and further in view of Stephenson et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0210174).
Regarding Claim 11, LOF teaches the cutting tool according to claim 10, however, does not explicitly teach wherein a cross-sectional area of the second flow path is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow path in a vicinity of the first jetting port.
Stephenson teaches a cross-sectional area of the second flow path (Fig. 3, 306 or 308) is smaller than a cross-sectional area of the first flow path (Fig. 3, 304) ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design each section of the coolant channel of LOF with a different cross-sectional area including the cross-sectional area of the second flow path being smaller than the cross-sectional area of the first flow path as taught by Stephenson as the design of these sections of the coolant channel is dependent on various factors such as the type of coolant fluid, its flow property and technical specifications of the machine receiving the tool in order to achieve an optimal flow of the coolant as suggest in Stephenson [0054].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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 JUN S YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7141. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/JUN S YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 5/29/2026
Prosecution Insights