DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined Claim Rejections - 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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 112894478, hereinafter ‘Zhang’).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an efficient chatter cutting method for materials comprising the following steps: installing a chatter tool bar (e.g. the cutting tool which is connected to an ultrasonic generator described at the Final full Paragraph on Page 7 of the attached English translation) on a machine tool, starting the machine tool and inducing self-excited chatter for chatter cutting through cutting energy of a tool system. During chatter cutting, the chatter tool bar is excited to induce stable vibration, making the tool form a sawtooth profile motion trajectory by pressing the tool on a surface of a workpiece and separating the tool therefrom, forming a sawtooth profile morphology on the surface of the workpiece (see e.g. Figs. 2A, 3A & 9). During separation of the tool from the surface of the workpiece, a cutting fluid 5 is enabled to enter a separated cutting zone for cooling and lubrication, and reducing cutting temperature. In one vibration cycle of the ratchet-shaped motion trajectory, the cutting depth is gradually increased, cutting depth is gradually increased, dynamic clearance angle is gradually decreased until negative, a flank surface is continuously pressed on the surface of the workpiece, cutting force is increased and cutting heat is accumulated, clearance angle of the tool is gradually increased, the cutting depth is increased then decreased, the cutting force is increased then decreased, contact area between the flank surface and the workpiece is increased then decreased rapidly, the flank surface of the tool is gradually separated from the surface of the workpiece, cutting fluid is sprayed into the separated cutting zone from the flank surface of the tool and the cutting temperature is decreased rapidly (see e.g. Fig. 9 and associated discussion).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhang discloses the chatter tool bar being designed and manufactured according to selected machining materials and cutting parameters to ensure that vibration parameters of the chatter tool bar lie within a reasonable range of vibration parameters (i.e. the tool works properly as designed). The machining materials comprise aluminum/magnesium/copper alloy, stainless steel, titanium alloy, superalloy, high-strength steel and composite materials (Second Paragraph of Page 5 of the attached English translation). The cutting parameters comprise cutting linear speed, depth and feed rate (Second Paragraph of Page 8 of the attached English translation). Finally, the vibration parameters comprise a main amplitude and frequency in the direction of chatter (also Second Paragraph of Page 8 of the attached English translation).
Regarding claims 5-8, Zhang inherently discloses the chatter tool bar being weakened in a direction perpendicular to the direction of a machined surface, but not being too weak by manner of the chatter tool bar functioning as designed. During the cutting, dynamic changes in the cutting force (e.g. the force being exerted to the tool either by the material reaction or the ultrasonic generator) excite the chatter tool bar to chatter along this direction. This stiffness is inherently controlled by changing the shape or structure of the tool bar when the tool bar was initially designed in order to operate as intended.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the chatter cutting comprising a chatter turning method (described at Page 7 of the attached English translation).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses the cutting fluid being common water-based emulsion (Ninth Paragraph on Page 11 of the attached English translation) with the cutting fluid pressure determined according to requirements for machine tool conditions and process effects (see Page 4 of the attached English translation, specifically the Final Two complete paragraphs).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the machine tool comprising a machining center capable of carrying out cutting processes (described at Page 7 of the attached English translation).
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112894478) in view of Zhao et al. (CN 116933413, hereinafter ‘Zhao’).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang does not explicitly disclose the trajectory equation of relative motion between the tool and workpiece as claimed.
Zhao discloses a similar vibration/chatter cutting method wherein the trajectory equation of relative motion between the tool and workpiece is outlined in Paragraphs [0018 and 0017]. Specifically:
Z
t
=
B
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
t
+
φ
2
)
and
X
t
=
v
c
t
+
A
s
i
n
(
2
π
f
t
+
φ
1
)
. In the equations, Z(t) is a displacement perpendicular to the surface of the workpiece (vertical axis) and X(t) is a displacement along a direction of cutting speed (horizontal axis). A is an amplitude along the direction of cutting speed and B is an amplitude perpendicular to the surface of the workpiece. f is a chatter frequency of the tool in the direction of cutting speed, φ is the phase difference between vibrations, t is time and v is cutting linear speed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the equation(s) taught by Zhao to calculate the motion trajectory of the tool relative to the workpiece in the method of Zhang, in order to provide the desired surface morphology on a workpiece.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 112894478).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses a main chatter frequency of the chatter tool bar approaching an inherent frequency in the main vibration direction (i.e. said frequency being inherent in a vibrating tool). Zhang does not explicitly disclose the claimed triaxial acceleration sensor.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that applying a triaxial vibration sensor to a vibrating computer-numerically controlled (CNC) machine is an obvious modification one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have made in order to measure the amplitudes, frequencies and phase differences in multiple directions and to control and regulate said frequencies to operate at the desired machining parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zhang maintains lubricating medium at the cutting interface at all times, distinguishing itself from the instant application. These arguments are respectfully traversed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the two arguments made at Page 9/10 of the remarks filed 08/21/2026) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the prior art may disclose providing lubrication at all stages, nothing in the claims as amended precludes such an action.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that there is no teaching of concentrating the timing and location of tool heat accumulation and rapid cooling of the tool flank. Such elements are inherent to the operation of a tool. As the tool and workpiece are in contact with one another, the friction from the tool interacting with the workpiece results in heat. As the tool and workpiece are separated from one another, the tool flank is cooled.
Applicant also asserts that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not find it obvious to arrive at the present invention of claim 1 based on Zhang. However, instant claim 1 is anticipated by Zhang, as all limitations of the claim are taught by or inherently present in Zhang.
Finally, in response to the argument regarding a foreign office allowing the case, the instant application is in front of the US Patent Office, and is not bound by the actions and/or laws regarding patentability of a foreign office.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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 K 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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights