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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim refers to a second flank without previously setting forth a first flank. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis” in Lines 29-30. The limitation lacks support in the specification at the time of filing. As such, it is new matter. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis” in Lines 33-34. The limitation lacks support in the specification at the time of filing. As such, it is new matter. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 10 and 12 each recite “the radial direction in which each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes is orthogonal to a circumferential direction of the body.” This recitation contains new matter as it lacks support in the specification at the time of filing. The specification fails to disclose any protruding of the ridge parts, let alone protrusion orthogonal to a circumferential direction. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 11 and 13 each recite “a first distance, in a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis, between the first ridge part and the second ridge part at a first position is shorter than a second distance, in the direction orthogonal to the rotational axis, between the first ridge part and the second ridge part at a second position, wherein the second position is farther from the first end than the first position.” This recitation contains new matter as it lacks support in the specification at the time of filing. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-5 and 7-13 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 “on an upstream side in a rotation direction about the rotation axis” in Lines 14-15. It is unclear what constitutes an upstream side in a rotation direction. The claim fails to make clear as to what feature the margin is considered upstream relative to, which is important as the tool rotates. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery” in Lines 21-22. It is unclear what constitutes an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery. That is, the metes and bounds of a side of the outer periphery are vague considering the first cutting edge fails to reach the outer periphery of the body. As such, the boundary at which a part of the drill body is considered the periphery and when it is not so considered is not clearly delineated. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the plurality of ridge parts are separated from each other” in Line 28. It is unclear if there are more than one plurality as the language suggests or if this is meant to mean “each of the plurality.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis” in Lines 29-30. While the ridge parts protrude somewhat in that they are ridges, it is unclear what is required, if anything, for the ridge part to “protrude” in this context. It is not clear from what feature, other than the axis, the ridge parts protrude from in the claimed drill. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “on a further upstream side in the rotation direction . . . on a more front side” in Lines 2-4. It is unclear how the further upstream side differs from “the upstream side in the rotation direction” in which the second margin is previously recited as being located in claim 1. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 8 recites “on an upstream side in a rotation direction about the rotation axis” in Lines 17-18. It is unclear what constitutes an upstream side in a rotation direction. The claim fails to make clear as to what feature the margin is considered upstream relative to, which is important as the tool rotates. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery” in Lines 24-25. It is unclear what constitutes an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery. That is, the metes and bounds of a side of the outer periphery are vague considering the first cutting edge fails to reach the outer periphery of the body. As such, the boundary at which a part of the drill body is considered the periphery and when it is not so considered is not clearly delineated. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “the plurality of ridge parts are separated from each other” in Line 32. It is unclear if there are more than one plurality as the language suggests or if this is meant to mean “each of the plurality.” Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis” in Lines 33-34. While the ridge parts protrude somewhat in that they are ridges, it is unclear what is required, if anything, for the ridge part to “protrude” in this context. It is not clear from what feature, other than the axis, the ridge parts protrude from in the claimed drill. Appropriate correction required.
Claims 10 and 12 each recite “the radial direction in which each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes is orthogonal to a circumferential direction of the body.” It is unclear how this recitation further limits the previously recited radial direction extending from the rotation axis. It is further unclear how the radial direction is perpendicular to the circumferential direction (which presumably forms an arc). It is further unclear whether the circumferential direction differs from the rotation direction, and if so, how it differs. Appropriate correction required.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagida et al. (JP 2009-083092 A).
Yanagida et al. discloses a drill (10; Figs. 1-11). The drill includes a body (10) which is extended along a rotation axis (O) from a first end to a second end and is rotatable around the rotation axis (Fig. 1). The body includes: a first cutting edge (21) located on a side of the first end and extended from the rotation axis toward an outer periphery of the body (e.g., Fig. 2); a second cutting edge (14) extended from the first cutting edge toward an outer periphery; a thinning surface (22) located along the first cutting edge; a flute (13) extended spirally around the rotation axis from the second cutting edge and the thinning surface toward the second end (Fig. 1); and an outer peripheral surface (17). The outer peripheral surface includes: a first margin surface (18A) located along the flute on an upstream side in a rotation direction about the rotation axis (Fig. 2); a clearance surface (18B) located along the first margin surface on the upstream side in the rotation direction (Fig. 2); and a second margin surface (31A) located along the clearance surface on the upstream side in the rotation direction (Fig. 2). In a plan view of the first end along the rotation axis: an imaginary straight line connecting the rotation axis and, as best understood, an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery is a first straight line; an imaginary straight line which passes through a center of the first straight line and is orthogonal to the first straight line is a second straight line; and the second straight line intersects with the second margin surface (annotated Fig. 2(1)). The clearance surface includes a plurality of ridge parts (annotated Fig. 2(2)) extending along the first margin surface and separated from the first margin surface (Figs. 1, 2). As best understood, the plurality o ridge parts are separated from each other (annotated Fig. 2(2)). Each of the plurality of ridge parts, as best understood, protrude in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis (annotated Fig. 2(2)).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(annotated Fig. 2(1))
PNG
media_image2.png
85
189
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(annotated Fig. 2(2))
(Claim 3) As best understood, because the straight lines appear to be arbitrarily set, the second straight line passes through a center of the second margin surface in the plan view of the first end (Fig. 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi (JP 2005-177891 A) in view of Guter et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/03144039 A1), as evidenced by Shippee (US Patent No. 465,392), or in view of Krauss (DE 3820485 C1) or Shippee (US Patent No. 465,392).
(Claim 1) Yanagida et al. discloses a drill (10; Figs. 1-2). The drill includes a body (11, 12) which is extended along a rotation axis (O) from a first end (at 12) to a second end (at 11) and is rotatable around the rotation axis (Fig. 1). The body includes: a first cutting edge (21) located on a side of the first end and extended from the rotation axis toward an outer periphery of the body (Fig. 2); a second cutting edge (15) extended from the first cutting edge toward an outer periphery; a thinning surface (22) located along the first cutting edge; a flute (14) extended spirally around the rotation axis from the second cutting edge and the thinning surface toward the second end (Fig. 1); and an outer peripheral surface (30). The outer peripheral surface includes: a first margin surface (32) located along the flute on an upstream side in a rotation direction about the rotation axis (Fig. 2); a clearance surface (33) located along the first margin surface on the upstream side in the rotation direction (Fig. 2); and a second margin surface (34) located along the clearance surface on the upstream side in the rotation direction (Fig. 2). In a plan view of the first end along the rotation axis: an imaginary straight line connecting the rotation axis and, as best understood, an end part of the first cutting edge on a side of the outer periphery is a first straight line; an imaginary straight line which passes through a center of the first straight line and is orthogonal to the first straight line is a second straight line; and the second straight line intersects with the second margin surface (annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
510
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yet, Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose the clearance surface having a plurality of ridge parts extending along the first margin surface and separated from the first margin surface.
Guter et al. (“Guter”) discloses a clearance surface having a plurality of ridge parts extending along the first margin surface and separated from the first margin surface (annotated Fig. 4). As best understood, the plurality of ridge parts are separated from each other (annotated Fig. 4). Each of the plurality of ridge parts, as best understood, protrude in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis (annotated Fig. 4). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drill disclosed in Takiguchi with a plurality of ridge parts as taught by Guter in order to form passages for coolant/oil to cool the cutting area and assist with pushing chips back up the flutes (as evidenced by Shippee Fig. 2; s; Lines 47-75).
PNG
media_image4.png
304
546
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Krauss discloses a clearance surface (18) having a plurality of ridge parts (22 of lesser diameter than margins (20, 22) in Fig 3) extending along the first margin surface (20; Fig. 1) and separated from the first margin surface (Fig. 3; Translation relative to Fig. 3). As best understood, the plurality o ridge parts are separated from each other (annotated Fig. 3). Each of the plurality of ridge parts, as best understood, protrude in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis (annotated Fig. 3). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drill disclosed in Takiguchi with a plurality of ridge parts as taught by Krauss in order to “result in a further improvement in the smoothing of the borehole wall produced with such a twist drill 10 , because the additional guide chamfers 22 with different radial extents cause the material of the workpiece to be machined to yield elastically during the drilling operation as effectively as a coarse, an associated medium and an associated fine tapping tool. In addition, a lubricant can be provided between the guide chamfers 20 and 22 , which can serve not only for cooling but also for improving the smoothing of the borehole wall” (Translation relative to Fig. 3).
In the alternative, Shippee discloses a clearance surface (n) having a plurality of ridge parts (s; Lines 47-75) extending along the first margin surface (Fig. 1) and separated from the first margin surface (Fig. 2; Lines 47-75). As best understood, the plurality o ridge parts are separated from each other (annotated Fig. 1). Each of the plurality of ridge parts, as best understood, protrude in a radial direction transverse to the rotation axis (annotated Fig. 1). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the drill disclosed in Takiguchi with a plurality of ridge parts as taught by Shippee in order to form passages for coolant/oil to cool the cutting area and assist with pushing chips back up the flutes (Lines 47-75).
(Claim 2) Takiguchi discloses a width (d3) of the second margin surface in the rotation direction being larger than a width (d1) of the first margin surface in the rotation direction (¶ 0021).
(Claim 3) As best understood, because the straight lines appear to be arbitrarily set, the second straight line passes through a center of the second margin surface in the plan view of the first end (Takiguchi Fig. 2).
(Claim 4) In the plan view of the first end, a width of a part of the second margin surface which is located on a further upstream side in the rotation direction than the second straight line is larger than a width of a part of the second margin surface which is located on a further downstream side in the rotation direction than the second straight line (Takiguchi Fig. 2). That is, the width measurement is not explicitly described with any particularity. The claim merely refers to a width of distinct parts (i.e., portions less than a whole). The parts may be arbitrarily designated in a manner that reads upon the claim.
