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 and 3-9 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 “a second end in the vicinity of the gripping part” in Line 8. The term “vicinity” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vicinity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 3 recites “the discharge opening opens into a recess . . . .” Yet, claim 1 requires the discharge opening be configured to generate a Venturi effect. If the discharge opening opens into a recess, which is apparently (from the wording) not part of the discharge opening, then the discharge opening is not capable of generating a Venturi effect. As such, claim 3 conflicts with claim 1. Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “each radial channel has a lengthwise extension along a direction that forms an acute angle” in Lines 1-3. It is unclear how the direction forms an acute angle. Moreover, it is unclear whether the angle formed by the direction limits the radial channel at all. The radial channel merely extends along the direction. No feature of the radial channel is limited by the angle. Further still, it is unclear whether each channel extends along one direction or a respective direction. Moreover, it is unclear whether the lengthwise extension is a physical limitation or if the extension is meant to be imaginary like an axis. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “said acute angle being oriented towards the free end of said body of the cutting tool.” The metes and bounds of an acute angle being oriented towards a given feature are not clearly delineated. Specifically, it is unclear what qualifies as an angle being so oriented. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “the lengthwise extension of each radial channel has a helical shape.” Again, it is unclear whether the extension has any impact on the channel itself. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “the lengthwise extension of each radial channel is curved so as to have the helical shape.” Again, it is unclear whether the extension has any impact on the channel itself. Appropriate correction required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mossberg (US Patent No. 3,037,264) in view of Jager et al. (US Patent No. 7,337,879 B2), or alternatively, over Mossberg (US Patent No. 3,037,264) in view of Jager et al. (US Patent No. 7,337,879 B2) and Chaillet (CH 716140 A2).
(Claim 1) Mossberg discloses a cutting tool (1) that includes a body having lubrication orifices (openings at end of each channel 14; Figs. 1-6) and having a gripping part (2) to be fastened to a tool-holder chuck (3) and an active part (5, 6, 10) including an active surface along which peripheral grooves (10) extend. The body has a central hollow (7) along a longitudinal axis of the body from the gripping part to a free end of the cutting tool (Figs. 2, 5, 6). The peripheral grooves (10) extend helically between a first end opening onto the free end (5) of the cutting tool and a second end opening in the vicinity of the gripping part of the cutting tool (Figs. 1, 2) such that the second end is closer to the gripping part than to the free end of the cutting tool (Figs. 1, 2). The peripheral grooves (10) are connected to the central hollow (7) via a radial channel (14; Figs. 1-6) at the second end of each of each peripheral groove. There are two interpretations in which Mossberg reads on the ‘radial channel at the second end of each peripheral groove’ limitation. First, the peripheral grooves are identified as the two flutes having radial channels closest to the shank. Second, the second end is merely recited as being in the vicinity of the shank such that the second end could be said to include all flutes on the tool and their respective radial channels being within the second end. The central hollow extends between a lubricant intake opening (at tool end opposite end 5) opposite a lubricant discharge opening (at tool end 5). The discharge opening is not explicitly disclosed as being capable of generating a Venturi effect.
Jager et al. (“Jager”) discloses a discharge opening capable of generating a Venturi effect (4; Fig. 2; Col. 3, Lines 52-54, 64-67; Col. 4, Lines 1-3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the discharge opening in the cutting tool disclosed in Mossberg with the nozzle shape as suggested by Jager in order to evaporate the CO2 in a liquid CO2 coolant (used during a cutting operation) (Col. 4, Lines 23-24).
In the alternative to the Mossberg interpretations of the ‘radial channel at the second end of each peripheral groove’ limitation, Chaillet discloses an outlet (S104a-c) location per flute of all flutes on the milling tool (100; Figs. 1a, 1b) being at a second end of the flute, which is closer to the end of the cutting portion than to the front thereof. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the tool disclosed in Mossberg with outlets (and therefore channels leading thereto) at the second end of each flute as suggested by Chaillet in order “to ensure optimum lubrication along the entire cutting part.” (Chaillet translation).
(Claim 3) The active surface has a cylindrical shape including a peripheral surface (including 6, 10) and an end surface (5). The end surface (5) defines the free end of the cutting tool (Figs. 1-6). The discharge opening opens into a recess (17; Figs. 5, 6). The cutting tool includes end grooves extending radially on the end surface, from the recess to the peripheral surface (Figs. 5, 6).
(Claim 4) As best understood, each radial channel (14) has a lengthwise extension along a direction that forms an acute angle with the longitudinal axis of the body of the cutting tool. That is, because the direction is what forms the acute angle and the radial channel only needs to extend along the direction, the prior art reads upon the claim merely by having channels that may extend along said direction. As best understood, the acute angle is oriented towards the free end of said body of the cutting tool (Figs. 1-6).
(Claim 5) As best understood, the lengthwise extension of each radial channel has a helical shape. Because this may relate to an imaginary feature of the channel and not the channel itself, the channels of Mossberg readd upon the claim.
(Claim 6) As best understood, the lengthwise extension of each radial channel is curved so as to have the helical shape. Because this may relate to an imaginary feature of the channel and not the channel itself, the channels of Mossberg readd upon the claim.
(Claim 7) The cutting tool of Mossberg (and also suggested by Chaillet) has a same number of radial channels as the peripheral grooves (Mossberg Fig. 2).
(Claim 8) In the modified Mossberg tool, with respect to a length of the body along the longitudinal axis, the central hollow forms a lip in which a cross-section of the central hollow decreases, and the central hollow forms a recess in which the cross-section of the central hollow increases from the lip to the discharge opening (Mossberg Figs. 2, 6; Jager Fig. 1).
(Claim 9) In the modified tool, the discharge opening (Mossberg Figs. 2, 5, 6) is at a central portion of the free end of the cutting tool such that the discharge opening is capable of generating the Venturi effect (Jager Fig. 1) and provide homogeneous radial distribution of a lubricant flux.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claims 4 and 5 would be sufficiently clear to one having ordinary skill in the art. Turning to the prior art of record, Applicant alleges that the Mossberg reference fails to disclose each of the flutes having “a radial channel at the second end of each peripheral groove” limitation of claim 1. Examiner disagrees.
As indicated in the rejection above, the scope of claims 4 and 5 remain unclear. The “extension” lacks sufficient meaning to one of ordinary skill. That is, the annotated Figure of the cross-sectional view fails to set forth why one having ordinary skill would understand the boundaries of the claimed extension. Thus, the indefiniteness rejections remain.
Relative to the prior art of record, the claims require the body to have peripheral grooves, and those grooves to connect to the central hollow via a radial channel at the second end of each peripheral groove. The claim does not require all grooves of the tool to have this relationship. Therefore, identification of two grooves as the peripheral grooves that have the claimed relationship are enough to read upon the independent claim. Nevertheless, a further modification has also been included, which modifies the Mossberg reference to include outlets at the same level, closer to the second end than the first end.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Strand et al. (US Patent No. 5,851,094).
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 RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Singh Sunil 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights