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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the surface” in Line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the spiral cutting surfaces” in Line 18 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the two sides” in Line 18 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the same groove respectively” in Line 19 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the axial center” in Line 23 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the included angle” in Line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the outermost side” in Line 2 lacks proper antecedent basis. 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 1-10 and 13-15 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 “a surface on an outer side of the spiral cutting surface and a back side of the spiral cutting surface in a rotation direction of the alloy tool bit twist drill” in Lines 4-6. It is ambiguous as to whether the surface is on the spiral cutting surface (but an outer side thereof) or a standalone surface that is considered outward of the spiral cutting surface. Adding further ambiguity is the recitation that the surface is also on “a back side of the spiral cutting surface in a rotation direction.” In particular, it is unclear how the surface is both on an outer side of the spiral cutting surface and also on a back side of the spiral cutting surface. Moreover, the scope of the back side of the surface is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “when in use is a spiral secondary cutting surface” in Line 6. The term “when” creates a lack of clarity due to whether or not the limitation is required if the “when” condition never occurs. That is, if the “when” condition does not occur, it is unclear whether the surface on the outer side of the spiral cutting surface and a back side of said spiral cutting surface is a spiral secondary cutting surface or only in the event the drill is in use. In addition, it is unclear how the spiral secondary cutting surface is formed relative to the outer side of the spiral cutting surface and the back side of the spiral cutting surface. The spiral cutting surface is then recited as intersecting the spiral secondary surface, but the spiral secondary surface is described as parts of the spiral cutting surface. As such, it seems as if it intersects with itself to form a cutting edge. This relationship between features needs to be clarified. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “a surface on the back side of the spiral cutting surface and a front side of the spiral cutting surface in an axial direction of the alloy tool bit twist drill is a rear cutting surface” in Lines 8-10. There is already antecedent basis for “a surface on . . . a back side of the spiral cutting surface” in Lines 4-6. Furthermore, it is unclear how the surface is on both a front side and a back side of the spiral cutting surface in the axial direction. As a result of the lack of clarity of the location of the surface, it is unclear how it constitutes a rear cutting surface. Further still, given that a feeding direction has been previously set forth, it is unclear whether the feeding direction and the axial direction are the same direction or not. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “a front side of the spiral cutting surface” in Line 9 and recites “a front end of the spiral cutting surface” in Lines 16-17. The respective scope of each limitation is unclear. Particularly, it is unclear how a front side differs from a front end. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the spiral cutting edge extends to the alloy tool bit to form a secondary cutting edge” in Lines 19-20. It is unclear how the spiral cutting edge forms a secondary cutting edge. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 1 recites “the spiral secondary cutting surface extends to the alloy tool bit to form a secondary cutting surface” in Lines 20-21. It is unclear how the spiral secondary cutting surface forms a secondary cutting surface. That is, it is unclear whether these are the same surfaces in different sections of the bit or if the surface somehow forms a further surface. Appropriate clarification required.
Claim 2 recites “the cutting surface of the secondary cutting edge” in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the secondary cutting edge having the cutting surface. It is unclear whether the cutting surface is one previously recited or if it is a different cutting surface that is somehow of the secondary cutting edge. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “a third side micro edge.” Yet, the claim lacks recitation to a first and second side micro edge. As such, it is unclear whether there is or isn’t first and second side micro edges. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 recites “the cutting surface of the secondary cutting edge” in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the secondary cutting edge having the cutting surface. It is unclear whether the cutting surface is one previously recited or if it is a different cutting surface that is somehow of the secondary cutting edge. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 7 recites “the cutting surface of the secondary cutting edge” in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the secondary cutting edge having the cutting surface. It is unclear whether the cutting surface is one previously recited or if it is a different cutting surface that is somehow of the secondary cutting edge. Appropriate correction required.
Prior Art Rejection
Due to the lack of clarity throughout the claims, a prior art rejection will not be made at this time. It is worth noting that the lack of a prior art rejection is not tantamount to an admission that the prior art will not read upon the claims once the clarity issues are resolved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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
Prosecution Insights