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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, Species A, claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-13 in the reply filed on 24 October 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the second cutting edge of Mabuchi et al. does not extend from the first cutting edge. This is not found persuasive because, as seen in figure 2 of Mabuchi et al., the second cutting edge 22 extends radially from the first cutting edge even though there is an axially spacing between the edges. Claim 1 does not require that the second cutting edge is directly connected to the first cutting edge.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 3 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 October 2025.
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 5-6 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 “wherein a first boundary between the first flank surface and the second flank surface is located closer to the outer peripheral surface as going from the cutting edge toward a rear side in the rotation direction”. It is unclear from this language whether the first boundary is closer to the outer peripheral surface at the cutting edge or away from the cutting edge. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that the first boundary is closer to the outer peripheral surface at a point closer to the cutting edge.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein a second boundary between the second flank surface and the third flank surface is located further away from the outer peripheral surface as going from the cutting edge toward a rear side in the rotation direction”. It is unclear from this language whether the second boundary is further from the outer peripheral surface at the cutting edge or away from the cutting edge. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that the second boundary is further from the outer peripheral surface at a point closer to the cutting edge.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mabuchi et al. (US 2017/0274461 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mabuchi et al. discloses a drill 10 (figures 1-6), comprising: a body 1 extended along a rotation axis O from a first end (bottom in figure 1) to a second end (top in figure 1), the body comprising an outer peripheral surface 11, a cutting edge 21/22/23 located on a side of the first end, a flank surface 31/32/33 located along the cutting edge on a rear side in a rotation direction of the rotation axis, and a flute 2 extended from the cutting edge toward the second end, the cutting edge comprising a first cutting edge 21, a second cutting edge 22 extended from the first cutting edge toward the outer peripheral surface, and a third cutting edge 23 extended from the second cutting edge toward the outer peripheral surface, the flank surface comprising a first flank surface 31 which is located along the first cutting edge and has a first clearance angle γ1, a second flank surface 32 which is located along the second cutting edge and has a second clearance angle γ2, and a third flank surface 33 which is located along the third cutting edge and has a third clearance angle γ3, the second clearance angle being smaller than each of the first clearance angle and the third clearance angle (see paragraph [0184]).
Regarding claim 5, Mabuchi et al. discloses wherein a first boundary (not labeled, see figure 2) between the first flank surface 31 and the second flank surface 32 is located closer to the outer peripheral surface 11 as going from the cutting edge 21/22/23 toward a rear side in the rotation direction (as seen in figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Mabuchi et al. discloses wherein a virtual line extending from the second cutting edge 22 forms an acute angle with the rotation axis O (as the claim does not define how this acute angle is to be measured relative to the rotation axis, a virtual line extending from the second cutting edge to the rotation axis is seen to meet this limitation, since the angle can be measured in either direction relative to the rotation axis).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 7-8, and 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 5 January 2026