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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 2, 3, and 9-11 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 2 recites the limitation "the rear" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the rear" in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the latter" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the latter" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the latter" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beer et al. (DE 102016113348 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (CE)]Regarding claim 1, Beer discloses a rotary tool (20; Figs. 1-2) comprising a main blade (30); a chip flute (34); a lateral surface (LS); and a flank (28-1. 28-2) trailing after the main blade (30) and extending from the main blade (30) up to the lateral surface (LS) and to the chip flute (34), wherein the flank (28-1, 28-2) comprises a kink (K) and is thus concave in configuration, and wherein the kink (K) extends from the lateral surface (LS) up to the chip flute (34) and thus divides the flank (28-1, 28-2) into a leading partial surface (LPS) and a trailing partial surface (TPS).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (AGC)][AltContent: textbox (MGC)]
PNG
media_image1.png
424
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (TPS)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (LPS)][AltContent: textbox (K)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (LS)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Beer discloses wherein the leading partial surface (LPS) and the trailing partial surface (TPS) are arranged at a reflex angle to one another, wherein the reflex angle is measured at the rear.
Regarding claim 3, Beer discloses wherein the leading partial surface (LPS) and the trailing partial surface (TPS) are arranged at an angle to one another, wherein that angle is measured at the rear, wherein the angle increases along the kink (K) and towards the lateral surface (LS).
Regarding claim 4, Beer discloses wherein the leading partial surface (LPS) is concave in configuration.
Regarding claim 5, Beer discloses wherein the kink (K) is rounded in configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Beer discloses wherein the flank (28-1, 28-2) and the lateral surface (LS) are connected via a circumferential edge (CE), which is divided by the kink (K) into a leading portion (LP) and a trailing portion (TP), wherein the trailing portion (TP) is longer than the leading portion (LP) by at least a factor of 2.
Regarding claim 8, Beer discloses wherein the lateral surface (LS) comprises a main guide chamfer (MGC) and an ancillary guide chamfer (AGC), wherein the ancillary guide chamfer trails after the main guide chamfer and terminates at the trailing partial surface.
Regarding claim 9, Beer discloses wherein the latter comprises at least one coolant channel (22; Fig. 2) with a mouth (50C) arranged in the flank (28-1) and on the kink (K).
Regarding claim 10, Beer discloses wherein the latter comprises at least one coolant channel (22; Fig. 1) with a mouth (22M) that trails after the kink (K).
Regarding claim 11, Beer discloses wherein the latter is a drill (see abstract).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al.
Beer discloses the flank (28-1, 28-2) and the lateral surface (LS) being connected via a circumferential edge (CE), which forms a cutting corner with the main blade (30), wherein when measured in the longitudinal direction.
Beer, however, does not disclose the circumferential edge being offset rearwards relative to the cutting corner by a maximum of 25% of a diameter of the rotary tool.
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 offset the circumferential edge being rearwards relative to the cutting corner by a maximum of 25% of a diameter of the rotary tool because Applicant has not disclosed that the circumferential edge being offset rearwards relative to the cutting corner by a maximum of 25% of a diameter of the rotary tool] provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of Beer because the tool is suitable for machining difficult to machine materials.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Beer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed on the attached PTO-892 are cited to show drills.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMIE E COZART whose telephone number is (571)272-4528. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 7:00pm.
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 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.
/JERMIE E COZART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
March 20, 2026