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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a search burden. This is not found persuasive because Groups I and II are different statutory classes (product vs method) that require separate structures (the method requires a mold with a plurality of mold sections that product does not). These mutually exclusive groups require separate fields of search including keywords and classification searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites “the tool body has a uniform diameter along its axial length”. Looking at Applicant’s Figure 3, the tool body (22) extends from a first end (24) to another (26) and has areas of differing diameter (the cutting portion (27) and seat area (32)). Therefore, the claim will be interpreted as requiring that the tool body has a specific portion that has a uniform diameter. For example, an area of the shank (23) has a uniform diameter. Additionally, Claim 1 already recites “a diameter of the tool body”. The “uniform diameter” in Claim 4 is interpreted as a different diameter.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress (EP2448705B1) in view of Cheng (TW201347949A).
Text citations of Kress and Cheng are from the provided machine translations.
Claim 1
Kress teaches a cutting tool (Figure 1, Item 1) comprising: a tool body (3, 45) having opposed first and second ends (Figure 1), the tool body including a cutting portion (3) formed at the first end and a mounting portion (25) formed between the cutting portion and the second end (Figure 1); a body (19) disposed on the tool body at the mounting portion (Figure 1, Item 25), the body having a larger diameter than a diameter of the tool body (Figure 1); a cutting insert (Item 31 is a cutting insert that is soldered or adhered (See Lines 98-99) to the inside of the body (19).) at least partly extending from the body. (Figure 1)
Kress does not disclose a thermoset molded body disposed on the tool body at the mounting portion.
However, Cheng teaches a thermoset molded body disposed on the tool body at the mounting portion. (Figure 1b-1c teaches a mounting portion (14) on a tool body (10) where a thermoset portion (20) is formed using engineering plastic using a molding method (See Line 84).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known polymer molding of the larger diameter, non-shank portion of a cutting tool technique of Cheng to the tool having a larger diameter, non-shank portion manufacturing method of Kress in order to create a lower the material costs of the drill bit (See Cheng Lines 16-19) as well as saving labor and time cost (See Lines 25-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known polymer molding of the larger diameter, non-shank portion of a cutting tool technique of Cheng to the tool having a larger diameter, non-shank portion manufacturing method of Kress because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is the fasring of Kress will be made by injection molding a polymer.
Claim 3
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the thermoset molded body is a thermoset material made of a polymer or epoxy. (Cheng, Lines 64-69)
Claim 4
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the tool body has a uniform diameter along its axial length. (Kress, Figure 1 teaches the shaft (45) has a uniform diameter.)
Claim 5
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein a length of the thermoset molded body is at least equal to a diameter of the tool body. (In the combined invention of Kress in view of Cheng, the thermoset molded material and method from Cheng is used to create the Fasring (19) of Kress, which is the analogous body. The length of the body (19) in Kress is at least equal to the diameter of the tool (1) as shown in Figure 1.)
Claim 7
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the insert is embedded within the thermoset molded body and a second portion of the insert extends beyond an outside surface of the thermoset molded body. (Kress, Figure 1 teaches the insert (31) is embedded (Lines 98-99 teach the permanent attachment via soldering or gluing) to the interior of the Fasring (19) with another end having the cutting edge (29) protruding. In the combined invention of Kress in view of Cheng, the Fasring (19) is made from injection molding polymer as taught by Cheng.)
Claim 8
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 7, wherein the second portion includes a cutting edge of the insert. (Kress, Figure 1 teaches the insert (31) is embedded (Lines 98-99 teach the permanent attachment via soldering or gluing) to the interior of the Fasring (19) with another end having the cutting edge (29) protruding. In the combined invention of Kress in view of Cheng, the Fasring (19) is made from injection molding polymer as taught by Cheng.)
Claim 10
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the cutting insert is positioned within the thermoset molded body such that at least part of the surface of the insert is embedded within the thermoset molded body. (Kress, Figure 1 teaches the insert (31) is embedded (Lines 98-99 teach the permanent attachment via soldering or gluing) to the interior of the Fasring (19) with another end having the cutting edge (29) protruding. In the combined invention of Kress in view of Cheng, the Fasring (19) is made from injection molding polymer as taught by Cheng.)
Kress in view of Cheng does not explicitly disclose that ½ of the surface of the insert is embedded within the body.
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to size the embedding portion of Kress in view of Cheng as ½ because applicant has not disclosed that having the particular embedded percentage/portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Applicant discusses this feature in ¶0034 without indicating a criticality or motivation for choosing the percentage/portion. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kress in view of Cheng’s embedded amount, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well because both embedding amounts would perform the same function of providing part of the insert to secure to the molded material.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Kress in view of Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 10 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Kress in view of Cheng.
See also MPEP 2144.04, subsection IV. A. – change in size or proportion.
Claim 11
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein a cutting edge of the insert extends from the thermoset molded body. (Kress, Figure 1 teaches the insert (31) is embedded (Lines 98-99 teach the permanent attachment via soldering or gluing) to the interior of the Fasring (19) with another end having the cutting edge (29) protruding. In the combined invention of Kress in view of Cheng, the Fasring (19) is made from injection molding polymer as taught by Cheng.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress (EP2448705B1) in view of Cheng (TW201347949A), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Bookheimer (US20190270142A1)
Claim 2
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1.
Kress teaches the tool body, but does not disclose the material used. Therefore, Kress does not explicitly disclose the tool body is made of a hardened steel, ceramic, cemented carbide, and/or cermet.
However, Bookheimer teaches a tool body is made of a hardened steel, ceramic, cemented carbide, and/or cermet. (¶0013-0015 teach the use of various materials for the tool shank, including cemented carbide.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known cemented carbide material selection technique of Bookheimer to the tool body formation method of Kress in order to use a material that has enhanced hardness and rigidity. (See Bookheimer ¶0014)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known cemented carbide material selection technique of Bookheimer to the tool body formation method of Kress because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress (EP2448705B1) in view of Cheng (TW201347949A), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Webb (US20070207715A1).
Claim 6
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the cutting insert has opposed ends, a first end of the cutting insert including a cutting edge. (Kress, Figure 1, Item 29)
Kress in view of Cheng does not disclose a second end of the cutting insert including an indentation or mounting detail. Kress does not show the second end of the cutting tool (31), but does disclose that it is permanently affixed via gluing or soldering (See Lines 98-99). When combined with Cheng in Claim 1, the cutting insert of Kress is embedded in the polymer material molded to the shaft.
However, Webb teaches a second end of the cutting insert including an indentation or mounting detail. (Figure 2B teaches a cutting insert (abrasive tip, 22) that is embedded in a body (23) by molding plastic material around a preformed metal insert (¶0052). A portion of the insert away from the cutting portion (the protruding part) has geometric features (24) that “further secure the tip to the insert body” (¶0052).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known geometric feature on the metal cutting part technique from Webb to the cutting insert securing to the polymer body method in Kress in view of Cheng in order to further secure the metal part within the polymer material. (See Webb ¶0052)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known geometric feature on the metal cutting part technique from Webb to the cutting insert securing to the polymer body method in Kress in view of Cheng because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kress (EP2448705B1) in view of Cheng (TW201347949A), as applied in Claim 1, further in view of Gatling (US20140048605A1).
Claim 9
Kress in view of Cheng teaches the cutting tool of claim 1, wherein the tool has a thermoset molded body. (Kress in view of Cheng teaches the body of Kress (19) formed via molding polymer material (See Cheng Item 20 and at least Line 84).)
Kress in view of Cheng does not disclose wherein the body includes a RFID chip therein.
However, Gatling teaches the body includes a RFID chip therein. (Figures 1B-1C teach an RFID tag (electronic identification device, 113) embedded in the body (an increased diameter portion of the tool assembly that fits around the cutting shaft) of a bit (103).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known RFID embedding into the body technique from Gatling to the polymer body for a cutting tool formation method of Kress in view of Cheng in order to identify and track the bit (See Gatling ¶0016)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known RFID embedding into the body technique from Gatling to the polymer body for a cutting tool formation method of Kress in view of Cheng because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
DE102013004582A1
2014-09-18
Figure 1 teaches a cutting tool (10) that has a jacket member (26) that can include an RFID chip (¶0011) which allows for technical data of the tool to be stored and read by a user.
