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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, 14-16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tempelmeier US 10,335,866.
In regards to claim 1, Tempelmeier discloses a drill (Figures 1-5) comprising at least one main cutting edge (16) and a helical flute (6) abutting the main cutting edge (16), wherein the surface of the flute has a spiral segment1 (any arbitrary segment of 12A) and an edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) abutting the main cutting edge (16), and wherein the edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) extends over an axial length L which is at most 200% of a diameter of the drill (note that since the specific boundaries of where to where this segment is being defined are not set forth, any arbitrary segment along 12B can be considered the edge segment that extends at most2 200% of the diameter of the drill), and wherein the roughness of the edge segment (any arbitrary segment along 12B) is less than the roughness of the spiral segment (any arbitrary segment of 12A) (see column 5, lines 20-22 and column 7, lines 9-12).
In regards to claim 8, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) does not extend to a tip (apex most point) of the drill (see Figures 4 and 5).
In regards to claim 9, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) radially outwardly abuts a side cutting edge (17) of the drill (see Figures 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 10, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment extends (any arbitrary segment of 12B) over an axial length (L) which is at least 50% of the diameter of the drill (as in Figure 2, note that since the edge segment can extend over the entire axial length of the drill, then it meets the at least 50% of the diameter of the drill).
In regards to claim 11, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment extends (any arbitrary segment of 12B) over an axial length (L) which is at least 75% of the diameter of the drill (as in Figure 2, note that since the edge segment can extend over the entire axial length of the drill, then it meets the at least 75% of the diameter of the drill).
In regards to claim 12, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment extends (any arbitrary segment of 12B) over an axial length (L) which is at least 100% of the diameter of the drill (as in Figure 2, note that since the edge segment can extend over the entire axial length of the drill, then it meets the at least 100% of the diameter of the drill).
In regards to claim 14, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment extends over an axial length (L) which is at most 150% of the diameter (D) of the drill (note that since the specific boundaries of where to where this segment is being defined are not set forth, any arbitrary segment along 12B can be considered the edge segment that extends at most3 150% of the diameter of the drill).
In regards to claim 15, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment extends over an axial length (L) which is at most 100% of the diameter (D) of the drill (note that since the specific boundaries of where to where this segment is being defined are not set forth, any arbitrary segment along 12B can be considered the edge segment that extends at most4 100% of the diameter of the drill).
In regards to claim 16, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) has a smaller spiral angle (W2) than the spiral segment (any arbitrary segment of 12A) (see column 5, lines 34-36).
In regards to claim 17, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 16, Tempelmeier also discloses that the spiral angle (W2) of the edge segment (any arbitrary segment of 12B) is smaller by at least 1° than the spiral angle (W1) of the spiral segment (any arbitrary segment of 12A) (see column 4, lines 47-49).
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(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tempelmeier US 10,335,866 as applied to claim 1 above.
In regards to claims 2-4, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the edge segment has a roughness and that the spiral segment has a roughness, where the roughness of the edge segment is less than the roughness of the spiral segment (see rejection of claim 1 above)
However, Tempelmeier fails to explicitly disclose that value of the roughness of the edge segment is less than 0.3Ra (claim 2); less than 0.1Ra (claim 3) and that the value of the roughness of the spiral segment is at least 0.3RA (claim 4).
Since Tempelmeier does, however, disclose that the edge segment has a roughness and that the spiral segment has a roughness, where the roughness of the edge segment is less than the roughness of the spiral segment; the value of each of the roughness of the edge segment and the value of the roughness of the spiral segment constitute a defined value of the flute of the cutting tool. Therefore, the value of each of the roughness of the edge segment and the value of the roughness of the spiral segment is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the value of the roughness will depend on the desire surface quality which ensure good removal of chips during operation (see column 4, lines 13-46). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting flute is made up of a defined edge segment with a defined roughness and a defined spiral segment with a defined a roughness, were disclosed in the prior art by Tempelmeier, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Tempelmeier’s value of the roughness of the edge segment to be within a desired range such as less than 0.3Ra (claim 2) and less than 0.1Ra (claim 3) and Tampelmeier’s value of the roughness of the spiral segment to be within a desired range such as at least 0.3RA (claim 4). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In regards to claims 5-7, Tempelmeier discloses the drill according to claim 1, Tempelmeier also discloses that the main cutting edge (16) abuts the edge segment (12B), and there is a suggestion in Figures 3 and 5 of Tempelmeier, that 100% of the main cutting edge 16 abuts the edge segment.
However, Tempelmeier fails to disclose that at least 25% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 5); at least 50% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 6); and at least 75% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 7).
Since Tempelmeier does, however, disclose that the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment, the extent to which the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment constitutes a defined value of the cutting edge. Therefore, the extent to which the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that the extent to which the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment will depend on the desired removal of chips during operation. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the cutting flute is made up of a defined extent to which the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment, were disclosed in the prior art by Tempelmeier, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to provide Tempelmeier’s value of the extent to which the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment be within a desired range such as at least 25% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 5); at least 50% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 6); and at least 75% of the main cutting edge abuts the edge segment (claim 7). In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Rejections not based on Prior Art
In view of Applicant's amendments, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-12, 14-16 and 17 has been withdrawn.
Rejections based on Prior Art
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/11/2015 with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-17 have been carefully and fully considered, and in light of Applicant’s amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 USC § 102 over Tempelmeier US 10,335,866 has been incorporated as aforementioned.
Providing further clarification, regarding the limitations of “the edge segment extends over an axial length L which is at most 200% of a diameter of the drill”. Giving broadest reasonable interpretation to claim 1, since claim 1 is bare of any specific boundaries that specify and limit exactly where this edge segment is to be defined (from where to where), any arbitrary segment along 12B of Tempelmeier can be considered as the edge segment that extends at most5 200% of the diameter of the drill; as any arbitrary segment along 12B, will cover and expand an area along the axis to an extent. Below are some examples of different arbitrary edge segments extending at any number less than 200% of the diameter of the drill.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
572
1021
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
572
1021
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
572
1010
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
572
1010
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
691
704
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE N RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5134. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:00 am -5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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.
/NICOLE N RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 “a portion cut off from a geometric figure by one or more points, lines, or planes” SEGMENT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
2 200% used “as an extreme limit”, so as to any number 200% or less, meets the claimed limitations. AT MOST Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
3150% used “as an extreme limit”, so as to any number 150% or less, meets the claimed limitations. AT MOST Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
4 100% used “as an extreme limit”, so as to any number 100% or less, meets the claimed limitations. AT MOST Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
5 200% used “as an extreme limit”, so as to any number 200% or less, meets the claimed limitations. AT MOST Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Prosecution Insights