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 i (a first species of the drill head as shown in Figure 1) in the reply filed on 10/9/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 46-65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/9/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “centre point cutting edges recede from the apex at the same rate” of claim 38 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). (Be advised that Figure 2 seemingly shows receding of a first one and a second one of the centre point cutting edges (181, 181') at a different rate). No new matter should be entered.
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 Objections
Claims 34-45 are objected to because of the following informalities: In each of said claims, all instance of “centre” should be changed “ center”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of the claim, “one of” should be inserted before “the centre point cutting edges”. 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 34-45 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.
Line 2 of claim 34 states, “the drill head comprises a centre point comprising:”. This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it appears as if the claimed “centre point” is the element that comprises the list of elements set forth after “comprising:” The reason this is indefinite, is that at least the “main cutting edges” which are set forth in line 5 of claim 34 (after “including:”) are seemingly not part of the “centre point” upon review of the specification. Therefore, it is unclear if the “drill head” or the “centre point” comprises the list of elements set forth after “comprising:”, and if it is indeed the latter, it is unclear as to how the “centre point”, for example, comprises at least the main cutting edges of line 5 of claim 34.
Line 5 of claim 34 states, “main cutting edges radially extending from the centre point.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear as to how or in what way that the main cutting edges radially extend from the centre point. As can be seen in Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings, for example, main cutting edge 160 is separated from centre point 180 by means of centre point cutting edge 181. Likewise, main cutting edge 160' is separated from centre point 180 by means of centre point cutting edge 181' and asymmetric cutting edge 183. Noting this, how are the main cutting edges (160, 160') radially extending from the centre point (180) when said main cutting edges (160, 160') don’t actually contact the centre point (180)?
Lines 6-7 of claim 34 set forth, “a first one of the centre point cutting edges and a second one of the centre point cutting edges.” Then, lines 10-11 of claim 34 set forth, “a distal end of one of the centre point cutting edges,” while line 13 of claim 34 sets forth, “a distal end of another one of the centre point cutting edges.” These limitations are viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if Applicant is setting forth, for example, four different centre point cutting edges, or if, for example, the “one of the centre point cutting edges” of lines 10-11 and the “another one of the centre point cutting edges” of line 13 are actually the same two centre point cutting edges as the “first one” and “second one” of lines 6-7.
Lines 12-14 of claim 34 state, “a proximal end of another one of the main cutting edges ends at a distal end of another one of the centre point cutting edges.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how the proximal end of the another one of the main cutting edges “ends at” the distal end of the another one of the centre point cutting edges. Wouldn’t instead the proximal end of the another one of the main cutting edges actually begin at the distal end of the another one of the centre point cutting edges?
Lines 1-2 of claim 38 state, “wherein the centre point cutting edges recede from the apex at the same rate.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because is unclear as to how or in what way that the centre point cutting edges recede at the same rate when it was set forth in claim 34 (on which claim 38 directly depends) that, “a first one of the centre point cutting edges and a second one of the centre point cutting edges have a different radius and/or are receding at least for a part at a different rate.” In which instance are the centre point cutting edges, e.g. the first one and second one, receding from the apex at the same rate?
Lines 1-2 of claim 40 state, “wherein the drill head comprises main cutting edges radially extending from the centre point.” First, this limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the “main cutting edges” of claim 40 are the same “main cutting edges” previously set forth in line 5 of claim 34. This limitation is further viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear as to how or in what way that the main cutting edges radially extend from the centre point. As can be seen in Figure 2 of Applicant’s drawings, for example, main cutting edge 160 is separated from centre point 180 by means of centre point cutting edge 181. Likewise, main cutting edge 160' is separated from centre point 180 by means of centre point cutting edge 181' and asymmetric cutting edge 183. Noting this, how are the main cutting edges (160, 160') radially extending from the centre point (180) when said main cutting edges (160, 160') don’t actually contact the centre point (180)?
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the direction" in line 2. 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.
Claims 34-42, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Borschert et al. (U.S. Patent No.).
Please be advised that Borschert et al. was cited by Applicant on the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7/15/2022.
Claim 34: Figure 3 of Borschert et al. shows therein a drill (5) for drilling in hard materials, e.g. a metal object [see line 1 of claim 11], the drill (5) having a drill head which in turn has a rotational axis (7) and a center point. Regarding the center point, it has an apex (17) that is aligned with the rotational axis (7). The center point further comprises a first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and a second center point cutting edge (12, 15), each (11, 14; 12, 15) of which radially extending and receding from the apex (17).
The center point of Borschert et al. further comprises two main cutting edges (6, 6), each of which radially extends from the center point. Regarding the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15), they have different radii (14, 15) [column 4, lines 38-40]. Be advised that via the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) thereof, the center point comprises an asymmetric cutting edge (14) that is arranged between a proximal end of one of the main cutting edges (6) and a distal end of the corresponding individual chisel edge (11) of the first center point cutting edge (11, 14). For Applicant’s reference this proximal end and this distal end have been pointed to below in annotated Figure 3. Please be advised that the respective locations of the proximal end and of the distal end have been approximated and each has been pointed to with a respective “X”.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lastly, as can be seen below, a proximal end of another one of the main cutting edges (6) ends at a distal end, e.g. at a distal end of a second asymmetric cutting edge (15), of the second center point cutting edge (12, 15). For Applicant’s reference Figure 3 has again been annotated and has been provided on the next page. An “X” has been used to show approximately where this proximal end ends at this distal end.
PNG
media_image2.png
665
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 35: As can be seen in at least Figure 2, the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) are angularly evenly distributed around the apex (17).
Claim 36: As can be seen in at least Figure 2, the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) deviate and curve away from a radial. Please be advised that the dashed line extending horizontally in Figure 2 represents the radial, and both the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) deviate and curve therefrom.
Claim 37: As can be seen in at least Figure 2, the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) are each formed as a convex center point cutting edge.
Claim 38: The first (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edges (12, 15) recede from the apex (17) at the same rate, since they recede from the apex (17) at the same angle (see Figure 2).
Claim 39: According to Borschert et al., to achieve the desired asymmetry, the variable parameters that are available include lengths A and B, the individual chisel edges (11, 12), the chisel edge radii R1 and R2, and/or the different angles W1 and W2. The desired asymmetry or the desired asymmetries can be achieved by differences in one of the parameters listed above, or differences in two parameters together, or for that matter differences in all three parameters [column 4, lines 45-52]. Noting this, when the different chisel edge radii (R1, R2) of the center point of Figure 2 is coupled with different angles (W1, W2) (as in Figure 4 of Borschert et al.), the result is a part (11) of the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and a part (12) of the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) having a different rate of receding, wherein said parts (11, 12) are arranged distal from the apex (17).
Claim 40: As was advised above in the rejection of claim 34, the center point further comprises two main cutting edges (6, 6), each of which radially extends from the center point.
Claim 41: As can be seen on the following page within annotated Figure 3 of Borschert et al., a respective proximal end of each main cutting edge (6, 6) ends at a distal end of one of the center point cutting edges.
PNG
media_image3.png
789
873
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 42: Regarding the asymmetric cutting edge (14), it extends in a direction different from the direction of the distal end of the corresponding individual chisel edge (11) of the first center point cutting edge (11, 14). While the asymmetric cutting edge extends in a curved direction, the distal end of said individual chisel edge (11) extends substantially linearly, for example.
Claim 44: As can be seen in at least Figure 2, the number of center point cutting edges is two, two being the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15).
Claim 45: The number of center point cutting edges is two, and the first center point cutting edge (11, 14) and the second center point cutting edge (12, 15) for an S-shape [column 4, lines 24-25] with the apex (17) as rotational symmetric point.
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 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borschert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,309,149 B1) in view of Soittu (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0279965 A1).
Claim 43: Borschert et al. discloses the drill (5) being for drilling in hard materials, e.g. a metal object [see line 1 of claim 11]. Borschert et al. though, doesn’t disclose the drill (5) as being a “high-speed steel (HSS) drill.”
Soittu though, shows in Figures 1-2 a drill for drilling into miscellaneous metals and in composite metals of different types. Per Soittu, the drill is implemented from high speed steel [paragraph 0039].
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 formed the drill (5) of Borschert et al. from high speed steel (HSS) in accordance with the disclosure of Soittu, so as to provide the drill (5) of Borschert et al. with the advantage of being able to drill into both miscellaneous metals and into composite metals of different types.
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