US20090175694A1
2008-12-10
Figure 1 teaches a twist drill cutting tool (10) that has an embedded RFID chip (20) in the shank of the tool body. The RFID chip contains operation data for the cutting tool and data regarding use of a particular tool (¶0008)
US20130121777A1
2011-11-16
Figure 1 teaches a cutting tool (10) that has a cylindrical body (12) formed using a molding process (¶0036) using a mold (25). The cutting tool is formed by molding a polymer material about a central core (52) that is a cylindrical member (60)(¶0039). The core is made from steel or carbide (¶0039). The molded portion is made from reinforced plastics (¶0037), which are polymers. The cutting tool (10) includes a plate member (18) having cutting portions (20) that are reaming inserts (¶0034).
US20070207715A1
2007-03-06
Figure 2B teaches a cutting insert (abrasive tip, 22) that is embedded in a body (23) by molding plastic material around a preformed metal insert (¶0052). A portion of the insert away from the cutting portion (the protruding part) has geometric features (24) that “further secure the tip to the insert body” (¶0052).
US20140048605A1
2012-08-14
Figures 1B-1C teach an RFID tag (electronic identification device, 113) embedded in the body of a bit (103). The RFID tag is used to identify and track the bit (¶0016).
WO2007052855A1
2007-05-10
Figure 2-3 show a metal shank (10) of a cutting tool that has a molded shank (20) formed around it. The molded shank is formed of resin (¶0026) and is attached to the metal shank using injection molding (¶0031).
EP2875886B1
2020-07-08
Figures 1-3 teach a cutting tool (twist drill, 1) that consists of a helical element (2) and inner shank (3). The helical element (2) is injection molded around the shank (3) (¶0021). The tool has a cutting insert (badge, 8) with two cutting edges (16) that protrude out of the molded element (2). The cutting insert (8) is shaped such that one end has cutting edges (16) and the other has a mounting portion (10)/(13).
US4353670A
1980-06-02
Figures 1-2 show a cutting tool including a drill shaft (24) and a holder (20). The holder comprises a cutting insert (30).
US20020041798A1
2001-09-26
Figure 1 teaches a cutting tool (1) having a shaft (2) and an additional element (3) having a cutting insert (14) connected thereto. The purpose of the cutting insert is to provide a counter sink or chamfer around the drilled hole.
US20170239735A1
2017-02-17
Figure 1 teaches a cutting tool (100) that includes a shaft cutter portion and an additional cutter tip (170) positioned in the middle of the shaft. The purpose of the cutter tip is to provide a chamfer or bevel at the edge of the bore. (¶0037)
US8469642B1
2010-03-15
Figure 1 teaches a cutting tool in the form of a twist drill and a body (2) positioned midway along the length of the twist drill shaft. The body includes a cutting insert (5) that protrudes from the body.
EP2448705B1
20140-05-07
Figure 1 teaches a tool (1) that has a body (3, 45) with two ends. The tool includes a cutting portion (3), a mounting portion (25), a body disposed on the body at the mounting portion (19) and a cutting insert (31).
US20130302101A1
2011-09-14
¶0024 teaches a twist drill assembly (10) having a shaft (30) formed of cemented tungsten carbide.
US20190270142A1
2018-03-02
¶0013 teaches a drill assembly having a shank formed of cemented tungsten carbide.
US20160052069A1
2015-07-13
¶0017 teaches a tool body made from cemented carbide, hard steel, or cerment.
US2362260A
1943-12-08
Figure 1 teaches a tool member having a cutting part at one end and a larger diameter part including cutting portions in between the two ends of the tool.
US4505626A
1983-02-24
Figures 1-4 teach a tool (10) having a cutting part (16) at one end and a larger diameter part (13) including a cutting portion (20) in between the two ends of the tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726