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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV (directed to “a fourth species of the single-lip drill of Figure 5) in the reply filed on 2/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/4/2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/24/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “-a drill head” should be changed to “[[-a]] a drill head”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 7-12, and 14-16 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 5 recites the limitation "the shape" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 1-5 of claim 5 state, “the longitudinal grooves have the shape of a first straight line and a tangentially adjoining curved line in a cutting plane, that the first straight line and the rake face form an angle, and that the curved line intersects the rake face at an angle.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if each longitudinal groove has a respective shape of a first straight line and a tangentially adjoining curved line, or if instead, the longitudinal grooves collectively have the shape of a first straight line and a tangentially adjoining curved line. If indeed each longitudinal groove has a respective shape of a first straight line and a tangentially adjoining curved line, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the first straight line” of line 4 is referring to the first straight line of the inner longitudinal groove or the first straight line of the outer longitudinal groove. Likewise, if indeed each longitudinal groove has a respective shape of a first straight line and a tangentially adjoining curved line, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the curved line” of line 5 is referring to the curved straight line of the inner longitudinal groove or the curved straight line of the outer longitudinal groove.
Line 4 of claim 5 states, “the first straight line and the rake face form an angle.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the first straight line and the rake face form an angle. Do the first straight line and the rake face intersect to form an angle?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the deep hole drill" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the first angle (α)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 7 directly depends, set forth “an angle (α)" not “a first angle (α)", for example.
Claim 8 recites the limitation " the first angle (α)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 8 directly depends, set forth “an angle (α)" not “a first angle (α)", for example.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the first angle (α)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 9 directly depends, set forth “an angle (α)" not “a first angle (α)", for example.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second angle (β)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 10 directly depends, set forth “an angle (β)" not “a second angle (β)", for example.
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the second angle (β)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 11 directly depends, set forth “an angle (β)" not “a second angle (β)", for example.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the second angle (β)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please be advised that claim 5, on which claim 12 directly depends, set forth “an angle (β)" not “a second angle (β)", for example.
Line 3 of claim 14 states, “the diameter (D). (L1 > 0.2 x D)”. First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the diameter (D)” is the same diameter as the “drilling diameter” of claim 1, line 2, or if instead “the diameter (D)” is instead referring to a different diameter. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because by having “(L1 > 0.2 x D)” after the period at the end of claim 14, it is unclear as to whether or not “(L1 > 0.2 x D)” is part of claim 14.
Line 3 of claim 15 states, “the diameter (D). (L1 < 0.36 x D)”. First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if “the diameter (D)” is the same diameter as the “drilling diameter” of claim 1, line 2, or if instead “the diameter (D)” is instead referring to a different diameter. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because by having “(L1 < 0.36 x D)” after the period at the end of claim 15, it is unclear as to whether or not “(L1 < 0.36 x D)” is part of claim 15.
Line 3 of claim 16 states, “the diameter (D)”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear if “the diameter (D)” is the same diameter as the “drilling diameter” of claim 1, line 2, or if instead “the diameter (D)” is instead referring to a different diameter.
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, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Publication No. JP 62034712 A (hereinafter JP '712).
Please note that JP '712 was cited by Applicant on the IDS filed on 2/23/2022. Also, it is noted that an EPO Machine Translation of JP '712 is relied upon below. This translation was previously provided with the office action that mailed on 3/14/2025.
Claim 1: Figure 6 of JP '712 shows a single-lip drill comprising a drill head, which comprises an axis of rotation (O), a drilling diameter, a cutting edge (3 or 4) with a cutting tip (2), a rake face (1, 13), and two longitudinal grooves. Please be advised that the two longitudinal grooves, which run parallel to each other and which run parallel to the axis of rotation, are formed in the rake face (1, 13). For Applicant’s reference, the two longitudinal grooves are pointed to in annotated Figure 6 of JP '712 (see below). It is noted that one of the two longitudinal grooves is an “inner” longitudinal groove with respect to the axis of rotation (O), and the another one of the two longitudinal grooves is an “outer” longitudinal groove with respect to the axis of rotation.
PNG
media_image1.png
377
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above in annotated Figure 6, a ridge (8) is provided between and adjoins the inner and outer longitudinal groove of JP '712. Please be advised that the ridge (8), according to JP '712, corresponds to element 5 [EPO Machine Translation, page 2, lines 7-8], which is shown in Figure 10 as extending parallel to an axis of rotation (O). In corresponding to element 5, the ridge (8) of Figure 6 extends parallel to the axis of rotation (O) of the single-lip drill shown in Figure 6 of JP '712. Noting that the ridge (8) of JP '712 includes a flat top (9) and an outer side surface (11) [EPO Machine Translation, page 2, lines 12-15], it can be seen that the ridge (8) opens out into the cutting tip (2) via the outer side surface (11) thereof.
Lastly, the inner longitudinal groove, the ridge (8), and the outer longitudinal groove “are located on the same side of the rake face [1, 13] with respect to the axis of rotation [O].” It is noted that while a portion of the inner longitudinal groove intersects the axis of rotation (O), because at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712, with respect to the axis of rotation (O), JP '712 reads on this limitation of claim 1. That is to say that claim 1, as presently claimed, hasn’t been set forth in a manner such that it requires the respective entirety of each the claimed inner longitudinal groove, ridge, and outer longitudinal groove to be located on the same side of the claimed rake face with respect to the axis of rotation.
PNG
media_image2.png
545
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Applicant’s reference, Figure 6 has been annotated and provided above. As can be seen therein, the at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712. Please note that Examiner has done his best to fill in the area of the at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 that is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712, with respect to the axis of rotation (O).
Claim 4: The two longitudinal grooves are arranged symmetrically to each other with respect to, for example, an imaginary axis bisecting the ridge (8). That is to say that one longitudinal groove is disposed/arranged on each side of the imaginary axis bisecting the ridge (8).
Claim 5: Figure 6 of JP '712 show the inner longitudinal groove having the shape of a first straight line (10) and a tangentially adjoining curved line in a cutting plane running orthogonally to the axis of rotation (O) of the single-lip drill. Likewise, the outer longitudinal groove has the shape of a first straight line (11) and a tangentially adjoining curved line (12a) in the cutting plane running orthogonally to the axis of rotation of the single-lip drill.
Next, with regards to the rake face (1, 13), it (1, 13) has a rake face land (13). Noting this, Figure 6 of JP '712 has been annotated and provided below. In a first annotated copy of Figure 6 of JP '712, an angle (α), hereinafter “a first angle (α)” is shown. Then, in a second annotated copy of Figure 6, an angle (β), hereinafter “a second angle (β)” is shown.
PNG
media_image3.png
400
764
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
400
948
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the first straight line (11) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof) form a first angle (α). Moreover, the curved line (12a) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof) intersect at a second angle (β).
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 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Publication No. JP 62034712 A (hereinafter JP '712).
Claims 7 and 8: JP '712 does not provide disclosure upon the first angle (α) “is less than or equal to 30° and/or that the first angle (α) is greater than or equal to 10°” (claim 7) and does not provide disclosure upon the first angle (α) “is less than or equal to 25° and/or that the first angle (α) is greater than or equal to 15°” (claim 8). Noting this, the first angle (α) is a result effective variable, as changing the first angle (α) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the first angle (α) (formed by the first straight line (11) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof)), is 15° to 25° as a matter of routine optimization, since 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). In making this modification, please be advised that both claim 7 and claim 8 are satisfied.
Claim 9: JP '712 does not provide disclosure upon the first angle (α) “is equal to 20°.” Noting this, be advised that the first angle (α) is a result effective variable, as changing the first angle (α) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the first angle (α) (formed by the first straight line (11) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof), is 20° as a matter of routine optimization, since 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).
Claims 10 & 11: JP '712 does not provide disclosure upon the second angle (β) “is less than or equal to 60° and/or that the second angle (β) is greater than or equal to 20°” (claim 10) and does not provide disclosure upon the second angle (β) “is less than or equal to 50° and/or that the second angle (β) is greater than or equal to 35°” (claim 11). Noting this, the second angle (β) is a result effective variable, as changing the second angle (β) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the second angle (β) (formed by the intersection of the curved line (12a) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof), is 35° to 50° as a matter of routine optimization, since 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). In making this modification, please be advised that both claim 10 and claim 11 are satisfied.
Claim 12: JP '712 does not provide disclosure upon the second angle (β) “is equal to 45°.” Noting this, be advised that the second angle (β) is a result effective variable, as changing the second angle (β) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the second angle (β) (formed by the intersection of the curved line (12a) (of the outer longitudinal groove) and the rake face (1, 13) (specifically the rake face land (13) thereof) is 45° as a matter of routine optimization, since 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).
Claims 14 & 15: First, Examiner reiterates that the ridge (8) includes the flat top (9) and the outer side surface (11) [EPO Machine Translation, page 2, lines 99-104]. Noting this, it can be seen that the ridge (8) opens out into the cutting tip (2) via the outer side surface (11) thereof. Next, as can be seen in Figure 6 of JP '712, the single-lip drill further comprises a secondary cutting edge (4) of the drill head. JP '712; however, does not provide disclosure upon a distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) “is greater than 0.2 times the diameter” (claim 14) and further does not provide disclosure upon a distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) is “less than 0.36 times the diameter” (claim 15). Noting this, the distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) is a result effective variable, as changing the distance (L1) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) is greater than 0.2 times the diameter of the single-lip drill and less than 0.36 times said diameter of the single-lip diameter, since 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). In making this modification, please be advised that both claim 14 and claim 15 are satisfied.
Claim 16: It is reiterated that the ridge (8) includes the flat top (9) and the outer side surface (11) [EPO Machine Translation, page 2, lines 12-15]. Noting this, it can be seen that the ridge (8) opens out into the cutting tip (2) via the outer side surface (11) thereof. Next, as can be seen in Figure 6 of JP '712, the single-lip drill further comprises a secondary cutting edge (4) of the drill head. JP '712; however, does not provide disclosure upon the distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) “is 0.25 times the diameter.” Noting this, the distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) is a result effective variable, as changing the distance (L1) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the distance (L1) of the cutting tip (2) and the ridge (8) from the secondary cutting edge (4) is 0.25 times the diameter of the single-lip drill, since 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).
Claim 17: First, it is reiterated that two longitudinal grooves running parallel to each other are formed in the rake fake (1, 13). For Applicant’s reference, the two longitudinal grooves are pointed to below in annotated Figure 6 of JP '712. It is noted that one of the two longitudinal grooves is the “outer” longitudinal groove with respect to the axis of rotation (O).
PNG
media_image5.png
374
440
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 6, the single-lip drill further comprises a secondary cutting edge (4) of the drill head. JP '712; however, does not provide disclosure upon a distance (S1) between an edge of the outer longitudinal groove and the secondary cutting edge (4) “is 0.05mm.” Noting this, the distance (S1) between the edge of the outer longitudinal groove and the secondary cutting edge (4) is a result effective variable, as changing the distance (S1) affects strength of the secondary cutting edge (4). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the distance (S1) between the edge of the outer longitudinal groove and the secondary cutting edge (4) is 0.05mm, since 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).
Claim 18: As can be below in annotated Figure 6 of JP '712, a highest point of the ridge (8) is its flat top (9). Noting this, the flat top (9) has a width (B).
PNG
media_image6.png
320
440
media_image6.png
Greyscale
JP '712; however, does not provide disclosure upon the ridge (8), at its highest point (which is the flat top (9) thereof), having a width (B) that “is a maximum of 0.4mm.” Noting this, the width (B) of the ridge (8) at its highest point (which is the flat top (9) thereof) is a result effective variable, because changing the width (B) affects pulling of the chips (generated by the flat top (9)) by the two longitudinal grooves. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the width (B) of the ridge (8) at its highest point (which again is the flat top (9) thereof) is a maximum of 0.4mm, since 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).
Claim 19: First, it is reiterated that two longitudinal grooves running parallel to each other are formed in the rake fake (1, 13). For Applicant’s reference, the two longitudinal grooves are pointed to below in annotated Figure 6 of JP '712. It is noted that one of the two longitudinal grooves is an “inner” longitudinal groove with respect to the axis of rotation (O) and the another one of the two longitudinal grooves is an “outer” longitudinal groove with respect to the axis of rotation (O).
PNG
media_image7.png
325
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Next, please be advised that the inner longitudinal groove inherently has a first width, while the outer longitudinal groove inherently has a second width. JP '712; however, does not provide disclosure upon the sum of the first width of the inner longitudinal groove and the second width of the outer longitudinal groove “is greater than 0.4 [times] the diameter of the single-lip drill.” Noting this, the sum of the first width of the inner longitudinal groove and the second width of the outer longitudinal groove is a result effective variable, because changing the sum by, for example, changing the dimension of each summand (wherein the summands are the first width and the second width) affects chip breaking and/or chip flow. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the sum of the first width of the inner longitudinal groove and the second width of the outer longitudinal groove is greater than 0.4 times the diameter of said single-lip drill, since 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).
Claim 21: First, please be advised that a highest point of the ridge (8) is its flat top (9). JP '712 though, does not provide disclosure upon “a highest point of the ridge lies in a plane of the rake face or in that the highest point of the ridge lies at a maximum distance of 0.1mm below the rake face.” Noting this, the lying of the highest point (which again is the flat top (9)) of the ridge (8), is a result effective variable, because changing how the highest point of the ridge (8) lies with respect to the rake face (1, 13) affects pulling of the chips (generated by the flat top (9)/highest point) by the two longitudinal grooves. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single lip drill of JP '712 such that the highest point (the flat top (9)) of the ridge (8) lies in a plane of the rake face (1, 13) to a maximum of 0.1mm below the rake face (1, 13), since 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Publication No. JP 62034712 A (hereinafter JP '712) in view of Wenzelburger (U.S. PG Publication No. 2015/0217383 A1).
Please note that Wenzelburger was previously cited by Examiner on the PTO-892 that mailed on 3/14/2025.
Claim 20: JP '712 does not provide disclosure on the drill head of the single-lip drill being “at least partially provided with a hard material coating.”
Figure 1 of Wenzelburger though, shows a single-lip drill (1) having a drill head (11). Per Wenzelburger, the drill head (11) is at least partially coated with a hard material coating.” By virtue of being at least partially coated by the hard material coating, the drill head (11) of Wenzelburger has increased durability and longevity. 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 modified the drill head of JP '712 to be at least partially coated by a hard material coating in accordance with the disclosure of Wenzelburger, so as to provide the drill head of JP '712 with the advantages of increased durability and longevity.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Publication No. JP 62034712 A (hereinafter JP '712) in view of Germany Publication No. DE 20321368 U1 (hereinafter DE '368).
Please be advised that a machine translation of DE '368 is relied upon below, and said machine translation has been provided with this office action.
Claim 20: JP '712 does not provide disclosure on “a bead is provided in the drill head and in a shank of the single-lip drill.”
Figure 1 of DE '368 though, shows a drill head (11) of a single-lip drill having a bead (14) for removing cooling-lubricant mixture. According to DE '368, the bead (14) extends along a drill axis (23) into the area of a drill shank of the drill head [Machine Translation, page 5, lines 35-39]. Based on the foregoing, DE '368 discloses a single-lip drill comprising a bead (14) that is provided in the drill head (11) thereof and that is further provided in the shank thereof.
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 provided the single-lip drill of JP '712 with the bead (14) of DE '368, so as to provide the single-lip drill of JP '712 with the advantage of being able to remove cooling-lubricant mixture by means of the bead (14). It is noted that in accordance with the disclosure of DE '368, that said bead (14) extends/is provided in the drill head and in the shank of the single-lip drill of JP '712.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1 and JP '712, Applicant argues the following:
The Office alleges that JP '712 discloses a single-lip drill comprising a drill head having each of an axis of rotation, a drilling diameter, and a cutting edge with a cutting tip, as well as a rake face with two longitudinal grooves running parallel to each other, with reliance on Examiner- annotated FIG. 6 from JP '712.
PNG
media_image7.png
325
440
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As shown above and as best understood, the alleged inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 appears to be in the region of and beyond an axis of rotation (corresponding to reference sign “0”). In addition, JP ’712 also states “[i]n the gundrills shown in Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, the inner side surface 10 of the convex portion 8 intersects with the axis 0, but a small gap, for example a gap of about 0.1 mm to 0.2+n+n, may be formed between the side surface 10 and the axis 0.” (see para. [99] from Office-provided English translation). Thus, in light of the above, side surface 10 appears to be offset with respect to the axis 0 while inner longitudinal groove is positioned at the axis of rotation.
This is contrasted with the present disclosure and independent claim as amended, where both grooves are positioned on the same side of the rake face with respect to the axis of rotation 23. FIG. 5 from the present disclosure reproduced and annotated by Applicant’s representative below.
PNG
media_image8.png
322
350
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the cited prior art references fail to anticipate or render obvious the claims as amended. Since claims 4-5, 7-12, and 14-22 depend from and contain the limitations of independent claim 1, they are similarly distinguishable and patentable over the cited prior art in at least the same manner. Thus, it is respectfully requested that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 be withdrawn, and that the claims are in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but is not persuasive. While Examiner acknowledges that the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 appears to be in the region of the corresponding axis of rotation (O), claim 1 hasn’t been set forth in a manner such that it requires the respective entirety of each the claimed inner longitudinal groove, ridge, and outer longitudinal groove to be located on the same side of the claimed rake face with respect to the axis of rotation. That is to say that while a portion of the inner longitudinal groove intersects the axis of rotation (O), because at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712 with respect to the axis of rotation (O), the corresponding limitation of claim 1 is indeed read on by JP '712. Figure 6 has been annotated and provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
545
723
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As can be seen above, the at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712. Please note that Examiner has done his best to fill in the area of the at least a part of the inner longitudinal groove of JP '712 that is located on the same side of the rake face (1, 13) as is the ridge (8) and the outer longitudinal groove of JP '712 with respect to the axis of rotation (O). Again, claim 1 hasn’t been set forth in a manner such that it requires the respective entirety of each the claimed inner longitudinal groove, ridge, and outer longitudinal groove to be located on the same side of the claimed rake face with respect to the axis of rotation.
Based on the foregoing, JP '712 reads on, “the inner longitudinal groove, the ridge and the outer longitudinal groove are located on the same side of the rake face with respect to the axis of rotation,” and Applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 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