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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7 and 14-17) in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites “in operation coolant” in lines 2-3. It should be change to “in operation, coolant.” 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 15-17 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 15 recites “a plurality of openings” in line 1. It is not clear whether it refers to the same limitation recited in the last line of Claim 14 or a new limitation. For examination purpose, it is interpreted to be same as the one in Claim 14.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rohm (EP0092673) of which attached English translation is cited in view of Wang et al. (CN 109465483) of which English translation is cited.
Regarding Claim 1, Rohm teaches a tool holder (Fig. 1, 1) connectable to a spindle of a machine (page 2, line 32: fasten the basic receptacle 1 to the lathe spindle) having a coolant system and for holding a tool for action against a work piece (page 2, lines 43-47), the tool holder comprising:
a first section (Fig. 1, an upper part of a tool holder 1) comprising a coolant cavity (Fig. 1, 9) that when attached to the spindle of the machine is in fluid communication with the coolant system of the machine (page 2, lines 43-47); and
a tool holding section (Fig. 1, a lower part of a tool holder 1) integrally formed and extending longitudinally from the first section (Fig. 1, an upper part of a tool holder 1) and ending at a front face (Fig. 1, 14) comprising a bore (Fig. 1, 4) centered on an axis extending co-axially inward from the front face (Fig. 1, 14) toward the first section (Fig. 1, an upper part of a tool holder 1) for receiving the tool (page 2, line 35: receptacle 4 which enables the tool to be fastened), wherein the tool holding section comprises at least two coolant channels (Fig. 1, 12) each connected to the coolant cavity (Fig. 1, 9) of the first section (Fig. 1, an upper part of a tool holder 1) (page 2, lines 49-50: longitudinal channel 9 has … to which three coolant channels 12).
Rohm does not teach coolant channels, each extending in a helical path around the axis toward an opening in the front face.
Wang teaches coolant channels (Fig. 1, 1), each extending in a helical path around the longitudinal axis of the handle (Fig. 1, 001) (page 4, line 9: said cooling fluid flow passage 1 is configured as a spiral).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change a design of the coolant channels of Rohm from straight to spiral as taught by Rohm in order to increase the cooling area and the cooling efficiency as suggested in Wang page 4, lines 9-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 are 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.
Claims 14 is allowed.
Claims 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Frey (DE102014211410) teaches a tool holder having a coolant cavity (54) and at least two coolant channels (68). However, it also fails to teach the allowable subject matter in Claim 2.
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 9/11/2026
Prosecution Insights