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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because toward the top of Figure 1, each of reference characters 21, 21, and 23 isn’t in alignment with its respective line. Likewise, in Figure 4, at least reference characters 50, 51, and 70 aren’t in alignment with their respective line. Also, in Figure 8, most instances of reference character 71, at least one instance of reference characters 70, 75, and each instance of reference character 60 isn’t in alignment with its respective line. The drawings are further objected to because at least Figure 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 exhibit poor line quality. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-9 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.
Lines 4-7 of claim 1 state, “an engagement hole formed in a shaft center of an end surface that is opposite to an end surface that is fastened to the arbor; a first flow path formed in a shaft center of the shaft part and opened in an end surface of the shaft part which is fastened to the arbor.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “an end surface that is fastened to the arbor” and “an end surface of the shaft part which is fastened to the arbor” are the same end surface or are different end surfaces.
Lines 4-9 of claim 1 state, “an engagement hole formed in a shaft center of an end surface that is opposite to an end surface that is fastened to the arbor; a first flow path formed in a shaft center of the shaft part and opened in an end surface of the shaft part which is fastened to the arbor; a third flow path opened, in a position that is away from the shaft center, in an end that is opposite to an end that is fastened to the arbor.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if, “an end that is opposite to an end that is fastened to the arbor” of lines 8-9 are the same elements or are different elements than “an end surface that is opposite to an end surface that is fastened to the arbor” of lines 4-5. In other words, are the claimed ends and end surfaces the same, or is there is distinction between the claimed ends and end surfaces? For Applicant’s reference, it is noted that in dependent claim 9 Applicant sets forth, “the end that is opposite to the end that is fastened to the arbor.”
Lines 1-3 of claim 4 state, “wherein a number of the third flow paths is greater than a number of the second flow paths, and the number of the second flow paths is greater than a number of the first flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in claim 1, on which claim 4 directly depends, Applicant set forth “a first flow path”, “a second flow path”, and “a third flow path” but now in claim 4 Applicant set forth “the third flow paths”, “the second flow paths”, and “the first flow paths”. In other words, in independent claim 1, Applicant set forth a singular first flow path, a singular second flow path, and a singular third flow path, but now in dependent claim 4, Applicant set forth plural first flow paths, plural second flow paths, and plural third flow paths. As such, as claimed, it is unclear if the fastening component comprises a singular first flow path or plural first flow paths, a singular second flow path or plural second flow paths, and a singular third flow path or plural third flow paths.
Lines 1-2 of claim 5 state, “a total number of the second flow paths and the third flow paths is an even number.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if “a total number of the second flow paths and the third flow paths is an even number” is referring to a sum of a total number of disclosed second flow paths plus a total number of disclosed third flow paths of the disclosed fastening component noting that not all of the disclosed second flow paths and the disclosed third flow paths of the disclosed fastening component are actually claimed, or if instead “a total number of the second flow paths and the third flow paths is an even number” is referring to a sum of a total number of second flow paths previously set forth in claim 1 (which is 1) plus a total number of third flow paths previously set forth in claim 1 (which is also 1), for example. This lack of clarity stems from Applicant having only previously set forth a singular second flow path and a singular third flow path in independent claim 1 on which claim 5 directly depends. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in independent claim 1, on which claim 5 directly depends, Applicant set forth “a second flow path” and “a third flow path” but now in claim 5 Applicant set forth “the second flow paths” and “the third flow paths”. In other words, in independent claim 1, Applicant set forth a singular second flow path and a singular third flow path, but now in claim 5, Applicant set forth plural second flow paths and plural third flow paths. As such, as claimed, it is unclear if the fastening component comprises a singular second flow path or plural second flow paths, and a singular third flow path or plural third flow paths.
Lines 1-2 of claim 7 state, “wherein the third sub flow paths.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because in claim 6, on which claim 7 directly depends, Applicant set forth “a third sub flow path” but now in claim 7 Applicant set forth “third sub flow paths”. In other words, in dependent claim 6, Applicant set forth a singular third sub flow path, but now in dependent claim 7, Applicant set forth plural sub third flow paths. As such, as claimed, it is unclear if the fastening component comprises a singular third sub flow path or plural third sub flow paths.
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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Publication No. JP H02-004714 U (hereinafter JP '714).
Please be advised that JP '714 was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 9/19/2024.
Please also be advised that a machine translation of JP '714 is relied upon below, wherein this machine translation has been furnished with this office action.
Claim 1: Figures 1-2 of JP '714 show a fastening component (5) that is fastened to an arbor (2) so as to fix a rotary cutting tool (1) to the arbor (2). Figures 1-2 of JP '714 show the fastening component (5) as comprising a shaft part (7a) that is screwed into an internal thread (15) of the arbor (2), and further comprising an engagement hole (13) formed in a shaft center of an end surface that is opposite to an end surface that is fastened to the arbor (2).
Next, as can best be seen in Figure 2 of JP '714, the fastening component (5) further comprises a first flow path (10) formed in a shaft center of the shaft part (7a) and opened in an end surface of the shaft part (7a) which is fastened to the arbor (2), as well as a third flow path (11 or 11+12) opened, in a position that is away from the shaft center, in an end that is opposite to an end that is fastened to the arbor (2). Lastly, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 2, a second flow path connects the first flow path (10) and the third flow path (11 or 11+12). Note that when the third flow path (11 or 11+12) of JP '714 is just considered to be element 11, then the second flow path is considered to be a combination of the angled path pointed to below and an annular flow path section (12). However, when the third flow path (11 or 11+12) of JP '714 is considered to be a combination of elements 11 and 12, then the second flow path is considered to just be the angled path pointed to below. In other words, Examiner is presenting two different interpretations, and depending upon the interpretation, element 12 is considered to be a part of the second flow path or instead a part the third flow path (11 or 11+12) of JP '714.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Please be advised that regardless of whether the second flow path is considered to comprise just the angled path pointed to above in annotated Figure 2, or is instead considered to comprise the combination of the angled path and the annular flow path section (12), said second flow path is formed in a position that is nearest to the engagement hole (13).
Claim 3: Please be advised that below rejection applies regardless of whether the second flow path is considered to comprise just the angled path that is pointed to in annotated Figure 2 (which again is provided on the preceding page of this office action), or is instead considered to comprise the combination of the angled path and annular flow path section (12).
The first flow path (10) is shown in Figures 1 and 2 as having a cross-sectional area that is greater than that of the second flow path, e.g. greater than the angled path of the second flow path, and the second flow path has a cross-sectional area, e.g. of the angled path thereof, that is greater than the cross-sectional area of the third flow path (11).
Claim 4: Please be advised that below rejection applies regardless of whether the second flow path is considered to comprise just the angled path that is pointed to in annotated Figure 2 (which again is provided on the preceding page of this office action), or is instead considered to comprise the combination of the angled path and annular flow path section (12).
As can be seen between Figures 2-3 of JP '714, a disclosed number of third flow paths (11) is at least 8, noting that there are 8 radial paths (11) shown in Figure 3. Also, a disclosed number second flow paths is at least 2, noting that there are 2 angled paths shown in Figures 1 and 2 that function to connect the first flow path (10) with the third flow paths/8 radial paths (11).
Noting the above, a number (as broadly claimed) of the third flow paths (11) is greater than a number (as broadly claimed) of the second flow paths. Noting that claim 4 doesn’t require, for example, a total number of either the third flow paths (11) or a total number of the second flow paths, “a number of the third flow paths” may be considered by Examiner to be 8, while “a number of the second flow paths” may be considered to be 2, for example. Please be advised that in claim 4 that “a number of the second flow paths” doesn’t preclude a subset of the total number of the second flow paths, and each of Figures 1-2 of JP '714, for example, show therein 2 second flow paths (which are the 2 angled paths). Having said that, the number of second flow paths, which again is 2, is greater than a number (as broadly claimed) of the first flow paths wherein the number of first flow paths is only able to be considered to be equal to 1 in the fastening component (5) of JP '714.
Claim 5: As best understood, a total number of the second flow paths and the third flow paths is an even number, the even number being 2. This is because the total number is considered to be a sum of the 1 second flow path of the rejection of claim 1 plus the 1 third flow path (11 or 11+12) of the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 8: Be advised that the following rejection applies to the instance in which the second flow path comprises the combination of the angled path and the annular flow path section (12). Via the annular flow path section (12) thereof, at least part of the second flow path has a curved shape.
Claim 9: Be advised that the below rejection applies regardless of whether the third flow path (11 or 11+12) is just considered to be element 11 or is instead considered to be the combination of elements 11 and 12.
As can best be seen in Figures 1-2 of JP '714, via the radial flow path (11) thereof, the
third flow path (11 or 11+12) is opened in a side surface of the end (7b) that is opposite to the end that is fastened to the arbor (2).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Publication No. JP H02-004714 U (hereinafter JP '714) in view of Koik et al. (U.S. PG Publication No. 2016/0297042 A1).
Claim 6: Be advised that the below rejection applies to the instance in which the second flow path of JP '714 comprises the combination of the angled path and annular flow path section (12). As such, the third flow path (11) of JP '714 is just considered to correspond to element 11.
Noting the above, Figure 3 shows the third flow path (11) as extending straight out from the annular flow path section (12) of the second flow path in a top view. JP '714 though, does not provide disclosure on the third flow path (11) being “divided into at least a third main flow path and a third sub flow path.” Please note; however, that the third flow path (11) functions to delivery cutting fluid to an outer periphery of a circular engaging flange element (7b).
Figure 5 of Koik et al. though, shows a third flow path (260) as comprising a third main flow path (266) (which is linear) [paragraph 0046] and a third sub flow path (267) (which is also linear linear) [paragraph 0046] that extends to an outlet (262) of the third flow path (260). Please be advised that the third main flow path (266) and the third sub flow path (267) are connected to each other by a bend (265). With this configuration, each third flow path (260) of Koik et al. functions to delivers cutting fluid to an outer periphery of a circular element (40’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted a respective third flow path (260) of Koik et al. for each third flow path (11) of JP '714, as this is a substitution of one known fluid flow path for delivering cutting fluid to an outer periphery of a circular element for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the second flow path of JP '714 delivering an amount of cutting fluid to each third flow path (260) in the modified fastening component (5) of JP '714 such that the delivered amount of cutting fluid is ejected/sprayed from the modified fastening component (5) of JP '714 via the corresponding outlet (262) of each third flow path (260).
In making this substitution, please note that the third main flow path (266) (which is linear) of each third flow path (260) in the modified fastening component (5) of JP '714 extends from the annular flow path section (12) of the second flow path “so as to form a straight line with the second flow path” with respect to a top view of said modified fastening component (5). Lastly, due to the third sub flow path (267) in each third flow path (260) being connected by a bend (265) to the corresponding the third main flow path (266), the result is each third sub flow path (267) “being arranged obliquely with respect to the second flow path” in the top view.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights