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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 recites the limitation "said proximal face" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kellas et al. (US 20250091170, hereinafter ‘Kellas’).
Regarding claim 1, Kellas discloses a coolant delivery head 100 for use with a turning machine capable of having a whirling unit. The head comprises a generally plate-shaped delivery head body 100 being one-piece. An intake port 120 is provided in the delivery head body, operable for receiving coolant. Coolant channels extend through the delivery head body from the intake port. At least one coolant channel terminates at a first delivery port e.g. 150a, at least one coolant channel terminates at a second delivery port e.g. 150h and at least one coolant channel terminates at a blow port e.g. 150d
Regarding claim 2, Kellas discloses the delivery head further comprising a spray face oriented generally parallel to the operational axis of a turning machine when in an operational mode (e.g. the interior surface of the delivery head extending into and out of the page as viewed in Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Kellas discloses the delivery head further comprising a blow face oriented generally perpendicular to the operational axis of a turning machine when in an operational mode (e.g. the surface of the delivery head facing the viewer in Fig. 2A from which outlets 130 & 150 extend from).
Regarding claim 4, Kellas discloses the delivery head further comprising at least one fastener hole 115 and a proximal face facing proximal in an operational mode and a distal face facing distally in an operational mode, said at least one fastener hole extending between the proximal and distal faces (see e.g. Fig. 2A) operable to seat a fastener capable of securing the delivery head to a whirling unit.
Regarding claim 5, Kellas discloses the fastener hole comprising a countersunk or counter-bored hole for concealing the head of a fastener as illustrated in Figs. 2A & 2B with the two concentric circles illustrating the two diameters of holes provided, as well as Figs. 3A, 4A and 5 illustrating similarly countersunk/bored holes.
Regarding claim 6, Kellas discloses the coolant channels comprising a first leg, second leg and third leg (see e.g. Fig. 2B, said first, second and third legs being the vertical, horizontal and then vertical legs of channel 125 as it passes through the delivery head).
Regarding claim 7, Kellas discloses the first and second delivery ports generally spraying coolant towards each other during operation.
Regarding claim 8, Kellas discloses the blow port generally spraying coolant towards the tailstock 251 of a turning machine (see e.g. Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kellas discloses the coolant delivery head having a proximal facing proximal face (i.e. the round end face generally indicated at 120 in Fig. 2A), wherein said intake port 120 extends through the proximal face.
Regarding claim 10, Kellas discloses an intake fitting seated into the intake port (Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Kellas discloses an intake fitting and coolant supply line, wherein the intake fitting is threaded into the intake port and is operable to couple with the coolant supply line (Paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Kellas discloses the delivery head further comprising a whirling recess (opening generally indicated at 201 in Fig. 2A) inset in a proximal face and capable of receiving a portion of a whirling unit therein when in an operational mode.
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellas et al. (US 20250091170) in view of Ishikawa et al. (US 20240216996, hereinafter ‘Ishikawa’).
Regarding claims 12-15, Kellas discloses a CNC Swiss turning machine (Paragraph [0020]) having a guide bushing 200, capable of functioning with other tool arrangements (e.g. Paragraphs [0049-0050]) but does not explicitly disclose a whirling head.
Ishikawa discloses a similar CNC turning machine, wherein in addition to the various tools also depicted in Kellas, a whirling head 13 is provided to perform additional operations to the workpiece. A coolant delivery apparatus is attached to the whirling head via one or more fasteners 136.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a whirling head to the turning machine of Kellas as taught by Ishikawa, in order to perform whirling operations to the workpiece if desired. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to attach the coolant delivery head to the whirling head via fasteners countersunk/bored into the coolant delivery head threaded into threaded holes in the whirling head as suggested by Kellas (Paragraph [0026] and Figs. 2A & 2B with the two concentric circles illustrating the two diameters of holes provided, as well as Figs. 3A, 4A and 5 illustrating similarly countersunk/bored holes). The coolant delivery head is positioned above the whirling unit/workpiece axis (see e.g. Fig 1A) and the width of the coolant delivery head is less than the distance between the guide bushing and whirling unit to facilitate whirling operations along the full length of the workpiece while still allowing coolant delivery.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellas et al. (US 20250091170).
Regarding claim 16, Kellas does not explicitly disclose the material that the coolant supply line(s) are made out of. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that fluid supply lines made of braided stainless steel are widely used in the art, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the coolant supply line(s) from braided stainless steel to be more durable than a rubber/plastic line in a manufacturing environment. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kellas et al. (US 20250091170).
Kellas discloses the invention having all the structural limitations as set forth above with respect to claim 17, and specifically discloses a device whose components members could have been made by additive manufacturing. However, if applicant does not agree that Kellas anticipates the process of how the device’s components were made, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the time of filing to make the device using any known manufacturing process, such as additive manufacturing, to produce the coolant delivery head with zero waste. Furthermore, “manufactured using additive manufacturing” is considered a Product-by-Process limitation. (See MPEP Section 2113)
Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Seo (KR 20130072420) discloses a similar coolant delivery ring 1, however the ring is not in one piece as claimed.
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