(Claim 5) The Takiguchi drill includes the body having a second flank surface (13A) that is flat and located along the second cutting edge (Fig. 1 showing second cutting edge 15 adjacent flank 13A and being radially flat), a third flank surface (13B) which is located along the second flank surface on the upstream side in the rotation direction, and which is inclined relative to the second flank surface (Figs. 1, 2), and a fourth flank surface (23) which is located along the third flank surface on a rear side in the rotation direction (Fig. 2), and which is inclined relative to the third flank surface (Figs. 1, 2)e, and the second margin surface connects to the third flank surface and is located away from the second flank surface and the fourth flank surface (Fig. 2, where margin 34 connects third flank 13B and is away from 23 and 13A).
(Claim 7) Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose a width of the second margin surface in the rotation direction being equal to a length of the first cutting edge in the plan view of the first end. Yet, it is worth recognizing that the width measurement is not described with any particularity. As such, widths within each feature of the second margin surface and the first cutting edge may be designated arbitrarily to meet the claimed limitation. In the alternative, because the claim merely represents a change in the proportions of components, at a time prior to effective filing, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the width of the second margin surface in the rotation direction is equal to a length of the first cutting edge in the plan view of the first end for the purpose of making the first cutting edge shorter and reducing the thrust force on the drill. See. In re Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), (holding where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
(Claim 8) The drill of claim 1 disclosed in Takiguchi is also disclosed as processing a hole. At a time prior to filing one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the drill disclosed in Takiguchi in the claimed method as it is the well-known intended use of a drill bit. Because Applicant failed to traverse the well-known face assertion, it is taken as applicant admitted prior art.
(Claims 10 and 12) As best understood, the radial direction in which each of the plurality of ridge parts protrudes is orthogonal to a circumferential direction of the body (Guter Fig. 4; Krause Fig. 3; Shippee Fig. 1). Each of Guter, Krause and Shippee disclose a first distance, in a direction orthogonal to the rotational axis, between the first ridge part and the second ridge part at a first position in the direction orthogonal to the rotational axis, and the first ridge part and the second ridge part at a second position farther from the first end than the first position. Yet, the prior art does not explicitly disclose the first position being shorter than the second distance. Nevertheless, the change in distance is well-known in the art for tapering off the groove that forms the ridges prior to reaching the shank of the drill, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. This reduces machining costs and avoids sharp corners on the drill. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Takiguchi drill to have the changing width as claimed as is well-known in order to avoid a sharp corner at the end of the groove.
(Claims 11 and 13) The plurality of ridge parts include a first ridge part and a second ridge part adjacent to the first ridge part (Guter Fig. 4; Krause Fig. 3; Shippee Fig. 1).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takiguchi (JP 2005-177891 A) in view of Guter et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/03144039 A1), as evidenced by Shippee (US Patent No. 465,392), or in view of Krauss (DE 3820485 C1) or Shippee (US Patent No. 465,392) further in view of Glimpel (US Patent No. 8,858,134).
Takiguchi does not explicitly disclose the first cutting edge, in the plan view of the first end, having a first part having a straight line shape, and a second part having a curvilinear shape as claimed.
Glimpel discloses a cutting edge (52, 51b, 51a), in the plan view of the first end (Figs. 2, 3A), including a first part having a straight line shape (51a, 51b; Fig. 3A), where first part edge (51a, 51b) is a straight line), and a second part (52) having a curvilinear shape and extending from the first part toward the outer periphery (Figs. 2, 3A, where second part 52 has a curvilinear shape mentioned in Col. 8, Lines 19-20). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the drill disclosed in Takiguchi with a first cutting edge shape as taught by Glimpel in order to enable a uniform transition from the chisel edge to the main cutting edge and therefore enable uniform drilling behavior across the cutting edge (Col. 4, Lines 55-58).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art Yanagida reference fails to disclose ridges that protrude in a radial direction. In addition, Applicant alleges that the Guter reference discloses a single ridge part as opposed to the claimed plurality of ridge parts spaced apart from each other. Examiner disagrees.
It is unclear how Applicant believes that the ridges in the Yanagida reference do not protrude radially. In as much as Applicant’s illustrated ridges protrude radially (Fig. 7), the Yanagida ridges protrude radially (Fig. 2(2)).
The prior art of record reads upon a plurality of ridge parts separated from each other. A plurality of ridge parts may make up a ridge. The claim does not require a plurality of ridges, but a plurality of ridge parts. The parts of the ridge can be said to be separated from each other. Moreover, the claim does not limit the clearance surface to only one flank of the drill. As such, a drill with multiple identical flanks may meet the plurality of ridge parts as argued-for by Applicant. Nevertheless, the prior art of record reads upon the claimed invention.
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 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. 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, 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