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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/02/2026 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andreasson (US 3359837).
Regarding claim 1, Andreasson discloses a mini cutting bit comprising a shank 20 and a cutting part 24, which is connected to an end of the shank, having a first spiral portion 38, a first chip removal flute 28 and a first chip breaking flute 50. The first chip removal flute is parallel to the first spiral portion, the first chip breaking flute is formed on a top of the first spiral portion and a width of the first chip breaking flute is smaller than that of the top of the first spiral portion (see e.g. Fig. 5). The cutting part has a first end and a second end, the second end (broadly 32) is connected to the shank while the first end is opposite to the second end and is located at an axial central position of the cutting part. An end of the first chip breaking flute extends into the first end and a width of the first chip breaking flute gradually decreases toward the first end (see e.g. Fig. 2). The first end of the cutting part is a pointed end, such that a width of the first end is equal to zero, whereby the width of the first chip breaking flute gradually decreases to zero as the first chip breaking flute extends to the first end (see e.g. Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 2, Andreasson discloses the cutting part further having a second spiral portion 40, a second chip removal flute 26 and a second chip breaking flute 52. The second spiral portion is parallel to the first spiral portion, the first and second chip removal flutes are formed between the first and second spiral portions respectively, the second chip breaking flute is formed on a top of the second spiral portion and a width of the second chip breaking flute is smaller than that of the top of the second spiral portion (see e.g. Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 3, Andreasson discloses the first end being a free end, the first chip breaking flute extending between the first end and the second end.
Regarding claim 4, Andreasson discloses the first chip breaking flute having two side edges, and the top of the first spiral portion having two side edges. The side edges of the top of the first spiral portion are kept a first distance from the side edges of the first chip breaking flute.
Regarding claim 5, Andreasson discloses the first end being a free end, the second chip breaking flute extending between the first end and the second end.
Regarding claim 6, Andreasson discloses the second chip breaking flute having two side edges, and the top of the second spiral portion having two side edges. The side edges of the top of the second spiral portion are kept a second distance from the side edges of the second chip breaking flute.
Regarding claim 8, Andreasson discloses the first chip breaking flute being a U-shaped flute (see e.g. Fig. 5).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andreasson (US 3359837) in view of Kaneko et al. (JP 61100306, hereinafter ‘Kaneko’).
Regarding claim 7, Andreasson discloses the first chip breaking flute having two inward-tapering sides, but does not disclose a small-radiused bottom which would broadly equate to the claimed ‘V-shaped’ flute.
Kaneko discloses a similar drill, wherein the first chip breaking flute 12 is a V-shaped flute (see e.g. Figs. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to shrink the radius of the bottom of the chip breaking flute of Andreasson to be much smaller, thereby making the flute V-shaped, as taught by Kaneko, depending on the desired chip breaking and removing properties of the flutes. See also MPEP 2144.04, IV, B.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brightman (US 1320985) discloses elements of or similar to the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alan Snyder whose telephone number is (571)272-4603. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 7:00a - 5:00p.
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.
/Alan Snyder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights