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 § 103
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120201619 to Olsson.
Regarding claim 1, Olsson discloses a drill comprising: a first main body portion (front portion of the drill adjacent to 1); a second main body portion 4 located rearward with respect to the first main body portion (Fig 1), the second main body portion having a diameter different from a diameter of the first main body portion (Fig 2) , wherein the first main body portion includes a chip discharging surface 6 provided in a form of a helix around a center axis of the drill (Fig 1), a flank face 10 contiguous to the chip discharging surface 6, and an outer peripheral surface 3 contiguous to each of the chip discharging surface 6 and the flank face 10, a ridgeline between the chip discharging surface and the flank face constitutes a cutting edge 11, the chip discharging surface 6 includes a main flute surface 19,20 provided in a form of a helix around the center axis ([0041]), the main flute surface being contiguous to the cutting edge 11, and an auxiliary flute surface 21 provided in a form of a helix around the center axis, the auxiliary flute surface 21 being contiguous to each of the cutting edge 11 and the main flute surface 19,20, the auxiliary flute surface 21 being recessed with respect to the main flute 19,20 surface in a direction opposite to a rotation direction of the drill ([0046]), an auxiliary cutting edge portion 13 constituted of a boundary between the flank face and the auxiliary flute surface has a first end portion 23 and a second end portion 22 located opposite to the first end portion (Fig 8, [0046]), and an axial rake angle of the auxiliary flute surface at an intermediate position of the auxiliary cutting edge portion is positive (Fig 9, [0048]) .
Olsson does not explicitly disclose when viewed in a direction along the center axis, a value obtained by dividing a maximum value of the diameter of the second main body portion by the diameter of the first main body portion is 1.5 or more, when viewed in the direction along the center axis, a distance between the center axis and the first end portion is 20% or more and less than 40% of a distance between the center axis and an outer peripheral end portion of the cutting edge, and a distance between the center axis and the second end portion is 60% or more and 80% or less of the distance between the center axis and the outer peripheral end portion, a ratio of a core thickness of the main flute surface to the diameter of the first main body portion is 40% or more and 60% or less.
However, Olsson teaches the general conditions of the invention in which the diameter of the second main body portion is greater than the diameter of the first main body portion, the distance from the center axis to the first end portion 23 is greater than 20% of the distance to the outer peripheral portion ([0050], when DC is 20-22% of D), the distance from the center axis to the second end portion is greater than the distance from the center axis to the first end portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the value obtained by dividing a maximum value of the diameter of the second main body portion by the diameter of the first main body portion is 1.5 or more, a distance between the center axis and the first end portion is 20% or more and less than 40% of a distance between the center axis and an outer peripheral end portion of the cutting edge, and a distance between the center axis and the second end portion is 60% or more and 80% or less of the distance between the center axis and the outer peripheral end portion, a ratio of a core thickness of the main flute surface to the diameter of the first main body portion is 40% or more and 60% or less in order to create the ideal chip discharge for the given application, which would be readily understood as a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 2, Olsson as modified discloses the drill according to claim 1. Olsson does not explicitly disclose when viewed in the direction along the center axis, a concave value of the auxiliary cutting edge portion with respect to a straight line passing through the first end portion and the second end portion is 1% or more and 5% or less of the diameter of the first main body portion.
However, Olsson teaches the general conditions of the invention in which the concavity of the auxiliary cutting edge portion 13 is significantly shorter than the diameter D of the first main body portion (Figs 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to determine the concave value of the auxiliary cutting edge to be 1-5% of the diameter of the first main body portion in order to create the ideal chip discharge for the given application, which would be readily understood as a benefit to one of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Olsson as modified discloses the drill according to claim 1. Olsson also discloses a margin 27 contiguous to each of the cutting edge 11 and the flank face 10 is provided at the outer peripheral surface 3 (Fig 3). Olsson does not explicitly disclose a length of the margin in a peripheral direction is 0.1 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 4, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 1. Olsson also discloses a point angle of the cutting edge ε is 150° or more and 175° or less (Fig 5. [0055]).
Regarding claim 5, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 1. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, Olsson as modified discloses the drill according to claim 2. Olsson also discloses a margin 27 contiguous to each of the cutting edge 11 and the flank face 10 is provided at the outer peripheral surface 3 (Fig 3). Olsson does not explicitly disclose a length of the margin in a peripheral direction is 0.1 mm or more and 0.3 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 7, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 2. Olsson also discloses a point angle of the cutting edge ε is 150° or more and 175° or less (Fig 5. [0055]).
Regarding claim 8, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 3. Olsson also discloses a point angle of the cutting edge ε is 150° or more and 175° or less (Fig 5. [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 6. Olsson also discloses a point angle of the cutting edge ε is 150° or more and 175° or less (Fig 5. [0055]).
Regarding claim 10, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 2. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 11, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 3. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 4. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 13, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 6. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 14, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 7. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 15, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 8. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 16, Olsson as previously modified discloses the drill according to claim 9. Olsson does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first main body portion is 1 mm or more and 10 mm or less.
However, Olsson teaches a peripheral length of the margin to be 0.6 mm for a drill with a diameter of 15.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the drill at half the size in all dimensions in order to drill smaller holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. Where the only difference between a claim and the prior art is one of relative dimensional differences and there is no showing that the claimed device and the prior art would perform any differently, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art. Gardner v. TEC System, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE whose telephone number is (703)756-4729. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 4 PM.
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.
/ERIC DANIEL WHITMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights