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. Response to Amendment In response to the election filed on 11/24/2025, claims 6-9 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are pending and claims 1-5 are under examination. Election/Restrictions Claim s 6-9 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method of preparing a drill bit , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim s 1- 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamitsu et al ( J.P Patent Application Publication 2018083264 A ) hereinafter Takamitsu , and further in view of Ding et al (C.N. Patent Application Publication 208930432 U), hereinafter Ding . Regarding claim 1, Takamitsu discloses a method of using a drill bit (Title: Drill Processing Device and Drill Processing Method ) , the method of using the drill bit comprises following steps: drilling a through hole (hole, p. 2, ll. 20 ; also seen in FIG. 1, the hole created by drill 4 is a through hole in the multilayer printed circuit board 1 ) by the drill bit in a board to be processed (multilayer printed board in FIG. 2, p. 2, ll. 8) , and collecting a feedback time T of each conductive layer of the board to be processed by the drill tip ( generation period t, p. 4, ll. 21-24 , “ When the spindle unit 5 further descends and the drill 4 advances in the machining direction, a resonance detection signal S is generated from the resonance detection circuit 44 every time the drill 4 passes through each of the conductor layers L1 to L4, and the overall control unit 14 Is received by the thickness detector 15 ”) ; determining a target layer (conductor layers L1 to L4 in FIG. 1, p. 4, ll. 11) and a reference layer (surface, p. 4, ll. 17) of the board to be processed, and calculating a time difference t (generation period t, p. 4, ll. 21-24) between the target layer and the reference layer (p. 4, ll. 17-20, “ First, when the pressure foot 9 comes into contact with the surface of the multilayer printed circuit board 1, a detection signal from the board top surface sensor 11 is input to the overall control unit 14, and the overall control unit 14 includes the feed position information of the spindle vertical drive unit 8 at that time. Based on this, the height position of the surface of the multilayer printed circuit board 1 can be recognized ”; using the surface of the multilayer printed board and the m e thod of collected feedback as detailed above, the machine would be able to differentiate the signal S given by the resonance detection to measure time differences) ; determining a distance H (thickness, p. 4, ll. 25) between the target layer and the reference layer according to the time difference t and a drilling speed v (feed speed V0, p. 4, ll. 26) of the drill bit (p. 4 , ll. 25-27, “ The thickness detection unit 15 obtains the thickness of each of the conductor layers L1 to L4 from the product of the generation period t of the resonance detection signal S and the feed speed V0 of the drill 4 at this time, and adds them together to obtain the conductor layer L1 ” ) ; and performing a controlled depth drilling by starting from the reference layer on a basis of the through hole and taking the distance H as a drilling depth (p. 5, ll. 8-13, “ The thickness detection unit 15 of the overall control unit 14 obtains a total value T of the thicknesses of the conductor layers L1 to L4 of the multilayer printed circuit board 1 by the same method as described above. Next, the feed rate setting unit 17 selects the corresponding optimum feed rate from the optimum feed rate storage unit 16 on the basis of the total thickness T, and the height of the tip of the drill 4 returns to the reference position H to the next. At the point P before drilling the hole, the feed speed of the drill 4 in the spindle vertical drive unit 8 is newly set ”; using the previous steps described, the drill takes thickness into account to remove layers at a set depth) . However, Takamitsu fails to disclose the details of the drill , wherein the drill bit comprises a drill shank, a drill edge and a drill tip which are connected in sequence, the drill tip is capable of conducting electricity, and the drill edge is covered with a non-conductive film layer . Ding discloses a drill (Title: Drilling Machine), wherein the drill bit comprises a drill shank (shank 53 in FIG. 3, p. 6, ll. 31) , a drill edge (edge 51 in FIG. 3, p. 5, ll. 26), and a drill tip (drill tip 511 in FIG. 3, p. 6, ll. 17) which are connected in sequence (as seen in FIG. 3) , the drill tip is capable of conducting electricity (p. 4, ll. 17-18, “when machining, the circuit board 200 to the circuit board 200 of the first conductive layer 230 to electrify the drill tip 511”, FIG. 2 depicts electrical connection between conductive layers and drill via drill tip) , and the drill edge is covered with a non-conductive film layer (insulating layer 70 in Fig. 3, p. 4, ll. 14). While Takamitsu details the steps used for operating a drill to measure processing time, drill speed, and calculating depth of the multilayer printed board, Ding discloses the physical features of the drill comprising the shank, edge, tip, and a non-conductive film layer . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Ding’s drill and operate it with Takamitsu’s method of calculating depth to prevent electrical connection of the drill head to multiple conductive layers, potentially causing miscalculations and feed errors (Ding, p. 4, ll. 15- 27). Regarding claim 2, Takamitsu further discloses t he method of using the drill bit according to claim 1 , as detailed above , wherein in determining the distance H between the target layer and the reference layer according to the time difference t and the drilling speed v of the drill bit, the distance H = the time difference t x the drilling speed v (p. 4, ll. 25-27, “ The thickness detection unit 15 obtains the thickness of each of the conductor layers L1 to L4 from the product of the generation period t of the resonance detection signal S and the feed speed V0 of the drill 4 at this time, and adds them together to obtain the conductor layer L1 ”) . (Regarding the reason to combine references, please refer to rejection of claim 1, supra, as it is applicable to claim 2 in the same manner). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamitsu , in further view of Ding, and further in view of Kanaya et al (T.W. Patent Application Publication I632007 B), hereinafter Kanaya . Regarding claim 3, Takamitsu further discloses t he method of using the drill bit according to claim 1, as detailed above, However, Takamitsu fails to disclose the method wherein a diameter of a drilled hole of the controlled depth drilling is larger than a diameter of the through hole. Kanaya discloses a method (Title: Back-drilling Processing Method For Multilayer Printed Wiring Substrate And Processing Depth Substrate Processing Device Of Control Mechanism ) wherein a diameter of a drilled hole of the controlled depth drilling (processing depth of the back-drilling processing , p. 26, ll. 36-37 ) is larger than a diameter of the through hole (hole portions 109 in FIG. 5, p. ll. ; FIG. 5 depicts the drill 3 creates a controlled back- drilled hole having a diameter wider than the through hole 109 ) . The combination of Takamitsu and Ding teaches a drill with a non-conductive film layering being used to measure the depth at which a targeted conductive layer is at, as detailed above in the rejection of claim 1, supra, for circuit board layer removal. Kanaya discloses an additional drilling that is operated on the through hole to create a wider controlled back-drilled hole. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method from Kanaya’s disclosure and use it in Takamitsu’s method, in further view of Ding, to provide a plating portion that is connected to the first built-in conductor layer to ensure connection between the drill and conductor layers ( Kanaya , p. 2, ll. 4-7). Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takamitsu , in further view of Ding, and further in view of W a ng (C.N. Patent Application Publication 108465849 A). Regarding claim 4, Takamitsu further discloses he method of using the drill bit according to claim 1, as detailed above. However, Takamitsu fails to disclose a transition part, one end of the transition part is connected to the drill shank, and another end of the transition part is connected to the drill edge. Wang discloses a drill bit (Title: wherein the drill bit further comprises a transition part (Annotated FIG. 1, a transition portion connects the shank to the edge) , one end of the transition part is connected to the drill shank, and another end of the transition part is connected to the drill edge. The combination of Takamitsu and Ding teaches a drill with a non-conductive film layering being used to measure the depth at which a targeted conductive layer is at, as detailed above in the rejection of claim 1, supra, for circuit board layer removal. W a ng discloses the drill having a specific physical feature of having a transition part, located between the drill shank and edge, that connects the two drill elements together. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the transition portion from W a ng’s disclosure and use it in Takamitsu’s method, in further view of Ding, to reduce the point of stress concentration, to have a shank that correctly fits into the chuck of a drill machine, and to minimize inaccuracy during machining from drill vibrations. Regarding claim 5, W a ng further discloses t he method of using the drill bit according to claim 4, as detailed above, wherein the transition part is in a truncated cone shape (Annotated FIG. 1 features the transition part resembling a truncated cone) . (Regarding the reason to combine references, please refer to rejection of claim 4, supra, as it is applicable to claim 5 in the same manner). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT EUGENE REY D LEGASPI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2956 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5PM . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas Hong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-0993 . 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. /E.D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3729 /THOMAS J HONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3729