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 .
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.
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 1-20 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 “at least one guide,” but subsequently recites “wherein the guide pad has an inlet channel.” The term “guide pad” lacks antecedent basis because the claim previously introduces only a “guide.” It is unclear whether the recited “guide” and “guide pad” refer to the same component or to separate components. The specification consistently describes guide pads, including guide pads (21 and 22), but does not define or describe a standalone “guide” corresponding to the “guide” recited in claim 1. Therefore, the structural relationship among the guide, the guide pad, the radially external fluid groove, and the inlet channel cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Claims 2-20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and do not resolve this ambiguity. A straightforward correction would be “at least one guide pad, which is fastened…”
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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 15-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sagr (EP 4 201 562 A1) as provided by (EP 4 201 562 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 1:
Sagr discloses a rotary cutting tool having a tool shank and at least one guide [pad] (1), which is fastened on the outer circumference of the tool shank (01) (¶¶1-3) and has a radially external fluid groove (4) (fig. 3, ¶30), wherein the guide pad (1) has an inlet channel (02a), via which the radially external fluid groove (4) is fluidly connected to an internal fluid line (02) in the tool shank (01) (fig. 3, ¶44).
Claim 2:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the inlet channel (02a) is arranged radially on the inside of the guide pad (1) (fig. 3, ¶44).
Claim 3:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the guide pad (1) has an internal fluid channel (31) which extends in the longitudinal direction of the guide pad (1) and via which the inlet channel (02a) is fluidly connected to the fluid groove (4) (fig. 3, ¶42).
Claim 4:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 2, wherein the guide pad (1) has an internal fluid channel (31) which extends in the longitudinal direction of the guide pad (1) and via which the inlet channel (02a) is fluidly connected to the fluid groove (4) (fig. 3, ¶42).
Claim 5:
The rotary cutting tool according to claim 3, wherein the guide pad (1) has at least one through-hole (31b), via which the fluid channel (31) is fluidly connected to the fluid groove (4) (fig. 3, ¶44).
Claim 6:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 4, wherein the guide pad (1) has at least one through-hole (31b), via which the fluid channel (31) is fluidly connected to the fluid groove (4) (fig. 3, ¶44).
Claim 10:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 5, wherein the inlet channel (02a) does not overlap with the at least one through-hole (31b) when viewed in the radial direction (figs. 1-3, ¶44).
Claim 11:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 7, wherein the inlet channel (02a) does not overlap with the at least one through-hole (31b) when viewed in the radial direction (figs. 1-3, ¶44).
Claim 12:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 10, wherein the fluid channel (31) has a first end section (at 31a) and a second end section (at 31b) positioned opposite thereto in the longitudinal direction, wherein the inlet channel (02a) opens into the fluid channel (31) in the first end section (at 31a) and the at least one through-hole (31b) opens into the fluid channel (31) in the second end section (31b) (figs. 1-3, ¶31).
Claim 15:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the tool shank (01) has no fluid groove on the outer circumference (fig. 3).
Claim 16:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein the internal fluid line (02) has a central main channel and a transverse channel, wherein the main channel is fluidly connected to the fluid groove (4) via the transverse channel (see annotated reproduction of fig. 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
1290
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 20:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, wherein at least one guide pad (1) projects radially in relation to the outer circumference (fig.3, ¶44).
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.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kondameedi (US 2016/0158855 A1).
Claim 7:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 5; and Sagr fails to disclose the at least one through-hole has a circular or polygonal cross-section. Kondameedi teaches coolant inlet apertures, internal coolant passages, and coolant outlet apertures formed with circular cross-sectional shapes, and further teaches that such apertures may be precisely formed with a selected shape and diameter (fig. 4, ¶49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form Sagr’s fluid outlet through-hole (31b) with a circular cross-section, as taught by Kondameedi, because a circular bore is a conventional, readily manufactured passage geometry that provides a predictable fluid-flow path and permits its diameter to be selected to provide the desired coolant flow. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 8-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr (EP 4 201 562 A1) as provided by (EP 4 201 562 A1) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 8:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 5, wherein the at least one through-hole (31b) has an elongated cross-section (figs. 1-3) and Sagr fails to disclose the at least one through-hole (31b) extends over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove. However, Sagr teaches the location and proportional extent of the fluid-delivery region communicating with elongated groove (4) affect the flow speed, pressure, and distribution of the supplied fluid, and expressly teaches a side portion (4a) occupying between 10% and 50% of outlet section (4) (¶¶12-13 and 33-34). Sagr further teaches that providing fluid at an additional central portion produces a more uniform distribution along the groove (¶¶16-18 and 42). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “…extends over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of optimizing flow speed, pressure and distribution of the supplied fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the at least one through-hole of Sagr to extend over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 9:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 5, wherein the at least one through-hole (31b) has an elongated cross-section (figs. 1-3) and Sagr fails to disclose the at least one through-hole (31b) extends over at least 90% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove. However, Sagr teaches the location and proportional extent of the fluid-delivery region communicating with elongated groove (4) affect the flow speed, pressure, and distribution of the supplied fluid, and expressly teaches a side portion (4a) occupying between 10% and 50% of outlet section (4) (¶¶12-13 and 33-34). Sagr further teaches that providing fluid at an additional central portion produces a more uniform distribution along the groove (¶¶16-18 and 42). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “…extends over at least 90% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of optimizing flow speed, pressure and distribution of the supplied fluid.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the at least one through-hole of Sagr to extend over at least 90% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of at least 90% of the longitudinal extent of the fluid groove because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 13:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, and Sagr fails to disclose the fluid groove extends over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad. Instead, Sagr teaches the fluid groove extends between 10% and 90% of the friction surface (¶20). Sagr further teaches the size of the fluid groove is selected so the remaining friction surface provides sufficient guidance while enough fluid passes through the outlet section for hydrostatic support and cooling (¶¶20, 37).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “…extends over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of providing sufficient guidance while enough fluid passes through the outlet section for hydrostatic support and cooling (¶¶20, 37).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the fluid groove of Sagr to extend over at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of at least 50% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claim 14:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, and Sagr fails to disclose the fluid groove extends over at least 75% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad. Instead, Sagr teaches the fluid groove extends between 10% and 90% of the friction surface (¶20). Sagr further teaches the size of the fluid groove is selected so the remaining friction surface provides sufficient guidance while enough fluid passes through the outlet section for hydrostatic support and cooling (¶¶20, 37).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have recognized the claim limitation “…extends over at least 75% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad” is a variable which achieves the recognized result of providing sufficient guidance while enough fluid passes through the outlet section for hydrostatic support and cooling (¶¶20, 37).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to optimize result-effective variables. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the fluid groove of Sagr to extend over at least 75% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad since it has been held that the presence of a known result-effective variable would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable process. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable with a reasonable expectation of success.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try the claimed range of at least 75% of the longitudinal extent of the guide pad because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05 II A which describes the prima facie obviousness of a person of ordinary skill in the art to use routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagr as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansson (US 2016/0243626 A1).
Claim 17:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1; and, Sagr fails to disclose or fairly suggest the at least one guide pad is fastened in a receiving slot on the outer circumference of the tool shank. Hansson teaches guide pads (8) received and fastened in respective seatings (30) formed as longitudinal recesses (30) in the outer envelope surface of cutter head (1), each recess having a bottom surface and longitudinal side surfaces (figs. 1-2 and 10a-10b, ¶47 and claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to fasten Sagr’s guide pad in a receiving recess to provide defined positioning lateral support, and secure retention of the guide pad during rotation and contact with the workpiece (Hansson, ¶47). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 18:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1; and Sagr fails to discloses at least two guide pads distributed on the outer circumference. Hansson discloses two guide pads (8) positioned at circumferentially separated locations on cutter head (1), with one guide pad arranged on each side of resultant cutting force R, thereby balancing the cutting forces and guiding and centering the cutter head (figs. 1-3, ¶37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Sagr’s cutting tool with at least two circumferentially distributed guide pads, as taught by Hansson to provide more stable circumferential support, balance cutting forces, and maintain the cutter head on its intended drilling axis (Hansson, ¶37). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 19:
Sagr discloses the rotary cutting tool according to claim 1, and Sagr fails to disclose a cutting insert on the tool shank. Hansson teaches cutter head (1) having cutting inserts (2) fastened at its front axial end for cutting and removing material from a workpiece (figs. 1-3, ¶36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide at least one cutting insert at the axial end of Sagr’s tool shank in order for the Sagr rotary tool to perform its intended material-removing operation, while the guide pads guide and support the tool during cutting. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Deeg et al. (US 2024/0269755 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571) 270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights